Posts Tagged ‘European Union’

Brexit Vote Killing Brexit Mood

June 28, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 50 of the European Union Constitution, Lisbon Treaty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe is a matter of war, not trade.

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

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

June 19, 2016

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Europe Trapped By Masochism, Intellectual Laziness?

January 5, 2015

Greece, Euro, Algerian FNL, Colonialism, Bullying, Whining and Depression.

Syriza, a Party in Greece, threatens to win elections on January 25. Its leader has announced Syriza was not a danger for Europe, but that Merkel was. His views are those I long held within these pages. “To Save The World, Devalue!”

Some Germans, claiming to have talked with officials, uttered that Greece could leave the Euro. Why don’t those Germans mind their business? The Euro is Greek money. Greeks want to keep their money.

Meanwhile Lithuania adopted the Euro. All European countries are supposed to adopt the Euro. Even the Swiss Frank is locked to it (and is going down accordingly).

If Germans want a clean Europe, they can accept the official French proposal to create a European Banking Union, the equivalent of the FDIC of the USA. Conservative Germans are not anxious to do this.

Indeed the German Landbanks, the local banks, crucial to finance the German “Mittelstand”, the middle companies, are bankrupt, and live on accommodations with the authorities. In other words; disguised subsidies.

“Austerity” in Europe means not enough money to operate the economy. Let Syriza bite Merkel’s well fed derriere!

Euro Still Way Too High:

Politics, when not totally democratic, can be absolutely Machiavellian. The Euro reached 1.45 dollars, a few years ago. Clearly it should rather be half that.

Based on the very long range equivalence of the French Franc with the Dollar, the Euro was made to be worth one Dollar. However, the economy of the USA has been much stronger, for years. Thus the Euro should be lower than its lowest level ever (when Germany was in trouble, a decade ago). That was 83 Dollar cents.

A way out of the European crisis is to boost the economy and lower the Debt/GDP by lowering the Euro. This has been zehr klar, for years. After the article in Der Spiegel saying Berlin wanted to expel Greece (which cannot be constitutionally done), Siebert, spokesman of Merkel, said policy had no changed.

However, the Der Spiegel article may have been planted, just to hasten the lowering of the Euro (which reached 1.18 Dollar, lowest in nine years). If so, it would be in agreement with France (which has to be pushing for a Euro at 80 cents, if still endowed with brains).

It will not escape conspiracy theorists that a collapse of the Euro would be painless, as oil, paid in Dollar, has seen its own price cut quickly by half. Hopefully, Putin is also been cut in half.

Maybe God is a conspiracy theorist?


Too Much Mushy Whining, No Action:

Women tears’ smell lower testosterone in human males. In other words, if women want some action, they better act as activists, or even aggressors (“bitchy”) and not as whiners.

Instead of whining about “colonialism”, Europeans ought to have found what was wrong about it, and how to correct it for the best.

Shrinking onto oneself, that’s called depression.


Colonialism: Very Bad, Indeed, But the Wrong Notion

What’s the difference between an immigrant, a migrant, a colon, an invader?

I was always a fanatic of cultural, and ethnical mixed background. Why? Because the more cultural ingredients around, the wealthier the minds.

Example. Although I vigorously attack both Bible and Qur’an, my dirty little secret is that I live very faithfully according of some of the elements of both I approve of… For example I don’t touch alcohol (being drunk on my own thoughts all day long, will cynics no doubt notice).

In the 1950s, it was fashionable for French intellectuals to be “anti-colonialist”. This, in turn was amplified worldwide, and became the credo of the left and progressives.

According to the theory, the French had conquered the world, and needed to go back to their barracks. They did, and were replaced worldwide, by American plutocrats, and their GIs. The same was extended to other European colonialists, of course.

Did French intellectuals realize they had been had?

Most died without being officially aware. But some who were the youngest, and most frantically anti-“colonialism” are changing their tune. Decades of history have instructed them forcefully.

Rene’ Vautier, a French movie maker joined the Algerian FNL (to the point he was implicated in factions struggles therein, and got imprisoned because of this). He just died at 86, and gave a final interview.

Interestingly, this FNL fanatic, changed his music in recent years (“before I get senile” he added).

Vautier fought as a teenager against the Nazis in the French resistance. A communist he was sent to Africa. At the age of twenty-one years old in 1949 the Ligue de l’enseignement en Afrique sent him to make a film about life in the French African colonies. It was filmed in the Ivory Coast.

Under French administration, Ivory Coast was peaceful.

(I was left free as a toddler on the beach there; my only fear, whom I had been instructed to have, was of a vicious, roguish wave that would appear from time to time; ever since I have a healthy fear of waves… That does prevent me to surf, occasionally, or even been swept in recent year by a rogue wave in California, and losing a camera, but when I am by the ocean, I worry.)

Since the French left, as with many European ex-“colonies”, from Pakistan to Fidji, Shri Lanka to Somalia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Congo, Cambodia, or the CAR, Ivory Coast was wrecked by a vicious civil war (about who was really an Ivorian).

In his last interview, Vautier, a worldwide icon of anti-“colonialism”, declared he wished the struggle against “colonialism” had not been all in vain.

But in vain it was. In many places, where imperial states had blocked plutocratic excess, now the worst of the worse were free to roam and feast.

In The Trap Again?

Krugman wrote a blog post “Europe’s Trap”. It’s entirely correct. However, Europe fell into the trap when the Kaiser and his generals listened to the songs of Colonel House, right arm of American president Wilson.

Sure that the USA would help, the Prussian (also known as German) army attacked the French Republic in an all-out attack, August 3, 1914, invading and declaring war to secondary countries in the process. A month later, after retreating for three weeks, the French army successfully counter-attacked.

American help to trade with the Kaiser’s dictatorship, through the “neutral” Netherlands, extended the First World War three years. But that was only the beginning of the involvement of the USA in European submission affairs.

However, nowadays, the USA has come to realize that it cannot rule the world alone. So the enlightened ones agree that the European Union is a precious ally, and it needs its own currency. As Keynes had pleaded in 1944, the Dollar cannot do it all.

It’s nicer to have a peaceful union under Franco-Germania, rather than a West fighting itself to death.

If we want peace, we need as little exploitation as possible, and it starts in the neighborhood. To have a strong Europe is in the USA’s best interest.

Example: the disastrous, trillion Dollar price F35 flounders. This is the worst fighter plane ever put into production, and is a threat to the security of the USA (but not to North Korea or Putin).

However Europe has two excellent canard fighter-bombers, the Eurofighter/Typhoon and the Rafale, both armed with the excellent Meteor ramjet missile (Mach 4, 100 miles range). Both have excellent Infrared vision, and can fire infrared long range missiles. The Rafale has active stealth, and that works, whereas passive stealth not only does not work, but cannot work.

An astute U.S. Air Force could ditch the dangerous F35, and build one of the Euro canards, under licence and renovated. Thus Euro strength would profit USA strength. An example of many. At the Las Vegas consumer electronic show, January 2015, the second largest delegation, with more than 100 companies, is… French.

Meanwhile French president Hollande declared that the rise of the Islamist State is directly attributable to the refusal to strike mass bloody dictator Assad (in the end, only the French wanted to attack). Indeed (as I said for years).

Colonialism? No. Where are the colons? And are immigrants replenishing Europe, colons?

Just administering the empire. The worldwide empire we need to run good enough to survive, civilizationally speaking.

… And which is already running, albeit in plutocratic form.

Patrice Ayme’

European Union Elections

May 23, 2014

Many are deeply ignorant of how Europe “works”. Left to themselves, European countries go to war. That is the clear lesson of a millennium of having separated Western Francia from the rest of the Imperium Francorum.

Western Francia, composed mostly of Neustria and Aquitaine, became the so called kingdom of “France” in the Thirteenth Century. It was an abuse of language, as said kingdom covered not even half of present day France, and a fraction of the “Francia” of 1000 CE.

Core Of Latin Roman Empire Successor State To Rome, 811 CE.

Core Of Latin Roman Empire Successor State To Rome, 811 CE.

A bit more than 12 centuries ago, the Latin speaking core, direct institutional successor state of Rome, defined itself as the “Renovated Roman Empire“. It kept on expanding in the following centuries, back into Rome’s old borders.  Great Britain (1066 CE), Spain, Southern Italy all the way to Sicily were reconquered from the savage barbarians who had overrun them.

The apparition of narrow minded nations and intolerant religious factions in the late Middle Ages and so called “Renaissance” brought great mayhem, and vast regression. To prevent this devolution into barbarity, wisdom requires first to re-unify the empire that once was, where it makes sense to do so (clearly, culture ought to be excepted, as its variety enriches minds).

The European Union is actually an evolutionary mechanism to unify the continent, driven by Germany and France. It is a set of construction projects: parliament, executive, justice, currency, etc.

The EU is also governed by the existing democracies, independent nations legislated by their own parliaments.

Thus there are two intertwined systems: national democracies cooperating, entangled with more or less European institutions they more or less control, and increasingly weave together, while reinforcing them, or creating new ones, as the need arises.

For example, France is crumbling under an avalanche of European decrees from the European Commission (EC), applied throughout the EU. Yet, unbeknownst to many, especially in France, a plurality of these decrees is suggested by the government of France!

American progressives ought to relax: democracy is doing fine in Europe. The EU does not have millions of citizens incarcerated, as the USA does. The EU has no debt. The EU does not rule the planet with its Pentagon. The EU does not have a NSA. When European private banks need more money to leverage, they cannot go straight to the central bank and ask for more, as is the practice in the USA.

The incoherent discourses of a few extreme nationalists who dislike each other (and often are already elected European MP) are not a threat for the EU. Even those critters agree that the European Monetary Union has to be greatly improved (and a banking union is on the way). Even Marine Le Pen, an European MP, as her father is, can talk more cogently about the European currency than many an American economist.

The excellent Martin Schultz is the perfectly French speaking, and French like, German president of the European Parliament. He is a socialist (SPD). He is one of five candidates to head the EC. Chancellor Merkel supports the conservative, financier friendly Jean-Claude Juncker from Luxembourg, a native French speaker.

Natürlich, Martin Schultz is supported enthusiastically by the socialist French government.

For American plutocrats, the real threat is that Martin Schultz will become the first head of the European Commission next week to be elected by the European Parliament (instead of selected by the national governments).

That’s what this election is about.

Patrice Aymé




European Peace Triumph

October 14, 2012

Two important philosophical events serving peace and progress happened October 12, 2012: a Russian Soyuz rocket carrying a very special cargo lifted from French Guyana, and the European Union got the Nobel Peace Prize. Finally.

If there is one individual or entity that ever deserved the Peace Prize, it is the European Union! Nothing, nobody, did more for peace than the EU. A truth all the mad European haters can now be slapped with. (To help them regain their senses.)

