Archive for the ‘Europe’ Category

ACE: No Conflict, No Change

February 25, 2017

Intensely Conflicting Debates, Thus Change: Why the Superiority of ACE, the Area Of Cultural Europe:

First, let me remind the reader that here by “Europe” is meant the European Cultural Area. This is vastly larger than “Europe” in the ridiculous sense given to this term usually. “Europa” was a Phoenician princess for an excellent reason: the Greeks knew very well how much they culturally owed to the Middle Earth. Let me rephrase this “European Cultural Area” as the AREA OF CULTURAL EUROPE (ACE)… for obvious acronymic reasons.

(The Mongols, back in their Mongolian capital of Karakorum, in the 13th Century, felt that they belonged to ACE; they had the concept; thus they recruited many Parisian artisans, including one who built the world’s fanciest fountain, flowing with precious liquids… Earlier, Genghis Khan top generals, pondering the situation from Hungary, remembering what had happened to their ancestors, the Huns, eight centuries prior, decided to not attack France, although their spearheads were on the Adriatic sea, and all European forces had been defeated, but for the French…)

ACE is a huge expanse of the world where physical geography was friendly to fast, secure, intense communications (through the steppe, the desert, the Sahel, the oceans, the seas, and the rivers; this maybe a factor explaining the less great genetic variability in Eurasia than in Africa, let me point out in passing).

The Area of Cultural Europe (ACE) is a gigantic crescent from Korea, to Ireland, back down to the Sahara, and all the way back to India. ACE is why the Koreans, the Mongols, and the Vietnamese use an alphabet.

No Suffering, No Meaning?

No Suffering, No Meaning?

Now even the Chinese have to use an alphabet (something they have to do when typing, because one cannot have a keyboard with 2,500 common characters!). ACE got to the alphabet first. But it took 3,000 years, and the cooperation of many locations, from egypt to Phoenicia, to Sumer. For numeration, it took even longer, and the location of the invention spreads from Egypt to India, to Central Asia to Greece. 

China is adopting the alphabet, not because China is a European political colony, but because the alphabet was the best solution for a writing system. ACE is all about the best solutions. Finding best solutions is what the gigantic ACE produced, better than any other place in the world.

Pondering “How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?” Picard578 on February 23, 2017, said:

One important aspect in Europe’s domination was its fragmentation. Combination of cultural diversity and political fragmentation enabled it rapid advancement, which placed it into position to culturally and politically dominate the world. It did lead to conflicts, but without conflicts there is no change.

Patrice Ayme’: Greece was already fragmented, and the same argument, that fragmentation is good, was used to explain Greek superiority. Moreover, there are different types of fragmentation. It can be political, military, intellectual, economic.

Greek intellectual superiority was pretty much confined to Athens and Ionian cities. Sparta was an intellectual Black Hole, except in two ways: gender equality, and equality among “Equals” (top Spartans were called “Equals”).

Sparta went to all the way to destroy Athens, even allying itself with Persia to do so. In the end, Athens came close to destruction, Sparta collapsed into nothingness. However, the spirit of mental innovation of Greece got mangled in the process, and discouraged by the powers that be, all the more as the Macedonians established a sort of world dictatorship.

When one considers the peak mental periods of Athens and Ionian cities, one finds the same: great commercial energy, military power, extreme democracy, and enormous existential threats over the horizon. The great enemy of Greece was fascism from a giant plutocratic empire, Persia, and Greek innovation was first outlawed and then discouraged by even greater fascist imperial plutocrats: first from Macedonia, then from Rome, and finally from Arabia.

Extreme democracy caused an overabundance of mental productivity (any Athenian citizen, drawn by lot, could find himself at the head of the state, politically or judicially; thus Athenians paid a lot of attention to knowledge and wisdom, lest they be ridiculous when nominated).

Athenian total democracy was at her most mentally productive when she was an empire who got her wheat from the Black Sea, a 1,000 miles away.

Greece was rendered possible by the fact all Greeks spoke Greek (although Spartans’ Dorian accent was hard to understand; hard-to-communicate-with Spartans were too weird by half!)

Europe returned to greatness when the Franks established the Imperium Francorum whose Lingua Franca was Latin. (the franks were smart enough to speak Latin).

When the Imperium Francorum progressed quickly in all ways (from abrogation of slavery, nationalization of the church, mandatory education) it was indeed pretty much in continual strife. So the assertion that without conflicts there is no change, is indeed correct, and central to my own philosophy.

However, conflict has to be kept within bounds.

In 800 CE, the Franks officially proclaimed the “Renovation of the Roman Empire” (in the Tenth Century, the Parisians and Western Francia went their own way; but the empire can be viewed as ongoing to this day: all of the present European states, led by Francia which is still around, descend from the “Renovatio Imperium Romanorum, including Great Britain, which was reconquered in 1066 CE).

Charlemagne himself saw the first raids of the Viking. (Ironically, six centuries earlier, the Franks themselves had appeared in history as raiders of Roman rivers, all the way down to Spain!) Soon, Vikings, Saracens and Mongols (Avars) would attack the empire from three sides. And they attacked for centuries, because Europe was so rich, while the defense budget was low.  

European defense was weak from lack of will: for centuries the Franks had been hyper aggressive, hell-bent as they were to succeed where the Romans had failed earlier, and conquer Eastern Europe.

After 800 CE, with the Roman empire officially reconstituted, the Franks got, correctly, worried about the main reason for the Romans’ failure: political fascism.

In theory leaders of the Franks (= kings) were elected (differently from the Roman emperors, where a formal election system did not exist). Another factor was that Frankish law insured equality of inheritance (even women could inherit if full, if they had no brother). Thus the Frankish/Renovated Roman empire found it hard to stay in one piece, politically.

The result was a politico-military mess which lasted until the European Union.

In Greece, political fragmentation was deadly to democracy: Athens was occupied by anti-democratic forces for more than 21 centuries: the Muslims got ejected from Athens only in 1834 CE.

Intellectual diversity and debate are crucial. That can be insured only within an empire of manners which are good enough. Debate should not turn to hatred and war (we see some of this in the US now).   

The lessons of ACE, the Area of Cultural Europe, are many. The first one is a meta-lesson: we should try to reproduce deliberately, worldwide, the ways which made ACE so innovative.

Patrice Ayme’

Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre

October 7, 2016

Ultimately, & practically, the Syrian Civil War’s primary cause is not even Islam, or the plutocratic effect, but European impotence (except for the French Republic, which is engaged in half a dozen wars… but financially and diplomatically hobbled by most other European powers… and, of course, its occasionally ingrate progeny, the US). Europeans, Merkel, and especially European youth, talk big about peace, human rights, freedom. Yet, what good is talk when it is not followed by enforcement? Replacing action by the dream?

