Posts Tagged ‘EMU’

Exit Or Exist, That Is The Question.

June 23, 2016


People are ruled by moods first, ideas next. A mood can be defined by a set of neurohormones, themselves produced by organs and subsystems in the brain. In other words, moods are massive things, with lots of inertia, and vast influence: moods create the medium, the nutrients in which neurons grow and prosper. Ideas are much more precise things tied up to neuronal networks (which bathed in the moods themselves). Ideas can be changed by changing a few neuronal networks. Moods need, to be changed, enormous mental changes. And there is worse: moods change genetics. In some species, female fishes without males turn into males, or even super-males. Similarly, many a human without hope turns into a raging lunatic. And much more so when entire tribes have lost hope. As the Brits did. With democracy.

In 1945, the white British population was 40 millions. Their descendants are around 40 millions, to this day. So how come that, in recent years, the British population played catch-up with much larger France? Immigration. Immigration organized by British plutocracy to present endured servants to work for very cheap and enormous wealth, stolen World Wide to invest in exchange for cooperating with this organized, World Wide crime (France had very little immigration in the meantime).

Hence the racial anxiety of the white Brits who are de-whited under their own unbelieving eyes… While being misled about why this is happening exactly. And they, the small, poor, old, all too British impoverished racists swallowed the lie it was all caused by the EU, whereas, in truth, it’s their own plutocracy which made it all possible (immigrants without papers could not work in France or Germany, but could in Britain…)

The World Wide Web of plutocrats is a reality. It’s a community of malevolent spiders busy entangling us in the WWW media they fabricate. Having organized the Brexit vote, plutocrats speculated loudly, with glee, on all the mayhem thus very profitable speculation Brexit, one way or another, would bring. Billionaire George Soros, an ex-Brit, now American, who had forced the British Pound out of the European Currency system, making a billion, recently loudly announced he was returning to trading, because the situation was excellent. He had thirty billion dollars of his own money to entangle with all the juicy action Brexit would bring.  People who think a bit, are full of contempt for the entire Brexit idiocy:  

But First The UK Would Have To Stand At The Back Of The Line, And, Moreover, Would Have Ceased To Exist. Exit Or Exist, That Is The Question

But First The UK Would Have To Stand At The Back Of The Line, And, Moreover, Would Have Ceased To Exist. Exit Or Exist, That Is The Question

Farage, the leader of UKIP, is a commodity broker, son of a City of London stockbroker. Farage, a wealthy man, has worked for two French commodity futures powerhouses. You are talking hard-core plutocracy there. In a  Foreign Press Association speech Farage revealed that over his period as a Member of the European Parliament he had received a total of £2 million of taxpayers’ money in staff, travel, and other expenses. The Farage Family Educational Trust 1654, was set-up in 2013. Farage claimed it to be used “for inheritance purposes”, on the Isle of Man… which, according to Farage was “not a tax haven”, and, anyway, “tax havens are OK”.

Tax havens are not just OK, they are arguably the main industry of Great Britain.

Britons read 13 million newspapers each day. France, with a larger population, only three millions. All these newspapers are pro-Brexit. With the last minutes Times endorsement of “Remain” and the 300,000 readership of The Guardian. This press is so right-wing that it totally censors me (even The Guardian does!): none of my comment was ever published. The hatred of that press extends much beyond Europe. It hates people who dislike fossil fuels or perceives a warming of the atmosphere. And so on.

Why so right-wing racist, pro-plutocratic? Because it is owned by some of the world’s greatest plutocrats. For 30 years, screaming tabloids have told Britons Romanians were coming to steal their houses. In giant capital letters one can read from the other side of the street. Now they believe it.

The reach of plutocratic media is far out: I was walking through a Redwood (Sequoia Sempervirens), reading the Wall Street Journal. A lying graph was exhibit number one: to show how much Socialist france and the Euro Zone were inferior, Great Britain was represented with a GDP more than 20% larger than France’s. Of such lies minds are made. (In truth French GDP is larger than Britain’s and the two countries had the same growth since 2008).  

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Murdoch the very old heir of a media fortune founded by his ancestors in Perth, Australia. Murdoch is now Americans and live in the US. He owns American tabloids and the all-powerful FOX News. Among others things. He has said that British Prime Ministers listen to him, and Brussels does not.

A long litany of celebrities has supported Brexit, from the actress Elizabeth Hurley who played Satan in a movie, to Sir Mick Jagger, a pipsqueak  who, comically enough, thinks he is Satan, although he is just a social climbers anxious to have the advisers of the conservative PM listen to his political advice (probably mostly about tax havens all over) to the Daltrey of The Who,  who called Eurocrats “fuckers”. Well, f… you, efer. 30,000 Eurocrats enable the single market of more than 500 million people. And they are immensely poor, relative to Mr. Daltrey’s fortune. Or Sir Michael Caine, another rich comedian brought back to Britain by all these tax havens, and then having the insolence to whine about Europe… Those individuals who love to bow in front of their plutocrat-in-chief, the Queen, interestingly never complain that said plutocrat-in-chief, the Queen of England, in front of whom they grovel, gets more than 500,000 Euros of European subventions on just one of her many castles, every single year. Of course, I am for reducing those sorts of payments to plutocrats to absolute zero. It is revealing the old super rich pro-Brexit abusers never complain about them.

All these wealthy old fogies are afraid that Franco-Germania is going to crack-down on their English plutocracy, and force them to pay taxes like other people in Europe. The under-35 group is twice more for remaining in the EU than the above 65 old gizzard turkeys.

The Brexit vote should just be the call to arms for those who want an ever closer European Union. Britain wanted to be fence off, and Cameron extracted these concessions. Let them be: isolate Britain, and cut it off. Stat with the British membership in the European Monetary Union, which should be terminated.

Once an individual, or a mass of individuals has opted to be neurohormonally immersed in hatred, their brain, and probably even their genetics, changed (that’s the essence of epigenetics). The Britons who hate Europe have been genetically modified, like the majority of Germans who ended supporting Adolf Hitler. About half Britons who vote are epigenetically engineered robots serving the empire of plutocracy. Let them be, in a safe, remote location.

Patrice Ayme’

Europe, Victim Of Plutocracy

June 18, 2012


Rapid Reaction Force: Fighting Krugman’s Plutophile Disinformation.



Another day, another misleading editorial from Paul Krugman “Greece As A Victim” (NYT, June 18, 2012). As all good propaganda, there is lots of truth therein, just as in all good poisoned beverage, there is much goodness, to make sure the victim drinks it all. So Krugman piles up the truths, all to better lead to the same old stinger, down with the euro:

“…many things you hear about Greece just aren’t true. The Greeks aren’t lazy — on the contrary, they work longer hours than almost anyone else in Europe, and much longer hours than the Germans in particular. Nor does Greece have a runaway welfare state, as conservatives like to claim; social expenditure as a percentage of G.D.P., the standard measure of the size of the welfare state, is substantially lower in Greece than in, say, Sweden or Germany, countries that have so far weathered the European crisis pretty well.

So how did Greece get into so much trouble? Blame the euro.”

“Blame the euro.”: this is Krugman’s sing song. He has used different words to sing the same underlying music. But he, naturally, does not find the right reason to be against the present organization of the European Monetary Union, namely that the EMU was installed as a plutocratic device (by French socialists, of all people, 30 years ago!)

Krugman explains that Greece was doing fine, then it got in the Eurozone (soon he will explain to us that it was doing fine under the American sponsored dictatorship of colonels!). Here is more Krugman:”Then Greece joined the euro, and a terrible thing happened: people started believing that it was a safe place to invest. Foreign money poured into Greece, some but not all of it financing government deficits; the economy boomed; inflation rose; and Greece became increasingly uncompetitive.   