Croatia Should Join The Preceding 500 Million People In 2013.

Nobel Peace Prize committee secretary Geir Lundestad said the EU got the prize for its “accumulated record over more than six decades… it was about time.”

He listed five achievements: Franco-German reconciliation after World War II; support for new democracies in Greece, Portugal and Spain in the 1980s; support for former Communist states in the 1990s; modernisation of Turkey; and peacebuilding in the Western Balkans.

Committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland added that the timing of the award is linked to the euro gloom.

“We should focus again on the fundamental aims of the organisation… If the euro fails, then the danger is that many other things will disintegrate as well, like the internal market and free borders. Then you will get nationalistic policies again. So it may set in motion a process which most Europeans would dislike,” he said.

“Dislike” is a euphemism for war. Indeed, civilization has gone into full, astounding reverse, many times before. Civilization is like a bicycle: pedalling in reverse does not work very long, before it crashes.

(Something the USA leadership ought to have meditated more carefully before engaging into officially sanctioned, officially unpunished, official war of aggression, official torture, official arbitrary detention, official arbitrary assassination worldwide by death panel for all to officially contemplate, and financial criminals officially extolled as saints and great men, and their banks worth giving S8,000 billions of public money. But of course that means that the USA leadership would have to know history in depth; instead all it knows from history is that violence pays handsomely)



The European Union was launched by the two main continental powers of Western Europe, the two main pieces of the Frankish empire, Francia and Germania, after nearly two centuries of continuous war with each other ended in total civilizational devolution.

How we got there is, by itself a tremendous story, even older than when the Celts occupied Rome, 24 centuries ago. The Franks claimed it came all the way back to the fall of Troy.

The European Union is no less than a reconstitution of the “Renovated Roman Empire” of 800 CE. Now the later had been established by more than 4 centuries of continuous war.

After six generations of unity, an estrangement, an apartheid was tried: the Franks around Paris on one side, the rest of the Franks, on the other side.

That alternative to unity led to vigorous fighting over the for 1,000 years.

That diabolical alternative, the breaking up of Europe, once again, effected 1,080 years ago, the plutocrats love (as it fosters war, hence fascism, hence fascist leadership, hence their “leadership”). The plutocrats, and their many servants in the academia, and media, of the USA, mongrels of money avid, have been pushing.

The European Union is not just being built to insure peace by creating entanglement and co-dependency. (See “Why Europe Why The Euro“)

The European Union represents also a new way of approaching (in particular inter-national) politics, through intense debate, beating the problems into submission with ideas, in the fullness of time. (Notice that this does not require unanimity!) Some (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, countless enemies of the Open Society lauded by Pericles) will say that this was tried in Athens before, and led to disaster.

Well the answer to that one is pretty easy: Athens did not have the democratic institutions that the EU has (answering Socrates’ main objection). And Athens (including Socrates) was often inhuman. And Athens’ National Assembly was hysterical, deciding an holocaust on one day, forbidding it the next (after the orders had sailed away).

The European Union advances slowly, methodically, meditatively (a momentary disadvantage of democracy, be it against Hitler, or against the present plutocratic conspirators).

The first serious attempt at pacific unification between France and Germany happened before Nazism (Napoleon had unified Germany before, but that was not pacific). Nazism is how that pacific unification attempt of the 1920s & 1930s was crushed. The plutocrats know how to instrumentalize democracy, war, holocausts. They are at it all the time, including now.



Long ago two philosophies fought, one, the Greco-Roman, strongly exploitative, the other, the Minoan-“Trojan”-Frankish, more comprehensively, and comprehendingly human (“Troy” was actually a subsidiary from a much larger power following the Great Mother religion, hence presumably less sexist, hence the war about free woman Helen, that came to define Greece… sexism?).

The Romans, and later the Franks turned Germania in a place where civilization became sufficiently intense to be worth conquering and governing. The irony was that the Salian Frank confederation was German. It soon understood that a superior philosophy would allow it to become richer, and superior to Romanitas (“Romanity”). Some of the Romans, among the most important generals, were full participants to this devious scheme of endowing the Franks with that advanced philosophy (I know this because the law of the Franks was written in Latin in a neo-Republican, more equalitarian mood).

The Franco-German empire lasted more than 5 centuries in united splendor (from Clovis’ crushing of the Goths, to the election of Otto I after the French refused to provide with any input in the election). The main cause of the split was French contempt, centered around Paris, for the uncouth eastern types… who comprised no less than two thirds of the empire (due to the Treaty of Verdun, 843 CE). Kind contempt veered progressively into estrangement, while the part not controlled by Paris called itself what it was, the Roman empire (it became “holly” centuries later and “German” by 1500 CE).



The conquest and subsequent fabrication of England by a French army headed by the Duke of Normandy (Nortmanni Dux) made the situation worse, as the king of France, for a while was not much more than the king of Paris (when l’Anglois was not in possession of that too).

Yet Paris was by far the mightiest city in Europe (in the middle of a giant productive agricultural zone), and Paris engaged in centuries of reconquest, a drive, propelled by necessity, to inverse the Treaty of Verdun by force. It was only historical justice that over ten month in 1916, nearly one million young French and Germans died there (at least 700,000 in combat, and the rest, like rats abused to death).

The reason is simple: Verdun itself, not far from Paris, was not under Paris control. Nearly half of present day France, and the ancient Francia and Gallia, had been, unbelievably estranged from itself by force, under the Treaty of Verdun (843 CE) and it made no sense in all dimension of geography: human, linguistic, physical, commercial, etc.



A curious phenomenon occurred: several of the most prominent collaborators of Hitler during the occupation of France by the Nazis were extreme heroes of World War One. Petain, who went out of his way to betray in 1940-44 was the general leading, and winning, the battle of Verdun with utmost ferocity, even re-instituting the notorious Roman method of decimation (in Roman army units that had disobeyed orders drastically, one man out of ten was executed).

In the Second Battle of the Marne, the French command knew, or guessed perfectly well the Prussian general staff’s plan. In no small measure from commando operation led by perhaps the most famous special operation officer in France, Joseph Darnand, just before the attack: he captured an entire Prussian command, on July 14, 1918, with the plans of the attack for the next day. He was declared one of the three artisans of victory (with Clemenceau and Foch). In 1940, again, he volunteered, in spite of his age, and distinguished himself as a lieutenant in many special commando operations behind enemy lines and was made officer of the Legion of Honor.

Unbelievably, Darmand became the chief of the Milice, an organization of fascist racist criminals (it would be too flattering to call them SS, although many ended in the Waffen SS in 1945), 30,000 strong, most of them got executed (most often, informally). Darmand had a proper trial, and died, shot by firing squad October 3, 1945, while singing a manly song.

Why did such war heroes became like dogs to Hitler? Because the WWI heroes were sick of war, and, in particular, sick of making war to Germany. In their haste to embrace Germany, they did not notice, as much as they should have, that they were embracing Nazism.



The same sort of phenomenon happened on the Nazi side. (Let alone the German side!) One has to understand that the number one objective of Nazism was to vanquish France. (All the rest of Nazi obsessions were afterthoughts!)

One could not find more dedicated French hating Nazis than Hitler and Rommel. Still they underwent radical psychological change… while fighting the French for nearly six years (1939-1945). Precisely because they got spanked so bad. (It was not exactly Hitler’s plan to start a world war in 1939 that he was sure to lose!)

Rommel started the war as a fanatical Nazi general, complete with mass murder, and extremely gifted. The killing of the French and British armies in 1940 was greatly his work. The whereabouts of his Seventh Panzer division were the most mysterious part of general Guderian’s (already secret to the High Wehrmacht command) sickle attack by the ten armored divisions of the Nazi army.

A few weeks later, after Dunkirk, Rommel led Guderian’s attack south. But, on the Somme river, Franco-African units stopped him for three days. Finally the French officers (mostly) surrendered their mostly African troops, as they had run out of ammunition. Rommel, enraged by the losses of his beloved Nazi comrades executed all his French army prisoners. White and blacks. Hundreds.

Then there was the battle of Bir Hakiem. Rommel had defeated the British army, which was trying to retreat, in disarray, along the Libyan coast.

Rommel wanted to win the war, and that meant killing the British army before it could retreat to prepared defense lines at the Egyptian border. For that Rommel decided to implement a fast sickle move behind the British units, slowed down by their heavy weapons. If that encirclement had worked, the elite British 8th army would have been annihilated, the allies would have had no significant force before India.

History’s largest pincer move, planned by Adolf Hitler, would have unfolded in a few months: Rommel would have seized Egypt, the Mediterranean would have become a Nazi lake. After a few weeks of reorganization, Rommel’s re-boosted army would have dashed into Iraq. Azerbaijan, and its considerable oil, would have been squeezed between Rommel and the Nazi south army group advancing through the Caucasus.

The exterminators in charge of assassinating the one million Jews in Palestine, were ready.

However, time was of the essence for Rommel to win. In June 1940, France had been vanquished because the Nazi advance was so fast that the French and British armies got cut off. A few weeks later, the French aerial supremacy, which, after enormous Nazi losses, existed on paper, could not be implemented, as airfields were falling to the Nazi tanks, one after the other.

So Rommel had to go fast. He took all his best armored divisions, and dashed through the desert. He met 4,000 French elite soldiers at Bir Hakiem, in a new version of Thermopylae. The French knew everything about “guerre éclair” (Blitzkrieg) and knew that, to break Rommel, they had to slow him down.

The French held two weeks, suffering enormous losses, until they ran out of ammunition. This allowed the British army to escape Rommel’s encirclement and take refuge into the prepared defensive lines, and their mine fields. Ultimately Rommel tried a frontal assault, months later, and was defeated.

Hitler was livid: incapable of getting Iraq and Caucasus oil, and to cut the flow of supplies going from the USA to the USSR, through Iran and the Caspian, he was losing the war, for sure.



Assessing the Nazi disaster at Bir Hakiem, Hitler declared to his cabinet that the French were the best warriors (after the Nazis), and so France had to be annihilated. However the Nazi cabinet was unimpressed by its boss’ flourish. Led by Hitler’s favorite, Albert Speer, the cabinet pointed out to the Fuehrer that, without French industrial help, it’s Nazi Germany that would get exterminated. Hitler, ever more livid, observed that, if one let the France industry grow to support the Nazi war effort,  France would win the war without fighting. Speer told him there was no choice. Hitler agreed.

Thus, what happened was striking: by Hitler’s own standards, Hitler became a collaborator to France, as early as 1942, after France had inflicted to him a lethal strategic defeat. And precisely because of that. The ways of war are mysterious, and unpredictable.

Meanwhile Rommel reconsidered that war crime, kill the prisoners, fanatically Nazi strategy of his. After all the superior Nazi race had been stopped at Bir Hakeim, not just by a French force, full of french aristocrats, but also a French force full of French Jews.

