Brexit, Breakxit, Breakshit

Brexit is breaking Britain. A shitty situation. The European Union Is No Big Deal, So Why All the Brexit rage? Fullfilling a need: The eternal return of the same old hatred!

The UK is headed towards proximal socio-economic decline: the health service is going down, trade is getting deeply unbalanced, and the doors with the EU are closing one door after another.

Polls show the Brits are understanding that getting out of the EU was a big mistake.

Two years after the UK transitioned out of the European Union nearly two-thirds of Britons now support a referendum on rejoining.

So why are some still so obsessed with the EU? A British friend, highly educated, cultured, traveled and otherwise sensible fiercely said: “The EU is a hideously corrupt and fascist enterprise. I would rather go back to the Stone Age than be ruled from abroad.”

He spends half of his year in Japan, every year, has lived in Germany, taught in France, etc.

I replied: Who rules you, while in Japan? Japanese law! 

European Union law is no big deal. Most of British law in 2023 CE is European law, to this day. And will probably stay that way indefinitely.

So why the foaming-at-the-mouth obsession with the EU as fascist? The EU does not even have the smallest army..

Intellectual fascism is a mental mode where one is obsessed by all too few concepts, and driven by them. This mental concentration arises from the palaeontological necessity of having to fight to death various enemies, including other men and saber tooth cats…only then could the  species survive.

Intellectual fascism as a dominant mental mode, if need be: a species’ scale survival instinct. So great pleasure is to be had, engaging in it. That’s why hatred is so addictive… And this is also why there are so many hate driven systems of thought, and why they should… carry warning labels…

Brexit is a miniature case, and an hilarious one: confused and manipulated old Brits believe that the EU was the cause of their unhappiness… When actually much had to do with a deliberate pro-immigration policy of the British government, from Blair to the Tories… If the UK had put in place the safeguards of most European governments, such as identification cards, illegal immigration would have been considerably lower. All this immigration made the UK wealthier and very quickly.  

In truth the EU has very limited powers: consider Italy and its outrageous refusal to provide citizenship to some individuals born there: sheer Italian racism. Italy will still get huge EU help with more on the way.

Hungarian PM Orban, despite all the threats, keeps on doing pretty much what he wants, including gigantic nuclear contracts with genocidal thermonuclear monster Putin… https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62695938Personally

I would financially cut off both… Constitutional racism as in Italy should not be tolerated by Europe.

***

Glynne Thomas

[European Union] Fine as originally intended commercial enterprise but descended into a corrupt political organization.

Proof of EU being a corrupt political organization? 35,000 workers to administer 450 million EU citizens plus a few hundred millions hanger-ons, because EU law is adopted worldwide. For example the EU is preparing a draft on the usage of Artificial Intelligence. Say when AI impacts someone Internet activities, that will have to be revealed. Or AI won’t be allowed for hiring, etc.

Guess what, a number of countries are in the process of adopting as law the EU AI DRAFT proposal. Including Canada and Brazil…

Actually California is typically adopting (that is voting) EU law, etc… Then the rest of the US follows…

The drumbeat against the EU comes from fascist monopolistic corporations which only get regulated by the EU as they rule the USA…

Breakshisters generally don’t even know how the EU works. The EU is an UNION of independent nation states, led by the constituents democratic governments and requiring unanimity for all big decisions, like NATO.

The EU is much more loose than the Confoederatio Helvetica. EU political power stays in the hands of nation-states governments., at all and any moment. Poland’s vigorous spats with Germany and France, or the EU, have not inflected Polish policy, or law, for example. In the end accomodations are found on further developments.

It is now known that one of the main financiers of Brexit/Breakshit was Vladimir Putin himself, because he wanted to keep Europe divided. Didn’t even work: UK is out, but is doing its best to get back in.

Now the only question is how is the UK going to reintegrate functionally the EU. A Swiss solution (hundreds of treaties) is likely… and it has already launched, to the great rage of the most observant and furious Breakxiters. Brexit was like Breakshit: no purpose and neither clean, nor smart.

The great merit of Brexit is that it is a miniature model of human folly exclusively directed by cognition problems, hooked to hatred.