Please remind me of this next time: if people come, bearing gifts to the Greeks, it’s a terrible thing.

Krugman omits an important fact here, a fact that I have never seen mentioned anywhere, except by yours truly. A fact all European authorities want to forget, because they are entirely to blame: the Drachma, the old Greek currency, was converted at TWICE its true rate. It was a question of national pride for the Greeks, etc. Other countries (including Germany) thought that was cute and innocuous.

So the Greeks became TWICE richer than they should have been, just by replacing drachmas with euros, at the rate decided by the ECB. Hence one way to look at the present crisis in Greece is that Greece is readjusting down to what should have been the correct conversion rate of the Drachma.

Why were the Germans so anxious to accept Greece in, while making it artificially rich by a factor of two? The answer is obvious. So that the Greeks could afford to buy Porsches, of course. The way the Germans looked at it then, no harm done, all goodness to Germany in general and VW in particular. This explains also why the German authorities, including at the Bundesbank, are so anxious to blame the Greeks: to deflect the revelation of their own instigation of the whole machination of the Greek mess.



Krugman, mentions “productivity“, which is, fundamentally how much one’s work is valued. Valued by whom? Well, maybe by the politicians one rigged the system with. For example in the USA, most of the wealthiest people pay little (Romney’s tax rate: 13.9%) or no tax at all. Contemplate the tax bills of most Silicon Valley titans:  they borrow their spending money, and don’t touch their financial assets ownership.

And as far as the so called “market” valuing things properly, some the hedge fund managers have “made” (for themselves) up to 5 billion dollars, making them the most “profitable” members of the biosphere. Part of how they make their money is by selling short entire countries, after careful conspiracies which seem to have the support of the president of the USA (as he sings the praises of the most successful conspirators, the so called “Sage of Omaha”: different countries have different notions of wisdom).

Of course, if the empire was different, hedge fund managers would be rewarded by expropriation, and long jail sentences. The argument can also be made that modern bankers are, by the standard of the Imperium Romanum, and direct descendant regimes, a period of more than two millennia (Roman republic-SPQR-Imperium Francorum-Imperium Romanum-Francia, etc.), simply counterfeiters, a crime punishable by being boiled alive, and slow, under the Franks.



Krugman explains that the USA holds together because of transfer payments: “Ask yourself, why does the dollar area — also known as the United States of America — more or less work, without the kind of severe regional crises now afflicting Europe? The answer is that we have a strong central government, and the activities of this government in effect provide automatic bailouts to states that get in trouble.”

Well the truth, historically, is that the USA stayed in one piece because of the application of massive deadly force. When the Confederacy seceded, Lincoln resisted, and won, by killing more than 850,000 people in the process. 850,000 dead is the latest lower bound in the number of death out of a total population of 31.4 millions in 1860, including nearly 4 million slaves. One can round that up to 3% dead (as the stats are known to be underestimates). This was the deadliest civil war known in the West for at least three centuries.  

The second reason the USA is together has to do with being a sovereign state, and that, as in all sovereign states through history, means that the USA has the ability to give money to whoever it pleases, in whatever amounts it pleases.

Krugman will not tell you this, because it is embarrassing for its cherished Wall $treet, and for the policy he has been promoting, Quantitative Easing. In a way a toddler can understand, the policy consists in using the state to give money to friends.

Under Bush II and Obama, the government of the USA, through the central bank, transferred in excess of five trillion dollars of “monetary base” to a handful of very big banks managed by whom Obama calls “friends” (yes, at least a third of GDP). For three quarters of his administration, Obama loudly called Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan, a friend and confessed he could never managed the immense and glorious portfolio of Dimon (who used to live in a 20 room mansion in Chicago). Now the Main Stream Propaganda has been busy forgetting these facts (because said facts show that Obama did more, so far, for plutocracy, than Romney ever did!)

So, considering this enormous conceptual picture he royally ignores, why is Krugman “blaming the euro”?



It used to be that europhobic Americans such as Krugman accused the Eurozone to not be an “optimal currency area“.

But, it turns out that “productivity” varies just as much in various regions of the USA. So that reasoning was so specious, that the most sophisticated Europhobes were called back to order, and changed their music. So what’s their latest music? Their new music is all about the lack of redistribution in Europe (as it is the EU redistributes only 2% of the total EU GDP). Yet, in truth, redistribution is not, by far, the proximal problem in Europe.

On the face of it, Krugman’s ignorance is mind numbing. Krugman should learn that the total aid to Greece is in the process of passing the 500 billion dollars mark (yes, 500 billions, a total aid of half a trillion). After Krugman integrates that notion it will be interesting to see if his “non redistribution” music changes! Krugman is the plutocratic canary, singing deep in the mines of the subservient soul to reassure the slaves of the established order that Europe is at fault.



“Blaming the euro” is the usual anti-European condemnation by innuendo.

So what is the real problem? In truth, the problem is how the European Monetary Union was exactly set-up. The EMU generalized a French law passed by the pro-plutocratic government in 1973 (president Pompidou had been head of the Rothschild bank). The law forbade the French state to borrow from the Banque de France. Thus, similarly, states of the EMU were forbidden to borrow from the ECB. They thus lost their Fiat Money capability.

So what happened? All states use rolling debt. The plutocrats, using a worldwide conspiracy, with the rating agencies (owned by Buffet) and Goldman Sachs (on and off owned by Buffet), and the likes of Buffet and hedge funds (shorting the sovereign debt of states, just before their rating agencies lower their ratings!), have cranked up the interest rates (up to and beyond 100% for Greece). That is why Italy, which has no primary deficit, is now in trouble.

The usual explanation is that the lenders are afraid. But that explanation is all too charitable for the wealthiest people and organizations on Earth. The non charitable explanation is that these wealthiest of the wealthy are maximizing their profits. They do this by using all the tricks they can find, as they operate in a (deliberately organized) judicial vacuum. One of the tricks is simply to blackmail states, by having organized an enormous conspiracy to jack up the interest rates European states have to pay. They will not try the same trick to the USA, because that would be do it to themselves, and Obama has drones, plus the taste to be judge, jury and executioner.

That is why they conspired successfully to force Spain, which has much less government debt relative GDP than Germany, to pay ridiculous high, debt augmenting interest rates, well above 7%. Greed. The striving towards a new feudal order.

Krugman dislike the EMU, while protecting the vast plutocratic plot, because Europe is too socialist and that means too anti-Wall $treet. He wants Manhattan to gleam in the sun, and his mansion well furnished.

It was not the arrogance of European officials that led to the present EMU mess, as much as a silent coup by the pro-plutocratic forces. Now the French socialist, who set-up this mess in the 1980 have the occasion to undo it, and do the right thing, namely gives the ECB all the prerogatives of a central bank, such as creating Fiat Money. Interestingly Milton Friedman would agree to that. Thus the present plutocratic system is amazingly to the right of Friedman!

With Fiat Money, all the European interest rates could be brought down to basically zero, as in Britain, USA, Japan (although Japanese debt is 236% of GDP, much higher than Greece).



When Octavian, the grand nephew, and heir of Caesar, took power, he established a plutocracy, and was called Augustus (the one who augments). Later three of his crack legions, plus auxiliaries, and support personnel were annihilated in a three day running battle in Northern Germany. Maybe 50,000 dead, many tortured in gory sacrifices.

Augustus enjoined his successors to leave Germany alone, and keep the limes where it was, awkwardly following the Rhine and then the Danube. There is a gap between both streams, and through it, German invaders would strike again and again, as the centuries flowed. (Germanicus could have fixed things, but Tiberius feared him, and the assassin Consul Sejanus may have poisoned him, as he did Drusus, Tiberius’other son, consul, and expert general!)