After a famous SS officer in an SS Panzer division committed some war crime against French civilians, in 1944, Rommel, head of the Nazi forces in France, ordered the SS arrested. Better: Rommel, and much of the Nazi Wehrmacht, joined the top German generals who considered Hitler a menace to Germany, and they made a coup. Next the best Nazis plotted with the French resistance to save Paris, and so on. Towards the end of the war, in an ultimate nail in the Nazi mood system, even Himmler (helped by a Swedish diplomat and a courageous Jew) got into the act of saving Jews (from his own death machine).

The Nazi philosophy had been thoroughly defeated, and buried, by many of the top Nazis themselves. In no small measure because the Nazi war against Europe had proven to be a war against Germany herself, and victory proven to be worst than defeat.

Ironically, Nazism, and its fascist Prussian predecessors, let alone Napoleon, had demonstrated that European Unification was unavoidable, but that war was not the way to unify Europe. Sade had been right, all along: just war is a must.



Conclusion 1: For Germany to make war against France, or reciprocally, was like shooting oneself in the head, it made no sense. That was clear to people such as Petain (who decorated Darnand) in 1940, and even to most Nazis by 1945.

Conclusion 2: But war is not how it started. Estrangement is how war got started. Thus some Greeks are welcome to parade with Nazi flags in honor of Merkel the Angel: no indifference wanted. Show the passion, express your feelings, push forward the debate. So now, can the Greeks explain why their plutocrats are not taxed, and why they want to build a Formula One circuit with 29 million euros of (Franco-German) government money (while France, 15 times richer, discontinued Formula One because maintenance cost so much).



A philosophical Rubicon was crossed by giving the Union the Peace Prize. A declaration of philosophical war against the enemies of Europe, the forces of evil, the forces of plutocracy (of the same sort as those which launched the surprise World War of August 1, 1914). This help from the Nobel Committee does not come too soon.

Hateful, grotesque propaganda and machinations from the richest people and criminal organizations in the world have attacked the European Union with a viciousness unseen since the 1930s. I literally read hundreds of pages of ill informed, but vicious anti-European venom from, say, “the conscience of a liberal” Paul Krugman, a famous academic and Nobel, pillar of the supposedly left wing and newspaper of reference of the USA, the New York Times.

In the 1930s, the fascists were in plain sight. They claimed to be NAtionalist, and ZocIalist (NA-ZI). They were nothing of the sort. In truth, they were serving their masters, the plutocrats of (mostly) three different nationalities (Deutschland, UK, USA), and three different sorts (financial, military, industrial).

Nowadays the situation is simpler. The  plutocrats are in plain sight (although they have been hiding behind some of political parties, most prominently those of the USA, they are in no way hidden as they were ).  Their criminality is blatant. But they are not prosecuted. The supposedly democratic USA president sings their praises (see Obama making criminal conspirator Buffet into god… in supposedly leftist Newsweek).

For example, the financial criminals control more than three quarters of the world financial system (way worse a situation than when banksters supported Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s). How do I know this? That quantitative estimate can be rigorously evaluated. For now, I will leave my method to the imagination of the reader.

Plutocracy, much of it New York and London based did its best to sabotage the European Union, and pushed National “Socialism” instead. It worked, and the result was the Second World War and its holocaust(s). The plutocracy based in the USA came out of it strong and irresistible, establishing its self declared “American Century”.

European haters have been supported in their attacks by ignorant, or deliberately vicious Wall Street sycophants and helpers (generally both ignorant and vicious).

The case of the ignorant Paul Krugman is typical. I say “ignorant” deliberately, because it describes reality most faithfully. Krugman is esteemed by the oligarchy, and advise it. He was scathing against European Monetary Union (EMU), or the general idea of European unification. After thirty years of this or so, from being in Ronald Reagan’s government to a status of semi deity of American “liberals”, trashing Europe, Krugman suddenly discovered the existence of the Founding Fathers of Europe, such as Robert Schuman, and the idea that the European Union was being built to make war inside Europe impossible. Then Krugman declared that the European Union was a good thing… so it had to be saved from the European Monetary Union.  

Of course, a Monetary Union is indispensable to insure peace. The USA actually engaged in a horribly deadly civil war (nearly 3% of the population killed), precisely when, and because, the USA had no monetary union (the greenback was created during the civil war, at the end of the barrel of a gun, to pay for union troops).



One of my main ideas is that, just as Rome, the North American English speaking republic is pervaded by the exploitative supreme mentality. Just as Rome, the USA came to become dependent upon slavery, and the unfair exploitation of man by man.  

That put the USA on a collision course with the sustainable mentality of the European Union.

The best example of that was the propping, by the plutocracy of the USA, of Adolf Hitler, and even of Joseph Stalin. All of these efforts to eliminate the competition from the European democracies (mostly Great Britain and France, and their giant empires). It worked splendidly, this massive, multi generational conspiracy.

When I write this many haters rise and condemn me as mad man. Many pseudo left sites immediately banned me, as a “conspiracy theorist”.

However, the fact are here, they are blatant. Yes, the USA knew, at the time, that Stalin had eliminated the Polish elite, and still supported Stalin like crazy for the following 5 years, even giving him half of Europe, including Poland. The USA hid that fact for 25 years more than the USSR did. In other words, the American public is manipulated at a depth exceeding the Soviet one by a full generation!

So much for the USA being the country of freedom. Plutocratic freedom, yes, public freedom, no.

A secondary conspiracy what the one with the feudal, oil providing regimes such as Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain. Now under stress and contradiction.

My point of view is progressing under the radar of conventional propaganda.

For example the USA provides the GPS signal. Half a century ago, the Europeans would have saluted crisply, and trust Uncle Sam. But what if Uncle Sam was behind Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev? Khrushchev? remember the invasion and massacre of Hungary, coincident with Suez, Khrushchev threatening to atom bomb London and Paris, while the USA had France and Britain condemned by the General Assembly of the United Nations?

Well, Europeans are starting to understand that the Italian resistants were not crazy to hang Mussolini from an Exxon station (OK, Exxon has craftily changed its name since). USA oil companies made Hitler and Mussolini all they could be.

So the Europeans thought, and, led by the obnoxious French, discovered that the GPS was a vulnerability. They decided to make their own GPS. Galileo. That is why thus astounding sight, back to Franco-Russian ccoperation of 100 years ago, but now with German collaboration:

Within three years, medium Russian Soyuz and large French Arianne rockets should have launched 30 of the satellites.

Meanwhile the USA dragged pathetically the last space shuttle, an error with wings, through the streets of Los Angeles, cutting 400 trees in the process. How do the USA get to space these days? With, well, the rocket in the preceding picture, Soyuz. 

How many man rated rockets the USA has now? Zero. How many does the West have? One. Just one: the European, French built, Ariane. But the USA does not want to use it: pride first. Just as with the Rafale, a superlative fighter bomber without equivalent in the USA, the Washington leadership prefers anything, even being launched by the Russians, rather than cooperating with the philosophical enemy, its progenitor, France and the European Enlightenment (considering that the USA legalized slavery while its antagonist, Great Britain freed the blacks that joined its side, it’s not clear which side was the most enlightened in the American Independence war).

The USA will have to surrender to the European Enlightenment someday, because full humanity is a better philosophical leadership than exploitative scheming, always, in the fullness of time Plutocracy is a mediocracy, democracy a meritocracy, where it counts the most, the realm of ideas.

And how do the best ideas win? Through debate, and even more debate. And this is what the European Union has promoted. After Merkel got really mean (as deserved), she took a low cost airline to travel to Italy for vacation. That’s what debating also is: speaking with one’s acts.

As the picture of the Soyuz above demonstrates, the European Union extends way further than its present official borders. Its new civilization of debate supreme is playing a role quite a bit similar to the spreading of Christianity well beyond the borders of the Roman empire, spreading Roman values, well beyond what the Roman legions could reach… (And much of how Romanitas survived to this day.)

European construction, the growth of the European Union, is, in essence, transcendental, as it forces three dozen nations to ever more overwhelm their differences with more brainy convergences. In that sense, it is a most important philosophical movement on the millennial scale, which can serve as a template to many other transplanetary organizations, including the United Nations, necessary to handle fascism, massive terrorism, and the devastation of the biosphere.

If the European Union failed, it would be the very engine of the progress we humans need to survive, which would fail. But, of course, the European Union will not fail. The mighty, and very determined, French and German Republics will see to it that the European Union will not fail.


Patrice Ayme


November 22, 2011


Abstract: Europe long suffered from the exactions of the hyper wealthy, various plutocrats such as kings, dukes, princes or sultans, or, more generally, all those who lust after power to the detriment of the rest.

I give examples extracted from (a small part of) what happened in the late Seventeenth Century, just in (part of, mostly) Eastern Europe. And the irony of it all. While showing that the evil organization of (say) the Ottoman empire, or more generally, of wrath wrecked Europe was such, because many profited from it, Satanic style.

Kratia” in Greek means power, rule, sway… Hence demo-kratia, the rule of the People, and Pluto-kratia, the rule of Pluto, and his obsession with underground wealth, underground emotions, the invisible hand.

So stupid many economists are, at least around New York or London, that they laud loudly the “invisible hand”.

In their ignorance and depravity, they wallop so much, that they have no idea that invisibility was viewed by the Greeks, 3,000 years ago, as one of the Lord of Hell’s most terrible attributes.

And sure enough, if Auschwitz had been visible, it would not have happened. Think about that, Lords of Finance, if you can! Sorry, I forgot for an instant, that one sees best with the heart, and you have none!

Now the world suffers from 600 trillions dollars of invisible derivatives, 450 trillions of them weighing on the bond market, agitated by well orchestrated panics, so that the rich who organize them, can get ever richer, from the toils of taxpayers, and the ruin of savers, retirees, the unemployed, the sick. “Shadow Banking” is supposed to be glorious…When actually it should be a cause for incarceration.

In Egypt, the army keeps on going as overlord, with the invisible American hand feeding it, instructing it, organizing it…

In the Nineteenth Century, Nietzsche claimed that men were mostly driven by the “Will to Power” (and that it was healthy).

A century earlier, Sade had insisted that political leaders, in particular, were psychopaths, lusting so much for power, that inflicting pain on others was their main driver. Louis XVI put him in the Bastille (big mistake, as it turned out in July 1789!)

Perfect illustrations of the Marquis de Sade’s theory soon blossomed in abundance, with vengeful plutocrats trying to burn all of Europe, demented revolutionary leaders cutting heads by the thousands, and Napoleon’s childish ambition to spill as much blood as possible; those tyrans and crats all had this in common that they hated Sade. They imprisoned him for decades, and Robespierre’s gang scheduled his execution for having saved thousands of lives from the terror. (The ambition of Robespierre’s gangsters got cut short, with their necks, sparing Sade, just in time!)