Patrice Ayme

Down we go, and this is just the begining; notice the acceleration of the trade deficit in goods; within two years or so, the EU will be able to sever service trade with the UK:

Is Islam Destroying the European Union?

Is Islam Already Deconstructing Europe? Yes: consider Brexit.

I would not have thought this, that Fundamentalist Islam was already devouring Europe, a year ago, or any time before: I would have laughed derisively. Now I am not laughing anymore. Meanwhile there was Brexit.

Brexit was a first blatant revolt against the established order. The next blatant revolt was the colossal sweep of Donald Trump’s electoral victory: Trump controls the presidency, the Senate, the Congress, and most states (and the army, by putting the key generals in his government, and soon Trump will control the Supreme Court). Trump does not like the European Union (at least not as an alter ego of the USA; an independent Scotland may well suit his golf courses…)  Trump is a rebellious Pluto threatening the plutocracy, the ultimate horror, haunting plutocracy, ever there is plutocracy, and it plots.

Meanwhile the so-called judges, all over Europe, full, without knowing it, of hatred for the civilization that they are supposed to defend, have pursued their program of provocation of the survival instinct of the European population they terrorize with their obvious bias against any national instinct (I am going to explain those grave accusations). 

So what is the precise reason for my sudden pessimism? NEXIT! NEXIT originated from cancers affecting the soul of the elite: Postmodernism and Multiculturalism. 

841 CE, Fontenoy, Next to Auxerre, France. 40,000 Killed. Catastrophe Happens: the War of Brothers, the Bruederkrieg, Brought 11 Centuries of European Strife, And Ten Centuries of Rampaging Islamists. Now the same divisive spirit is back, and so are the Islamists

***

“Postmodernist” and “Multiculturalist” thinking has been the greedy ideological pretext of the venal European elite.

That vicious elite was well rewarded for it. “Postmodernism” and “Multiculturalism” basically say that the Enlightenment is not any more worthy than the primitive desert, pre-literate cult, Islam. The Enlightenment and Islam are both cultures, all cultures are the same, thus they are equivalent, say the “Postmodernists”, “Multiculturalists” and “anti-colonialists”.  Hence Islamists islamizing are fully right to kneel by the hundreds in the middle of French streets.

It does stop there: by hating “colonialism”, which tragically, put an end to cannibalism and slavery in Africa, European “intellectuals” and those they formed (the so-called judges, the so-called politicians and the so-called teachers, etc.) ended hating the very foundation of European, civilization.

The motivation of the higher spheres of this European elite was sheer corruption by the global plutocracy. Plutocracy hates civilization, always has, always will: ruling by evil ways is its exact definition. By destroying the foundations of European culture, European civilization got undermined, hence the resistance to plutocratization. Thus “Postmodernism” and “Multiculturalism” have been used as Trojan horses to demolish civilization.

In practice, some Europeans noticed the preceding, and started to vote for politicians who protested against it. This is why Brexit passed: the British were exasperated by massive immigration. The Brits were exasperated by the million Muslims lunatic Frau Merkel let in, knowing full well that, once in the EU, they could end in Britain, where “Multiculturalism”, not to say “Islamization” has long been not just desired theory, but a long-standing practice.

Brexit was, fundamentally, an anti-immigration vote.

Europeans, bless them, are finally understanding the venom, the poison of so-called “POSTMODERNISM” and “MULTICULTURALISM”.

Let me hasten to point out that I know of nobody as “Postmodernist” and “Multiculturalist” as myself: I speak several languages (and I have studied even more, including Japanese and Mandarin), I have lived on several continents, and spent 90% of my infanthood and childhood in Africa, half of my family was from, among (very nice, very advanced) Muslims.

So what gives?

My “Postmodernism” and “Multiculturalism” is counterbalanced by a hierarchy of all values, anchored in human ethology in full, and an appreciation of superior culture, not just from the inside, but also from the outside.

However, so-called judges, politicians and teachers of Europe are lower dimensional creatures who know very little, and, in particular ignore entire dimensions. And they revel in it. “Postmodernism” and the “Multiculturalism” enabled them to crow about their cultural and moral superiority. The more simple, the more superior, those European elites have this in common with the Islamists.