Finally the Franks, the hard core of the last two centuries of the Late Roman empire, took power in their own name. The Franks, who were Romanized Sea Germans (the Salian Franks spoke Old Dutch, and wrote in Latin) followed the wise instinct of Iulius Caesar, the assassinated head of the Populares, uncle to the plutocratic Augustus, and decided to conquer all of Central and Western Europe. The Franks did most of Germany in a few years, by crushing the Goths and the Alemanni (“All Men“, French “Allemands”). To finish the task Caeasar had decide upon, took the Carolingians, three centuries later (when the roman Empire, Imperium Romanum, was officially re-established in Pars Occidentalis).

After getting their hands on Eastern European silver, the Franks were able to re-establish enough of a currency for prosperous trade (the Later Romans, like the Chinese, chronically, had run out of enough precious metals to run their economies with free markets).

Unfortunately prosperous Europe attracted invaders and scavengers (in chronological order: Muslims, Avars (a type of Mongols), Vikings). Those powerful and simultaneous invasions forced  the Franks to establish a war society, the feudal order (my analysis is very different from that of Karl Marx; Marx considered feudalism within a purely economic model, preliminary to capitalism, proving he knew ver little history, and that of Rome, not at all!).

This exhausting war, democratic forces against plutocrats on a rampage is still on-going: the French led war against the plutocracy in Libya was nothing else (hey, for once that Sarkozy did something right, we may as well celebrate…) Re-establishing a republic in Syria would be more of that reconquista of democracy…

The feudal order, in turn, led to a split of the Imperium Romanum (Charlemagne’s official name of his 300 counties imperium). Rich Francia went on to reconquer Britain, while the relationship with the rest of the Imperium Romanum became murky. Sometimes differences were settled on the battlefield, sometimes the French king-“emperor in his own kingdom” would support his candidate to lead the Imperium Romanum (the addition of “Sacrum” to “Imperium Romanum” came in a superstitious period, centuries later).

That’s how Barbarossa became emperor: he was the candidate of Louis VII of France who wanted to use him against several of his uppity vassals, such as Savoyards, or Normands, the later ruling over Aquitania, England and much of Italy. Soon the splits turned into outright fragmentation. In Barabarossa’s time the feudal order had broken up Germania in 1600 states! Italy and France were not doing much better, with many independent, or quasi independent nobilities and cities. The French king would support English princes living in France in wars against their father the king living in London, etc.

As European states grew in power, one thing became clear: that growing power could be used for unending, ever growing wars. The (civil) war between France and England lasted nearly 5 centuries (from around 1320 CE to 1815 CE). The war between France and Spain around 150 years (from around 1520 to 1666 CE)… within the later was the 80 years war to create the Netherlands, which used to be the old heart of Francia known as Flanders. And so on.

The mood conducive to conflicts reached its absurd conclusion in 1945. after that a different paradigm was increasingly imposed. It is this paradigm that people such as Krugman try to understand, while not doing a very good job.

Europe is a small place. It has space for just one state, Europe. That is what Caesar thought, and Caesar was right. Caesar, arguably the best general who ever was, was also the chief of the anti-plutocratic party. Not a coincidence. So why did the French socialists set-up the European Monetary Union is a way so friendly to plutocrats? Well, maybe some who went along were just stupid, or corrupt. But maybe some were very clever, and set-up an elaborated trap according to Machiavellianism 101. Now the German mammoth has fallen in the trap. Its struggles are mighty. But in vain.



To the discharge of the French socialists who set-up the EMU, maybe they thought that is all they could get from the Germans, at the time. Now Germany has swallowed the bait, and France’s position, in spite of Sarkozy selling the country to international plutocracy, is stronger than ever. France is the country of the future, Germany the country of the old. France has 35% more young people than Germany. The two most represented age slices in Germany are the scared, fat 50 to 60 year olds Merkel incarnates so well. Mr. Hollande, the socialist French president, has four adult children. Ms. Merkel, clinging to a past she neither master, nor understand, and rules which are beyond her, has no children.

Europe was built mostly by intellectuals who conspired to create situations where the easiest solution would be to “come out by the top“. The Steel and Coal Union between France and Germany (1948) was conceived to make war between France and Germany impossible, and so on.

The French Socialists are now in command of 21 of France’s 22 regions. They also control the French senate, the French National Assembly, the French presidency, and most significant cities. Even 8 of 11 MPs for the French living in foreign countries went to the Socialist Party.

In 1914, as the plutocrats, fascists and militarists in Germany marched towards war, the German SPD and the French socialists planned a general strike. This faltered as Jaures, the intellectual French socialist leader was assassinated. This time, though, as the plutocrats further their conspiracies, the socialists are in total control of France, and can plot the overthrow of the plutocratic order incarnated by Merkel with the SPD, Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands.

Granted, when plutocracy is at bay, plutocracy is at its most dangerous. The real reason the plutocrats in Germany went to war in 1914 is that they felt at bay, hounded by the SPD, which was asking for more power for the parliament. Dubious encouragement from Colonel House (photo therein the link, interesting in other ways too!) persuaded the Kaiser the USA would support him against France, and Germany’s army attacked an astounded world in august 1914.

Well, it won’t happen again. Greece is a victim of plutocratic plots, not of “the euro”, as Krugman would have it. I say plots, in the plural, because the richest people and organizations in Greece made a tax code which excludes them from taxation.

For example, Greek ship magnates own more than 3300 vessels, 15% of the world’s total. They employ 200,000 people, in Greece alone. Shipping is an example of the globalization of plutocracy. As a major shipping plutocrat, Victor Restis, put it:“Sure tax me. Find me.” He means that nobody can find him, as his life style is global, overseas.

Such plutocrats say that, if the European Union tax them, they will go to Dubai and Singapore. I say: it’s time to use force. French, British and American police and the military could find them, worldwide. Satellites and drones can be used. Ships can be impounded. Magnates can be arrested, expropriated, judged, condemned, jailed. Or then they can restrict their trading between China and North Korea.

France, by the way, just judged and condemned Somali pirates, arrested on the ground, by helicopters, within the country of Somalia (not just the high seas). Somalia pirates are easy to avoid; don’t come next to the Horn Of Africa. But financial pirates are worldwide, they cannot be avoided.

Lincoln is revered in the USA, not because he averted his eyes from infamy, but because he used force, in the name of goodness.

Plutocracy also uses force. When the interest rates the Spanish state is forced to pay reach 7.25%, as it did June 18, 2012, force is being used against the Spanish People, thus against Europe (Spain has a much smaller government debt than Germany). It used to be that finance grabbed 8% of the profits. Now it’s 40%.

The French socialist foreign minister, the extremely experienced Laurent Fabius, an ex-PM, has called  Assad of Syria, an “assassin”. The French want to use force in Syria. Very good, once some secular precautions are taken. However, there is an even more crucial need to use force against “le monde de la finance”. As president Hollande said: “My true enemy has no name, no face, no party… He will not be elected, yet he governs. It is the world of finance.”

The state, thus democracy, rests on force, be it only to resist plutocracy. So it has been ever since civilization exists. Time to be reminded of this basic fact.


Patrice Ayme

Boosted By Soros On Europe:

June 7, 2012


Abstract: I agree with much of what Soros said on the bank and currency crisis in Europe. Under his calm language, his indictment of Germany is frightening. I add fuel to the fire, naturlich.

[This is the European centered part of Soros’ discourse.]


  Soros:The fallibility of market participants, regulators, and economists must also be recognized.  A truly dynamic situation cannot be understood by studying multiple equilibria.  We need to study the process of change.

PA: In the case of European Monetary Union (EMU), even the equilibrium analysis was flawed from the start. It is not a question of Europe not being an optimal currency area (as American Europhobic destroyers often have it). It was much more basic than that: the nature of money was misunderstood.