Of course, humans are motivated by more than the Dark Side’s Will, Violence, and Power. Be it only because of the Light Side, of love, empathy, curiosity, even poetry, and singing, which make even more of a driver of human behavior. And we have names for them: lover, empath, inquirer, questioner, investigator, poet, singer, etc. Just as we have now names for sadists and brutes. (“Sadist” though is a neologism introduced thanks to Sade’s provocative revelations!)

In all and any case, nobody proposed to name those who, among humans are obsessed with the infliction of their will upon others. No name for the power-hungry, the over-ambitious, those who lust for power, the Genghis Khans, the Alexanders, the Caesars, the Napoleons and Hitlers, Rothschilds, Clintons, and DSKs. This is all the stranger, because a noun naturally offers itself!

Thus I proposed a neologism: CRATS, for those so greedy for power that they forget other human values. (Krugman promptly used it in his blog without proper attribution, after I mentioned it in his blog’s comments; I do not belong to the power circle of those worthy of quotation, as I am not a Very Serious Person.)

“Crat” has also the advantage of fusionning two concepts: c, for conspiracy, or cretin, and “rats” for an all too social animal which seems mostly motivated by food, and inspiring to those who lead us into oblivion.

Crats, like rats, have always existed, and have always tried to devour civilization. That’s what they do. To prevent the devouring of civilization, Neolithic men invented cats (against rats), and taxes (against crats). Modern politicians though, inculcated in their subjects the complete disdain for this lesson.

However there is an example of a spur of civilization which evolved, thanks to crats. Colonial English America thrived from civilizational devolution: if English colonial Americans had taken care of the Indians as French Jesuits did, in Canada, the colonials would not have got as rich, as fast as they did.  

This is an important point that Professor Niall Ferguson miss in his white wash “Civilization” book (November 2011). Ferguson  celebrates the attribution of Indian property to whites in North America, that is, to the European invaders. He finds that most wise. In contrast, Ferguson recognizes that there were plenty of Indians left in South America, and that Spain limited immigration to South and Central America, precisely because of this, the abundance of the natives. And Ferguson deplores that!

Thus naughty boy Niall does not realize, in his Harvard induced murderous superiority haze, that he is showing his hand. His hand is not invisible anymore, he should be more careful. What Ferguson is actually saying, for all to see, is that holocausts are the superior economic model. That was Hitler’s point, entirely. But Hitler did not teach at Harvard, that was his mistake (although some Harvard songs were adapted into famous Nazi songs by some of the individuals who connected the university and the party!)

And of course holocausts are much superior economically for those who survive them, especially if they are the perpetrators, and they thrive.

OK, the perpetrators of the American holocaust are long dead in the case of the English American colony. But the ideology of GREED AS SUPERLATIVE is still very much alive. Killing it, is what the world revolt is all about. So Niall should find sonmething else to celebrate, it would be only prudent.

The USA embraced plutocratic civilizational devolution as a metaprinciple of “progress”, and access to riches. The exact sort of “progress” Krugman embraces: divide the world, divide Europe, and then New York, what he boasts is the “greatest city in the world“, will conquer. He was a child a few miles north, he thrives a few miles south: alleluia!

American intellectuals of the powerful type, such as Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson, perceive a weakness in Europe, and, as good servants of the plutocratic system they suck from, they are on the attack against the European project, telling us that the gods of Anglo-Saxon finance will forever rule, thus hoping we will lay down our mental weapons, and surrender. But, far from it, here is more ammunition to fight what Voltaire used to call “infamy”.

And what is the modern European project? The wise victory of the mind over fate, from knowing more, the very definition of Homo Sapiens. In particular the victory of mind over wealth. The victory of mind over the military, fascist, plutocratic system, as deployed in, say, Egypt. That system which replaced three important European leaders by agents of Goldman Sachs, in two weeks. The victory over the biased accounting the likes of Krugman venerates.

Krugman tells us that accounting his way, is the most worthy thing. Not only he does not know how, and what to count, but, tell me, Krugman, how much is Auschwitz worth? Is it because Americans were doing accounting their way, that they sent to Nazi Germany’s Air Force crucial war supplies in 1939, to enable it to fly, while France and Poland were already in combat against Nazi Germany? Is it why Poland and France fell, and dozens of millions died? Accounting by American plutocrats, for their own benefit?




During the summer of 1683, the Turkish army besieged Vienna. It was allied with the Khan of Crimea and its 40,000 horsemen cavalry. Everyday of the two months assault, the formidable Ottoman war drums beat ominously. The constant rolling was not mean to just destabilize psychologically the Austrian capital. It was conceived to make difficult for the Europeans to localize where exactly the slaves of the sultan were digging their tunnels and covered trenches.

A vast underground battle between 5,000 experienced Ottoman sappers and defending “moles” was punctuated with large explosions when Turkish mines exploded under the successive fortification rings of the European capital. The last and most formidable mine was detected in the last hours of the final battle, as the Turks tried desperately to blow up the main Austrian fort. It was defused by Austrian “moles”, at the last moment. Elite Turkish troops and janissaries had been held back for that moment after the giant bomb exploded. It never came.

The Turks are an interesting example of the importance of ideology. The old Indo-European (not Semitic!) world of Turkic nomadic bands was transformed by the war religion of Islam, about a millennium ago. It allowed them to conquer quickly a vast empire, and they headed west. In a generation or two, they had the Roman empire on the ropes (Byzantium called itself Roman, because that is what it was, although it spoke Greek). The Romans then called the Franks to the rescue (the Franks were all the more willing to settle the problem militarily as recently 10,000 pilgrims to Jerusalem had been massacred, in one swoop).

But it did not work; the ravenous Turkish military established a gigantic empire, which covered Anatolia, the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia, Eastern Europe. By far the most important reason why the European counter-attack did not work is that the Europeans were very divided. (The same situation happened with the Muslims to the south: Frankish knights, allied to the Mongols were an irresistible force, so the Pope and the French king outlawed the Franco-Mongol alliance with the greatest threats, after the fall of Baghdad and Damascus! If not for that, Islam would probably have become an archeological curiosity…)

In 1204, the Frankish army conquered and sacked Constantinople, in a final, savage conclusion to their nine centuries old domineering military role in Rome, deep down inside hostile to Christianity, which they viewed as all too anti-German, anti-progress, and no fun, if not kept in check by secular power.   

The European divisions endured. The Turkish high command was good at exploiting them. Or let’s say that European adventurers found to their advantage to ally themselves with Turkish fascist imperialism. During the final siege of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, not only the Turkish shock troops were made of dozens of thousands of indoctrinated, fanaticized enslaved Christian boys, the Janissaries, but the giant “Turkish” guns were made by Hungarian engineers. Moreover, France was treacherously allied to the Sultan, one reason why the relief army failed to materialized. The ancient hostility between the Franks and the “Orthodox Catholic” church had reached its bitter end (Venice and other terminal allies of Constantinople was a client republic of Charlemagne, not Constantinople).

The Janissaries were an interesting institution, typical of a fascist order: Christian families who sold their boys thus got a social promotion and riches. With Janissaries, the Sultans thus had at their disposals a force which owed them everything: so revolution could not come from the real Muslim population. Indeed the anti-Islamist, pro-European revolution in Turkey followed quickly the elimination of the Janissaries in the 19C.

When the situation got grave enough, the Europeans cooperated enough to get the Turkish off their back. The Europeans came together at the siege of Vienna, with the alliance of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After 12 hours of battle, at 17 hour (5 pm), the Polish king ordered, and led, the largest cavalry charge in history. 20,000 horsemen galloped down a mountain. Simultaneously, the Viennese garrison made a sortie. The Turks were finished.



Prince Eugene of Savoy‘s reconquered Hungary and some of the Balkan lands within the following years. “Prinz Eugen” is also the name of the famous Nazi battle cruiser crammed with advanced technology, which became later a U.S. Navy ship (at least three of its master technologies were thoroughly copied by the Americans). Prince Eugene de Savoy (old French for modern “Savoie”) was born in Paris in 1663. After chasing the Turks off a bit, a peace was concluded (1699). Europeans were free to fight each other. Prinz eugen then fought with Malborough against members of his own family, for example the elector Emanuel of Bavaria.

Tellingly that prince/prinz signed his name: “Eugenio von Savoy”. An Italo-Germano-French signature! At the village of Blindheim (in English: “Blenheim”), Marlborough and Prince Eugen fought against the combined Bavarian and French armies. 240 years later, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, namely the British Prime Minister Churchill (an Anglo-American), sent Bristol Blenheim bombers to sink the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen.

It sounds funny, but, in the great European wars, up to half of the population died. Many wars lasted centuries. Prominent individuals were on both sides of the same war. Do we want more of this European war circus? Well, Wall Street does. Because the more the Europeans are divided, the more the financial pirates of Wall Street reign. The long memory of the Europeans for the exactions of the hyper wealthy is nothing Wall Street wants to hear more of.

Thus it’s useful to change the conversation with distorted history. American intellectuals such as Krugman and Ferguson live off Wall Street (whether they are conscious of it or not). While playing the roles of critiques, they help the pluriharmonic melodious chorus which allow the likes of Obama to claim total confusion, and support the mighty.



Another weekend, and another blast by the servants of American plutocracy against Europe. In the Wall Street Journal, Niall Ferguson, the Scottish born plutophile history professor at Harvard informs us that Ireland, will asked to join the United Kingdom, in a “Reunited Kingdom“. Ferguson boy probably does not know that the latest measure of inflation in Great Britain is 5.9%. That means: near catastrophe (and I love inflation at 4%!). By the way I am reading his book “Civilization”. The usual thing: history started when Great Britain was created. That would be after the Dutch invasion, and the submission of Scotland, after 1700 CE. By then the American English colony was de facto independent, and had invented racially discriminating slavery. Indeed, a unique contribution. by killing lots of Indians and enslaving lots of Africans growing lots of tobaco, English colonists had become the world’s richest tribe.

But Ferguson does not tell you what I just said. Instead he tells you it’s all about British genius, just like when Newton discovered the Law of Universal Attraction. That is the Anglo-Saxon propaganda at its best. Actually Newton himself, more honest than Ferguson (who, as an historian should check history before proclaiming it!), asserted that  Bullialdus, a French priest and lawyer, found it first. Giovanni Alfonso Borelli suggested first the balance between centrifugal force and gravitational attraction. But you see, Bullialdus is French, thus he does not count, because he is not endowed by Anglo-Saxon genius. Even worse for Borelli: he was the son of a Spanish soldier and a Napolitan woman, races which according to Ferguson, do not have the Anglo-Saxon genius so obvious at Goldman Sachs.