(In France it surface recently that some individuals so close to ex-justice minister Taubira

(Posatmodernism and Multiculturalism were actually Faustian bargains: the elite sold their souls to ingratiate themselves with the same US plutocrats who had helped to bring them Nazism and Fascism earlier, from the Kaiser to Mussolini, to the Greek Colonels, passing through Lenin and Stalin, as Lenin himself recognized jokingly… This theory of history is very much mine will not be mentioned in the rest of this essay, but has been detailed in many of my works before…).

***

NEXIT is the Netherlands EXIT from the European Union:

If someone had told me, two years ago, that the Netherlands could vote to leave Europe, I would have laughed derisively. But, as with Brexit, facts on the ground changed spectacularly. How could that happen?

Geert Wilders is the leader of the anti-Islam Party for Freedom (PVV). For years, he was hounded by so-called judges in the Netherlands. The last case was on December 6, 2016.  Wilders led a party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands”.

The crowd’s response of “fewer, fewer”, was clearly organised, said a judge at the secure court at Schiphol Judicial Complex, near Amsterdam, ruling that Wilders had breached the boundaries of even a politician’s freedom of speech.

We wonder how the so-called judge knew this. What do judges know? Did they study hiastory, real history? 

“It doesn’t matter that Wilders gave another message afterwards [saying he was referring only to criminal Moroccans and benefits claimants],” said the so-called judge. “The message that evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work… The group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”

Wilders said, in a statement in English posted on his YouTube channel, “I still cannot believe it, but I have been convicted because I asked a question about Moroccans. The Netherlands has become a sick country. The judge who convicted me [has] restricted the freedom of speech for millions of Dutch. I will never be silent. I am not a racist and neither are my voters.”

Wilders, the increasing popular politician, who did not attend the judgment or most of the process, apart from to give his “last word” at the end of hearings, also called it a “kangaroo court” in tweets about the judges and hearings earlier this year.

In France, facing elections in seven weeks, so-called judges have multiplied “judicial” attacks against right-wing and nationalistic politicians. The two leading candidates for the Presidency are the object of judicial harassment. So-called judges would prefer the 30 something Emmanuel Macron, a golden boy who made many millions from working for the Rothschild bank, an early start in life reminiscent of Krugman and Summers (pillars of the US Democratic Party who got launched as employee of the plutophile Ronald Reagan).

Macron just declared that France was culprit of crime against humanity for its “colonialism”.

Well, there is hope. Just before his ill-informed anti-European civilization blast, Macron, the candidate of ultra-”liberalism” was likely to become French president. His anti-French blast made him dip in the polls. 

The recently condemned Wilders, gloriously “anti-Islam” leader of the Dutch far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) is on course to win the most seats at the general election in March. His election would be the latest, potentially lethal, blow for Europe’s so-called “liberal” order in the tumultuous wake of Donald Trump’s victory and the Brexit vote.

Mr Wilders has pledged to close the Netherlands’ borders, shut down mosques, leave the euro and EU if he gets into power. To implement this, he will propose a NEXIT referendum.

The European Union as it is, will not survive NEXIT. The Netherlands is where the Franks came from: it would be tearing the heart.

A reminder perhaps?

Let’s talk about Lotharxit, when Lothar decided to go his own way, and impose it.

***

No Legitimate Imperial Power: The Old Roman-European Problem.

In 800 CE, Charlemagne was proclaimed one and only Roman emperor. Even the Regency in Constantinople agreed. The Renovated Roman Empire was united and strong. The (English-born) philosopher Alcuin, Prime Minister of Charlemagne, pushed education throughout the empire, which covered most of Europe.

However, the Franks had not improved much on the non-existent Roman imperial succession system. The results were catastrophic.

Notice in passing that this means centralized imperial power was not legitimate. The European Union has basically the same problem now: its power is viewed as neither legitimate, nor imperial.

The power struggle among the Franks resulted in the Battle of Fontenoy in 841 CE (there was another battle at Fontenoy, more famous but much less important, 900 years later…).

The three-year Carolingian Civil War culminated in the decisive Battle of Fontenoy-en-Puisaye, fought at Fontenoy, near Auxerre, on the 25 June 841. The war was over the territorial inheritances —the division of the Charlemagne’s Carolingian Empire between his grandsons, the three surviving sons of “Roman” Frankish emperor Louis the Pious (Louis Le Debonnaire in French, meaning Louis the Do-gooder and easy-Going: he kept on forgiving his wayward sons, instead of punishing them severely, even after they deposed him!).

Emperor Louis was obligated by the Salic Law to divide “his” empire equally among his sons (at the same time, the leaders of the Franks were supposedly elected; thus basically the richest was elected…)

***

The Catastrophe Of Fontenoy, 841 CE:

The battle was between the emperor Lothar, grandson of Charlemagne, allied to his cousin, leader of Aquitaine, against the coalition of Lothar’ brother Louis the German and his half-brother Charles the Bald (Charles was 17 years younger than Louis). The war was precipitated by Lothar’s proclamation, in July 840, that he was global effective emperor  of the whole Renovatio Imperium Romanorum (Lothar was already long king of Italy, thus Rome). Lothar said it was not just about the imperial title.  

Around noon a cavalry charge from Charles-Louis side broke Lothar’s lines, and the latter was put to flight. That day of butchery brought 40,000 DEAD (and much more wounded; in the worst day of World War One, the French army suffered 27,000 dead, around 21 August 1914…).

Angibert fought on the side of Lothar at the battle. He wrote a poem, which is as follows, in English:

Fontenoy they call its fountain, manor to the peasant known,

“There the slaughter, there the ruin, of the blood of Frankish race;

Plains and forest shiver, shudder; horror wakes the silent marsh.

Neither dew nor shower nor rainfall yields its freshness to that field,

Where they fell, the strong men fighting, shrewdest in the battle’s skill,

Father, mother, sister, brother, friends, the dead with tears have wept.

 And this deed of crime accomplished, which I here in verse have told,

Angibert myself I witnessed, fighting with the other men,

I alone of all remaining, in the battle’s foremost line.

 On the side alike of Louis, on the side of Charles alike,

Lies the field in white enshrouded, in the vestments of the dead,

As it lies when birds in autumn settle white off the shore.

 Woe unto that day of mourning! Never in the round of years

Be it numbered in men’s annals! Be it banished from all mind,

Never gleam of sun shine on it, never dawn its dusk awake.

Night it was, a night most bitter, harder than we could endure,

When they fell, the brave men fighting, shrewdest in the battle’s skill,

Father, mother, sister, brother, friends, the dead with tears have wept.

 Now the wailing, the lamenting, now no longer will I tell;

Each, so far as in him lieth, let him stay his weeping now;

On their souls may He have mercy, let us pray the Lord of all

Lothar later resorted to methods akin to terrorism, with a new army he had raised: the stronger Charles and Louis pushed him into the woods, out of his capital Aachen.

***

Following this huge civil war among the Franks, the Magyars, Vikings and Saracens (Islamists) swooped in, shredding Europe:

And the Islamists and their friends did this in an industrial fashion (the first Islamist attacks had been against Spain in 711 CE, Francia in 715 CE). In the Ninth Century (and again in the Tenth Century), Islamists camped by Swiss passes, capturing even a cleric grandson of Charlemagne at the Saint Bernard pass (the grandson was ransomed for a colossal amount). Vikings roamed nearly all over France. Magyars did pretty much the same in the East (until they were defeated much later by Frankish “Roman” emperor Otto 1 next to Ausburg, Austria. The Magyars came from the Urals…

The general problem is that the Franks did not have a common, admitted system for succession of the ultimate authority (same problem as Rome). The last common emperor was Charles the Fat (expired in January 888, after a coup; he had been very sick for years, and was even trepanned: surgical hole in the skull…). Charles had been elected by the “Magnates” (a hefty dosage of plutocrats therein).

***

Catastrophes happen.

Brexit is a catastrophe.

One catastrophe can lead to another.

The underlying catastrophe here is the proclaimed equality of all cultures, and the accompanying implicit detestation of European culture. This will to destroy and insult civilization, by so-called judges, corrupt politicians and the like, is actually an implementation of the submission to global plutocracy.