  Soros: The euro crisis is particularly instructive in this regard. It demonstrates the role of misconceptions and a lack of understanding in shaping the course of history. The authorities didn’t understand the nature of the euro crisis; they thought it is a fiscal problem while it is more of a banking problem and a problem of competitiveness.

PA: As Soros himself would say further on, it’s even deeper than that: the possibility of making “fiat money” was denied. Thus European states were cut at the heel. “Fiat Money” goes at the heart of the concepts of money… and state.

There is also a massive corruption problem, and it is not confined to banks. It implicates the very nature of today’s constitutions.

The very nature of representative democracy is to put a lot of power in a few hands. This is also what plutocracy does. Make interact together the very few elected ones with the very few who have a lot of money, boost all of this with the fractional reserve privately money creating banking system, and churns out the rule of wealth, an aspect, with titanic corruption, of plutocracy.

  Soros: And [European Officials] applied the wrong remedy:you cannot reduce the debt burden by shrinking the economy, only by growing your way out of it. The crisis is still growing because of a failure to understand the dynamics of social change; policy measures that could have worked at one point in time were no longer sufficient by the time they were applied.

PA: They applied the wrong remedy deliberately. Merkel, Sarkozy and the Brussels’ fauna are in cahoots with the private financial pirates; they are their legal arm. All they wanted to do is that their friends, the pirates, recover their principal, after squeezing hard enough the colonized. So they set-up an aid system nominally for the latter, but, truly for their bankster friends. 

The delay in the correct measures was also deliberate. The allies of plutocratic banks (Merkel, Sarkozy, Barroso, etc.), have used it as a tactic to do nothing.

Always doing too little, too late, is an efficient way to do nothing, while claiming one meant well. Let’s not be fooled by Merkler and her kind.

The basic, deliberate flaw at the base of the EMU, is to make money creation a plutocratic affair. It would have emerged anyway. It emerged now, because we have a plutocratic bubble.

That bubble, in turn, was caused by the arrogance consecutive to the Bush-Obama(-Blair-Sarkozy-“Citizens-United”) years, when the plutocrats’ influence has started to look unimpeachable, and this once-in-a-civilization chance to grab power once and for all has made them frantic! 

The same happened after 150 BCE in Rome. Then, the plutocrats won, and Rome started its long decline. This time the decline is guaranteed to be short and brutish.   

  Soros; Since the euro crisis is currently exerting an overwhelming influence on the global economy I shall devote the rest of my talk to it. I must start with a warning: the discussion will take us beyond the confines of economic theory into politics and the dynamics of social change. But my conceptual framework based on the twin pillars of fallibility and reflexivity still applies. Reflexivity doesn’t always manifest itself in the form of bubbles. The reflexive interplay between imperfect markets and imperfect authorities goes on all the time while bubbles occur only infrequently. This is a rare occasion when the interaction exerts such a large influence that it casts its shadow on the global economy. How could this happen? My answer is that there is a bubble involved, after all, but it is not a financial but a political one. It relates to the political evolution of the European Union and it has led me to the conclusion that the euro crisis threatens to destroy the European Union. Let me explain.

PA: Agreed that there is a political bubble. But to say there was not a financial bubble is, simply false. The financial bubbles in Greece, Ireland and Spain were blatant. So was a general real estate bubble. For years, decent, hard working upper middle class people could not afford to live decently in the world’s most expensive cities, although those concentrated much of the GDP of the world (this is an allusion to New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, among others). So the main producers of added value work could not afford to live where they added the value, making the West’s economy inefficient (and society unjust).

Actually there is even, worldwide, a plutocratic bubble, the one Soros does not want to see. But I agree with him that the European Union is threatened at this point. Mountainous decisions have to be taken in days, in a system made to produce a few mice in a decade.

  Soros: I contend that the European Union itself is like a bubble. In the boom phase the EU was what the psychoanalyst David Tuckett calls a “fantastic object” – unreal but immensely attractive. The EU was the embodiment of an open society –an association of nations founded on the principles of democracy, human rights, and rule of law in which no nation or nationality would have a dominant position. 

PA: Although I see what he is trying to say, Soros is starting to thread very dangerous ground here. The European Union has to be, or there will be another war. It is not a bubble, it is the main weapon against insanity.

Europe is not a “fantastic object’, it is a necessity.

  Soros: The process of integration was spearheaded by a small group of far sighted statesmen who practiced what Karl Popper called piecemeal social engineering. They recognized that perfection is unattainable; so they set limited objectives and firm timelines and then mobilized the political will for a small step forward, knowing full well that when they achieved it, its inadequacy would become apparent and require a further step. The process fed on its own success, very much like a financial bubble. That is how the Coal and Steel Community was gradually transformed into the European Union, step by step.

Germany used to be in the forefront of the effort.

PA: Sort of. Although German politicians used to be in the forefront of the effort in the 1920s, after Germany fell into Nazism, it was of course unable to lead mentally. If nothing else, Nazism had decapitated Germany. Instead, after the Nazi disaster, Germany followed the lead of French statesmen, who had brandished the olive branch (say by not insisting to recover the entire West bank of the Rhine; the same generosity was mysteriously applied to Italy, although clearly major ex-French speaking parts of Italy such as Val D’Aoste, and next to Turin, used to be part of French speaking Savoy, and, after Mussolini’s forced Italianization could/should have very well be annexed!).

One can observe Soros’ drift into anti-European, pro-plutocratic and (implicit) anti-French bias. All students of the early European Union know that Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, two Frenchmen, played the leading roles, and the German role consisted mainly to salute the French led effort, and goose-step behind it. The tables of collaboration had been turned around.

Many surviving Nazi generals knew all too well that they got incredibly lucky in 1940, and had been in excellent position to observe the self defeating nature of the war against France. So, although still influential in German society (!), in the 1950s, they pushed for the symbiosis with France, that Hitler himself, at Speer’s urging, had to admit had to happen. That drove Hitler to many a feat of rage.

But if even Hitler had to collaborate with France, the country that he hated so much, how could any German refuse to collaborate with France?

If Hitler had to collaborate with France, then why did he start the war? Hitler obviously felt. The answer, as the Nazis insisted at Nuremberg is that it was France, not Germany, which had started the war. Well, France had to start the war, it was a question of civilization, and the proof was Auschwitz.

Hitler and Rommel had admitted earlier that the French strategically destroyed the Afrikakorps at Bir Hakeim (don’t believe what all Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia says about it; they quote from some vengeful Nazi). The resistance at Bir Hakeim to the fury of the entire Afrika Korps deprived it from its only chance to surrender and destroy the British army protecting the Middle East. The scythe move in the desert before Tobruk, was blocked by the tiny army of (ironically named) general Koenig.

By the time of this strategic French victory (May-June 1942) the Americans had not fired one shot against the Nazis yet. If Israel exists today, it’s thank to Bir Hakeim. OK, back to our Jewish survivor here.

  Soros: When the Soviet empire started to disintegrate, Germany’s leaders realized that reunification was possible only in the context of a more united Europe and they were willing to make considerable sacrifices to achieve it. 

PA: Soros here is starting to get really crafty. He knows very well that what he says he is not true: it’s the French (and, especially Mitterrand, who I do not like, but was right on that) who insisted upon the Euro, in exchange for supporting Germany’s reunification. As Mitterrand had (unlawfully?) financed his good friend Kanzler Kohl’s re-election, it was hard to say no. The French idea was precisely to make European Unification impossible to reverse.