That may be also why Ferguson has the history of the Anglo-Saxons starting so recently: before that the so called Anglo-Saxons were actually French lords, so that’s best forgotten. Edward III “Long Shanks”, conqueror of Scotland, initiator of the half a millennium long “100 years war” was French on both sides, and the grandson of the formidable  Philippe Le Bel.

Of course the only reason why the tiny Netherlands became so powerful was that, in a 150 years long war or so, Spain was defeated by France, and lost the low countries (which was only justice, as the Franks came from said Low Countries! And for centuries, France, England and the Netherlands had formed a triangle of commerce). Of course Spain owned the Netherlands, because Charles of Bourgogne did so, as part of his middle of the Imperium Francorum inheritance, and he had been elected king of Spain.

Charles V spoke perfectly five languages, but his birth language was French, as was that of his great enemy Francois Premier, born a few “lieux” away.

Thus in the end, much of the terrible wars between 1300 CE and 1815 CE were all about French fighting French.  It is normal: France was the largest single piece of the Imperium Francorum, and the later had not been formally dissolved. Instead it went on, at some point as more than 1,000 pieces…

This would go on: after the fascist, or, as he put it himself, “poorly advised” Louis XIV, kicked out millions of Protestants from France, many fled to Switzerland (where they started watch making), some to the Netherlands, or South Africa (where they made wine). many also were welcomed with open arms by Frederick the Great of Prussia (this explains why so many Nazi generals had French names).

In 1945, most French and Germans had come to the conclusion that, whatever was next, it would include definitive peace between France and Germany. The seventy five years of war between France and Germany (1870-1945) had shown that they had more to gain being together, than fighting against each other.

Those who knew history real well knew that the Franco-German wars had started with growing apart.

A lot of this had been propelled by the arrogance of Parisians. In 358 CE, shortly after the name of Lutetia had been changed for Paris (name of the local tribe, the Parisii), the Parisians and the crack Franco-Gallo-Roman troops elected by acclamation Caesar Julianus as Augustus. Julianus demurred for a while, but then accepted the nomination. He had no choice.

The emperor Constantius II, anxious to separate the Caesar from the empire’s best troops, had decided they would be moved to Mesopotamia. Instead, the Parisians rebelled. Julianus took control of the entire empire, and proceeded to de-Christianize the Roman empire (Julianus’ view of Christianism was even worse than that of Nietzsche, 14 centuries later, and fit well wit those of the Franks). Julianus was hit by a lance in Mesopotamia, the Franks took power directly, a century later. Frankish troops would be allied to the Mongols to seize Baghdad, and Damascus, a millennium later.

Forever after electing Julianus, Paris acquired a dangerous attitude. No wonder Carlus Magnus made his capital in Aachen. Throughout the Middle Ages, Paris was by far the largest city in Europe. By the Eleventh Century, Abelard had gone beyond Aristotle, and Paris had a university, by the Twelfth Century, Paris invented the so called “Gothic style“, then actually known as Opus Francigenum.

Actually one of the Franks present at the inauguration of the first Gothic cathedral, with typical Parisian spite, called it “Gothic” as that was the ultimate insult for a Frank (the Goths had been exterminated 450 years earlier, in a combined Franco-Roman-Muslim effort).



One has made a big deal of the reunification of Germany. But that is small potatoes relative to the reunification which is really needed, that of West and East Francia. That is, Francia and Germania (to use roman rather than Frankish terminology).

The six year long Second World War (1939-1945), the last bout of fighting between France and Germany, coming at the end of 75 years of hostilities, demonstrated to all French and Germans that a thorough rethink of the situation was needed. Obsolete nationalism had become clearly counter-productive for all to see. The Nazis, supreme irony, had demonstrated this to themselves, at their entire dismayed dissatisfaction.

During WWII, Hitler himself, to his rage, had to collaborate with French industrialists. He whined to his cabinet that, once Germany won the war, it would be in the grasp of French civilian industry. But Speer told him that was there was no choice. Hitler’s top, most fanatical generals, once brought to France to occupy and terrorize, generally turned around, and worked against their evil master. Marshall Rommel, a fanatic, mass murdering Nazi in 1940, was pretty much the exact opposite four years later, after getting command in France.

Thus Hitler put in command of Paris the SS “butcher of Sevastopol”, who had, during the siege of Sevastopol, exterminated Jews (as he admitted in a secret recording made by the British August 29, 1945).

Hitler’s order from 23 August 1944: “The city must not fall into the enemy’s hand except lying in complete debris.” Hitler phoned Von Cholztizt in a rage, screaming, “Brennt Paris?” (“Is Paris burning?”) [An account confirmed by Col. General Jodl, Hitler’s chief of staff, who added that Hitler asked the question many times, and wanted independent confirmation.]

Instead Von Choltitz and the 17,000 German soldiers under his command surrendered to French general Philippe Leclerc de Hautecloque, commanding the Second Armored French division, which had rushed to Paris through successive Nazi defense rings, and to the Resistance leader Henri Rol-Tanguy at the Gare Montparnasse on 25 August 1944. The Germans had suffered 3,200 dead in combat with the resistance in Paris’ streets, and resistance leaders persuaded Von Choltitz of the uselessness, and immorality, of pursuing the fight, and burning the capital to a crisp as he had been ordered to do.

In 1948, after careful thinking, Robert Schuman proposed that “Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe.” French and German political leaders united the energetic and steel production of France and Germany. This actually extended work made in the same spirit in the early 1930s (which would have prevented WWII, had it come to fruition).

In 1951, the Treaty of Paris extended the European Steel and Coal Community to the Benelux and Italy.

Why the extension?

Well, France and Germany together united form a superpower which cannot be beaten, so it has to be joined. Superpower? France and German GDP, together, is four times that of Russia (and Franco-German GDP does not rest on the viscous prop oil and gas, as Russia’s does, but, instead on genuine human genius!) For other European countries it is not as if Franco-Germania were sitting on the other side of a vast ocean: if you are a European country, Franco-Germania is next door. Overall, Western Europe is the size of the North East of the USA. Just ask the Swiss how much they have to obey when France and Germany bare their fangs.

Moreover, the other powers, say Italy or the Benelux, were clearly lose parts of France, or Germany. Often of both. In other words, those other countries were created mostly to weaken one, or the other (For example, modern Italy had been pretty much created by the idealistic Napoleon III, who had a long history of conspiring with Italian independentists, as he was truly a Swiss… Piedmont, as its name, and its Savoy cross indicates, has more to do with France, than with Rome…)

So now here we are. American intellectuals are very well paid to demolish the European Union, and to distract from plutocratic Wall Street. Meanwhile in Egypt, the army is firing on protesters, using American weapons and cartridges. The government of the USA gives billions a year to the Egyptian military. The crackdown in Egypt was subsequent to the shooting, and killing by University of California police in Berkeley of a student at the business school, while Occupy Wall Street protests were going on outside.

Why does not Krugman attack that? Instead he deplores that accounting does not reign and that European countries are not fighting each other through competitive devaluations:




Paul Krugman, the Europhobe, is in great shape, his masters in what he calls the “greatest city in the world” will reward him well. In “Boring Cruel Euro Romantics” (Nov 20, 2011) he pontificates imprudently that:

I like technocrats — technocrats are friends of mine. And we need technical expertise to deal with our economic woes.

But our discourse is being badly distorted by ideologues and wishful thinkers — boring, cruel romantics — pretending to be technocrats. And it’s time to puncture their pretensions.

I guess among “ideologues and wishful thinkers are philosophers, like yours truly, who believe in the victory of the mind and enlightenment over the viciousness of Pluto. Indeed, who does Krugman want to “puncture“?

“these people — the people who bullied Europe into adopting a common currency… — aren’t technocrats. They are, instead, deeply impractical romantics.

They are, to be sure, a peculiarly boring breed of romantic, speaking in turgid prose rather than poetry. And the things they demand on behalf of their romantic visions are often cruel, involving huge sacrifices from ordinary workers and families. But the fact remains that those visions are driven by dreams about the way things should be rather than by a cool assessment of the way things really are.

And to save the world economy we must topple these dangerous romantics from their pedestals.

Let’s start with the creation of the euro. If you think that this was a project driven by careful calculation of costs and benefits, you have been misinformed.

The truth is that Europe’s march toward a common currency was, from the beginning, a dubious project on any objective economic analysis. The continent’s economies were too disparate to function smoothly with one-size-fits-all monetary policy…”

Just like the Nazis used to claim that the Jews were cruel, Krugman claims “impractical romantics“, those who want European unification, are both boring and cruel. Well, it can only mean that they do not use expert torturers. In the Middle Ages, torturing was the most appreciated spectacle. nothing boring about it. Maybe we could torture some boring American academics with our contempt, to start with.



Bravo, Krugman, Bravo! Listening to Krugman you have the impression the euro, as a currency, is a disaster. It needs to be “saved”. The Economist”, and the rest of the financial propaganda systematically claim that the euro needs to be saved. So how come it’s 40% overvalued over the dollar?

Krugman is called an economist, but apparently, he cannot distinguish between a currency and banks. He apparently wants them to be the same. Does that mean American economists are even more incompetent than the realm they built, or is it actually a Freudian slip?

Verily, the so called euro crisis has nothing to do with the euro, or with romance. Whatever the admirers of New York and its financial system say. Europe was born in war. Dozens of millions have died in an holocaust, and the survivors drew some important conclusions which can only have escaped the American society, which ate on both sides of the manger.

The USA, in the entire war lost about 415,000 people, nearly all of them soldiers. French controlled territories lost about two millions, only a third of it, soldiers (don’t expect to find this statistics in USA propaganda). True, for a while (1942-1944), after the defeat of 1940, the million man French army fighting was out of Africa (several of my relatives were in it).

Other European countries had much greater losses. Poland lost six million. Germany lost ten million (OK, they started it, as they chose to be led by Nazi marionettes, with plutocrats pulling the strings). The USSR lost not far from thirty million (OK, they did not have to be led by a Georgian gangster).

To avoid conflicts, it’s important to know who is really pulling the strings.

There is a crisis in Europe, but it’s not a euro crisis. The German ratio of national debt/GDP is 83%. The British and especially Spanish one are lower. France has a ratio of 87%. The USA thrones with a national debt/GDP ratio of 104%.

OK, that’s not all: one has to look at personal debt, etc. It’s bad in Spain. One also has to look at the instantaneous current account deficit: it is nearly as good in Italy as it is Germany, but it is really bad in the UK and the USA (around 12%).



The crisis has everything to do with the privatization of public money, as I explained many times before. It was in the air of the times, the era of privatization of everything: Your Money Or Your Life!

Thanks to Milton Friedman and another 13 American “Nobel” prizes, most of them from Chicago (a place of dubious fumes such as mafia, Daley, Obama, and “French” IMF director Lagarde). The doctrine of Milton and his ilk, is the simplest and the oldest of the enemies of civilization: Greed Is All You Need.