Refugees, you say? Millions of them? Well, six hundred million Africans and Middle Orientalists want to enter Europe. For starters. Any questions?

I guess not. Shall we reinstate European colonialism, so that Africans want to stay in Africa, as they used to?

Here are further observations of mine: Europeans (semi-) intellectuals talked big about imperialism, decolonization, peace, flowers, bad-mouthed the strong-arm of the USA. So who did they enable? Assad. Assad is smoother talking than Saddam Hussein. But as far as killing his own people, he is much better. Connection with the plutocrats in London made the British Parliament friendly to him. And his kind.

Obama refused, at the last moment, to strike Assad, in collaboration with France. French pilots were in their seats, ready to go unleash Scalp missiles on Assad’s palace, but The One in the White House changed his mind. Annihilating weddings, or Americans on the beach with drones in Yemen, OK. Hitting big bad dictator, whose family holds billions in assets in the West, not OK.

Those Who Do Not Defend Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of This: Europe and Obama

Alep, August 2016. Those “Leaders” Who Do Not Defend Humanity Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of Leading The Wrong Way: European Peaceniks and Obama

What happened next? Putin saw the green light from Obama. Putin is an opportunist (see below). A much encouraged Putin invaded Ukraine, grabbing Crimea… which had been Ukrainian for eleven centuries. Now Putin is in Syria, training his army, extending his empire, and helping his fellow dictator Assad re-establish his rule (of terror). (Putin had seized parts of Georgia earlier. However Sarkozy intervened in various spastic ways, and Bush put a few hundreds US troops in the way of Russian tanks, persuading Putin to back off…)

Cynics will observe that the USA is the world’s number one producer of fossil fuels… Followed by Russia. Do those two have interest to see fossil fuel prices go too low for their own comfort? As long as there is a total war mess in the Middle East, most of the oil production out of Turkey, Syria, and especially Iraq, is shut down (by some measure, Iraq has the world’s second largest reserve of conventional oil). That lack of production keeps the prices up much better than the conspiracies from (a much weakened) OPEC.

In this light, Canada, which is trying to build a new giant pipeline, to exfiltrate the planet’s dirtiest hydrocarbons has also interest to extend the mess in the Middle East as long as possible. And sure enough PM Trudeau, that dashing ecologist in words alone, pulled the Canadian Air Force out of the Middle East.

Some will say Canada acted in a spirit of peace, alleluia, let’s save lives from horrid bombardment. By the same token, the Jihadists are all for eternal peace too. One does make peace with those who organize Auschwitz. Aleppo, right now is pretty much Auschwitz for all to see. Aerial bombardment is no panacea, but it remains the ultimate weapon. Who controls the sky and bombs from it has won more than half the war.

History will not be kind to Obama and those Europeans who pay only lip service to humanity, Socrates’ style (See Socrates on the lake of selfishness). To defend the position that one should not defend humanity and humanism is beyond vile, it is also illogical… if one is not a plutocrat of the most ferocious type.  

Trump accused Obama to have founded the Islamist State, ISIS, or words to this effect. Then he explained this happened through Clinton and Obama’s lack of action. Of military action. I agree, and said so at the time. Now I am making the same charge about the Syrian war. I have been making it for several years, if anything Trump is parroting me, and not the other way around.

These are symptoms of the White Flag Syndrome.

Obama maybe vile, from a humanitarian point of view, by refusing to strike a mass-murdering dictator, but, he is in the best American tradition: the US has helped many a dictator during the Twentieth Century, starting with Kaiser Wilhelm II (from 1914 to 1917). Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, countless bananas dictators, and many others more recently (Nasser, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Saudis, etc.)

America first, make America ever greater is a policy which has been most profitable. President Franklin Roosevelt in World War Two, following President Wilson in  World War One, refused to come to the help of the French Republic in a timely manner, after being begged to do so. That did not work very well for humanity, but it worked very well for America.

Roosevelt’s refusal to help France in 1939 and 1940 against Hitler, although Auschwitz had just been opened for business by the Nazis, for all to see, was despicable, anti-humanitarian. However, it brought the death of 50 million Europeans, the loss of the European empires, and, not the least, the coming of the so-called “American Century”.

Europeans, though, do not seem to have learned history as well as US think tanks did. Weakness in front of fascism and its associated plutocrats (Yesterday Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler, Franco, now, Assad, Putin, etc.) brought calamity to Europe. Syria, like Libya, should be part of the European empire of justice and peace, because it is the neighborhood of Europe. Actually, Syria was, until it was devastated by the brutal Muslim assault, the richest part of the Roman empire.

The king of Jordan believes World War Three has started. What is sure is that, for World War Three to start, the surest strategy is weakness in the face of infamy. It is known that many in the Russian chain of command believe that a surgical nuclear strike would intimidate the Western Europeans into abject surrender. Whomever the next US president is, Trump, Clinton, Kaynes or Pence, I would not bet on it. Indeed any of these four is clearly more aggressive than Obama. And the US chain of command is very deep.

Here is an example:
Low key and calmly cerebral, four star Admiral Haney, whom some would probably insist to call an “Afro-American” is Commander, United States Strategic Command (four star is the greatest number of stars, aside from times of world war). As such he would be the one talking directly to the president in case of nuclear war, real or potential. Haney commands  not only this country’s nuclear forces but its cyber weapons and space satellites as well.

David Martin, “60 Minutes”: Is it riskier today?

Cecil Haney: Well I think today we’re at a time and place that I don’t think we’ve been to before.

It is Haney’s job to convince Vladimir Putin that resorting to nuclear weapons would be the worst mistake he could possibly make.

David Martin: When you look at what would work to deter Russia, do you have to get inside Putin’s head?

Cecil Haney: You have to have a deep, deep, deep understanding of any adversary you want to deter, including Mr. Putin.

David Martin: So how would you describe him psychologically?

Cecil Haney: Well, one I would say I’m not a psychologist. But I would just say he is clearly an individual that is an opportunist.

[Sell, most politicians are opportunists. The job selects for opportunists. This is the major problem of representative democracy. Any politician is going to be a variant on Trump or Clinton, just those two make it more blatant. However, in the case of Putin and the nationalist mood in Russia, the sky seems to be the same limit as it was for the Nazis.]

David Martin, loaded question: Does it concern you that an opportunist has a nuclear arsenal?