(Mitterrand used similar methods on Thatcher, by supporting her crucially for the Malouines/Falkland war, he extracted from her the Chunnel and the Single European Act…)

So why is Soros lying? Because he is trying to put in sharp contrast the alleged wisdom of Germans in the 1990s versus the sort of neo-Nazism we are now condemn to contemplate the apparent rise of. Here we have the spectacle of a Jew, Soros, being too crafty by half, and much too polite with proto-fascism, the sort of process philosopher Hannah Arendt, also a Jew, loudly, and justly,  decried in the 1930s and 1940s.

  Soros: When it came to bargaining they were willing to contribute a little more and take a little less than the others, thereby facilitating agreement.  At that time, German statesmen used to assert that Germany has no independent foreign policy, only a European one.

PA: That’s the least Germans could do, after fostering, for a century, a policy of systematic assault against other nations, starting with a war against Denmark in 1864. This policy was ended by force, in an action started by France (leading) and Britain (following belatedly), on September 1, 1939 (Ultimatum to Germany) and ended May 8, 1945 (capitulation without condition of said Germany. Now some Germans are saying they are tired of the “Nazi blackmail”. Well, then, they should not practice it, again.  

  Soros: The process culminated with the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the euro. It was followed by a period of stagnation which, after the crash of 2008, turned into a process of disintegration. The first step was taken by Germany when, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Angela Merkel declared that the virtual guarantee extended to other financial institutions should come from each country acting separately, not by Europe acting jointly. It took financial markets more than a year to realize the implication of that declaration, showing that they are not perfect.

The Maastricht Treaty was fundamentally flawed, demonstrating the fallibility of the authorities. Its main weakness was well known to its architects: it established a monetary union without a political union.

PA: This is true, but that was a deliberate plan, to force unification from the top down.

There was an more proximal flaw. As created the European Central Bank was deprived of many fundamental powers that all other central banks have had, since there are central banks. (The first central bank was the Bank of England, with a tight relation to the financing of the Royal Navy, followed later by the Banque de France.)

In general, sovereigns have always struck coinage. However, under Dutch (highly leveraged) influence (“Glorious Revolution”, 1688, truly an invasion), Britain set-up a highly leveraged plutocratic system, the fractional reserve. (That it is plutocratic was observed by the Rothschild themselves, who were at the core of it.)  

  Soros: The architects believed however, that when the need arose the political will could be generated to take the necessary steps towards a political union.

PA: The main architect was the French, Jacques Delors, a socialist and loud Christian. He amplified thus the system put in place by French banker, Rothschild servant, and also French president, George Pompidou. A law of 1973 outlawed the financing of the French state by its central bank (something all other central banks do). Instead the French state had to go to plutocrats to beg for money.

As leveraged banks are truly state institutions, this established a further control of the French state, hence Europe (after the European Monetary Union), by private individuals, the bankers.  

  Soros: But the euro also had some other defects of which the architects were unaware and which are not fully understood even today.

PA: Those architects claimed to be socialist, while ruling that banks would rule thereafter. In other words, if they were not arrogant idiots, they were deeply corrupt (yes, I am talking about Delors… somebody I long viewed as a European hero, and now looks more like a European horror!)

  Soros: In retrospect it is now clear that the main source of trouble is that the member states of the euro have surrendered to the european central bank their rights TO CREATE FIAT MONEY. They did not realize what that entails – and neither did the European authorities.

PA: Not just that: the power of the ECB to create fiat money is ALSO very restricted (it cannot be lent to states directly, governors can’t be overruled, etc.) As it is, it left only the plutocrats with the power to create, through private banks, money in Europe.

As I already said, can one be that idiotic without being deeply corrupt?

Money is nothing without a state. A state is nothing if it cannot project power, and this it is does through military power, first of all, and financial power, when it is in a good mood. The stick, and the carrot. The way the EMU was set-up, there was not carrot in control of the state, the carrot was in control of wealthy people and their managers. Nor was there a stick. And the state does not really exist, either.

  Soros: When the euro was introduced the regulators allowed banks to buy unlimited amounts of government bonds without setting aside any equity capital; and the central bank accepted all government bonds at its discount window on equal terms. Commercial banks found it advantageous to accumulate the bonds of the weaker euro members in order to earn a few extra basis points. That is what caused interest rates to converge which in turn caused competitiveness to diverge. Germany, struggling with the burdens of reunification, undertook structural reforms and became more competitive. Other countries enjoyed housing and consumption booms on the back of cheap credit, making them less competitive. Then came the crash of 2008 which created conditions that were far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty. Many governments had to shift bank liabilities on to their own balance sheets and engage in massive deficit spending. These countries found themselves in the position of a third world country that had become heavily indebted in a currency that it did not control. Due to the divergence in economic performance Europe became divided between creditor and debtor countries. This is having far reaching political implications to which I will revert.

PA: Perfect analysis, nothing to add.

  Soros: It took some time for the financial markets to discover that government bonds which had been considered riskless are subject to speculative attack and may actually default; but when they did, risk premiums rose dramatically.

PA: Soros is admitting here implicitly the culpability of money changers (such as hedge funds… there are 20,000 of those; one, failed for being on the wrong side of trades in Italian government bonds; it was headed by J. Corzine ex-gov of New jersey, ex-head of Goldman Sachs… Billions disappeared mysteriously…)

  Soros: This [speculative attacks] rendered commercial banks whose balance sheets were loaded with those bonds potentially insolvent. And that constituted the two main components of the problem confronting us today: a sovereign debt crisis and a banking crisis which are closely interlinked.

The eurozone is now repeating what had often happened in the global financial system. There is a close parallel between the euro crisis and the international banking crisis that erupted in 1982. Then the international financial authorities did whatever was necessary to protect the banking system: they inflicted hardship on the periphery in order to protect the center. Now Germany and the other creditor countries are unknowingly playing the same role.

PA: Once again, for pedagogical and diplomatic reasons, Soros is extravagantly polite with the German authorities. There is no way they do not understand that they are destroying Europe. (…And helping Putin’s Russia. BTW, Merkler speaks Russian.)

  Soros: The details differ but the idea is the same: the creditors are in effect shifting the burden of adjustment on to the debtor countries and avoiding their own responsibility for the imbalances. Interestingly, the terms “center” and “periphery” have crept into usage almost unnoticed. Just as in the 1980’s all the blame and burden is falling on the “periphery” and the responsibility of the “center” has never been properly acknowledged.  Yet in the euro crisis the responsibility of the center is even greater than it was in 1982. The “center” is responsible for designing a flawed system, enacting flawed treaties, pursuing flawed policies and always doing too little too late. In the 1980’s Latin America suffered a lost decade; a similar fate now awaits Europe. That is the responsibility that Germany and the other creditor countries need to acknowledge. But there is no sign of this happening.

The European authorities had little understanding of what was happening. They were prepared to deal with fiscal problems but only Greece qualified as a fiscal crisis; the rest of Europe suffered from a banking crisis and a divergence in competitiveness which gave rise to a balance of payments crisis. The authorities did not even understand the nature of the problem, let alone see a solution. So they tried to buy time.

Usually that works. Financial panics subside and the authorities realize a profit on their intervention. But not this time because the financial problems were reinforced by a process of political disintegration. While the European Union was being created, the leadership was in the forefront of further integration; but after the outbreak of the financial crisis the authorities became wedded to preserving the status quo.

PA: Merkozy caused a lot of damage, in other words.

  Soros: This has forced all those who consider the status quo unsustainable or intolerable into an anti-European posture. That is the political dynamic that makes the disintegration of the European Union just as self-reinforcing as its creation has been.  That is the political bubble I was talking about.

At the onset of the crisis a breakup of the euro was inconceivable: the assets and liabilities denominated in a common currency were so intermingled that a breakup would have led to an uncontrollable meltdown. But as the crisis progressed the financial system has been progressively reordered along national lines. This trend has gathered momentum in recent months. The Long Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO) undertaken by the European Central Bank enabled Spanish and Italian banks to engage in a very profitable and low risk arbitrage by buying the bonds of their own countries. And other investors have been actively divesting themselves of the sovereign debt of the periphery countries.