Currency is the essence of the state, short of military force. Privatizing currency, made the oligarchy on top ever more powerful, because it made, at the outset, that oligarchy into the state itself. that made it into an instant plutocracy.
Plutocracies can be most resilient. Look at Egypt: since the late forties, when it set up a coup, the Egyptian military has reigned. Cynics in Europe suspect the dictator Mubarak (ex-general commanding the Air Force, like Pinochet in Chili), is still in power. What is sure is that his right hand man, another general, is in power, plotting with the Islamists (who he uses as a justification for his iron rule).

We have seen plutocracy before: it ended up with highway men all over the ex-Roman empire, asking for your money, or your life. And behind high walls, sat the great lords, with their private armies.

So a conspiracy of crats, plutocracy, brought the Late Roman empire where it finished, and us where we are. Crats just want power, nothing else matters to them. They select other crats.

Obama, in his memoirs, say that what is important, in life, is navigation. The grand Vizier would have said the same. Thus the rule of law was very weak in the Ottoman empire. The Grand Vizier travelled with his personal fortune. He had it on board when the Ottoman fleet was tremendously crushed at the battle of Lepanto.  
All and any financial transaction ought to be revealed, regulated, and taxed. Those who cheat should go to jail and have their property confiscated, as pertains gangsters of the highest and most dreadful order.
That European banks, and Shadow banks are in the world financial spider sucking on blood, there is no doubt. That they behaved as if they were our overlords, no doubt either. However the three buffoons nominated recently, Draghi, head of the european Central Bank, super Mario (-nette), parachuted head of Italy, and whatever his name in Greece, were all Goldman Sachs officer, one of the major the spider nests.
So the present austerity is not about saving the euro at all. The euro is strong, all too strong. No, it’s all about paying rent to the banks, until all freedom is gone, except that of the ultra rich, it’s all about a new feudal order.
I will not answer the ill informed anti-European rant about European states being so disparate that they cannot have a common currency. France and Germany decided to become united in 1948. Together, they are at least half the economic power of the USA. Other states on their doorsteps can hardly ignore them. a truck driver, on one shift can cross half a dozen countries, and so on and so forth. I do understand though, that those who think, as Paul does that New York is the “greatest city in the world”, probably thing that, by necessity, Wall Street is the greatest street in the world.
France and Germany want to put an end to the domination of Wall Street. The euro will survive, big banks too big to fail, and big enough to flail us all, should be killed, and the American university-plutocratic complex will be exposed for what it is.



In 1944, the Americans intended to treat France, exactly just as if France were Nazi Germany. The AMGOT administration for France had been planned by the American Chief of Staff, Marshall. A fake French currency had been printed. Hundreds of American collaborators had been trained to take over the French administration. France was to be occupied. Indefinitely. By the Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories.

The American hegemony failed, because the trained, combat experienced French army was actually much bigger than the American army… in 1944 (it’s always the same American divisions which did all the fighting, whereas the French had completely replaced their experience and ferocious African army, by a new one). At most the Americans had 65 divisions in Europe. In any case the relationship between the French government and Washington was execrable. The French played the pivotal role in the failure of the Nazi offensive in the Ardennes: the panicked American command ordered the evacuation of Alsace (as Hitler thought would happen). But the French refused. That allowed Patton (who also believed that Washington was full of traitors) to throw his Third Army, the best tank army of the USA, north (as his right flank was covered by the French, who had surrendered just two and a half centimeters to the enraged Nazis).

In any case, AMGOT explains clearly why the USA, as a government, refused to help France and Britain in 1940, after hurting them in 1939 (and for several years before that). As far as all too many in Washington were concerned, France was an enemy, and Nazism a tool against that enemy.

A war gets engaged first by propagandists. Europeans have to understand Washington will keep on supporting the banks. So maybe they should stop collaborating.

Why not let the too-big-to-fail banks fail? Is it not what austerity ought to mean? (By failing I mean, while protecting small savers’ deposits, of course!) Then banks, helped by ferocious re-regulating, could stay small enough to help the People, rather than help themselves.

Massive default of the culprits, punishment and recovery of stolen hundreds of billions is a pre-condition to a new, and better financial order. Austerity ought to start at the top. Reintroduce Eisenhower’s 90% upper margin tax rate!

And please resist Krugman’s Europhobic ranting… Just as the Nazis, in a tradition going all the way back to the proto-Nazi philosopher Herder, Krugman exaggerates the “disparity” of the different European nations. Why does not Krugman tell us too that the Jews were too different? Why does not he tell us that Jews and Muslims, or Protestants, for that matter, were too disparate to function smoothly with one-size-fits-all monetary policy? Because he would sound too much like a proto-Nazi?

The Nazis, to a great extent, were manipulated by their American corporate sponsors. They also had German sponsors, but Wall Street overlorded over them (for example, Wall Street created IG Farben, among others; of course Wikipedia will not tell you that; I suspect that paid cleansers take out, or displace, a lot of the serious evidence in the Internet about the connection between Wall Street and Nazism; some pieces are left here and there).

What were the American plutocratic sponsors of Nazism about? Always more power to themselves, getting others to make their dirty work. Yes, some of the most important ones, like the Warburgs, were Jews. American culture, after grabbing an entire continent for itself, could only want to grab others.

As far as the other side of the culture which brought Auschwitz, one does not have to go very far. The ex astronomer Kant was, with Frederick the Great and Herder part of an infernal trio. Kant defined the Enlightenment, just as Krugman defines Europe. In his essay. “What Is Enlightenment?” Kant eructs that:

“Only one who is himself enlightened…and has a numerous and well-disciplined army to assure public peace, can say:’ Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey’ A republic could not dare say such a thing… A lower degree of civil freedom, on the contrary, provides the mind with room for each man to extend himself to his full capacity.”

Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering parroted this sort of thought many times during their reign.

Kant was a very good astronomer, but, as a proto-Nazi philosopher, he was superlative. As a historian he was a zero, because he obviously did not know the history of the Roman republic, a place where steely obedience triumphed, and where fascism was harnessed for the better, and for justice, in the interest of the many. Republican fascism: “All for one, one for all” became the symbol of the Roman, and latter the French republic.

But fascism as defended by Kant, was just in the service of his master, “one who is himself enlightened…and has a numerous and well-disciplined army”.

The rule of the one: the Greeks called that tyranny; that is what the word means. So Kant was also an etymological zero, or extremely dishonest, as he chose to forget what tyranny was. Kant’s call, just as that of Krugman, is that of division. All and any country at each other’s throats, in the hope that his own, with a “numerous and well-disciplined army” will win.

After all both Kant and Krugman lived of what they praise. Indeed economic war of countries against countries through devaluation is the essence of Krugman’s message. One may wonder how much of Krugman’s so called New Trade Theory” is little more than a fig leaf over the vast worldwide conspiracy, plutocracy its name, which strangles civilization, and the biosphere itself, a galaxy of conniving crats around the globe, immune to reason but for more obsessive power to themselves.

Krugman may still learn. A few of the basics above he learned in the last 12 months. Ferguson is a more complex case. He is less short sighted than Krugman, but neither his mind nor his eyes, nor memory, go far enough. Kant will not learn anymore, and he had nothing major to say which was good. It remains to kill him in other people’s minds.

Kant has much to do with what became the “German problem”. As Eichmann testified in Jerusalem.

What was the “German problem”? It was the Prussian hallucination that Frederick the Great approach to civilization could triumph. It was very similar to the English American colonial approach. In truth, it was an even more dreadful devolution than the American one, because not only it was out to spoil the Indians, but it mistook Europeans for Indians. As so many influential Germans brandish the most selfish and idiotically short sighted reasons for not supporting the rest of Europe Germany profited so much from, one can only conclude that some more philosophical work needs to be done.

Qaddafi used to call the freedom fighters who wanted him out of power,”rats”. But he spent his last moments of freedom in a sewer. Thus that crat was caught as a rat. More generally, one suspects that human institutions, which are all power structures, to be full of crafty crats in the most powerful positions. Thus the outraged/indignes/Occupy Wall Street are right to insist on absolute democracy. Crats there always will be. Mitigating them is of the essence for the survival of civilization.

Civilization is hard work. But first, civilization is superior mental work. Nothing that sheer brutality can buy. Greed is not enough to animate a civilization.

Civilization, and, more generally, the human spirit, has always incarnated  the triumph of ever more sophisticated minds over the “objective economic analysis” of rats, crats, and other crocs.

Si Vis Civilisationem, Cave Kratos.


Patrice Ayme

WHY EUROPE, Why The Euro.

January 4, 2011

Plutocratic Lie #2: The Euro Is A Problem.

(Well, OK, Not Really A Lie In The Sense That Europe Is A Problem For American Plutocrats And Their Servile Academics).


Abstract: The word and concept of "Europe" was employed in opposition to the giant plutocratic dictatorships to the south (Egypt) and to the east (Babylon, Assyria, Achaemenids, etc.) Thus it is more than 3,000 years old (4,700 years old if one includes the oldest Minoan civilization, as one should).

 Europe: since ever calling for democracy, secularism and progress, in the grandest scheme of ideas. (A lot of “Europe” originated in a triangle embracing Crete, Troy, Phoenicia, Egypt, so straddled the Romans’ “Asia”, and the full myth of Europe incorporates that fact: In the Cretan story, Europe was a Phoenician princess abducted by Zeus; so indeed, Europe is a global, transcultural idea.)

The European Union’s construction is the most important historical event since the flawed Greco-Roman empire lost its "feet of clay" (844 CE, see below). Roman feet were indeed made of philosophical clay, and that is why Rome fell, but not Europe. The European Union embodies ever more, in a persuasive way, the advanced philosophical and political principles established since the fall of the Greek and Roman People’s republics. Which fell because of their erroneous philosophical architectures. The collapse of Rome allowed the rebirth of Europe, solidly planted in human reality (technology had allowed the Greco-Romans to forget that reality, as Heidegger would have liked to say clearly).

It sounds grandiloquent, and it is: Europe is a grand locution to overwhelm history with reason.

The USA is nearly the opposite story. From the start, it has been more about overwhelming history the easy way. And it has gone worse recently. The USA has been betrayed by its plutocracy, which is trying a repeat, on an even larger scale, of what it did with Hitler in the period 1920-1945. This time China, the "Middle Kingdom", has replaced the "Third Kingdom".

The maneuver worked well last time, with Hitler. This time it will not work so well, if all the potential victims pay attention, in a timely manner, instead of just belated blood, sweat, tears. Besides, the People’s Republic of China is not necessarily as amenable to manipulation as the Nazis were. China has embraced the fundamental elements of the Western European philosophical tradition, by embracing Marx and the French Communist Party (at its birth, on location!) Thus China has entangled 26 centuries of local philosophy with some of the most modern philosophy (and China’s Colbertism is in full evidence).