The election of Trump is a reaction against the detestation of all what made Europe (and thus its American colonies!) superior. Similarly, Brexit is a reaction against that detestation. Yet, Brexit is clearly self-defeating (the jury of history is out for Trump, somewhere in the future). Brexit is an alienation, and we saw what the alienation of the grandsons of Charlemagne led to (Fontenoy, see above).

The Frankish empire, mangled in many parts survived because it was, and as, a global Latin speaking entity (at the elite level of intellectuals, monks, leaders, war mongers, etc; common people talked Germanoid in the East, and degenerated Latin elsewhere). Ultimately rather centralized western Francia, an empire and a kingdom and the more decentralized  rest of the “Roman Empire” found a mission fighting off the invading Islamists for centuries, as the latter roamed over half of Europe. This led to the counterattack of the Crusades, which bred some sense in the Islamists (Saladin and Al. made treaties with Richard the Lionheart, representing Europe; while re-opening the trade routes to the Orient; the Crusades were not all mayhem, no gain, at least, some of them…)

The history of the Franks shows catastrophe can occur, and that its dreadful consequences can last 1,105 years (840 Ce to 1945 CE; the time it took for the French and German to settle their differences). Ultimately, creating a European imperial government which can carry war where the refugees come from, and extinguish their cause is a necessity.

***

Another pitfall of history is devolution of understanding. Consider Tasmania. Or, more exactly, the Tasmanian Devolution:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/tasmanian-effect/

Tasmanians, for whichever reasons hard to understand, lost the technology they had. Practically it means that the English farmers could exterminate them to the last (whereas the Technology advanced, war like Maoris fought back efficiently and survived in New Zealand).i

Fanatical “Postmodernism”, fanatical “Multiculturalism”, under the pretense of universalization serve the globalist plutocracy and hate civilization. They have no better symbol and reward than Islamization.

Down the drain we go.

At some point, one loses control of events: a snowflake is cute, innocuous, light. Too many snowflakes, and one gets a lethal avalanche. There are worse fates than war. Even global war.

Time to progress in understanding. It is a question of survival.

For Europe, understanding means to move to a Federal Union as fast as possible. The leaders of the french, german and Italian assemblies just signed an open letter demanding just this:

“Now is the moment to move towards closer political integration — the Federal Union of States with broad powers. We know that the prospect stirs up strong resistance, but the inaction of some cannot be the paralysis of all. Those who believe in European ideals, should be able to give them a new life instead of helplessly observing its slow sunset.”

Right. Time to fight. For the right ideas.

Patrice Ayme’

Brexit Vote Killing Brexit Mood

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!

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 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

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

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”

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.

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”

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

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’

Economy: Moods Are Changing

“TROUBLE” WITH EUROPE? WHY NOT THE US?

New York Nobel economists viewed from Europe, or the US, as “liberal”, or “leftist” do not like Europe, nor do they understand that the USA’s superior economic performance is just something the Clinton crowd likes to crow about. When one looks inside, and compares, ain’t pretty. Joseph Stiglitz: The Euro is the Problem (April 14, 2016) https://youtu.be/30xfMtJZ6iY  http://bit.ly/24k2oC2  #video #lecture.

No, the Euro is not the problem. Actually, Europe just smashed growth forecasts. The problem is that Europe is managed by people from Goldman-Sachs, or who wish to be employed by Goldman-Sachs, or who have a high opinion of Goldman-Sachs, or by people who take advice from people affected by the preceding disease. (As usual, I use here “Goldman-Sachs” as a shorthand for the malevolent, parasitic “money changers”, as Roosevelt and the Bible called them, based mostly in New York and London, with state machinery at their beck and call).

European Productivity, Especially In Franco-German Euro Zone, Has Long Been Higher Than In the USA. So The Scorn Of US Economists Should Consider This Important Fact

Question to Stiglitz: Do you think any of the groundwork has been laid to reduce that inequality going forward?

Stiglitz: “We’re in a little bit of better place, but not a lot better. It’s obviously better to have 5 percent unemployment than 10 percent unemployment. And there’s been the beginning of a housing recovery that has helped restore some of the wealth of ordinary Americans. But the damage that has been done is very deep and has persistent effects. The labor force participation rate of people in their 40s, 50s, is still lower than it’s been in decades. People who lost their jobs in 2008, didn’t get jobs in 2009, ‘10, ‘11, maybe aren’t likely to get a job ever. If they do, it’s not going to be anywhere near as good as their old job. There are many people for whom they lost their job at 50 or 55 and are unlikely to ever work again. The scar is permanent.

Another aspect of what I would say is the imperfect recovery, is that the marginalized groups remain marginalized. And while they’ve benefitted, the levels of unemployment are still very very high.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/stiglitz-inequality/…

Entirely right, Mr. Stiglitz. So why do American economists give lessons to Europeans? The US economy is chugging along at 2% per annum, rather less than Franco-Germania at this point. And it can be argued that the inflation of the US GDP is mostly asset inflation.

When Stiglitz obsesses about unemployment, it’s obviously neither here, nor there: Unemployment is not the end-all, be-all, of the wellbeing of a socioeconomy. Slaves, in all and any economy, tend to be fully employed.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, unemployment is only 3%. However, a one bedroom rents for $3,000 a month, and that’s more than half the median family income (pre-tax). So is that good, or is that hell? I want you to contemplate a twenty lanes freeway, all gridlocked, and the eight lanes overpasses above, too, if you approve, Stiglitz style. (Jam augment GDP!)

Meanwhile, Trump is going parabolic in California, because tolerating the intolerable has become intolerable. Only when tolerating the intolerable becomes intolerable do revolutions happen. Maybe Trump should pick up Sanders as running mate, ha ha ha.

Revolutions are the engine of evolution. They re-unite Homo with the natural ethology from which plutocracy had torn him from. To evolve again, for the better.

Another editorial from Krugman along the same half-wit lines as Stiglitz: “The Diabetic Economy”. Krugman: “LISBON — Things are terrible here in Portugal, but not quite as terrible as they were a couple of years ago. The same thing can be said about the European economy as a whole. That is, I guess, the good news.

The bad news is that eight years after what was supposed to be a temporary financial crisis, economic weakness just goes on and on, with no end in sight. And that’s something that should worry everyone, in Europe and beyond.

First, the positives: the euro area — the group of 19 countries that have adopted a common currency — posted decent growth in the first quarter. In fact, for once it was better than growth in the U.S.

Europe’s economy is, finally, slightly bigger than it was before the financial crisis, and unemployment has come down from more than 12 percent in 2013 to a bit over 10 percent.

But it’s telling that this is what passes for good news. We complain, rightly, about the slow pace of U.S. recovery — but our economy is already 10 percent bigger than it was pre-crisis, while our unemployment rate is back under 5 percent.

And there is, as I said, no end in sight to Europe’s chronic underperformance. Look at what financial markets are saying.”

Children such as Stiglitz and Krugman have great oracles, called “markets”, and they “look” at what they “say”. (Beats saying what they look like, any day!)

Krugman: “Responding to critics of easy money who denounce low rates as “artificial” — because economies shouldn’t need to keep rates this low — [A Fed Reserve Bank governor] suggested that we compare low interest rates to the insulin injections that diabetics must take.

Such injections aren’t part of a normal lifestyle, and may have bad side effects, but they’re necessary to manage the symptoms of a chronic disease.

In the case of Europe, the chronic disease is persistent weakness in spending, which gives the continent’s economy a persistent deflationary bias even when, like now, it’s having a relatively good few months. The insulin of cheap money helps fight that weakness, even if it doesn’t provide a cure.

But while monetary injections have helped to contain Europe’s woes — one shudders to think of how badly things might have gone without the leadership of Mario Draghi [ex-Partner Goldman-Sachs, Patrice Ayme nota bene], president of the European Central Bank — they haven’t produced anything that looks like a cure. In particular, despite the bank’s efforts, underlying inflation in Europe seems stuck far below the official target of 2 percent.

Meanwhile, unemployment in much of Europe, very much including my current location, is still at levels that are inflicting huge human, social and political damage.

It’s notable that in Spain, which these days is being touted as a success story, youth unemployment is still an incredible 45 percent…”

For once, Krugman gets it half right. Right for Germany, but not for France, which has discarded the Euro 3% deficit spending limit, and is going at an official, near-British like 4.5% (official):

“The thing is, it’s not hard to see what Europe should be doing to help cure its chronic disease. The case for more public spending, especially in Germany — but also in France, which is in much better fiscal shape than its own leaders seem to realize — is overwhelming.

There are large unmet needs for infrastructure and investors are essentially begging governments to take their money. Did I mention that the real 10-year interest rate, the rate on bonds that are protected from inflation, is minus 0.8 percent?

And there’s good reason to believe that spending more in Europe’s core would have big benefits for peripheral nations, too.

But doing the right thing seems to be politically out of the question. Far from showing any willingness to change course, German politicians are sniping constantly at the central bank, the only major European institution that seems to have a clue about what is going on.

Put it this way: Visiting Europe can make an American feel good about his own country.”

Why is Krugman feeling so good? Because the US is “producing” three times more GreenHouse Gases (GHG) as the French? Not a non-sequitur, or just a slap in the face: the US expansion, in the last six years as largely been driven by fracking for oil and gas.

***

Patrice’s Grain of Salt: MOODS THEY ARE CHANGING:

The “trouble” in Europe is not just economic. A new philosophy, a new mood, is taking over. Monetary spending, what GDP looks at, is increasingly looked at as a sin. In France, exchange and repair Internet sites are booming. People increasingly repair the devices they use, and recycle and, or, exchange them for others.

Another point, well-known, is that, to re-establish the economy, banks were given money, lots of money. But the bank driven economy comes short. If anything, banks are viewed as organized crime institutions. In other words, people have had enough of the way the economy is organized.

Who needs a car, when public transportation, or the occasional rental will solve the problem? Some car companies sell electric cars, yet, when people need to go on a family trip, they can get a fossil fuel driven machine, which goes much further. The end result is to lower demand. This is also the effect of increasing efficiency. Solar cells on a roof kill a lot of the old economy, the more efficient they get.

The economy serves the society, not vice versa. Moods have to change to incorporate more of the society. A recent example: two professors working at UC BErkeley (one of them French), invented a revolutionary method to cut DNA into desired pieces. They applied for a US Patent. The US PTO sat on it: indeed, what could two women invent? Six moths laterr, a macho team of males from MIT applied for the same patent, for the same invention. Ah, males, thus pillars of society, said Conventional Wisdom. The MIT gentlemen (or is that horsemen charging, Genghis Khan style?) were immediately granted the Patent.

A lot of the economy organized according to the old mood is just organized thievery, or crime. Giving twenty trillion of dollars to the very same banks and connected financial types who organized the 2008 crisis is organized mismanagement of the economy to replenish the criminals. It would have been more just to give the money to We The People directly, instead of giving it to our oppressors. Ah, but it could not be done, because conventional economics prevent it.

Conventional economy right now is little more that the instauration of a feudal order. Malia Obama, eldest daughter of president Obama, will enter Harvard University. There the peers of Stiglitz and Krugman will teach her of the rightful place of the haves, and why it is just that they own the world. And the fault of the have nots, that they do not.

Malia’s present school is “Sidwell Friends School“, a “very exclusive” (as it self-defines) school. Her sister attends it too. Tuition is a modest $40,000 a year. So the two girls, together, cost $80,000, just to enjoy the “very exclusive” position they earned in life. That’s a third higher than US family median income, pre-tax.

It cost significantly more to attend the school where great liberal economist Stiglitz preaches from (Columbia). American economists are right to trash Europe. After all, the European model is the enemy. Should it win, American economists would earn just a fraction of what they presently get.

Patrice Ayme’  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Why Are The Brits So Angry Against The European Union?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Off With The British Anti-European attitude:

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

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

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

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

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

***

USA Based Plutocratic Machinations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Mitterrand and the Nazis Came to Understand the Preceding Confusedly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Long Live The Euro: 3) Exiting By The Top

“SORTIR PAR LE HAUT”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly one should go back to basic principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of Friedman ignorance, or deliberate lying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’