If this continued for a few more years a break-up of the euro would become possible without a meltdown – the omelet could be unscrambled – but it would leave the central banks of the creditor countries with large claims against the central banks of the debtor countries which would be difficult to collect. This is due to an arcane problem in the euro clearing system called Target2. In contrast to the clearing system of the Federal Reserve, which is settled annually, Target2 accumulates the imbalances. This did not create a problem as long as the interbank system was functioning because the banks settled the imbalances themselves through the interbank market. But the interbank market has not functioned properly since 2007 and the banks relied increasingly on the Target system. And since the summer of 2011 there has been increasing capital flight from the weaker countries. So the imbalances grew exponentially. By the end of March this year the Bundesbank had claims of some 660 billion euros against the central banks of the periphery countries.

The Bundesbank has become aware of the potential danger. It is now engaged in a campaign against the indefinite expansion of the money supply and it has started taking measures to limit the losses it would sustain in case of a breakup. This is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the Bundesbank starts guarding against a breakup everybody will have to do the same.

PA: Yes, Germany is rotting at the head, and it’s not just the heads of Chancellor Merkel and her government.  Launching a self fulfilling prophecy of evil is no small matter, morally speaking.

  Soros: This [a self-fulfilling prophecy of breaking up] is already happening. Financial institutions are increasingly reordering their European exposure along national lines just in case the region splits apart. Banks give preference to shedding assets outside their national borders and risk managers try to match assets and liabilities within national borders rather than within the eurozone as a whole. The indirect effect of this asset-liability matching is to reinforce the deleveraging process and to reduce the availability of credit, particularly to the small and medium enterprises which are the main source of employment.

So the crisis is getting ever deeper. Tensions in financial markets have risen to new highs as shown by the historic low yield on Bunds. Even more telling is the fact that the yield on British 10 year bonds has never been lower in its 300 year history while the risk premium on Spanish bonds is at a new high.

The real economy of the eurozone is declining while Germany is still booming. This means that the divergence is getting wider. The political and social dynamics are also working toward disintegration. Public opinion as expressed in recent election results is increasingly opposed to austerity and this trend is likely to grow until the policy is reversed. So something has to give.

In my judgment the authorities have a three months’ window during which they could still correct their mistakes and reverse the current trends. BY THE AUTHORITIES I MEAN MAINLY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND THE BUNDESBANK because in a crisis the creditors are in the driver’s seat and nothing can be done without German support.

PA: Europe is so organized that one country can block everything if so determined. However, even Thatcher’s Britain never did this. That Germany is thus cornering Europe, on the first real threat that European integration faces in 65 years, is astounding, considering history.

  Soros: I expect that the Greek public will be sufficiently frightened by the prospect of expulsion from the European Union that it will give a narrow majority of seats to a coalition that is ready to abide by the current agreement. But no government can meet the conditions so that the Greek crisis is liable to come to a climax in the fall. By that time the German economy will also be weakening so that Chancellor Merkel will find it even more difficult than today to persuade the German public to accept any additional European responsibilities. That is what creates a three months’ window.

Correcting the mistakes and reversing the trend would require some extraordinary policy measures to bring conditions back closer to normal, and bring relief to the financial markets and the banking system. These measures must, however, conform to the existing treaties. The treaties could then be revised in a calmer atmosphere so that the current imbalances will not recur. It is difficult but not impossible to design some extraordinary measures that would meet these tough requirements. They would have to tackle simultaneously the banking problem and the problem of excessive government debt, because these problems are interlinked. Addressing one without the other, as in the past, will not work.

Banks need a European deposit insurance scheme in order to stem the capital flight. They also need direct financing by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) which has to go hand-in-hand with eurozone-wide supervision and regulation. The heavily indebted countries need relief on their financing costs. There are various ways to provide it but they all need the active support of the Bundesbank and the German government.

PA: Even the famous anti-European magazine “The Economist” said as much about all the preceding.

By the way, there is more than 1.1 trillion dollars ready to help (before leverage), allowed by existing treaties. However, let’s notice that, in spite of funds being at the ready, and dedicated for Greece’s research and high education, they have not been disbursed for two years. So, it’s not because the money is here, that Germany will allow to use it. Is Germany deliberately trying to sabotage Europe?

  Soros: That is where the blockage is [Germany]. The authorities are working feverishly to come up with a set of proposals in time for the European summit at the end of this month. Based on the current newspaper reports the measures they will propose will cover all the bases I mentioned but they will offer only the minimum on which the various parties can agree while what is needed is a convincing commitment to reverse the trend. That means the measures will again offer some temporary relief but the trends will continue. But we are at an inflection point.  After the expiration of the three months’ window the markets will continue to demand more but the authorities will not be able to meet their demands.

It is impossible to predict the eventual outcome. As mentioned before, the gradual reordering of the financial system along national lines could make an orderly breakup of the euro possible in a few years’ time and, if it were not for the social and political dynamics, one could imagine a common market without a common currency. But the trends are clearly non-linear and an earlier breakup is bound to be disorderly. It would almost certainly lead to a collapse of the Schengen Treaty, the common market, and the European Union itself. (It should be remembered that there is an exit mechanism for the European Union but not for the euro.) Unenforceable claims and unsettled grievances would leave Europe worse off than it was at the outset when the project of a united Europe was conceived.

PA: After so much insanity deployed and allowed to rampage, the British and French military budgets will also have to be cranked up… To insure that further insanity is contained, looking forward, all the more since, as in the 1920s and 1930s, Germany is flirting with the dictators of Russia.

  Soros: But the likelihood is that the euro will survive because A BREAKUP WOULD BE DEVASTATING NOT ONLY FOR THE PERIPHERY BUT ALSO FOR GERMANY.

PA: However, Hitler started a war, just so that he could lose, as Salvador Dali pointed out. A country with a culture so idiotic and criminal that it could develop Nazism, over several generations, as the great philosopher Nietzsche pointed out at the outset, is perfectly capable to keep on acting dramatically against its own interests, just in the hope of punishing everybody.

Punishing everybody, that’s what Germany did in 1914, and 1939, launching wars it had no moral right, nor reason, to wage, and a quasi zero probability of winning without enormous devastation to itself.

Maybe Germans like so much to be the bad guys and to lose, they want an encore?

  Soros: It would leave Germany with large unenforceable claims against the periphery countries. The Bundesbank alone will have over a trillion euros of claims arising out of Target2 by the end of this year, in addition to all the intergovernmental obligations. And a return to the Deutschemark would likely price Germany out of its export markets – not to mention the political consequences. So Germany is likely to do what is necessary to preserve the euro – but nothing more. That would result in a eurozone dominated by Germany in which the divergence between the creditor and debtor countries would continue to widen and the periphery would turn into permanently depressed areas in need of constant transfer of payments. That would turn the European Union into something very different from what it was when it was a “fantastic object” that fired peoples imagination. It would be a German empire with the periphery as the hinterland.

PA: Soros is 100% wrong here. There will be no German empire. Germany is completely delusional and delirious at this point. German domination of Europe will not happen, because German culture is on its way out, whereas French culture is on its way up.

France rests on universalism, Germany on tribalism. Just to get the workers it needs, Germany is forced to draft non Germans into tribal Germany.

Let me explain more: in 1940, France had less than 40 million inhabitants, and Germany more than 80 millions. Nowadays, France has 66 millions, and her population augments by 350,000/year, internally (no immigration, thanks to the ferocious and ungrateful Sarkozy, now eliminated). These 350,000 new French a year are real French of fangs and claws, not the imported kind.

Whereas, even with significant immigration, the German population is decreasing. A fiortiori, the part of Germany of genuine German culture, so to speak.

Already now there are 30% more young French people than young German people (and, as I hinted, many of the latter are not really of issued from German culture). Merkel herself had no children. Her nasty cultural disposition will not be passed to her children.

German median age is 5 years older than the French (although the French live two years longer).

Verily, part of the senile reaction of Germany to the Euro crisis is directly imputable to Germany’s aging and scared behavior.

  Soros: I believe most of us would find that objectionable but I have a great deal of sympathy with Germany in its present predicament. The German public cannot understand why a policy of structural reforms and fiscal austerity that worked for Germany a decade ago will not work Europe today.

PA: Soros is right, “most of us would find” that sympathy for Germany should be limited. In some ways Germany is a plutocracy led by rich Mittelstand owners. I know some. Those mini plutocrats are the kings and queens of Germany. They work the little people hard, while scaring them with destitution. Those who know history will be reminded of the old landed aristocracy, especially of the Prussian type, which was a major, probably the major factor, in the rise of German fascism and racism (craftily, their tool, Hitler, electorally campaigned against them)

There is no minimum hourly wage in Germany. The states force some of the poorest people to work for one Euro an hour.

  Soros: Germany then could enjoy an export led recovery but the eurozone today is caught in a deflationary debt trap. The German public does not see any deflation at home; on the contrary, wages are rising and there are vacancies for skilled jobs which are eagerly snapped up by immigrants from other European countries. Reluctance to invest abroad and the influx of flight capital are fueling a real estate boom. Exports may be slowing but employment is still rising. In these circumstances it would require an extraordinary effort by the German government to convince the German public to embrace the extraordinary measures that would be necessary to reverse the current trend. And they have only a three months’ window in which to do it.

We need to do whatever we can to convince Germany to show leadership and preserve the European Union as the fantastic object that it used to be. The future of Europe depends on it.

PA: The future of peace, too. To believe that a fractious Europe, after such a stab in the back, the deliberate destruction of the European Union by Germany, would stay long at peace, is delusional. In any case, socialist France has already constituted a vast coalition, and, differently from 1939, Spain (conservative), Italy (conservative), and the USA (more to the right than any European country) are in it. Even Britain is scared out of its wits that German driven selfishness will drag it further down the abyss.

So what are German officials thinking of? (Besides the desire to self destroy?) Well, the siren song of the ex-KGB officer, Putin, is obvious in the distance. Putin is trying to seduce Germany, which gets already all its gas from there (more than 22% of total German energy usage). The mutual seduction between Germany and Russia in the 1920s and 1930s had a deplorable effect on both, a mutual feedback loop of brutish behavior.

Brutish behavior is what we see today when Bundesbank officials talk as if they ruled Greece. They don’t. What is happening in Greece, as Soros said, is more the fault of the creditor countries than Greece’s. The aid programs to Greece have been, truly, mostly aid programs to non Greek banks which financed their friends in Greece (often plutocrats they had dirty deals with).

The arrogant, offensive and injurious attitude of so many German officials shows that those who did not learn humility from history cannot be trusted.

So are we back in the 1920s and 1930s? Is the collaboration between Germany and Wall $treet based plutocracy back on the front burner? (It sure sounds that way; major Wall $treet banks, such as JP Morgan, have come out with astounding pieces of propaganda, as a reader kindly informed me)

Are we back in the 1920s and 1930s? … When Germany was secretly plotting, and training with Stalinist Russia? That blossomed in the formal alliance in 1939, of the USSR and Nazi Germany, in a vain attempt to block France’s thirst for justice.

So is Merkel working for the Putin, that is for the KGB, or Goldman Sachs and its ilk? Both maybe? Like Hitler, in the end, rather ironically, did? (The Fuehrer basically said so himself in his political testament…)

There are very good reasons to suspect all these schemes, and they will be further divulgated soon. It would be all very funny, if it were not so disconcerting.


Patrice Ayme


May 19, 2012


Abstract: Thereafter some inconvenient background for the G8 at Camp David. Hating the Greeks under the pretext of austerity? Who does that Merkler take herself for?

Hitler started his career in 1920 as a pawn of the antijewish plutocrat Henry Ford, and Dr H. Schacht, himself a pawn of JP Morgan. By turning the Peoples of Europe into the serfs of banksters, and of some the world’s richest, and most evil men, Merkel is pursuing a similar project. Thus she is morphing into Hitler, Time magazine Man of the Year of 1938.

Some will scream: “Merkel into Merkler? Not so, are you crazy? Merkel does not hate Jews!” Well, maybe she does not hate Jews, but she sure does act as if she hated the Greeks. To death, literally. And soon, all other Europeans, with the same machine she is killing Greeks with.

Hitler was viewed by most, until 1938, as a saint and a genius. Did not he bring the Volkswagen? VW is doing very well, indeed, and maybe all too well (it now owns Porsche, which founded it, at Hitler’s urging, and some localities in Greece buy more of the most expensive Porsche… Than anywhere else in the world… An indication, among many, that Greece corruption is partly tied in to some Teutonic manipulations).

The evidence is that Germany profitted most from the present European Monetary Union. So why does it now want those who profitted less to commit socio-economic suicide, after living on their knees?

Things changed with Hitler in 1939, when France’s call to arms against Hitler bore fruit. In any case, the mechanism is exactly the same as in the 1930s: a plutocratic machine of some of the world’s richest men is devouring all in the way, and the German Chancellor finds righteous reason to enforce that disgusting repast.

(Speaking of righteous, Germany did not pay reparations to Greece after WWII commensurate with the devastation and occupation it visited on that country: a few dozen millions, when the reality is more like a trillion.)



Hitler advertized himself as a man of peace. Was not he following the analysis and implied prescriptions of Keynes in “The Economic Consequences Of Peace“? Keynes decried the Versailles Treaty. Keynes had observed in 1919 that France insisted to make Eastern Europe independent of Germany. Thus French obstinacy (re)created the nations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc… This, observed Keynes, was a threat to the great German Reich, and thus to peace. Hitler, comforted by creatures such as H. Schacht, head of the German Central Bank, but, more fundamentally, a pawn of JP Morgan, knew that American industrialists and bankers would support him.

Hitler, the man of peace, the man who was screaming about peace, was also strongly supported by the Pope Pie XII, and by Gandhi (who tried his best to block the vote to allow India to join Britain and France against Hitler). Most Germans supported Hitler, because they felt it was righteous to recover huge territories to the east that Germany used to possess, or control. When they understood that France would have none of it, and had stiffened the spines of Britain, and then Poland, instead of killing Hitler, as was their moral duty, the Germans persevered in their diabolical error, a hopeless war, fought all the way inside German cities in 1945.



So now what? We have an insane system for the European Monetary Union. The problem is not the fact that there is a single currency as all too many American partisans (Krugman, etc.) persisted to claim all too long (in all justice, Krugman has become more subtle recently… some of the time).

The pain of the People is the pleasure of plutocrats. The flaw of the EMU is that sovereign states are supposed to borrow from private bankers. The states are like pigeons, begging for crumbs from Dimon and other daemons… The existing EMU is an institution of plutocracy (rule of wealth) to finance… democracy (which is what Europe is supposed to be!)

The private banks get money at 1% from the ECB, and lend it back at enormous rates to the sovereign states… Which have no choice, but to borrow more as the old debt rolls out.

So the banksters right now charge according to their good pleasure; 1.42% for Germany (ten year), 1.72% for France, and above 5% or 6% for Spain and Italy.
… And up to above 100% for Greece. That is why the Greek debt skyrocketed! Because of the conspiracy of the world’s richest men… Literally. As I said in the preceding essay, the (apparently criminal) Buffet rigged the game, holding and owning all positions of all the main actors. Buffet, of course, is best friend with his admirer Obama and his collaborator and accomplice Bill Gates (whose Foundation feeds Monsanto, etc.) The vultures are not so many, they all know each other.