Meanwhile, the USA has regressed with Reaganism, a classical return to the jungle and its voodoo. Reaganism has weakened the USA, just when the bill came due for the alliance of big oil with Salafism. Europe is now clearly threatening American supremacy (China, when reasonable, follows the EU rather than the USA). So the attacks against the Euro emanating from the USA have reached the level of classic war propaganda. As the French president pointed out on New Year’s Eve: "The end of the Euro would be the end of Europe." Please weight the meaning: even Hitler did not end Europe.

The propaganda coming from some unwittingly demonic Nobel Prizes so used to rub elbows with the plutocrats, is akin to an attempted elimination of Europe. There is a fine line not to be crossed where calling for the destruction of other people is beyond uncivilized. Insults and distortions become a preliminary to war. Before the Jews got destroyed, they were insulted, and misrepresented. Some of the context the likes of Krugman is trying to make us take for granted is outright lying (mostly, the EU, and the Euro, have been an immense GDP success, even with the recent slump; but reading Krugman, the opposite feeling is conveyed!)

The USA should not assume that European citizens will go on their knees to adore their plutocratic masters. This time, Europe will fight, as a common whole.

It is not because they know no history that ignorant miscreants are excused by history. The Nazis thought they knew history, but what they knew were only a few shards. Pleading ignorance later was no excuse. When the claims are great, so should the justifications be.

Another approach is found below to teach 3,000 years of European history, as demanded by the subject at hand, and in reverse.

Never forget that the word "Europe", in its modern meaning, was used, 13 centuries ago, to describe those who destroyed the Damascus Caliphate, in a series of battles in France (720 to 750 CE, in the first phase of a war which is still going on). And its earlier meaning was just the same, in nearly identical circumstances: democracy fighting tyranny.

At this level of the civilizational debate, it’s all about war. American plutocracy wants to destroy the European Union, because the Union has cracked down on bank bonuses, and the little crowd of vampires within 50 miles of Wall Street cannot stand that outrage against their way of sucking the rest of the universe dry. It’s no accident that Paul Krugman, all inflamed about Europe, is from around that den of thieves.

Krugman knows little about Europe (he just discovered Robert Schuman, see below). So, as Wittgenstein would point out, why does he talk? Well, because the environment that Krugman swims in is all about hating Europe (I use the word after much debate and consideration; no other fits as well, it seems to me, however sad that is).

When the senior Senator of New York made Obama tour the plutocrats of Wall Street, supposedly to raise funds, Obama changed, from a man to a servant. Plutocracy does that. And has always done that. And that is why the Spartans breached diplomatic protocol by throwing the plutocratic envoys down a well: because they wanted to cross a mental and philosophical Rubicon. It was going to be war to hell. That, too, is a European tradition. And it lived strong at Bir Hakeim, in 1942.

Charles Martel ("The Hammer") repeatedly hammered, indeed, the Salafist armies (732-737 CE). That was truly making philosophy into a hammer (Nietzsche borrowed the expression). Well, we live in even grander times, and our weapons, conceptual or not, are even more formidable. Fusion philosophy, here we come…



"The Economist" itself, the Anglo-American pro-business, pro-Wall Street magazine, pointed out that the Americans ought to stop confusing the European Union and NATO, as it observed that Obama himself, in an editorial to the New York Times, blurred both notions. Obama may be simply ignorant, but as usual, I prefer the more sinister explanation. Indeed, whereas ignorance is bad enough, conspiracy is worse. The wisest prepares for the worst. (Many philosophers have harped exaggeratedly on this theme, claiming the philosophy was only about death.).

Plutocracy is the eternal return of the capture of most by the few, using massively the exponential, which multiplies power (because one lends to power, and power lends, against interest).

As plutocracy is the rule of the few who have all the money-power, it is intrinsically an exploiter of the fascist instinct. That incites the many to follow their leaders in all ways, as long as there is war around. That is why plutocratic leaders always call war to help them out. (This explains in part why the USA is at war in Afghanistan since August 1979.) Fascist government is well adapted to combat, but a disaster for long term intelligence. Thus plutocracy and its associated fascism are intrinsic enemies of the essence of homo, which is intelligence. And always ends up losing to real men, those who know more than golf.

In other words, plutocracy, intrinsically philosophically regressing back to the jungle at war, is the absolute enemy of the European Union, which has to embody philosophical progressivism, because it was, and it is, its essence and its salvation. Philosophy has to progress, because so does technology, the later imprinting and adapting an ever changing ecology. (It’s a bit more complicated than Heidegger comprehended.)

The European colony in America was founded on the principle of Biblical exploitation. Hence the entanglement of the Bible, its holocausts, and the principle of American "exceptionalism" as foremost American objects of superstition (exceptionalism of the Elected People, as found in the Bible, helped by handy holocausts).

Exceptionalism is the fundamental enemy of democratic universalism. Whereas the European Union is trying to overwhelm history with reason, the American union has, historically speaking, solved ethnic rights with annihilation, hypocritically hidden below a pompous discourse to the contrary (a method that the Nazis consciously duplicated in Europe while forgetting that the French and the British were not Indians).

This is a major civilizational difference.

"The Economist" is observing a split between the ways the USA and the EU are solving the unfolding crisis. Below are some more of the reasons why.

Meanwhile Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize intellectual, revered in Europe, keeps on in the forefront of the struggle against the European Union. (Thus revering Krugman is somewhat self defeating for Europeans; however, I used myself to revere Barack Obama… even the best can slip on greasy hope!) Mr. Krugman, apparently suddenly aware of the historical dimension of Europe, is now trying to say something about this dimension he previously ignored. His feeble attempt, reproduced extensively below, is smashed as the defense of Europe calls for.



Paul Krugman, the most astounding intellectual the readers of "Social Europe" have ever heard of, is still firing on all cylinders against Europe. But now it has been pointed out to him that there was an historical dimension to making the European economy into what it is.

The notion that the house-management (eco-nomy) is subjugated to what we want the house to be about, has finally trickled down to Mr. Krugman. Mr. Krugman was apparently not aware of it. So he is trying to be more subtle. Here is in its entirety a recent blog post of his (January 2, 2011). It is mostly a quote from Schuman, one of contemporary Europe’s founding fathers. Not that Schuman was advocating a really new train of thought. Similar pro-European discourses were also held in the 1920s, and at a higher level.

The strong push towards European unification of the 1920s got an answer from Wall Street: Adolf Hitler. So I claim (and there is proof). But let’s read the mild mannered Krugman first, as he discovers the European dream, and is anxious to replace it by what he knows and lives best by, the American nightmare:

January 2, 2011, 8:18 am: Krugman’s Long Schuman Quote:

Coal, Steel, and the Euro

The road to the euro began with coal and steel. Here’s Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister, in 1950, proposing the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community:

"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification."

And Krugman to gloat: "It’s all there. Economic integration is supposed to serve a dual purpose: development, but also the creation of “de facto solidarity”, leading over time to a “European federation” — which is necessary because of the continent’s history of war."

And Krugman to hammer his Americano-American plutocratic point: "Unfortunately, the euro — unlike the coal and steel pact, the Common Market, the Eurosausage, and all that — was a questionable idea in terms of the underlying economics. And so the long European project is in trouble …"



Which planet has Krugman been on? In terms of human development, in terms of political development, since they have integrated the European Union and its monetary project (the EMU, predecessor of the Euro), Greece, Portugal and Spain have gone from impoverished American engineered dictatorships, to full wealthy democracies. Thanks to the EU, not thanks to the USA.

GDP growth, in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, has been enormous since those countries entered the European Monetary Union (and it is directly related). And GDP is a small part of the story. (GDP is what plutocrats love, because where they make their profits, all what matters to them.)

Even the CIA site recognizes that Ireland went from a largely agricultural backwater, to a modern technological society, several times richer. And Cameron, the young, wealthy, conservative British PM, was the first and strongest to come to the rescue of Ireland, by proposing a 100 billion dollar lifeline of credit. (Britain is not in the Eurozone, but one of three most industrially important EU countries; Britain was in the EMU before a plutocratic conspiracy knocked it out; then the plutocrats tried the same dirty trick with France, but they broke their fangs, another reason they got to hate the French republic, to add to the 70,000,000 other reasons.)

Notice Krugman’s propaganda method: "Unfortunately, the euro… was a questionable idea in terms of the underlying economics." Krugman presents as a fact something which is an anti-fact.

It is pretty clear that it would make no economic sense if New York and New Jersey, separated only by the Hudson river, used different currencies. So why should France and Germany, separated only by the Rhine, use different currencies? Krugman does not explain. Well, he does not, because he cannot. Nobody could.



The equation above is the fly in Krugman’s reasoning. France and Germany are unifying, the others can’t beat them, so they have to join them. All the more since Britain, France’s alter ego, after suffering a kind of Stockholm syndrome with the USA, will never be very far from France, and, in particular, no further than Germany is. (Whatever all transatlantic ignoramuses are bellowing in their wilderness.)

Krugman grew up in Long Island, east of Manhattan, and now lives in New Jersey, south of Manhattan. Will that make economic sense that those places would use three different currencies? Krugman says yes…on the other side of the Atlantic.

On his side of the Atlantic, as he explains by comparing Ireland and… Nevada, it makes no sense, because, basically, he says in his simplicity, the USA is an empire, and Europe is not.

It is a vicious logical loop: we, the USA, are an empire, so we can, Europe is not an empire, so it can’t (and we will make sure of it stays that way). Never mind that Ireland is closer to France than Georgia to New Jersey (president Jackson and his Supreme Court annihilated the "Five Civilized Tribes" from Georgia, but nobody eliminated the Irish, this is the only major difference I see; which civilized bit did I miss?)

Using a common currency is all the more important since France and Germany not just sell to each other, but build a lot of important things together, such as nuclear power plants, planes, helicopters and rockets. EADS is the world largest defense contractor, and it’s mostly a Franco-German company.

Krugman knows he would reveal his anti-European agenda too brutally if he declared pompously that France and Germany ought to be monetarily separated. So he prefers to attack Spain, which, with only 45 million inhabitants and 1.5 trillion dollars GDP (USA GDP is 14 trillion), seems like a weak link.

And should also mention Britain and Italy, lands that the Franks freed long ago from their oppressors and impress with their more advanced philosophy (Lombards, Byzantines and Muslims in the case of Italy; let alone Austria that France beat so that the duke of Savoy could be made king of a unified Italy…).