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

Well the psychological scenario for the use of nuclear weapons is in place. It came from weakness. No force, no moral. Only a perspective of great ferocity and fury, in defense of democracy, the republic and optimal human ethology will convince those seduced by the most devilish and oligarchic instincts to refrain from acting up.

Patrice Ayme’.

Civilization & Its Mad Haters

September 25, 2016

Anti-West Propaganda: Dumb Yet Unexamined In Causes and Extent:

There is colossal anti-West propaganda going on. I will give a striking example here: asinine graphics from no less than “The Economist” (I had noticed it when it came out, but now it has gone viral). Propaganda is not just made of systems of ideas, but systems of moods. For example, racism or ‘esclavagisme’ are certainly moods. So is nationalism. The mood that civilization, in its present form, did not blossom in Europe, is just counter-factual… And as we will see below, insane, serpentine, base and villainous. And self-serving to a malevolent elite.

Anti-Western propaganda is also anti-civilizational propaganda. Many will disagree with this; because they have been thoroughly molded by anti-Western propaganda. But actually, it is pretty clear: the United Nations charter is the French Declaration Des Droits, written large… (The various US “Bills” and “Independence Declaration” or “Constitution” are not far removed.)

Who would have interest to undermine Western ideology, also as known as civilization? Those who want to undermine correct civilization. The one and only. And replace it by plutocracy (evil boosted oligarchy).

So what did The Economist do? It published these cute, authoritatively spoken of, yet viciously lying graphics:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart-9

Just restricting Europe to “Italy” means nothing. For most of the history of the place presently known as “Italy”, “Italy” did not exist. Here is the real situation before Charlemagne conquered Eastern Europe (including the Avars in Hungary).  

Europe 800 CE, Before Franks Conquered Eastern Europe. The Franks reconquered Britannia in 1066 CE, giving birth to the present polity there.

Europe 800 CE, Before the Franks Conquered Eastern Europe. The Franks reconquered Britannia in 1066 CE, giving birth to the present polity there. (Yes, they called themselves “Franks” or “Europeans”.)

The description given by The Economist incredibly shrinks Europe, by comparing provinces of Europe, with giant multinational, multireligious empires. “The Economist’s” brain-molding will work only for those who know nothing of the history of the Indian subcontinent, nothing of the history of “China” and nothing of the history of Europe. Comparing two empires, India and China, with portions of the European world and its colonies is both stupid and biased, to the extreme.

So the entire idea of The Economist’s graphs (‘China back on top!’) is silly: It is little more than comparison of demographics. And wrong demographics: implicitly identifying “Italy” as its own power in 1 CE is exhibiting a total ignorance of Roman history and politics (the Gallic tribe of the Senones had captured, centuries earlier, Northern Italy, and defeated Rome; in 1 AD, Gallia Transalpina, North Italy, was still administratively, part of Gaul).

If one wants Western GDP in 1 CE,  one has to look at the entire Roman Empire, and add Britannia and Germania.  That would make for the world’s largest GDP (Rome had already 25% of the world’s population, then, more than 60 millions, and the richest areas, like Syria (!); East Asian populations would explode later, from new rice cultivars producing two harvests a year).

In the West, the (legal, political, civilizational, linguistic, imperial, spiritual!) successor of Rome was Francia (“Imperium Francorum”). It was synchronous with Tang China, and comparable in population, extent and GDP (Tang controlled a gigantic desert far west of not much import on GDP). Tang was a high point of Chinese civilization complete with empresses (like Francia!) and printed paper money.

So why not consider just GDP within the Central China Plain, if one wants to compare with portions of Europe?

China, to this day, is made, officially, of one hundred ethnicities (several times more than Europe). China was rarely united in the last 4,000 years. When Genghis Khan’s army invaded “China”, “China” was actually made of several empires with different languages and religions.

Ditto with India (many parts of India were independent nation-states with their own languages, alphabets, religions, for most of their history).

***

Ironically Enough, Those Who Promote Civilizational Decay Bemoan ‘Shrinking Europe’:

That Europe is shrinking, there is no doubt. As soon as Europe finally orders Apple Inc., the world’s largest market cap company, to pay more than 1% tax, Washington screams, and then right away retaliate by ordering Deutsche Bank to pay 14 billion dollars in fine. What does Europe do? Bleat. Even the anti-Euro Stiglitz admits that we are dealing here with a “fraud”. “Frauds” like that undermine Europe, by undermining the tax base of countries such as France, hence the French or British military and defense financing, hence system, thus all what’s left of European defense, and so on. (In the next step, naturally enough, Europe makes humiliating treaties with the Turkish Sultan, as Europe does not have the military will, let alone the military strength to go re-establish order in neighboring Syria!… and leaves the Russian and American empires in control, free to extend the mess ad nauseam).

In “Charlemagne”, The Economist pontificates that: “Unshrinking the continent: Europeans see themselves as mouse-sized. They need to man up…output in 11 EU countries has yet to recover to 2007 levels. Large economies, like France and particularly Italy, are struggling. The IMF has downgraded its forecasts for the euro zone, warning of the risks posed by Brexit. Unemployment remains over 10%, twice the American rate. And there is precious little thinking about long-term challenges like ageing, infrastructure or education. ”

Why would one to “man up”, when one is told one was always insignificant, wrong, colonialist, exploitative, cruel and degenerate? Did not insignificance and all these other wrongs work pretty well? In the fullness of time?

In truth, Europe spread civilization by the sword, and then the gun (against all sorts of established plutocrats, often, not always, to put in place neo-plutocrats). Field guns were developed by southern French to win the “100” Hundred Year War against Northern France and England… A bit earlier, the Mongols used rockets rather than guns. Later the giant “Ottoman” guns which fell the walls of Constantinople were actually made by hungarian engineers…

Civilization without guns, that’s called pasta.

Implicitly, “The Economist” concludes the same:”Hormones Needed”. Yes, well, hormones, the right hormones, come from the right moods. And that comes, in turn, from a correct version of history. The right moods come only from a correct version of history, in the individual, as much as in a civilization. 

***

Why So Much Hatred Against The West, In The West? Why So much hatred Against Civilization?

The bottom line is that civilization has always been victim of a chronic disease, plutocracy. Plutocracies rest on ideologies, including self-serving religions (Islamism and Christianism are examples).

The adversary of plutocracy is, always, the optimal civilization (OK, sometimes it is not easy to imagine how a civilization like that of the Aztecs could have quit the man-eating habit, considering the context).

What is this optimal civilization? The one closest to human ethology writ large: liberty, equality, fraternity. At a given technological level, in a given ecology there is pretty much just one. Those who hate civilization, In other words those who aspire to rule over others, using whichever ideology comes in handy, the plutocrats. This is generally how plutocrats come to power. Chains control rebellious bodies. Erroneous ideas and misleading moods control minds, eschewing the potential for rebellion altogether.

An example; the first two presidents of the USA, in the Eighteenth Century, signed a document, the first international treaty of the USA, stating that “the USA has nothing to do in any sense with the Christian religion”. Perfect. And the motto of the USA was “E Pluribus Unum” (“Out of the many, One”, a verbal version of the Roman and French Republic fascist principle). However, in 1954, apparently inspired by the Nazi SS, the US Congress replaced it with “In God We Trust”. That was a perfect mood to accompany the USA’s superficially pro-Islamist policy (pro-Wahhabist, pro-oil, pro-Saudi, anti-French, anti-British, pro-Shiite, anti-democratic Iran, etc.).

Telling us constantly that European civilization was weak trash, throughout history is self-serving propaganda on the part of those who hold (most of) the media, the plutocrats. They want We The People to be weak. So they persuade We The People that it was always weak. We have seen all before, when the Roman Republic, and, later, the Greco-Roman empire imploded. The best of the Greco-Romans, the Neo-Platonists, were told, again and again, that they were enemies of God. And often submitted to abuse, and sent to torture, or death (see Hypatia).

We don’t need to see it again. The world seems at peace now, as it seemed to be in May 1914. However, and differently from 1914, a huge catastrophe, the greatest in 65 million years, is gathering steam. That could heat up the situation quickly, in all sorts of unexpected ways: cornered, overcrowded rats tend to become very aggressive. And not just rats. When a situation gets tense, war hormones go up, and small provocations can lead to irreversible combat.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

Brexit Vote Killing Brexit Mood

June 28, 2016

It took 13 years for the Germans of old to realize that the Nazis had lied about all too many things. It took 13 hours for the British to realize that the strident anti-Europeans produced an ocean of lies. And in that ocean Brexiteers swam, claiming they were not really lies, but something else, more substantial. But one can see them, confusing sinking and thinking. Here below will be found a sample of the sort of debate. But first:

Patrice Ayme: Brexit will NOT happen. Keep calm and carry on.

Paul Handover: “Easy to write but impossible to accurately predict. If I were to make a bet it would be that Article 50 is going to happen.”

[Article 50  can be invoked by any European State at any moment, for any reason. It starts a 24 month process at the end of which said State is not a member of the European Union anymore, come what may.]

Patrice Ayme’:  It is so incredibly obvious that there will be another vote. That’s why Labor is in a rush to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, a notorious Europhobe from 43 years ago. The European Union did not extinguish one person, one vote. Just the opposite. Britain has been made rich, because it was the payment organized mostly by Germany to please Britain and its American owners. Now Germany feels strong enough to follow the more egalitarian French Republic rather than Wall Street and its London pet. The aim was always to construct a Union so strong that it could be not be undone by war, ever again. Those who stand in the way of that ought to be extirpated of all and any decision-making. Let England be the new Norway (Norway pays twice per capita, but had to accept Schengen! It learns of European Union policy through press release, as a common minnow would). 

The French Republic Will Be Delighted To Brexit The English Plutocracy. Break Shit All Over, Right On, Guys!

The French Republic Will Be Delighted To Brexit The English Plutocracy. Break Shit All Over, Right On, Guys!

Article 50 of the European Union Constitution, Lisbon Treaty:

1 Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2 A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3 The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council[…]

4 For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council… in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject… Patrice: As if it never had been a member (Article 49).

Article 238 (b): “(b) ….”the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.”

Practically, in the case of Great Britain, it means that at least 23 European Nation-States representing at least 330 million people have to agree with the exit treaty.

Of course the preceding may as well be Quantum Field Theory for Brexiteers. They know very little beyond the minds plutocratically owned tabloids endowed them with.  They probably don’t know what the “European Council” is. Let me help among Brexiteers those of good will who can read beyond tabloids:

The European Council … is not one of the EU’s legislating institutions, so does not negotiate or adopt EU laws. Instead it sets the EU’s policy agenda, traditionally by adopting ‘conclusions‘ during European Council meetings which identify issues of concern and actions to take.

The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.

The European Council defines the EU’s overall political direction and priorities

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also takes part in European Council meetings when foreign affairs issues are discussed.

Decision-making process: The European Council mostly takes its decisions by consensus. However, in certain specific cases outlined in the EU treaties, it decides by unanimity or by qualified majority.

The number for France is an under-estimate. Many places in France have local English newspapers.

The number for France is an under-estimate. Many places in France have local English newspapers.

The European Institutions are as follows:
Section 1 – The European Parliament (Articles 223-234)
Section 2 – The European Council (Articles 235-236)
Section 3 – The Council (Articles 237-243)
Section 4 – The Commission (Articles 244-250)
Section 5 – The Court of Justice of the European Union (Articles 251-281)
Section 6 – The European Central Bank (Articles 282-284)
Section 7 – The Court of Auditors (Articles 285-287)

Here is a typical opinion of a Brexiteer in response to me.  Nick Brackenbury says: “The British Tabloids don’t get a vote. Her Majesty’s Subjects do. Patrice, the vote produced a majority to leave the European Union. We shall remain as part of Europe and possibly carry on buying French wine, cheese and motor vehicles (we have two Renault). But now none-British people are no longer able to pass Laws that govern British people. Fini!”

French made helicopters and planes will also come in handy, with most of the electronic equipment of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (it’s made by Thales), not to talk of nuclear power plants on order…

Notice in passing how proud some of the British are to be “subjects”. What’s the difference between a subject and a slave? For the slave, one needs a whip, whereas for the subject one needs only a debased perverted sense of pride? Happy to live on one’s knees, in front of a man-made deity? I wrote the following rejoinder:

Her Majesty’s slaves got their minds made up by tabloids owned by global plutocrats, for example the liar Murdoch and his lying papers. Non-British people have NEVER passed British laws. Learn. Please try to stop reading tabloids and, or listening to tabloid puppets.

Some will chuckle that the term “slave” may be a bit strong, that I do not appreciate the pride of being owned by another human being whom one reveres, like the dog reveres his master, and the Briton, his queen, and his princess, and his prince. A real fairy tale, Britain, I tell you. Complete with tax evading queen.

But slavery made Britain, and, especially America. Like in the US of A. No, this is not an allusion to the Franks retaking Britain from those who had invaded it, and liberating the slaves there, in 1066 CE.

No, it’s an allusion to how English America was made: by condemning vagrants to death, and then proposing to them deportation instead of the rope. How come that did not happen in France? Simply put, France was, and, de facto, is, much more civilized: in France peasants owned their land. However small. In Britain, they did not. Instead plutocrats employed them as quasi slaves.

The Brits are still slaves, in the sense that they do not own their land. All land in the United Kingdom is still “held of the Crown” in England and Wales and other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth realms. There is no “Allodial Title” in these desperate places. Something related to having a monarch, and being “subjects”. Exception exists, for example in parts of Australia (held by the original inhabitants). Owners of houses and businesses and the like within the United Kingdom are merely granted the use of the land by the reigning monarch, and are subject to return the land to the monarch if called to do so.

Amusingly, allodium, in earlier Latin alodis, alaudes, is already recognized in the early Salic law (circa 507–596 CE). Muslim law is often more than 13 centuries late (Islam recognizes slavery, which was abolished in Salic Law just when the Islamist empire was created, circa 650 CE). Here we see that English civilization is around 15 centuries late.

Nick Brackenbury:”Patrice, I don’t read tabloids. The Vote to Leave is done. Stop being a bad loser. When we joined the EC it was a Trading Community, now it is a controlling political movement. We like one person, one vote to count, and not be instructed by foreigners. Perhaps we are different. I often think of how the Euro Group of countries have treated Greece. Soon Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland. Many areas with over 50% unemployed, no investment, no attention to the young. Junckers is a joke, we fight wars to get rid of people like him. This time it just took a vote.”

To this Dominique Deux correctly replied: “When we joined the EC it was a Trading Community”

Yup, and moving to an ever closer union, as was EXPLICITLY stated when you voted to join. Vote as you like, but those of you who keep whining that you ONLY voted for a Common Market are liars. Then as now, now as ever. Or if not liars, suckers… then as now… now as ever.”

More than 43 years ago, in a referendum, the French population, one person, one vote, voted to let Great Britain in the European Community. Then Britain’s Parliament and government joined the European Community EVER CLOSER UNION. Within three years, Britain tried to get out, conducted a referendum, and voted to stay in.

The European construction, ever since 1948 was for an EVER CLOSER UNION. The European UNION was/is just part of it. The idea was to make war between Francia and Germania forever impossible. Economics was just one of several means to achieve this. There was a complete trade union before August 1914. Did not work too well.

Tabloids, and tabloid strength minds opted to believe that the UNION was a “bloc” or a “club”. And that this “club” was just about trade. That was a total lie. It was an EVER CLOSER Union.

I am no bad loser. The Brexiteers are bad winners. They are winners who can’t win. Their ship of lies is disintegrating for all to see. The Brexiteers’ win at the voting booth was the best way to insure the defeat of Brexit in the real world. Thankfully, it’s giving an opening for true Europeans to kick Britain out of the EMU (European MONETARY Union).

The fact so many Brexiteers, such as Nick above, think foreigners pass BRITISH laws, a 100% UNTRUTH, tabloid strength, is rather typical. It is actually astounding to see clever, well-informed, worldly and multicivilizational individuals such as Chris Snuggs, believing 100% such lies. On the positive side, it makes my study of fanaticism, Nazism, Jihadism, Stalinism, and other public mania so much easier.

The whole Brexit thing being such a silly thing. Britain will now leave Europe. Right. Keep calm and carry on. Sail east of New Zealand? Hahaha.

The English suffers from their home-made plutocracy… And accuse foreigners. Another of my correspondents, the English-born and tremendously educated, US biology professor Karen Eilbeck wrote:

“Reflecting on my trip back to the UK, I feel quite sad. It is easy to fly the St George cross out of your bedroom window and blame others for your state of affairs but harder to actually do some positive and impactful. Start with something small. Pick up the rubbish. When I see my home strewn with garbage, it hurts. Don’t stop to blame anyone. Take the initiative. Do something. I promise, it will make you feel better, and it will make those around you feel better and maybe everyone will be a little less depressed.”

Please read my essay especially around Martin Wolff’s considerations, which I have long written about. But now that the Financial Times says what I said, it should be right. Fix English plutocracy and its addiction to immigration of savage people and stolen, tax evading capital.

Meanwhile start by getting out of the European Monetary Union. Sunday, Iceland kicked England out of the European soccer cup. Today was the day the unworthy Cameron was kicked out of, and by, an exasperated EU. Tomorrow the Europe of 27 Nation-States meets and decides.  

On the EVER CLOSER UNION. The Ever Closer FEDERAL Union of 27 Nation-States (with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Montenegro and Kosovo taking orders; the last two use the Euro, the former two obey and contribute).

Europe is a matter of war, not trade.

If Great Britain cannot play democratic, or does not want to, it will still have to take orders from the democratic European Union, just like Morocco does, and for the same reasons. Guess what? The time to get rid of these tax havens which have enriched British plutocracy so much, has finally arrived! And let’s see how well the City of London does, when all Euro trading is done in the Euro Zone. No wonder the French are pressing to get Great Britain out ASAP. The UK Prime Minister has been asked to get out of Brussels for the European Union meeting of June 29, 2016.

A Union with disunited lunatics having surreal visions made little sense, indeed. It also means that the French Republic is effectively ejecting Great Britain out of the European Union, without waiting for the ignorant Britons and their tabloid addicted brains, to realize the enormous extent of the tremendous error they made. Half of the art of war is the surprise element: at Waterloo, Napoleon got surprised by the Prussian army. With Brexit, the Brexiteers are surprised. To their surprise, they found that they did not want to really leave, at least not now. And it turns out, second big surprise, that France wants them out, now. 

Patrice Ayme’

Brexit Or the Madness of Plutocracy

June 22, 2016

Brexit vote tomorrow. This is a completely idiotic, immoral referendum organized by anti-Europeans (Cameron & Al.) against even more strident anti-Europeans (right wing Nazi like extremists plutocrats’ servants and hedge fund managers desirous to keep their manger in Great Britain’s archipelago of tax havens). There are trite pros and cons of BRitain EXIT referendum, all over the media. Here are mine:

  1. The fundamental mood motivating the will to exit the European Union is as ugly, violent, racist, tribal, and, to put it in one word, Nazi as it gets. The extreme right-wing fringe of the right-wing party in England launched it. For them Margaret Thatcher, who campaigned for, and ratified the Single European Act is a left-wing Marxist traitor. This was demonstrated by MP Jo Cox’s assassination by a… Nazi whose most cherished possession is a manuscript from Adolf Hitler. Even imbeciles should be able to understand that one. A Nazi assassinates in the most gory fashion the defenseless mother of two young children, just like the original, most excited Brexiters want to assassinate Europe.
  2. In particular,  full bloodied Brexiters hate the “ever closer Union” concept. They have understood no history whatsoever.
  3. So it’s hilarious how ill-informed some people are, who scream that Trump is a racist right extremist while supporting Brexit. Just like Hitler, they want to build a particular sort of Europe which hates. The head of Brexit, Nigel Farage posed in front of a flow of Muslim refugees, calling it the “Breaking Point”. It could not get any clearer. Guess what? After Farage flaunted this blatantly racist act, the pro-Brexit faction surged. How much clearer can one be?

    Head Of Brexit Faction, Nigel Farage, Said That, To Defeat The Muslim Refugee Flow, Britain Has To Close Her Borders With Europe. That Made His Popularity Surge

    Head Of Brexit Faction, Nigel Farage, Said That, To Defeat The Muslim Refugee Flow, Britain Has To Close Her Borders With Europe. That Made His Popularity Surge

  4. The European Union as it is does not work. But if one asks US citizens whether they like the “direction of the USA”, or the US Congress, most of them say no by up to 85%. Still, no American idiot has come up to suggest a USexit referendum. There were USexit votes around 1860, and those votes brought the deadliest American conflict, which killed 3% of the US population (thsat would be ten million killed, using the US population for 2016).
  5. The British population is not the most dissatisfied by present European Union government (the so-called EC ”Commission”, a ridiculous name). The British are much more satisfied than the French, whose dissatisfaction is only surpassed by the Greeks. Still the French have not been proposed a referendum about whether they want to be in the European Union (in 2005 the French and the Dutch turned down a proposed Constitution of the EU; a more modest reform was ratified in the conventional manner). Of course they do. Why? Because the French do not confuse improving the European Union, and destroying it.

The alternative to the European Union and its “ever closer union” is war. War from “ever greater disunion” was tried before. Plutocracy would love to try it some more. War is to real plutocrats what golf is to basic oligarchs. War does not have to occur tomorrow, it’s best served cold, and starts with tariffs. (Not that tariffs cannot be justified, they can, and could be for a number of excellent reasons, some of them, like a carbon tax, approved of by the World Trade Organization). The French are much more angry against the EC than the British. But don’t throw the EU baby with the EC bath.

***

The crisis of refugees flooding into Europe is striking and intolerable. It has a precedent: this is exactly the problem Rome encountered, starting around 110 BCE. Consul Marius then solved the invasion by exterminating the three German tribes which were invading the Roman Republic in three battles (two of which happened next to Aix-en-Provence, and are celebrated to this day, in the names of locales). The Germans kept on trying to invade, and the situation became overwhelming when cretin Christian (sorry for the pleonasm) emperor Valens, to demonstrate his power did not wait for his nephew Gratian to come over with the Western Roman army (co-emperor Gratian was close-by, and marching in). The Goths then exterminated the Oriental Roman Army, and ended taking Rome, a generation later (410 CE).

The Renovated Roman empire led by the Franks suffered an even more severe sequence of simultaneous invasions in the Seventh and Eighth Century. In 715 CE, the Muslims were in Narbonne (an important regional capital in Rome). The Franks were the first to call themselves “Europeans”, and it is because they were “Europeans” that they won.   

Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) saw the battle of Poitier as a key turning point in European history (but so were the preceding European victory at Toulouse in 721 CE, and the European victories at  the Battle of Avignon, the Battle of Nîmes, and the Battle of the River Berre.

Headless, without armies, all its armies having been destroyed by the Franks and a subsequent, related revolt of the Berbers in 740 CE, the Caliphate based in Damascus then collapsed in civil war (750 CE) and the Franks started the reconquest of Spain, before the reign of Charlemagne, establishing the Marca Hispanica as early as 785 CE.

Here is British historian Edward Gibbon’s famous counterfactual passage from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-78): Had the Muslims won at Poitiers,

“A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

Could something good come out of Brexit? Yes, sure. Contrarily to what the fanatical tribal puppets of global plutocracy (whose international headquarters are Great Britain) believe, ever greater union is the way out of ALL European problems. Brexit could kick out a fifth columnist, a saboteur, and encourage the others to get together.

Those who want to divide Europe, instead of making it stronger are the real traitors. And the real enemies of freedom. To defend the borders of Europe, a European army had to march into Syria, after removing the dictator plutocrat Assad, dear to London, thanks to his assets. Anything short of this is nothing. 

For decades, stupid anti-Europeans in Britain have thought cool, smart and extremely British to declare the European Union was a “club”. Not, it’s not. Please read that again: it’s an union. Union. Get it? If you want a tax haven, go live in the British Virgin Island tax haven. The time of stealing other Europeans is near.  Actually, it has arrived. Nothing like a whiff of exasperation. After all, that’s what did the Nazis in.

Patrice Ayme’

“My Name Is Death To Traitors, Freedom For Britain”

June 19, 2016

Abstract: FRANXIT, the deliberate, willful and amicable division of the Frankish Roman Empire in the Tenth Century did not turn out as expected. Franxit brought ten centuries of war for Europe. Division and war, is, of course, what local potentates and global plutocrats want. Plutocrats want hell to rule, and their game is war: after FRANXIT, European “nobles” spent 10 centuries waging war with, when not marrying, each other. War enables to kill low lives at will, it’s most delicious to the nobility. Brexit, which will not happen, even if voted upon, is more of the same: a process of amicable division heading to war. The horror visited on Jo Cox is no accident, it’s part of a system. A system of moods. The moods of tribalism boosted by a huge society our instincts (for want of a better word) are not made for.

***

The nationalist fervor in Britain has reached, in all too many quarters, Nazi levels of hysteria. The assassin of British MP Jo Cox, mother of two young children, appeared in Court, and was asked to confirm his name. Thomas Mair said:My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.  Twice. Otherwise that despicable murderer stayed silent. (Reminder: Mair assaulted the 41-year-old mother of two, beat her, dragged her by the hair, stabbed her six times, and shot her three times. Obviously a case of extreme hatred, with Islamist intensity. Mair may not share all the ideas of the worst Islamists, but he shares their mood, that killing those who destroy their stupid beliefs is the highest calling. Moods are contagious. Mair hates Islamists, but unbeknownst to him Islamists and Nazis have much in common: this is what Hitler rightly thought.)  

Technically, Factually, Literally, Linguistically, Religiously, Constitutionally, Civilizationally, Nominally, The Frankish Empire Was "Rome". Much Of Rome Had Been Invaded By The Islamists, But Occidental Rome (the Franks) and Oriental Rome (Constantinople) Blocked Further Islamist Invasion, In 13 Centuries Of War For The Former.

Technically, Factually, Literally, Linguistically, Religiously, Constitutionally, Civilizationally, Nominally, The Frankish Empire Was “Rome”. Much Of Rome Had Been Invaded By The Islamists, But Occidental Rome (the Franks) and Oriental Rome (Constantinople) Blocked Further Islamist Invasion, In 13 Centuries Of War For The Former.

How did hyper-nationalism rise in Europe? It’s a long story. The long story of a disease. The long story of a recurring disease. Hyper-nationalism and divisions were pre-existing conditions. Rome wiped them out, replacing them by a universal, (relatively) tolerant state and civilization.

When the Roman legions led by Julius Caesar invaded “Long Haired Gaul” (“Gallia Comida”), Long Haired Gaul was highly divided, and overall ruled by a theocratic plutocracy. Galli Comida consisted in sixty nations, with sixty central banks, all the way to the tip of Armorica, which spoke three language, under a religion friendly to potentates, illiteracy for the masses, and human sacrifices (in other words, quite a bit like Wahhabism). Curiously, in some technologies, such as metallurgy, Gallia Comida was more advanced than all other  civilizations.

The Romans put an end to that non-sense, unifying what would become Francia under one government, one language, and one currency. Gallia kept her strengths, lost her weaknesses. Thereafter, Gallia would be the successor state of “Rome”. Mutual tolerance made the Germans known as the Franks an ideal match. The Franks would extend Francia to all of a unified Germania, thanks to a war which took three centuries (500 CE, Clovis, to 800 CE, Charlemagne).  

Since the ultra divided, bellicose Gallia Comida, the history of governance in Europe went through four phases, and knew four regimes.

First a Roman epoch, which lasted four to five centuries. Secondly the Empire of the Franks (Imperium Francorum) rose, and came to cover all of Western Europe. The third phase started in the Middle Ages, and can be precisely traced to nationalist decisions taken by Paris, in the Tenth Century, which promoted local governance at the cost of global governance. The fourth phase is the pacific unification of Europe, reconstituting one state under Republican, Democratic form. It is this pacific construction which many Brexiters are ready to kill to prevent ever closer union.

The Franks themselves called where they live “Europe” in the Eighth Century. By 800 CE, Charlemagne proclaimed the “Renovation of the Roman Empire” (Renovation Imperium Francorum). Here is another view of the situation. Notice that the modern terminology used is a misleading lie: the yellow and pink empires below called themselves “Rome”, and cooperated economically, politically, militarily, linguistically, making a union for more than eight centuries (both using Latin):

The "Frankish" Empire Called Itself "RENOVATED ROME" And The "Byzantines" Called Themselves "ROMAN"

The “Frankish” Empire Called Itself “RENOVATED ROME” And The “Byzantines” Called Themselves “ROMAN”

Mislabeling history is the first step towards turning it into a pack of lies.

Common wisdom often declares that “Charlemagne’s empire failed”. Common Wisdom does not even know why it says it, it is one of these stupid things people say to look smart. Stupidity economizes thinking, that makes it popular.

Emperor Charlemagne did not fail. He was one of the most successful leader that the world ever knew. Indeed, all the invasions were successfully repelled, or integrated (even in Spain with the Emirs). Charlemagne was succeeded quietly by his son, the empire stayed in one piece. Later, though, the problem of succession rose again. The Roman empire, whether led by the Romans or the Franks, did not have a succession mechanism. (Mostly because the regime was not constitutional in Rome, and because, in the case of the Franks, kings were elected… for eight (West Francia) to fourteen (Center and East Francia) centuries.

So, when the Franks “renovated” the Roman empire, they kept the election mechanism of the Frankish army, yet mixed with, and influenced by, the Salic law (equal succession of material goods, hence properties). As often the richest or their consorts ended up as leaders, and there were many of these, thanks to equal inheritance, there were often many elected kings fighting each other, often siblings. Thus, it was a mess: the Imperium Francorum, although unified as a civilization, was continually morphing into various subdivisions, dividing again, or unifying after a battle or two. That was a serious problem, but it became much worse with… Franxit.

One of the reasons to view the nearly three centuries long Carolingian European empire, centered around the reign of Charlemagne, as a failure is that, in the period 650 CE- 900 CE, the population of Europe collapsed. The population of France nearly halved, down to five millions. The historian Pirenne suggested that the disappearance of half of the Roman empire, gobbled by the Islamists, had everything to do with it: that’s called Pirenne’s thesis.

I generalize part of Pirenne’s thesis, and disagree with the rest (Pirenne thinks the rise of Islam cut off Occidental Rome, which is true, and thus enabled it to become original, while I think it just increased its originality). The obvious cause of the demographic catastrophe was a number of simultaneous invasions (Muslims, Avars, Vikings, etc.). The first Viking raids and counterstrikes by the Franks happened during the last years of Charlemagne’s long reign. Charlemagne had spent his entire reign waging war, subduing Saxons, Muslims, Avars, etc… And suddenly, there came the Vikings, straight out of not yet conquered Scandinavia! The Renovated Roman empire was highly successful in… surviving. In comparison, submitted to less, the Roman and Chinese states failed (more than once).

The division of the empire at the Treaty of Verdun in 843 CE did not have to be definitive. It became so, a century later when the Western Franks refused to take part in the election of the Roman emperor in any sense, leaving two-thirds of the empire to its own instruments. This was similar to Brexit. But it happened nearly 11 centuries ago. It was FRANcia eXIT, which I call, FRANXIT. It froze the map below into 10 centuries of war.

Western Francia Proclaimed Her King "EMPEROR IN HIS OWN KINGDOM" Exiting The Rest Of The "Renovated Roman Empire". The Situation Got More Complicated When Western Francia Conquered England, Then Britain

Western Francia Proclaimed Her King “EMPEROR IN HIS OWN KINGDOM” Exiting The Rest Of The “Renovated Roman Empire”. The Situation Got More Complicated When Western Francia Conquered England, Then Britain

To make succession clear, in the middle Middle Ages, the Western Franks went to hereditary kinship, guaranteed  and implemented by a Council of the Kingdom.

The king could nominate an heir, as happened for Henry V, Francis I, or Henri IV. A dreadful violation of the proper Salic Inheritance Law brought the 500 years war between France and England, and another violation of proper succession was caused by Joan of Arc and those who pulled her strings).

The rest of the Roman-German empire stuck to election, now reserved to a dozen of “Grand Electors“. After a while, only Habsburgs were selected, and the Swiss (among others) revolted against them. (Napoleon formally put an end to the Roman empire by then “Germanic” and “Holy”.)

After a large Republic was (re)established on September 22, 1789, the French Republic, Europe started to go back to the old Greek Republican model: selecting the executive by holding an election, and using further election for succession. Germany opted for that system in recent decades, Britain uses a primitive, incomplete version thereof (“First by the post” crowned by a monarchy).   

However, a French aristocrat from Corsica, declared himself emperor. Napoleon had been imprinted on the grand old tradition of Roman generals grabbing power for themselves in the degenerated, devolving empire Augustus founded.

Calling the self-obsessed Napoleon a unifier of Europe is curious: how could he unify Europe by gifting it to his own family? How unifying was that? Agreed, lots of people say this. But it does not make it right. The Revolution failed around 1800s, mostly because of this Mr. Napoleon. The next best chance surfaced in 1945 in San Francisco, when the Charter of the United Nations was modelled after the French 1789 Declaration of the Rights Of Man. (The United Nations themselves had appeared as a concept in 1942, when the Chinese, Great Britain and the free French found themselves two new allies, namely the USSR and the USA; hence the five permanent members of the UN!)

Philosopher Bertrand Russel, one of the highest Lords in Britain, loudly insisted that the Kaiser should not be fought, as he was in the process of unifying Europe, with his surprise attack on France, Russia, Belgium and Luxembourg of August 2, 1914. For this feat of delirious imagination, Russell was put in prison for the duration. Hitler was no unifier, either, although some, even delusional Jews, have presented him as such. Instead, Hitler was a certified destroyer. He did not just destroy the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and Slavs. He destroyed as much European diversity as he could put his claws on. Although he finished, unsurprisingly, yet ironically enough, protected by French-speaking SS, mostly from Belgium, while residing like the large rat he was, below his demolished chancellery… History made fun of him, in the end, as it had of Napoleon.

The mood of unification of France and Germany is as old as the Franks. Smart unification and vigilant tolerance were actually the engines which propelled the Franks. That’s why the Franks succeeded to unify everybody… including Pagans, Jews, Catholics, and all sorts of tribes (that was done by 600 CE, when everybody in the empire became “a Frank”). 

The Franks were a confederation from “Germania Inferior” who wanted to civilize themselves through unification and romanization. In a way, the Frankish Confederation was a micro European Union all by itself, and thus willing to unify further. The Franks, after taking control of Roman northwest Europe, discarded Augustus’ idiotic advice, to leave Germania alone. Instead, the Franks went all out to conquer Germany (something they had mostly done by 600 CE). Charlemagne and his immediate predecessors completed the work by 800 CE. However in the Tenth Century, the Western Franks, as the typically arrogant Parisians they were, decided to discard the rest of Francia. The result would turn after a few generations into 1,000 years of wars.

After the First World War, this, that division brought war, was understood by much of the elite, and a first attempt of French-German unification was tried. However, that attempted unification was broken by the Anglo-Saxon plutocrats and their Nazi pets (please forget my neat and striking rewriting of history as it really happened).

During their occupation of France, which started to end in 1943 when French troops reconquered Corsica, the Nazis themselves observed the futility of fighting the French. It was if they were fighting a better version of themselves, of what they wanted to be. A tiny French army had inflicted a severe strategic defeat to Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the entire Italian army, in May-June 1942. That saved (the future) Israel, from annihilation, and condemned the Nazis to drive desperately to Stalingrad (as they could not drive anymore to Iraqi oil).

In the end, the Nazis themselves, defeated by the French again, 27 years after the first , had admitted that fighting with France was self-destroying. After the war, the German Bundesrepublik copied the French Republic, and that was that. Ever since, the two have gotten closer.

In the last three decades, though, stubborn sabotage by the British of the European Monetary Union, has led to a debilitating stasis. The Brits, operating on plutocratic order, partly of American origin (Boris Johnson is American born), blocked the construction of the structures the Euro currency needed.

The solution is obvious: kick Britain out of the European Monetary Union. If Britain votes to “Brexit”, it will be a perfect opportunity to do so in the unavoidable renegotiation that will follow. Hence “Brexit” may well lead to further Franco-German union…. Which is all which matters.

The preceding historical information is not known in detail by those who lead us. It is not known that the European empire was broken deliberately by the exit of Western Francia. Hopefully, though, enough is known for leaving enough of the mood that division, for division’s sake, even if started peacefully, leads to war.

A simple example. Europe needs a European FBI to fight sovereign, global crime in Europe (including Jihadism), Europe needs an Attorney General. However all European governments, including those which claim to be pro-European, are against that. Because potentates want to keep as much power to themselves. Meanwhile Jihadists, Putinist plutocrats, hedge fund managers, hyper-wealthy tax evaders, and tax evading corporations do not just thrive, but rule. This is how the rule of the aristocrats who devoured Europe started: very rich people who were able to divide We The People with red herrings and fighting each other.  

Cameron just said that voting to exit the European Union would be like jumping out of a plane, there would be no coming back. Sure. Real Brexit would destroy the world. But, in reality, full Brexit is impossible, and there would be much more voting and (hopefully constructive) confusion. Instead it would allow Franco-Germania to run out of excuses for not forging ahead with a much closer union.

The Franco-German David Cohn-Bendit a convinced European and leftist, thinks nearly as much, observing that Britain has sabotaged Europe. Just as yours truly, he is ambivalent about the Brexit vote: kicking Britain out of the EU could give a needed kick into the EU anthill, and replace it by something more sophisticated, and more democratic. This does not mean that all too many Brexiters are driven by intolerable, infuriating hatred, and the pain of what is affecting them, which they did not succeed to understand.

Understanding is what one should strive towards, not the bellicose divisive distractions war brings. And much understanding starts with knowing the deep history of Europe. The Europeans are lucky enough to have the world’s best documented and most instructive history. Let them read it, and extract the substantial marrow: hysterical division for no good reason massively kills people and progress.

Patrice Ayme’

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

January 9, 2016

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’

Long Live The Euro: 3) Exiting By The Top

December 28, 2015

“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’

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

December 27, 2015

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

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

December 26, 2015

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

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’