So who does the leader of Germany accuse for the exploding interest rates? The Greek People today, and tomorrow, obviously, everybody else. Did she learn anything from the Nazis’ gory death?

Did Hitler realize how universally despised and hated a character he had turned into? When did the Germans realize they had elected a monster? When did they realize they had launched abominable policies? 1945?

When Angela Merkel became Chancellor, she extended the policies of her socialist predecessor, Schroeder. Zehr gut. Then she instituted Kurzarbeit, a distinctly socialist policy, infused with central planning and state intervention. She boosted state spending by 10% (an enormous stimulus). With the inner devaluation of lowering charges on companies, and an increased Added Value Tax, she was able to confer an advantage to Germany from the 2008 financial crisis. Zehr gut again.

Having thus injected the German economy with steroids, selling a lot of goods and projects to the European periphery, which could not afford them, was part of the German superiority trick, and the largest private banks in Europe were some of the agents which made it so. Those should be punished. Instead, they are rewarded by the ECB.

Massive bank bankruptcies threatened. The sovereign states stepped in, and are now themselves threatened with bankruptcies. At that point the not so good Kanzler comes finally forward to say “Nein!”. It would be funny, if it were theater.

Now here comes Merkler’s finance minister, from the depth of his wheelchair. “If Greece does not respect her engagements, she will have to get out of the Eurozone!” What a tyrannical clown! Let me remind the minister that he should not talk as if he were in Hitler’s government. He cannot order Greece around.  That was the sort of thing Hitler used to do. Aber Kanzler Hitler is kaput. Precisely because he barked out illigitimate orders.

Just as the Greek state is deprived of the ability to borrow money from a central bank, Germany is deprived of any legal or constitutional means to order Greece around.

Merkel’s finance minister has the reputation of being very pro-European. He should learn the notion that it’s not because a country is big, that a country is right. If that’s as much of a European as the Merkel government can have, a pity it’s not out yet, to join Sarkozy in the Walhalla of the pro-plutocracy party.



In a secluded neighborhood I know very well on the French Riviera, villas used to be worth hundreds of thousands of euros. Now a villa is being built, for 40 million euros. By a Belgian banker. He had the construction company and landscaping come from Belgium. Recently the largest Franco-Belgian bank, Dexia went bankrupt, and France and Belgium paid billions to keep its remnants afloat. As presidential candidate Romney just pointed out about JP Morgan losing billions in derivatives recently: it’s all very good, because it’s someone else’s gain.

In other words, French and Belgian taxpayers lost billions, and the money apparently allow Belgian financiers to drive up real estate prices in the plushest areas.

Thus, all over the world.



Does Merkel know she may turn into Merkler? After losing in Germany, even in Germany, nine elections in a row, she does not seem to get the message from the People. She obviously does not want to. Errare Humanum Est, Perseverare Diabolicum.

The Kanzlerin is busy, instead, pushing her own message. Balance budgets, submit to the iron rule of the plutocratically corrupted EMU. Never mind that, when Germany was in economic difficulty a few years back, it was the first to violate the European Monetary Union deficit rules!

Never mind that budgets cannot be balanced, as the largest item are now interest payments, and those are fixed by the thugs who build 40 million dollars villas from taxpayer money.

What is that iron rule of the EMU? That banks ought to rule. Austerity insures that the rule of the PRIVATE banks is sustainable. It’s all about banks.

What does that mean “the rule of the PRIVATE banks”? It means the rule of wealth, plutocracy. To make plutocracy sustainable is what Hitler failed to do. Time for an encore?

The Peoples of Europe are increasingly guessing that there is something wrong in this picture. They incline towards a fundamental rethink. But that does not mean that it will happen. Indeed, few of the leaders are exposing the fundaments. The American left is operating hand in hand with American plutocracy, pushing the vision of destroying Europe, supposedly to fix it.

A democracy is a state, and a state, especially a state of law, is, first of all, a state of force. No force, no law. By not replying in kind with those who want to destroy her, Europe has become accomplice in her own destruction.

Merkel could say, at this point:”I told you so. I apply force on Greece, and that is the law.” Right, Merkel, you are doing that, and an Iron Chancellor, wings dripping with molten iron, just passed by. You just forgot you have no democratic mandate to do so. Actually the mandate you are trying to enforce is distinctly plutocratic.



What’s a state? It’s, first of all, a military fact. An army controls an area. The army defines the state. Or then states with large military power collide, and small fragmentary states are in between (small states without armies are either in the middle of nowhere, or collaborate with larger states, such as the numerous states which helped Hitler: Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland-Belgium (prior to May 10, 1940), etc.).

Money is a device to transmit power from its ruler to rest of the house the state inhabits. Money is not necessary to transmit power, bullets can do fine. Just ask Stalin. However, money is the easiest, and most efficient way to use stick and carrot throughout society, because it appeals to the full panoply of fear and greed.

Stalin was mostly interested to decimate his own country, so that the haggard, terrorized survivors would obey with more enthusiasm to him than the Nazis did to Hitler… Decimation was a method well known of the Roman generals.

In particular, money can empower the free market. Whereas an army is necessary to define a state, the free market is a luxury, a dispensable tool of the state.

The European Union was led by French socialists who, during the 1980s, were anxious to show that they were appreciative of bankers and Germans. They established a European Monetary Union in which  money was controlled by private bankers. That pleased to no end the City of London and Wall $treet (let alone the sponsors of the late French president Pompidou).

This is of course all wrong. The democratic chain of implication: People > State > Money was broken, because, in the EU, Money > State. This was also the implication under Hitler. This is the implication Merkler finds natural.

Simple people do not have to be punished because giant banks invested with their friends, and all the money was lost… to their friends. (OK, not really lost, as Rommney unwittingly pointed out, just transferred from the People, to his friends.)



One has to change the way the EMU works, right away. Sovereign states ought to have access to money to make their economies functional, as needed.

Sovereign states cannot beg plutocrats for crumbs, as if they were pigeons, as they do with the present EMU. Indeed, that very act of begging contradicts the notion of sovereignty. Germany should be warned that it is, once again, standing in the way of peace and prosperity in Europe. And that this time one will not wait 20 years to strike back.

Germany could of course say:”Oh, well, if you take it like that, we Germans will deal with Putin, who has been very friendly to us.” Once again, that’s nothing new. Friendship and business with Russia’s old demons was the route taken by Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Germany had a discrete, but deep alliance, including a military alliance with Stalin,  until 1939, when it became loud, clear, and abominably efficient.

Let me remind the crazy Kanzlerin that the old ways did not work too well: ten percent of Germany got killed, and much German territory is forever gone. Time for a bit more imagination, and artistic creativity.

History threatens to repeat itself. Time to interrupt it. Rudely. I hope that essay was rude enough. But, if not, I can do better.


Patrice Ayme


The Axis occupation of Greece killed between 5% and 12% of the population (as Americans and British instituted a civil war against Greece after 1945, the records have been hard to keep).

The Greek National Council for Reparations from Germany reports the following casualties during the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II. Military dead: 35,077 including, 13,327 killed in the Greco-Italian War of 1940–41; 1,100 with the Greek Forces in the Mid East and 20,650 partisan deaths. Civilian Deaths: 771,845 including: 56,225 executed by Axis forces; 105,000 dead in German concentration camps (including Jews); 7,120 deaths due to bombing, 3,500 merchant marine dead, and 600,000 war related famine deaths. Greek Jews assassinated, with their property stolen, totaled 69,500.