Britain and France are pretty much doing their military in common. Together their military capability is considerable. Just an example; there is a military missile company called MBDA, a European company, a giant in this field. They make the Meteor air to air ramjet interceptor, capable of sustained Mach 4 flight (over 100 kilometers; the engine is German, the guidance French). The Americans tried desperately to prevent the launch of MBDA in the 1990s, with Clinton writing a lot of personal letters to various Brits. Another missile of MBDA is the mostly Franco-Italian Aster 30 (used by the British, French and Italian navies). The Aster family of missiles can move at enormous lateral acceleration, with fins and mid-body rockets (so as not to break up), as you can see:


The Aster 30 can also move at nearly a mile per second. Over 100 kilometers. That gives it anti-ballistic missile capability. Anti ballistic missile capability, the US Navy does not have, and its aircraft carriers are sitting ducks, since the Chinese have developed a ballistic anti-carrier killer, and are gloating on TV shows about it, and also in cartoons visible on the web… Europe is no sitting duck, and the good old USA better understand that fast. Otherwise I have to show them a nuclear submarine that the French are helping Brazil to build.

So what was Krugman talking about already? Optimal currency area? What about optimal defensive area?



Why is Krugman obsessive about the Euro? Is it because, by talking obsessively about something unrelated he then does not have to worry about the banks? And how unfair the present system of creating riches and power for banks, by impoverishing everybody else is?

So Krugman talks about the Euro, or the Yuan, because that makes his life more comfortable. Also it serves his masters, located in the Greater New York area, making life even more comfortable. Obsessing about the Chinese currency allows American leaders to not explain to us that China’s economic expansion is financed by its giant banks, the world’s largest. Chinese bankers cannot speculate with the People’s money, except to build real things. Otherwise, a bullet is waiting for them.

The engineers and scientist who lead China make sure of that. In the West, instead, the bankers have been able to get away with threatening the economy with a bullet in the head, lest the People serves them on their knees. On one side the People’s republic of china, on the other, the Union of Servants of America. In the middle, the European Union, operating an in between system, which has confiscated most of the banksters’ bonuses.

But let’s go back to Krugman’s relentless campaign. it seems as if he was paid to destroy Europe. I am not paid to defend Europe, but I will, in the best traditions of the knights with shining armor.



But let me congratulate belatedly the esteemed Paul, for going back to the sources, and trying to acquire some historical gravitas. Now he dates back the creation of Europe to Schuman. Well, there is more than 2,000 years of history weighting on the subject. The Franks had learned, early on, from the mistakes of Augustus.

Mistakes are a funny thing: the Merovingians and Carolingians learned from Augustus’ folly, but the lesson was forgotten later, and this for 1,000 years. But let’s retrace history in reverse.

Let’s go further back, just before Schuman. In 1945, everybody was very angry against Germany, which lost a third of its territory, and suffered 17 million refugees, 2 million of which died. But that was in the east. France, instead, exerted restraint. She did not try to integrate the left bank of the Rhine (although it was the core of the Salian Franks’ territory, known as "Austrasia").

By 1945 the French leadership (from politicians, to generals and academics) had progressed so much intellectually that it had realized unification with Germany was the only solution. Unification had existed earlier. The last case of willing unification was in 1812, when Napoleon’s Grand Army integrated hundreds of thousands of German soldiers (total size of the Grand Army was nearly 700,000).

The folly of the separation of France and Germany was demonstrated when the French hater in chief, Adolf Hitler, took control of France in 1940. Adolf wanted to destroy France completely, and was happy with holding six million French prisoners inside Germany, after annexing vast swathes of France, submitting the rest to terror, deporting here and there to their death, hundreds of thousands of French civilians.

Why so much rage? The Nazis had suffered enormous losses of some of their more idealistic soldiers and officers in the Battle of France (maybe above 100,000 dead, although they tried their best to keep the number secret). Also Hitler was not ready to fight a world war. His preparations would have been complete by 1945. Because of France, the way he looked at it, he found himself in the world war, six years too early. Instead of spending these six years preparing for war, he would spend them, losing the war. He could well see that he had no chance to defeat France’s not so tender half, Britain, and he had to attack his old ally Stalin, to make sure he won’t fight on two fronts (!). At least, that’s what he explained to his generals (who were not amused).

Armaments and Industry Minister Albert Speer bluntly told Hitler that he would never win the war without some French industrial help, so he had to allow the revival of French industry. That enraged Hitler to high heavens… But Adolf himself had to agree that Speer was right. After the defeat of the Afrika Korps at Bir Hakeim in 1942 by a French army, in a modern version of Thermopylae, that was a particularly bitter pill to swallow. After the Axis disaster at Bir Hakiem, Hitler had explained to its cabinet that, once again, there was a proof that the French were the best soldiers, and so France was very dangerous, and thus had to be annihilated. (See Note.)

Speer won the argument. Later Hitler sent his most fanatical Nazi general to destroy Paris, but, instead, the general, known as the "Butcher of Sevastopol", negotiated an armistice with the French resistance, and surrendered to the famous French Second Armored division. World War Two proved to thoughtful French and Germans that fighting each other was not just hopeless, but self defeating. Nor was staying apart a valid proposition either. As a further look back deep in history shows:



The Franks had spent four centuries extending their Franco-Roman empire. After the Treaty Of Verdun (843 CE). Paris stayed capital in some sense, but the Imperium Francorum , the empire of the Franks, was divided in three.

Divisions often happened, and the Franks had always reunited in the past four centuries. The reason was that the Imperium Francorum was more a philosophical union than a dynastic one. In theory, there were no dynasties among Germans (although that was certainly not true in practice). Meanwhile, Western Franks (capital Paris) were supposed to propose the candidate who would reign over the Eastern part (Germania-Italia). And they did this for a century or so.

However, the western part had its own worries (tremendous invasions by Danes, and Vikings, which they empire was initially defenseless from, all the more since some sort of Mongols, the Avars, were attacking in the east).

The west was busy electing its own kings, while looking down on the uncouth easterners. So, although the French king was emperor ("in His own kingdom"), candidates for the top job in Germania-Italia were not proposed anymore. And two-thirds of the Frankish kingdom got in the habit of electing their own emperor for the "Holy Roman Empire" (which was neither of these qualifiers, as Voltaire pointed out). And the haughty French stayed out, except when they invading, or being invaded a bit.

Progressive estrangement followed. Only 11 centuries later did it become perfectly clear that estrangement was unsustainable. as I just said, even Hitler had to admit to that apartheid with France was self defeating.



Since I am going in reverse, I may as well go all the way. Everybody has misunderstood and mislabeled the Dark Ages. The darkness was really about Christian theocratic terror, the metaphysical context of Late Roman fascism.

It mainly failed in the West, because the "FEDERATED" German tribes which constituted, by 450 CE, most of the Roman army in the "Pars Occidentalis" agreed neither with the fascism, nor the unequal society (at least not with them on the bottom), nor with the sexism. On top of that, the Franks, who had helped Constantine conquer the empire, had a vision of the Church in the old Roman republican way, namely infeodated to the state.

That was the crucial twist on (Saint) Augustine’s declaration that:"Omnium Christianorum una respublica est ( Civitate Dei, XXV. 1). The Franks saw themselves as re-establishing the "Respublica Christiana". Respublica first, Christiana an adjective.

"He who ordains the fate of kingdoms and the march of the centuries, the all-powerful Disposer of events, having destroyed one extraordinary image, that of the Romans, which had, it was true, feet of iron, or even feet of clay, then raised up, among the Franks, the golden head of a second image, equally remarkable, in the person of the illustrious Charlemagne." (Notker the Stammerer, monk of Saint Gall, 844 CE).



So France and Germany, after aborted attempts under the fascist Napoleon (and, to some extent the demoniac Hitler), and in the 1920s, have decided to re-unite. It is as simple as that. Having a common currency is a necessary part of the re-unification. It makes zero sense that France and Germany would use different currencies. True, France is less austere, but, even more than Britain, she has a strong birth rate (the highest of the white race, with tiny Ireland).

Then economics of power play in. France and Germany together is a super power. It’s bigger than Japan in all ways, and its population is growing. stuck between france and Germany are some historical debris.

The Netherlands (where the Salian Franks came from), was known to the Roman as "Germania Inferior", and Belgium was the most ferocious of the Germano-Celtic nations.

In other words, the Benelux (population 30 millions) is an integral part of the Franco-German ensemble (population 150 millions). Separating Austria and Northern Italy is impossible too (the historical ties are that strong). So we observe one nation, in the middle of Europe with 220 million people. It is only natural that it would use just one currency.

Obviously the outliers (Spain, etc.) cannot stay out. Be it only because the economic ties are so great. It’s as simple as that. Spain is 0 kilometer away from France. whereas California is 4,000 kilometers away from Washington DC. In the fullness of history, zero distance, such as between Spain and France, demands unification.

In the past, even as recently as three centuries ago, a country like France was full of internal borders, every few leagues. People regretted the Roman empire, and the empire of the Franks, and their free circulation of goods and people (no borders!) Well the Greco-Roman empire is back. Just better. Now it incorporates Estonia and Finland.



The voice of Paul Krugman is, unfortunately that, of nationalism. And not any nationalism. American nationalism. To keep California close to Washington, nationalist Americans know the cheapest way is to put some distance between Spain and France. They know that super power in Europe means less power in the USA.

Then a modern equivalent of Texaco could put back in power a modern equivalent of Franco (without too much intervention from the French and other European democrats).

Well, it’s not going to happen: Europeans have been learning their history. Although they would profit even more by studying the role of the USA as a double faced Janus in the rise of Hitler. Something my sites cover lyrically.

Verily, there is no big Euro crisis (except in American minds). France and Germany are going to unite fiscally (subjugating Switzerland fiscally was just warm-up). The Europeans are not building Europe by falling asleep at the wheel, and getting nothing done, except war overseas and plutocrats all over. The US governmental system does not work. It has two president: the one in the White House, who says he is black, and Congress, which is not even a person. And now the Supreme Court has decided corporations were private persons capable of secret political donations.

Most European government have real power, so they can reform and change, and they change even their constitutions continually, because of the European construction.

What the Europeans do, since they are great political athletes, is to pose themselves challenges, and then solve them. The Euro is one of these challenges. And there is one rule, one very important rule: the problem should be solved "par le haut" 9through the top). That means that only higher philosophical solutions are acceptable. Going back down to the jungle, as the Nazis did, was a solution through the bottom, and solutions through the bottom are unacceptable.

The Europeans observed that there was a banking crisis. And that it was caused by bonuses, and the "moral hazard" associated to them. So the Europeans cracked down on bonuses. And now American academics are howling to the winds. Many on them are (secretly) on the payroll of major financial “institutions” (there are no disclosure rules for economists).

Well, we will see. The American banks are getting deeper into their mess, since Bushama gave them the capital to do again what they did before. They will do it again, they are already doing it again. I guess American academics ought to howl about Europe even louder…Their masters need cover.

Europe is as broad a tapestry of history.  I did not even get into Augustus’ mistake, and Caesar’s strategy about Europe


Patrice Ayme



Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

%d bloggers like this: