by Ramin Mazaheri
The bottom line is: For the EU to work – for it to be of benefit to the average person – it has to follow France’s historical plan.
That has always been the case, and it has also never been the case: the flaw in the plan remains selfish West Germany (now just Germany).
This seems like common knowledge in the Eurozone, and certainly in smaller Eurozone nations such as Greece. But according to former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis: “…Paris bears greater responsibility than Berlin for the euro’s faults.”
To be honest, I don’t even have a dog in this bilateral fight, but this declaration doesn’t correspond with the facts. It doesn’t even correspond with the facts as presented by Varoufakis himself in his book, “And the Poor Must Suffer What They Must?”
In a previous article I debunked his book as being riven with fake-leftism; I provided abundant proof that Varoufakis is as “Marxist” about as much as Marx was from Mars.
I write this article because Varoufakis doesn’t seem to believe what every European outside of Germany already knows, and even what he has written himself: France has actually been right all these decades…IF one views the construction of the Eurozone through an authentically-leftist and anti-imperialist perspective (which Varoufakis lacks).
This is the second article in a seven-part series on the Eurozone, and the next article is The hopelessly corrupt structure of the Eurozone – that should give some indication of how little I support this “pan-European project”/banker cabal.
But blaming France instead of Germany is simply incorrect, and this article aims to remedy that.
France’s Eurozone: A tool against American imperialism & for ‘pan-European capitalist Stalinism’
Me, I’m a communist – I like any country which is anti-capitalist, which means I fundamentally oppose both Germany and France, and the Eurozone as well. But the historical reality is that France is more prone to tolerating communist thought than West Germany ever was: France’s legislature was 30% communist from 1946-1958, while the communist party was banned in West Germany.
The Eurozone is not a new project – its roots go back to the 6-nation cartel the European Coal and Steel Community, established in 1951.
And this is my thesis, totally ignored by Varoufakis: France may never have been more than one-third communist, but it was Marxist-influenced enough to realize that modern socio-economic policies are needed to fight imperialism – in France’s case, the United States. They realized that France was in a fight to keep its sovereignty, and so it conceived of the European Union as a Franco-German bulwark against imperial domination.
Now, a hard-core leftist might respond: “No, the 1% in France always conceived of the Eurozone as a capitalist cartel to enrich themselves and care nothing for their fellow citizens.” Well, I salute you – you can click onwards to other intellectual fare you find more interesting, but I suggest you read on because reality is far more nuanced.
What France has historically proposed for this European-sovereignty protecting bulwark can be termed: “pan-European capitalist Stalinism.” This is not as radical as it sounds, because we can all agree that on the spectrum of Western capitalism France is placed on the left-wing. But more proof for this thesis later….
I will prove that France’s machinations did contain an admirable, anti-imperialist goal: I think only a fake-leftist like Varoufakis would refuse to entertain such a view.
Since 1965 France has been openly opposing the hegemony of US imperialism in Western Europe
Sooner than any other Western European country, the French understood that the Bretton Woods monetary system (when accounts began being regularly settled not in gold but in dollars) was not, as Varoufakis absurdly believes, “…meant as a balanced system of international trade and financial flows,” but as a plan for US domination by the dollar.
Europe’s participation meant it supported American living standards and subsidized American companies. That the US could print unlimited dollars for unlimited imports was famously deemed an “exorbitant privilege” by France, but postwar France could do nothing about it…..
Until 1965, when it became clear that there was an explosion in the US deficit. Wars in Korea, Vietnam and vast domestic spending had reduced their control of gold stocks significantly: In 1949 the US had 22,000 tons of gold, 75% of all central bank reserves and 44% of the above-ground stock; by 1960 that had dwindled to 16,000 tons, 47% of central bank reserves and 25% of the above-ground stock.
Theoretically, the US had to pay their debts on demand with US gold. But the trade imbalance meant that there were increasingly insufficient gold reserves to ensure repayment of foreign debts.
And immediately in 1965, France and Charles de Gaulle openly demanded a reform of the Bretton Woods system and a return to the gold standard. “Perhaps never before had a chief of state launched such an open assault on the monetary power of a friendly nation,” said Time magazine in a February 12, 1965, article.
The idea that the monetary domination of the US was “friendly” is something which maybe London or Berlin would accept, but Paris saw through the fiction.
But the French were not all bold words but no action when it came to fighting US domination: Also in 1965, De Gaulle sent a ship to the US and demanded the removal of 350 tons of gold from the New York Federal Reserve – $23 billion in today’s value. This is more than the total Ghadaffi held in reserve to launch his proposed pan-African Dinar.
Varoufakis both admiringly and dismissingly writes: “No one can deny that, when it comes to semiology, the French are unbeatable.” Yes, France’s move was full of metaphoric poetry…but it was also a damned intelligent and bold move to ensure their sovereignty and to fight a very real US imperialism.
In 1966 France withdrew from NATO and forced their headquarters to move from Paris to Belgium.
In 1967 de Gaulle was the first to withdraw from the West’s London Gold Pool, which had been hastily constructed in 1961 to defend Bretton Woods. France withdrew more significant gold stocks, further fighting the hegemon.
Finally, let’s recall the foundational Élysée Treaty of friendship between France and Germany, signed back in 1963 – it was a clear attempt to separate West Germany from the Anglosphere. The US was livid at France’s attempt at undermining the US-led order: “I can hardly overestimate the shock produced in Washington by this action or the speculation that followed, particularly in the intelligence community,” said top US diplomat George Ball.
So the French clearly saw what was coming and they repeatedly acted against Rome – for this they deserve credit. The English did not see it coming or were too closely tied to Caesar. West Germany was pro-USA all the way, for reasons I will soon elaborate.
France wanted a bold partnership with (still-fascist) Germany…against the US
Yes, as a leftist I see the Eurozone as a capitalist cartel…but, in a very real sense, at least it’s an anti-American capitalist cartel, no?
It’s an interesting and important distinction. Theoretically, if the capitalist elite in France could fend off US imperialism they would have more wealth which would not trickle down to the 99%, right?
And let’s not forget – the US forced France into anti-Americanism: de Gaulle was famously not invited to Yalta, where Stalin, FDR and his lap dog Churchill divvied up the spoils. France knew it was on a lower rung, and they didn’t like the view of an American boot.
But as soon as the British soldiers returned they did something extremely intelligent: they voted out the alcoholic, reactionary, racist Churchill and voted in the Labor Party. You can imagine that – in rabidly anti-socialist America – this made Washington very suspicious. The US immediately decided that better a fascist than a socialist (the same decision they routinely make in 2017), called off the in-progress plan to deindustrialize Germany and instead tapped West Germany for their imperial collaborators. That is why Germany is the industrial powerhouse of Europe today even though they lost WWII, make no mistake about it: US patronage.
When one looks at history from an anti-imperialist/Marxist perspective, we see that the French elite (capitalist, of course) clearly concocted the idea of Franco-German-led European unification to preserve their own sovereignty and to counterbalance the plans of the US.
However, Varoufakis misses this completely – he repeatedly presents the French push for a “European Union” not as a way to stave off US domination, but as way to dominate Germany: “For the French elites, a common currency with Germany was an attempt to neutralize Germany, indeed to conquer the Bundesbank without firing a shot.”
“Neutralize” and “conquer” can have two very, very different connotations. By the mid-1960s French elites were well aware that they could not compete industrially with America’s creation of a German Frankenstein, so they wanted to join with Germany. Thus it is in this sense of “neutralizing” a superior power that Varoufakis is correct, but not “neutralize” as in kill.
France wanted to not be conquered by the US-German alliance, so they kept proposing a Franco-German (capitalist) alliance.
What France assumed everyone wanted: Anti-austerity economics across Europe
LOL, and we still want this today in the Eurozone! The French were right then and now.
The French were also right in 1981: the French Left swept to power with more anti-capitalist fervor than any Western nation had ever seen. Labor was united, experienced, bold and ready to lead; capitalism was only taking the very first step of high-finance Ponzi-ism; Mitterrand’s “Common Project” was the most far-left of any economic project in any major Western economy ever.
The truth is that France had a genuine commitment to a pan-Europeanism guided by a mixed socialist/pro-growth/not-rabidly-capitalist economic plan.
And yet France was forced to renounce it in favor of austerity. There are two reasons for that, but one genuine reason is that France mistakenly assumed that Germany would fight for a capitalism which was, at least, not totally modeled on American ruthlessness.
“And so President Mitterrand’s government abandoned anti-austerity policies on the dubious grounds that austerity could only be defeated Europe-wide once the French economy was subjected to doses of anti-austerity sufficiently large to placate the money markets and to convince Germany’s elites to bow to the superior wisdom of French economic policymaking.” (my bolding)
So, you see, France’s economic policymaking IS superior – defeating austerity on a continental level is what everybody should want!
Yes, as a Marxist I am skeptical and unimpressed by France’s mixed socialism, but I note that – for a capitalist project – this is a far, far more humane program than Germany’s harsh capitalism where austerity’s goal is greater inequality with Germany perpetually in surplus.
France’s crucial error was just that -they failed to realize how completely capitalistic Germany is: Grandma was a Nazi and Pops was a US boot-licker – no wonder the kids in Germany think Merkel’s austerity against Greece is justified.
Germany remains imperialistic in 2017 – they have not changed. France’s failure is one of naiveté, which is far less of a sin than Germany’s heartless austerity.
And France did not change this somewhat-noble effort from 1981 all the way up to Francois Hollande:
“…(Mitterrand) embarked on a project that is with us to this very day: to convince German voters that monetary union was Germanizing France and exporting Teutonic discipline to Latin Europe, turning grasshoppers into ants rather than importing French sloth into Germany.”
There are so many things wrong with this quote from Varoufakis : “Teutonic discipline” is absurd – they have profited from untold billions from the US and did not reinvent the wheel all alone; “French sloth” is absurd – France’s productivity rates are higher than Germany’s and among the best in the world; “convince German voters” is the biggest absurdity because there has never been an EU-related referendum in Germany. It is the capitalist and media elites of Germany who have duped German voters into not realizing that the 99% is significantly poorer thanks to the perpetual “race to the bottom/beggar thy neighbor” that is modern capitalism: The Eurozone has not brought prosperity to the average German, as inequality has risen sharply this century and their poverty rate of 16% is much higher than in France.
But Varoufakis is correct that for three decades France has been trying to “convince” Germany into giving up their surplus dominance and, literally, sharing the wealth with Europe’s deficit nations. Of course, of course, of course – you cannot have a surplus without a deficit: France is Marxist-influenced enough to accept that, but not Germany.
France’s ‘pan-European capitalist Stalinism’
“Instead of the socialism-in-one-country that he had promised French voters in 1981, (Mitterrand) ended up espousing cartelized-corporatism-on-one-continent….”
A true Marxist would point out that this statement affirms – hold on to your socks, fake-leftists – the genius of Stalinism: By giving up the coordinated international revolution of Trotskyism and allowing the USSR to prosper all alone, Stalin made his great theoretical contribution to communism.
Yes, international revolution is the goal, but there is no reason why socialism cannot take hold in one country all alone – the enemies of communism are too great, and we should do what we can, when we can do it. Just because German revolutionaries famously failed the join Soviet Revolution in 1917, there was no reason why Russia should abandon communism. (Sheesh…how many times is Germany gonna let everyone down…?)
The solidly real yang of Stalinism provides an indispensable base of support for Socialist victories to grow elsewhere, which is the inevitable and magnetic yin of Trotskyism – the two can never be separated, nor should they.
(Sidebar 1: As an Iranian I can tell you this: If we had waited around for Trotskyism to catch global fire we’d still be shoveling the Shah’s mud! Countries have a right to go it alone. And where would Syria be without Iranian support, or Palestine and Lebanon for that matter?)
(Sidebar 2: When you read leftists attempting to denigrate France’s unions as “Stalinist”, this is what they mean: they are looking out for France’s unionists/labor and are not sufficiently connected to the international movement. To be fair, France’s unions have repeatedly shown a self-centered lack of solidarity by selling each other out by cutting side deals time after time in the age of austerity.)
So what France has been essentially proposing since WWII is “Stalinism-on-one-continent”, or at least the version provided by those on the left-wing of capitalism: France’s plan is based upon the idea that – gasp! – austerity is not good, while growth policies are.
It’s important to remember that this mirrors France’s own postwar economic model: the “Mixed Economy”. The state gives short- and long-term targets for industry to meet, and aids them to achieve it. There’s planning, but it’s not at the USSR’s level. There’s state ownership, but not at the USSR’s level. There is also a commitment to a decent social safety net for things like health and education because, again, austerity is simply not sustainable: some investments must be made…assuming that you want society to gain empowerment and not just the 1%.
France’s Mixed Economy is also not at the level of Japan, where the state’s role was much larger (until the mid-1980s), and where economic success was far greater.
It’s not a terrible plan…for capitalism.
The problem is: it’s far, far too left for West Germany to follow and always has been. West Germany (now just “Germany) sees, as they stood on America’s shoulders while France could only crane their neck, that they can control everything; they can make a “United States of Europe” with Berlin as Washington DC, Frankfurt as New York City, and everyone else as flyover country full of poor deplorables.
Continent-wide anti-austerity was a decent goal, and France was right to push for it.
But France’s consistency is ultimately a foolish one; it is France’s fault for believing international solidarity plays any role at all in capitalism. I’m not going to descend into foolish stereotyping and say “It’s those damned selfish Germans again!” – I’m just going to say: “It’s those damned selfish capitalists again!”
US, Germany & high finance versus everybody
Anglophone, capitalist media is more than happy to keep relaying Germany’s absurd moral attacks on deficit nations, all while ignoring France’s pleas: In 1992 France’s prime minster talked of a “victory of German selfishness over international solidarity,” and I’m sure it was rarely relayed in the Anglosphere.
German selfishness is the secondary reason France’s anti-austerity push failed in 1981 and ever since, but the primary reason was: the fundamental nature of capitalism, where high-finance wages war on any nation threatening their dominance.
I must quickly lay out the true reason why Mitterrand failed to implement socialism in his own country: Despite their huge democratic mandate to end austerity and restore growth polices, France was immediately foiled by high finance and currency speculators.
Capital flight from France to Germany immediately took place with Mitterrand’s coming victory, putting the franc in immediate peril. Long-term borrowing rates (10-year bond) went from 9.6% in March 1979 all the way to 17.3% in May 1981, when Mitterrand was elected.
The franc was devalued 3 times, but Mitterrand was forced into submission. He made his U-turn in March 1983, and by March 1986 10-year bonds were at 9.3%.
What happened was that Germany and the Bundesbank, knowing that high-finance was philosophically in their corner and betting against France with every dollar they could borrow, joined with global high finance and professional currency speculators to strangle France in order to compel them to backtrack on communist-inspired ideas.
If high finance cared at all for democracy and not a possible redistribution of their billions in personal savings, they would have supported France’s anti-austerity plan.
France’s could not boldly defy high finance and keep devaluing their currency until growth took hold for another crucial reason: they would have had to abandon the new European Monetary System (EMS), and this currency rate linkage was France’s brainchild for their long-term goal: wooing Germany away from the US and towards European integration. The EMS was the direct predecessor of the euro.
To stay in the EMS, of course, meant violating the people’s will: “It was the first time a left-leaning government was to discard an anti-austerity agenda in favour of remaining true to the iron logic of Europe’s monetary union.”
Without high finance’s support France was unable to follow its own independent, sovereign, democratically-supported path.
It must be taken as axiomatic that the 1% will make war with any leftist government in the exact same manner.
(I point you to examine the “War of the Triple Alliance”, the “original sin” of post-Bolivar South America and the continent’s bloodiest war ever. In short, Paraguay had totally shut out foreign investors in favor of economic protectionism and internal development…and created a place where poverty ceased to exist. British and French bankers put the dogs (Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) on them, and 70% of Paraguayan males were slaughtered for not wanting any part of foreign “loans”. )
France was pushing leftism, ok, but Mitterrand was no Khomeini. France’s leaders and their people lacked the revolutionary fervor of places like 1979 Iran to go it alone and say “to hell with high finance”. Such a path is not for the faint-hearted: the West’s 1% foisted war with Iraq on revolutionary Iran (just as they did with Paraguay), and a truly deadly Cold War has existed ever after.
Given the lack of revolutionary fervor, France’s best route to the fundamentally-limited grassroots sovereignty offered by capitalism may truly have been to keep pushing the Franco-German alliance, and to stay in the EMS. France was truly fighting an imperial hegemon (while also being a neo-imperial hegemon themselves) and Varoufakis and others totally miss this.
And France was on the right track to at least ameliorate capitalism – Germany was wrong to refuse any sort of economic solidarity. It’s appalling that this is still the case!
Creeping fake-leftism culminates with Hollande, but are the deplorables infected?
The “Ponzi stability” of the 1980s and beyond blinded the French Left to the reality of class war, deluding them into thinking that high finance would ever share their wealth with the 99%.
“…Mitterrand’s unique achievement of co-opting much of the traditionally recalcitrant French Left to (French Finance Minister Jacques) Delors’s cause – effectively into support for the conservative North-Central European cartel.”
Instead of supporting communism – which will always be genuine “leftism” – the West’s left opted for pan-European cartelism. It took the European Sovereign Debt crisis to re-unveil the anti-social hydra that is high finance and capitalism.
We now see that Hollande’s presidency fits right in-line with this leftist analysis: In 2012 he was supposed to lead a “Latin Bloc” to fight Germany into – as usual – ending austerity.
It’s interesting to note that 10-year bonds stood at 2.75% when Hollande was elected…and they fell immediately and constantly. French 10-year bonds stood at 0.81% when he left office…in disgrace.
How can we explain that there was no capitalist war on France even though Hollande campaigned on promises of ending austerity, funding infrastructure and saying that “high finance is my enemy”? Varoufakis has Hollande’s number, calling him “the meekest of leaders” – high finance knew he was a patsy and the thinnest of paper tigers. Hollande put up no resistance to western Germany-led capitalism once he took office.
Varoufakis, writing in 2015, ends on a high note for France, despite Germany’s continued rejection of pro-growth policies and pan-European solidarity.
“France is important in that, despite rapid decline after its ill-fated attempt to capture the Bundesbank, it remains difficult to subdue and almost impossible to absorb into a modern-day version of Bismarck’s unitary empire.”
I have a couple of interesting theories for this, so please indulge me.
France will never be subdued by Germany for a reason which is almost beyond economics: food. By nature, France will always remain powerful for the simple fact that God has designated their territory to be the breadbasket of Western Europe. Somebody MUST produce the food, and the global economy is not in a place where faraway nations can do it much cheaper than your neighbors. France’s agricultural production is 18.1% of the EU total, and that is 35% more than Germany, 47% more than Italy and 71% more than Spain – forget about Netherlands and their flower-dominated agriculture, that’s not the same thing. France leads in nearly all the key categories: cereal (wheat for bread), beef and poultry. Add in being first in potatoes and they have all the staples covered. Their dominance here is as huge as German dominance in manufacturing even if it is worth less overall than manufacturing.
I don’t think this geographic determinism can be easily dismissed. I think it is too bottom-line oriented to try to get past a simple fact of life so quickly forgotten by ivory tower urbanites: somebody’s gotta produce the damned food. The fact that France comprises top-quality farmland, while others sit on rocky mountains or in bad weather zones, must mean something. It certainly always has meant a great deal….
Secondly, France has also long-known what the US knows about their huge deficit: their nuclear power prohibits Germany or anyone else from ever collecting. Who is going to invade France? So of course they are don’t mind running up the bill….
Macron: the death knell of decades of fighting American-German imperialism
Of course…that is predicated on France having a leadership which was actually looking out for their sovereign interests.
Is it too late, now that France voted in Macron, the uber-globalist?
Macron represents the death of France’s historical push to end the imperial domination of Germany, the US and high-finance.
This is why Macron is poised to present the maximum amount of subversion from within: by selling off as much of France as possible, and by creating a Eurozone structure which decreases as much French democratic power as possible. Macron is acting as the ultimate 5th Columnist, and he is a major deviation from French postwar history. Indeed, who could have predicted his ascent not even one year ago?
Macron just kicked off a $12 billion privatization drive of state-owned companies. Oh, the shares didn’t sell as high as his government assured us? Why, I’m sure they’re all just sick about that! How will Macron be able to sleep tonight, between that and the smell of his wife’s Bengay arthritis cream?!
For Macron and all “globalists”, only money matters: not national sovereignty, not the living condition of those on the other side of their hometown, not preserving France’s unity, health and sanity. I told y’all to vote Le Pen!
What could have been: A ‘Petroeuro’
Why isn’t there one? The Eurozone is the largest macro-economy after all?
Well, Saddam Hussein tried selling oil in euros in 2000. We know what happened in 2003.
France’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn was the huge front-runner for president in 2012…but also a supporter of Special Drawing Rights, which had the potential to sharply reduce dollar domination. Then Strauss-Kahn was accused of assaulting a very rare type in New York City: A hotel maid who speaks French instead of Spanish. What are the odds…? (The case against him was dropped due to lack of evidence, let’s justly recall.)
I notice that the US has not picked up Ghadaffi’s sensible pan-African Dinar plan after they toppled him? I wonder why?
Ironically, Iran – and not any European country – is the only nation which has pushed for a Petroeuro! And why not? The US keeps waging war on us by any means possible – Iran continues to say, “Bring it on!”
So, the recent news that China is going to soon open up a yuan-gold-oil exchange is earth-shattering. It’s a commodities bombshell, a global financial bombshell, a geopolitical bombshell…and we have waited a long time for this.
Countries with oil who are strong enough to stand up to the US – Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Syria, etc. – can soon circumvent US sanctions. (Iran has been bartering oil bilaterally for years – this should get us a better rate, now that we are not all alone.)
So, “bombshell” is not strong enough, and I hope that this article’s discussion of Bretton Woods, EMS, etc. gives China’s news a bit more historical context for you.
Eurozone citizens can add “Where’s my Petroeuro” to the question of “Where’s my bailout?”
Well, if you hadn’t voted for Macron, if your fake-leftists had seen American-German imperialism for what it is, if you were devoted to an anti-imperialist/anti-capitalist worldview…y’all would have had a Petroeuro. It’s really been quite a missed opportunity….
However, because of all these reasons I just mentioned, the new “Petroyuan” (long may she reign!) will be fundamentally different than a Petroeuro would likely have been: Even if Europe had the guts to stand up against America, neo-imperial history shows that they would have found a way to employ it as a capitalist tool for “zero-sum” manipulation. The Petroyuan is so typical of China’s “non-imperial” imperialism: you can sell oil for yuan or for gold – you can choose.
And that’s why China is not imperialist at all – don’t believe the hype.
China has SOME communist solidarity in their makeup, as opposed to NONE for capitalists. “Mutually beneficial” is how they routinely deal with the 3rd World in Africa, Latin America, Asia, etc. and all these countries report exactly that: there’s a fundamental ethical difference between doing business with China and doing business with the West.
So, with friends like West Germans and voting in leaders like Macron…a Petroeuro just wasn’t in the cards for the Eurozone.
Knock the ‘French model’, but they’ve been fighting the “German model” since Bismarck
Anyway…it’s not all Macron’s fault. Sarkozy rejoined NATO, after all.
This is a generational, cultural trend in the making since the 1980s, when the scourge of fake-leftism began.
Let’s reflect on the historical reality: The Eurozone is ruled by bankers and not by an idea of pan-European solidarity. And it is Germany’s bankers and Bundesbank which bear the greatest fault for a lack of pan-European solidarity, not France’s elite, even according to Varoufakis:
“…the Bundesbank was always there, guiding, enabling and actively undermining the Franco-German axis around which the European Union rotated.”
France (being capitalist) is not an angel in all this, but Varoufakis is clearly completely off the mark when he blames Paris for the Eurozone’s faults: France’s elite realized that a West Germany allied with the US meant they would be the soon-dominated 3rd wheel. And why wouldn’t Germany be next to drop?
But decades of bold moves, daring diplomacy, anti-austerity programs and other efforts culminated in “Flanby” Hollande, and now the worm has turned into Macron, “the Rothschurian Candidate”.
But Paris has shown that they have some sense of solidarity, whereas Berlin is not playing by the rules of humanity – they are playing by the rules of capitalism, which is “dog eat dog”.
There is historical, genuine support for communism in France. There is also historical, genuine support for socialism/communism in Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal.
But such ideas have been legally verboten in West Germany, and the corporate media means it is still effectively that way today. Forget about there being some sort of ideological leavening from East Germany because the West has totally dominated the former East Germany culturally, economically and demographically. (If East Germany was reinstituted as a country today they would be the oldest country in the world, and by several years.)
The hard-core capitalists and the elites of Berlin and Frankfurt have proved they refuse to share for decade after decade, and they will prove it again when you open your next newspaper.
Without the very real “Latin Leftism” the Eurozone is doomed…to domination by German bankers working alongside American ones.
Blame capitalism, as you should, but France deserves credit for trying.
France is headed back from summer vacation, and head-on to more austerity-provoked social unrest. I thought it might be interesting to refresh our familiarity with the cause of the unrest: the Eurozone.
This is the second article I have written in a 7-part series on today’s Eurozone which will combine some of Varoufakis’ ideas with my 8 years of covering the crisis first-hand from Paris.
Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!
Varoufakis book review: Rock star economist but fake-leftist politician
Why no Petroeuro? or France’s historic effort for an anti-austerity Eurozone
The hopelessly corrupt structure of the Eurozone
The Eurozone: still as primed for collapse as ever
The Eurozone has likely entered its final calendar year, contraction coming
The English-speaking world’s fear of calling communism, ‘communism’
Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.
Thanks Ramin for, once again, a very comprehensive update and the historical perspective to enable your readers to see in context what shapes up today’s Europe.
The Marshall Plan and the earlier “assistance” programmes were the financial/economic arm of the grand plan to apply the Bretton Woods policy in Europe. In conjunction with Nato – the politico-military branch of the Master Plan for Europe – and the US refusal to allow the reunification of Germany, the conditions were set for the permanent occupation of Europe.
Together with the enforced cancellation of Germany’s war debts and claims for reparations by countries invaded by Germany, it was obvious that the US intended to use that country as their favourite and central to the master plan and that explains why there are 21 major US bases in Germany and none in France. And the Germans don’t even mutter about it! They are disciplined all right!
Pity Stalin went directly for the jugular (Berlin) instead of preventing the “allies” from setting foot on German territory. After all, the US only entered the war to stop the Russians claiming their much deserved victory over Nazi Germany.
I’m not sure that at the time (in the midst of savage fighting) the USSR had the military strength to occupy all of Germany. Before the Anglo allies could have entered Germany.But it would have been much better for the world if they could have reached the Rhine .And used it as the meeting ground instead of the Elbe.They “might” then have forced the Anglo allies to agree to an Austrian solution for Germany.Where the country was reunited as a neutral state. Even today it seems that Austria is more friendly with Russia. I believe that is mostly because the Soviets allowed them reunion as a neutral state. And unlike in West Germany,they didn’t have decades of anti-Russian indoctrination as daily fare. East Germany would have been reunited in a “one Germany” in the late 1940’s instead of half a century later. An offer made by the Soviets in 1948,and quickly rejected by the West.
IIRC Reagan and Bush were okay with reunification, while Thatcher was against it.
Viva Ramin! In a world of make believe, you are a beacon of common bloody sense. Keep the words of wisdom flowing mate, we are listening intently!
This one is hard to swallow
‘France’s machinations did contain an admirable, anti-imperialist goal’
Yes, while France made the EU/Euro currency as a shield against US-Imperialism,
France itself wasn’t (and isn’t) anti-imperialist. Proof are France’s
imperialistic polices in their African ex-colonies. There is a good article
about it on http://www.voltaire.org; about the African Franc and Treaties the
ex-colonies had to sign subjecting them to France’s interests
(sorry cannot provide the link, but with a little effort the article can surely be retrieved).
In layman’s terms, the EU/Euro currency was just a tool to hold the other (US)
neo-colonist thief away from their (France’s/German’s) home-turf. The ruination of ex-Communist
economies (and the Yugoslav breakup initiated by Germany) was made precisely so that
France’s/German’s companies can capture those markets (neo-colonialism).
There was never ever anything altruistic about it. Sign confirming this are clear,
EastEuropean customers are fed with lesser-quality products and still don’t enjoy
the WestEuropean standard of living. Bulgaria wasn’t allowed to have the South stream gas pipeline that would bring 400-500 million $ annually, yet Germany is building the second
Nord Stream gas-pipeline etc. Double standards everywhere it is sickening.
Mr. Ramin Mazaheri,
I found the article I referred to in my previous comment,
“14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax
For the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization
By: Mawuna KOUTONIN”
A must read for all.
So please, stop France’s crimes against humanity. I fully understand
that you sympathize with French just by the fact that
you are living amongst them, but their malfeasance
and imperialistic tendencies are undeniable.
In that respect, France is as guilty as USA, UK & Germany alike.
My first reaction to Mr. Mazaheris article was similar to yours, but then I discovered this sentence:
France was truly fighting an imperial hegemon (while also being a neo-imperial hegemon themselves) and Varoufakis and others totally miss this.
Mr. Mazaheri doesn’t hide France’s imperialism, but he doesn’t put this piece of information in the center of his article as well.
There has been an uncoordinated rebellion on multiple editor fronts against my previous green screen photo. Apologies to all for any bad dreams my previous photo may have caused.
“And so President Mitterrand’s government abandoned anti-austerity policies on the dubious grounds that austerity could only be defeated Europe-wide once the French economy was subjected to doses of anti-austerity sufficiently large to placate the money markets and to convince Germany’s elites to bow to the superior wisdom of French economic policymaking.”
This is where we still are today: More austerity coming in next week’s 2018 budget announcement, even though France will be under the fiscal deficit rule one year yearly (this year).
“To be taken seriously by Germany…” France needs more austerity.
So by the end of Macron’s term it will have been a 40 year-plan to “convince” Germany. If the courtship is this bad, would a marriage to this fraulein be any better? It’s been a lifetime of painful wooing for half the population. Blame capitalism for the failure of 8 successive 5-year plans – I never heard of that in socialist history.
Is that the photo where you don’t look like a Rock Star?
I am now going to have to read Yanis Varoufakis’s book “And the Weak Suffer What They Must?: Europe, Austerity and the Threat to Global Stability” which I bought earlier this year.
Maybe I will agree with you, but until I read it I can’t offer an opinion.
How about growing your hair longer?
“Is that the photo where you don’t look like a Rock Star?
I am now going to have to read Yanis Varoufakis’s book “And the Weak Suffer What They Must?: Europe, Austerity and the Threat to Global Stability” which I bought earlier this year.
Maybe I will agree with you, but until I read it I can’t offer an opinion.
How about growing your hair longer?”
What was the point of all that, then?
There is a great Oz comedy film called Reckless Kelly where in a scene with pindo journos he is asked all sorts of bs questions, like “what colour underwear do you wear”. The above comment reminded me of that scene.
I’m glad that there are no major objections to my new photo – even Dennis Leary refrained from teasing me!
I preferred a different photo, but we all have our editors…and with good reason, LOL.
You can still switch to a photo with a blue screen – works for pranksters as well as the previous green one.
(I’m not thinking of a Windows blue screen.)
I cannot understand Frances’ split mind:
– in one hand you believe you’re the children of The Revolution: liberte-fraternite-egalite; you adore your self for being so humanitarian and full of charity…
– but in other hands: all this lights of Paris use the electricity made from the blood of some small Indochinese, Chad, Senegal or else’s babies. How many Burman, or Polynesian bones had to be buried in a Eifel Turn’s foundations? You walk across someone’s not lived lives, your furniture is covered with who-knows-whose skin, your dinner consists of non eaten diners of hundred stupid Colored semi-humans!
And then you teach us about humanity? Humanity for you, for strong and heartless peoples? Who teaches us – France, country that still charges $80bln/yr from it’s former colonies, as a tax for the colonial equipment that French left on site, having no interest to pull it back?! France, whose soldiers still fight for world banker, killing hundreds of non-adequate slaves, causing hunger, chaos and injustice!
After WW1 France wanted to be reimbursed for the shoelaces!!!
given to Serbian soldiers.
This is to be remembered for eternity.
Pure monsters. There is no other description of French.
Yes true. But its important to remember that countries,especially if they have no connection to each other at least ethnically (Serbia,Slavic,Orthodox,Balkan vs France,Latin,Roman Catholic,West European). Are not going to do anything without wanting something in return. And even though France has culturally and historically been the most prominent single European state of the last 1000 years.They have also been criticized by many (rightly) for having a “merchant or peasant” attitude,where everything is a profit and loss for them.A complaint that people say more today about the US,Britain,and Germany. I don’t want to be just praising the Russians. But seriously,I do believe that for willing to help with nothing in return,they are the best I know of.Many times they have helped a country to be free of tyrants. Just to see that country turn around and spit on them.I can think of a “bunch” of them just off the top of my head right now.
@ Uncle Bob
“Just to see that country turn around and spit on them.I can think of a “bunch” of them just off the top of my head right now.”
How about all Eastern Europe for starters. Not only they were liberated from Nazi occupation by the Soviets but also were reconstructed with Soviet non-repayable grants and other assistance – an enormous task given the infra-structural and economical devastation they sustained and the situation the USSR was in as the country who suffered most from Nazi wanton depredations. Can you imagine the Russians taking the bread from their own mouth to give to Polacks, Balts, Huns, Bulgars and so on! Indeed it was a thankless sacrifice wasted on ungrateful peoples for the sake of socialist solidarity. Looks like the only deserving ones were the Serbs – the earlier ones because the new vogue have already been “westernized”.
Of course the Marshal Plan was only for Western Europe which, ironically, sustained relatively little damage by the war. In fact the largest chunk of the “assistance” (actually loans and credits to purchase US products) went to the country hardly touched by the war, the UK.
This was a joy to read Ramin. It is a rare pleasure to be able to get some of the inner nuances of the European doings over these last years. What you say about France resonates and factually, it is as you state.
You’ve given me a new word and I like it. “Latin Leftism”. That is something to do with the collective soul of a people. It is truly a different kettle of fish from what is considered Leftism, a truly hated concept, from the Western perspective, almost like ‘those damn commies!’ which literally cannot be discussed in amongst western friends. It is the only glue that stitches Latin countries together and make them function on the level of the people, no matter the outer political cloak of the moment.
Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Nice to hear a litany of praise to Communism and Stalin – and de Gaule! – after so many years of denigration from the Right and – even worse! – silence from a disheartened and demoralized Left. As a lifelong Europhile I still remember the shock of delight when de Gaule went to Berlin and -in perfect German – offered the hand of friendship. Also, though a Britisher, I approved of the way he rebuffed our stuck-up noses when – after years of shilly shallying and dilly dallying – Brittania finally condescended to apply for membership of the Common Market. And though – as an opponent of nuclear arms – l laughed at ‘notre force de frappe’ and ‘nos fusees’, nevertheless I thought he was right not to join NATO, because even in those far off days – long before we started to bomb Serbia, Afghanistat, Libya and Syria – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization looked like one of Uncle $cam’s little rackets. May this series help Europe to find its way back to that postwar golden age of socialism and unity.
From the experience of the Quebecois in Canada, and of other commenters, it looks like France is anti-Anglo-imperialism (virulently – nothing repluses a Francophone more than the idea of living in a strictly Anglo world. The two cultures have almost nothing in common.) Not so much against imperialism itself. Elites appear to be the same the world over!!
Your comment reminds me of a talkshow I had seen several years ago. If my memory doesn’t play tricks on me, then a French participant attended the show. During the conversation he pointed out that French business cards always were printed on both sides (one in French and the other in English), whilst German business cards in most cases showed the job title in English only.
Reality is always far more nuanced than what the hard-core activist shouting bumber-sticker/twit length slogans suggests. That’s a general law/flaw of human behavior, and is true regardless of the ideology of the activist.
While I do agree with much you’ve said in your article, and even learned reading it, I beg to differ on the anti-austerity line you seem to push so hard. The nation states of this world are indebted (to who?) like never before. We just can’t go on business as usual and continue to accumulate more debt for some elusive growth sometime in the distant future. And if France wants to do it (collect more debt) because her nuclear deterrence allows her to fend off anyone wanting to collect on this – is that really what is good and right, is that sustainable?
I still view economics in a simple way, even though, granted, it is probably one of the most complex sciences in the world – I compare it to my family budgeting: If you don’t have the money to pay for something, try to do without it. If you have to go into debt, do it in a way you can pay it back to the conditions agreed. If you have to buy Kalashnikovs to fend off your creditors, something is probably wrong with your way of thinking.
Economics is a social science. You’ve got Marxism, Keynesian economics, Socialism, Communism and several more economic concepts. They’re trying to reflect human interaction and – more or less – to split the earnings. I’m not too familiar with all of them, but as far as I know none(!) of those concepts involves environmental impacts on nature.
All the debts of the nation states could be wiped off the balance sheets (or hard drives of a computer) with the stroke of a pen (or pressing of a key). The losers of this monopoly game (gambling) are those who got screwed by the bankers.
STEM on the other hand at least can be beneficial for mankind whilst I’ve got serious doubts with the pseudo-science called economics.
Strange you missed the elephant in the room, Capitalism.
I’m giving you a quote by Stalin:
“”The aim of socialist production is not profit, but man and his needs, that is, the satisfaction of his material and cultural requirements.”
J.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. (1952)
This tells what’s all about. Can you see the difference? “Man’s material needs” encompass not only his pressing necessities for survival, but also his physical environment – Man himself being a product and part of nature.
Compare that with Capitalism, the profit motive and it’s need of permanent growth for capital investment and financial gain – what I call “an insatiable Ogre”. Not to mention the essential logic of Capitalism: the drive for monopolistic supremacy.
There is not much I can agree with in this article. As far as France goes, the only sensible, realistic political force in France after World War Two was de Gaulle, who advocated French independence and who in 1968 was overthrown by a mini revolution, a smaller version of the 1789 event (it’s debatable how many of the French realized this). To state that France advocated the creation of the European Union is absurd. The EU is based on the US Federation, and both have one thing in common, namely central banks which are in hands of private bankers. Yes, West Germany was permitted to industrialize, the aim being for it to be used at a later date for the breakup of the Soviet Union and Russia. It was also forced to join NATO. The Anglo-Saxon world tried to prevent German unification in 1989. When it failed, it insisted that unified Germany join the EU and accept the EU, to the fury of German university professors, who raised loud objections and who understood the game, namely financial control of Germany through the EU Central Bank, which was in the hands of private bankers. What did Germany gain by joining NATO and the EU ? Anything of significance ? At the most the right to apply bully boy tactics against smaller nations, like Greece and to spend huge sums of money maintaining the EU. The point is that the EU is the civilian component of NATO, and both are controlled by private bankers, and both have one thing in common: Curtailment of sovereign powers of European states, financial control of sovereign European states, and a joint policy of expansion towards the East, the ultimate goal being the breakup and invasion of Russia. Why so many NATO bases around Russia ? Easy to see. After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO and the bankers went for the kill, namely to instigate the breakup and plunder of Russia. It was intended for the country to be destabilized, for it to start breaking up, and then for NATO to move into Russia to bring “law and order”, democracy” and to place Russian nuclear arsenals under it’s control, not to mention all the natural wealth of Russia. During Yeltsin’s reign, they came pretty close to achieving this aim, until Yeltsin was forced to resign and hand power over to Putin, who reversed the dissolution process. Now Russia is on the rise, while the euro and dollar are now printed backed by nothing. At one time analysts were not sure which currency would collapse first, the euro or the dollar. A pretty remarkable change in the geopolitical situation, with one side hoping to see the breakup of the other side, only to see itself facing breakup. It’s not a question if the EU will collapse, but when. Also, it’s not a question if the US dollar will be discarded as a reserve world currency, but when, as both Russia and China are introducing gold backed rubles and yuans. How the mighty have fallen.
Excellent comment that sounds very plausible to me.
With regard to a possible collapse: From time to time I’m checking the stocks of Deutsche Bank. A year ago it was labeled the most (or second most) dangerous banks in the world. In case of a collapse, this bank would pull everyone down. If you look at the chart of its stocks you’ll see that after a recovery of the crash of 2008, the stock has been falling since 2010. Someone who had invested in stock at its peak of about 58 EUR has lost about 75% of the initial investment.
I’m pretty sure the next big crash will be used to get rid of physical money.
@B.F: “…until Yeltsin was forced to resign and hand power over to Putin, who reversed the dissolution process.”
Who were the people who “forced” Jeltsin to resign? Was it Putin himself, or a group of intelligent and patriotic Russians who selected Putin as leader? If the latter, there is hope for Russia if they and their like are still around. Otherwise, “Russia on the rise” will end if Putin – however gifted – is only a one man band.
Yeltsin was given a choice by a powerful group of patriotic Russians: If he handed power over to Putin, he would not be prosecuted for almost ruining the country. He resigned. The deal was honored, although he deserved arrest and trial. It is estimated that during Yeltsin’s reign, Western banks and corporations plundered Russia of some 100 billion dollars a year. At that time I spoke and listened to Russians. Even they were not sure if the country could survive as one entity. It should therefore be of no surprise that many Russians consider that the Almighty sent Putin to save Russia, as he certainly did. Finally, when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, the West should have terminated NATO. However, NATO was kept, it’s final destination being Russia, after the country was destabilized. It never happened. NATO’s existence certainly made a contribution to Americas gigantic domestic and foreign debt. Many Americans don’t even know that there is such a thing as a domestic debt, which is many times greater than the foreign debt. If you analyze the current performance of the US military and the Washington political establishment, the unfortunate impression is that neither know what to do, nor do they realize what they are doing. They all took it for granted that Russia would collapse and disintegrate. It did not. Wall street was counting on plundering Siberia and the Caspian region, which are probably two of the wealthiest regions in the world. Now all they can do is watch the reemergence of Russia and the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union. When Russia and China finally introduce gold backed rubles and yuans, the dollar is finished as a world reserve currency, and Wall Street knows it. It’s trying to prevent this by creating tensions with North Korea (which borders with both Russia and China), and by increasing it’s presence in Afghanistan. This will not only fail, but will increase the total US debt even more.
Dr. NG Maroudas:
The story that I had read about Yeltsin handing over power to President Putin is slightly different and seems more plausible.
As far as I know Boris Berezovsky recommended Vladimir Putin as successor when Yeltsin faced impeachment charges for Corruption. The person Boris Berezovsky – a former oligarch with a shady past in terms of business practices – seems to be far from a patriotic Russian. Probably he and some of those who also selected Vladimir Putin thought that they had chosen a perfect puppet for continuing the politics of the past. They didn’t see it coming that they had chosen an excellent strategist and patriot. According to several sources President Putin made a deal with the oligarchs: As long as they would
– keep their money in Russia
– pay taxes,
– keep to Russian laws and
– keep out of politics
authorities wouldn’t look to hard into their past business dealings. Some oligarchs (including Berezovsky) didn’t like the new terms and fled the country. Khodorkovsky tried to challenge the rules and was prosecuted. Even the court in Den Haag confirmed that almost all charges in Russian courts against Khodorkovsky had been according to law. With regard to the shares of his former companies the court in Den Haag had a different opinion – probably to help Western buyers of the shares of the ill-gotten wealth of Khodorkovsky to loot Russia even further. Western politicians, oligarchs an bankers hate President Putin for ending the looting spree. Western corporations have mastered the art of making strategic losses in the form of cost overruns. In order to recover the losses the companies get tax reductions. For example Shell tried to play this game in Russia (http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2015/02/28/sakhalin2-how-many-billions-of-dollars-did-shell-lose-in-russian-annexation/). Mining company Rio Tinto tries a similar move in Mongolia. Let’s hope politicians in Mongolia will be as wise as their Russian counterparts.
I can assure you that the version which I presented on Putin comes from credible sources. It is impossible for Putin to have made any deal with oligarchs prior to assuming Office, as that would have been totally absurd. Imagine asking oligarchs to keep their money in Russia. Is there one oligarch who does not have a Western bank account, or an offshore bank account ? Take a look at Ukraine. Oligarchs in Ukraine are plundering the country and transferring the bulk of their money to the West. When Putin came to power, he called a meeting with all the chief oligarchs, and told them what the rules were. They were in a state of absolute shock, as they thought that Putin would be their “puppet”. They were wrong. Putin was placed into power by patriotic Russians, and not by oligarchs. He is a great chess player, making wise moves. For example, he let Yeltsin reside in peace. He went to his funeral, wisely stating that it is for history to make the final judgement on him. Personally, I am not sure what to make of Yeltsin. Perhaps he intended the best for Russia, but he was certainly incompetent, with oligarchs and foreign factors taking advantage of him, and Russia losing hundreds of billions of dollars. That is history now. Russia is now on the right road.
It is impossible for Putin to have made any deal with oligarchs prior to assuming Office, as that would have been totally absurd.
You will find no such statement in my comment.
A small correction.
The US put occupied West Germany into NATO in 1955 and this was followed by designating West Germany its military HQ for Europe, known today as EUROCOM. Since Germany’s NATO membership came after Greece and Turkey’s induction in 1952 it should be clear that NATO is not a voluntary club of fearful nations but a pure reflection of US geo-strategy. Greece “hosts” the USA’s European Naval HQ, while Turkey’s Incirlik base is the largest in Europe and Turkey its most important army.
As for the EU, West Germany and France were the first two members (“poles”) of the nascent EU i.e. the Coal and Steel Community of 1957. This cartel was propagandised as promoting peace, just as later the EU was justified as preventing war in Europe. [Yugoslavia? Ukraine?]
When it came to reunification in 1989 the condition was that the united Germany would join the projected eurozone. Germany agreed to this – on condition that the euro would be pegged to the deutschemark and the ECB would be located in Frankfurt (next to the Bundesbank). The rest is Eurogroup history ;-))
You are right to point out that May 68 was a CIA colour revolution to bring down the hated DeGaulle, after numerous assassination attempts had failed. It worked – and as a youth culture modernising revolution against ‘authoritarianism’ it has led eventually, 50 years on, to the “joys” of political correctness [ie criminalising criticism] and divide-and-rule identity politics enforced if necessary by Black Bloc / Antifa. One of the more trivial outcomes of this Trotskyite culture-transformation project is that UK doctors are now forbidden by law to use such phrases as ‘expectant mother’ and ‘pregnant woman’ on the grounds that it offends the LGBT.
DeGaulle’s greatest crime – not mentioned above – was to promote an EU “from the Atlantic to the Urals”, i.e. this correctly recognising the Balkans, Russia and the Caucasus as Europe, and by extension, North America as a separate continent and NOT Europe.
It is obvious that DeGaulle’s vision will materialise eventually – IF Europe is not bombed off the map by American’s longed for war.
“If high finance cared at all for democracy and not a possible redistribution of their billions in personal savings…”
From an old American hippie, that beginning of a sentence caused guffaws of laughter. The very notion that “high finance” might care for democracy is ludicrous. The notion that high finance might not be focused on the sole question of how many billions go to their personal savings is a joke.
And, I do not make this point lightly. The bankers, being in small number yet desiring to rule the world do spin out a lot of BS about freedom and democracy and lands of opportunity. But it is and always will be a giant con. Everyone must realize that the few will always oppose democracy, and that the bankers will always have the aim of taking as much as they can grab of your wealth, savings and productivity and using it to fatten their personal accounts.
This is always true. And its a reason why thinkers like Jefferson viewed banking establishments as more dangerous that standing armies when it comes to real liberty and freedom.
When it comes to Vu-Faker, I judge such people by what they actually accomplish when they have access to power. The fake-left is full of writers and talkers who yak a lot, but when you look closely at them they did nothing positive when they actually held power, or what was accomplished in their time actually hurt the people.
So, for Vu-Faker, during the stretch when he held a post with some power attached, one can see that he accomplished absolutely nothing. In fact, one would think from the actions of his time with power that he was really only a subversive who worked for the German bankers in making sure that a rebellious Greek electorate submitted to the bankers demands and gave the maximum possible to the bankers.
Thus, to me, Vu-Faker goes into a bin next to Al Gore and others as useless talkers who if anything harmed the cause of the people when the people were foolish enough to give them power.
I do want to say a big THANK YOU! to Mr. Mazaheri for this piece. Its an excellent bit of writing and history. I’d put it on a top ten list of articles I’ve read this year. I am now excited and looking forward to the rest of this series, and I hope that The Saker website will publish them. Also, I’d be interested in the other work that Mr. Mazaheri does for PressTV. With French workers reacting in protest against the Macron/Rothschild anti-labor counter-reforms, I’d love to see more of Mr. Mazaheri’s work.
THANK YOU Mr. Mazaheri!!!!!!!
Anyone that invites you to look at things from ‘the bottom up’ rather than the ‘top down’ is, at best, simply really badly schooled into how real power works or at worse, is playing the classic zionist media propaganda ploy.
Before WW1 and WW2 billions of ‘chattering class’ words like those in the article above were written about ‘events’ in the ‘serious’ newspapers. And every single word, intentional or not, was designed to prevent Humanity in general from acting in time to prevent the World Wars. Today, when people look at the history of WW1 and WW2, the near infinite amount of verbiage spewed before the wars is utterly ignored as irrelevant pointless nonsense.
Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Hitler and Blair inherited existing systems of infinite political detail- which they completely dismissed as the ravings of the political ‘chattering classes’ who always attempt to turn nonsense into ‘academic’ study. And the power of these four demons was the understanding that everything they needed to manipulate beneath them had been fatally weakened by their addiction to ‘bottom up’ ‘thinking’ with respect to current situational facts. So the four demons were like knives thru hot butter- and the chattering classes, who had dedicated their whole lives to writing guff and reading guff and analysing guff as if it actually meant anything fell into two camps. Those that fell to their knees worshiping their new demon overlord for having the intellect to dismiss the political ramblings of the ‘lessers’. And those that held on to the ramblings as ‘religious truthes’ and thus were disposed of one way or another.
Want to know why modern societies are the way they are? ***form follows function***. That simple. Slavery ended and ordinary people got indoor plumbing because form follows function. The evolution of science and technology shapes everything. Of course the chattering classes don’t tend to be engineers or scientists- so they cleave to dribble that suggests that modern society is formed by other factors. The science/engineering content of the Sunday Times or New York Times is less than 1%. Every ask yourselves why?
The RT, Al-jazeera and Press TV projects were all originally started by the so-called BBC World Service- the MI6 propaganda arm of the BBC. The Arab desk essentially became Aljazeera. The Persian desk became Press TV. The Russian desk became RT. And Russia, Iran and Team Qatar/UAE were flattered to have the western expertise of the BBC to launch their new, mostly english language stations.
Today, even RT speaks mostly in the language of the BBC, even tho the three services have been nominally ‘independent’ for a while. MI6/CIA got bored with Press TV, so allowed it to be defacto ‘banned’ in most of the West, but it still serves the ‘chattering class’ purpose it shares with outlets like the NYT. Al Jazeera is in a rather confused place today as MI6/CIA play ‘palace games’ in Saudi Arabia, and Qatar suffers the fallout.
But here’s the top down big picture Press TV is ***never*** going to report- despite being the only significant factor impacting Iran. Britain, France and Germany are going to join with America in formally tearing up the nuclear treaty with Iran- this isn’t going to be Trump doing it alone as a ‘mad man’. This is going to be the ‘international community’ suddenly declaring that attempts at diplomatic solutions with Iran have failed.
How? Like the whole WMD scam in Iraq. MI6 is building a team of ‘Curveball’ (google it) iranian fake ‘informers’ who are crafting a ‘definitive’ report on Iran’s WND program, and the missile program intended to deliver nuke warheads to Israel. The revelation of the WMD report will be the excuse for the ending of the treaty. Then the West will follow the Iraq playbook exactly, demanding Iran send its leading scientists to America for interogation.
You may ask yourselves why people working for Press TV aren’t screaming the name of ‘Curveball’ from the rooftops at this moment, and demanding that people acquaint themselves with his realtionship to Blair’s invasion of Iraq. I mean Trump, in his UN speech, promised to attack only one nation- and that nation was Iran.
Curveball II is coming- a team of fake informers who, by having ‘inside knowledge’, will ‘prove’ to the world that Iran never even began to honour its commitments to the nuclear treaty. Yet I’m supposed to believe that talking about the micro details of the irrelevant current details of the current french government matters more- to an Iranian? And worse an article designed to make us (falsely) think that the West is ‘weak’?
I’m sorry for being so blunt- well actually I’m not. The only micro-details I care about are in memoriam for the millions of innocent Humans who have suffered unthinkable violence in their lives since Tony Blair began this whole modern project of Global Warfare wherever possible. The recent dead are not silent to me, nor are the soon-to-be future victims. There’s a certain class of Iranian spokespeople who think their job is one of distraction, so people do not consider the role of the Iranian government in such wars.
But I think most of here are pragmatic and can get past the fact that Iran too is currrently using violence against innocents for gain in their regional attempts at power grabs. Most of us, I’m sure, consider this ‘lesser evil’ to be a ‘greater good’, for Iran is violent only in the service of holding back an infinitely greater violent force. So we do not need or want that “please, let’s not talk about such unpleasant things” attitude from the wrong kind of ‘diplomat’.
Or do we just wait for that joint press conference where the USA, France, Germany and UK announce the treaty with Iran is finished- and Operation Curveball II begins? Am I the only one when reading articles like the above notice that the Emperor is wearing no clothes? Or are likeminded people too cowed to speak up as well, for fear of causing offence?
Austerity means looting a Nation by Corporates, through PRIVATIZATION.
The only thing Albania inherited from Communist area was Hydropower Electric Stations with This 1,350 MW installed Power.
The mountainous nation is home to eight major river systems. The Drin river, located in northern Albania, is the largest river in the country and hosts three hydropower stations: Fierzë (500 MW), Komani (600 MW) and Vau I Dejës (250 MW).
This 1,350 MW cascade represents more than three-quarters of the country’s total electricity capacity and 90 per cent of domestic electricity production. The remaining 430 MW of installed capacity is distributed over some 90 stations.
All these Hydroelectric Centrals were erected by Albanian Engineers, Technicians, and were managed by Albanians for more than 20 years, including maintenance.
Suddenly Albanian corrupted government gave all of them, with concession to mysterious corporate.
In appearance nothing happens because Albanian still was working over there, but the profit is taken by the corporate, instead going to Albania budged. The corporate dictated the price of final Product (Electricity) and decided where to sell too.
Albania it is a very poor nation in Balkan and many of them have no bread to eat. Many of them couldn’t afford to pay. But something very interesting happens. IMF stepped in, gave a loan of$500000 (with interest), all the money paid the debt of corporate, and the poor Albanians have to pay back the debt and the interest to the HEGEMON.
Thank you for that snippet illustrating another example of corporate power grabbing people’s resources, perhaps one of the most tragic economic transformations in the modern world. An enormous amount of productive assets were stolen from the people and handed over to banksters and other capitalist barons all over Europe and other industrialized countries under the guise of private enterprise being more efficient and other inanities. Yes, it is more efficient at profiteering and the profits, instead of going for public works and services, end up in the elites’ pockets. It is sickening!
i’d like to note that what happened in france in the 80’s, happened in a very similar fashion simultaneously in spain.
filipe gonzales was elected by the left, but as soon as he got in power joined nato, eu, and did what corrupt politicians did everywhere. Now he is a multimillionaire working on the boards of companies he helped sell on the cheap.
both of them had also links to secret societies and probably, just as reagan and gorvachov, got a leatherbound copy of “common sense renewed”…
The left hand waves and signals while the right steals until it stabs you in the gut…
Thanks Ramin first class read, stuff i didn’t know, angles i hadn’t considered, plus now some stuff i did know makes sense.
Superb article! Thanks to you Mr. Ramin Mazaheri for teaching us so much. Have you thought of writing geopolitical books?
While you deal mainly with macro conditions, I consider that currently it’s unavoidable to also deal with personal and group conditions of the agents and persons involved in these events.
These are Khazarians: Sarkozy, Macron, Hollande? and Angela Kassner. And these are probable transsexuals: Sarkozy & partner, Cameron & partner, Macron? & partner, Holland? (also a Freemason), first “lady” of Italy. This info is CRUCIAL to UNDERSTAND why most of the people that get (s)elected in the rigged (s)elections are implicit liars, traitors and criminals who work only to serve the interests of the Satanic elite and their death cult of evil entities.
Various thoughts when I pondered about your article:
1. The Khazarian tribe hates Iran (Persia) so much for mainly 4 reasons: Persia teamed up with my Rodina Russia to eradicate the evil Khazaria, Iran has a big Aryan population, it has a moderate and respectful Shia Islam, and finally, Iran has not yet a Rothschild Central Bank to loot the Persians.
2. Bolivar, O’Higgins, San Martín, Hidalgo, Santander, etc. were zioAgents: these mofos were all Freemasons working for the Khazarian base in the City of London. They balkanized and then bananized my country Latinoamérica, so the AngloZionist Empire could consolidate the USSA monster that the planet suffers today.
3. Why was Louisiana literally given away to AngloZion? All we have is the fake explanation in the story (sic) books written by the usual zios. In my opinion, it was the fundamental step which shrunk France into a lesser power.
Anyway, thanks for your contribution!
France deserves to be destroyed for their imperial evil, crimes and corruption unleashed on Africa, Middle East and Asia.
For their colonial massacres, their arrogance and their crimes and wars of aggression on Russia.
France is a collection of originally barbaric Frankish European scum families of Godless Barbaric crusaders and headchoppers.
And now they are Zionist European scum….and the toilet paper of Americans and Zionist Jews.
Just like the Germans, English and all the other European scum states….they kneel to their American masters like the good btches they are, no sense of pride or shame….pathetic leadership and people.
I’d like to clear up one omission I made in writing this article.
I related how Hollande’s arrival did not, surprisingly, lead to a rise in France’s 10-year bond rates (the benchmark for gov’t borrowing). But I should have related the rest of the context in all the Eurozone – and not just France – because his arrival did indeed create the last major crisis in the ongoing Sovereign Debt Crisis. I have re-written that part to include this information for this article’s publication in other media, and I thought y’all might like to read it:
“We now see that Hollande’s presidency fits right in-line with this leftist analysis: In 2012 he was supposed to lead a “Latin Bloc” to push Germany into – as usual – ending austerity and, to make them accept the realities of surpluses and deficits in a multi-national project.
High finance was extremely worried back in the spring of 2012 – a national bond crisis kicked off in Europe. Hollande arrived in May and by June Spain went up to the unsustainable 7% bond rate for the first time since the Euro’s creation in 1999. Bond rates got so high that Spain and Italy would soon have to fight off calls for a Troika-led gutting like in Greece.
But France was not touched in 2012: 10-year bonds stood at 2.75% when Hollande was elected, and they fell immediately and constantly. French 10-year bonds stood at 0.81% when Hollande left office…in disgrace.
How can we explain that there was no capitalist war on France even though Hollande campaigned on promises of ending austerity, funding infrastructure and saying that “high finance is my enemy”? Varoufakis has Hollande’s number, calling him “the meekest of leaders” – high finance knew he was a patsy and the thinnest of paper tigers. Hollande put up no resistance to western Germany-led capitalism once he took office; high finance knew he would implement their will, and so there was apparently no need to punish or even threaten France.”
Globalization = Privatization + Looting Nations by Foreign Corporate + Austerity
If you control the rating agencies (Standard & Poor’s S&P, Moody’s, Fitch Group, etc.) you can manipulate bonds as you please.
Congratulations on the new photo. The old one did not do you justice. This one is excellent. Now your picture and words match. Puts me in the mind of a manly Mona Lisa.
Aah the French.
Re ” France’s agricultural production is 18.1% of the EU total, and that is 35% more than Germany, 47% more than Italy and 71% more than Spain – forget about Netherlands and their flower-dominated agriculture, that’s not the same thing. ”
I don’t think this is correct. Although the “not the same thing” point isn’t clear to me.
I can’t speak about cereals—Netherlands are not a cereals producer—but their agricultural exports are not actually flower-dominated. Per their own statistics and I believe others, the Netherlands are #1 agric. exporters in Europe and #2 in the world, and it ain’t all flowers. I believe the Netherlands are #1 in food exports.
It may be irrelevant to the arguments being made about France, but I think Mazaheri’s factoid is incorrect.
Well, you are not wrong, but you are focusing on exports (profit) whereas I focused on overall production.
France has 4 times the population as the Dutch, and they must be fed, so France can’t export as big a percentage. But, by production, France is by far the largest EU farmer.
Yes, the The Netherlands are supremely profitable and often efficient, allowing for exports, but flowers still are their most important export and where they dominate globally. It’s also true that they excel in a few unusual things, like milk powder, oils and fruits & vegetables (who eats those?). So…I’ll give you 1/3rd credit for bringing up an important point! But my overall point was not profit-oriented – France is the breadbasket of Western Europe and always will be, barring multiple Chernobyls (which is possible, as France is Europe’s nuclear power leader).
Why are the Dutch so profitable? Well, Varoufakis talks about how the Troika was focusing on forcing Greece to accept rules which would benefit the Netherlands’ dairy farmers at the expense of Greek farmers. Varoufakis – vigilant leftist that he is – simply could not understand why the Troika would focus on something which would not at all improve Greece’s economic situation and their ability to repay their debts. I wonder why the Troika would do that….
Well, not looking for “credit,” 1/3 or 1/2 or what not.
“The fact that France comprises top-quality farmland, while others sit on rocky mountains or in bad weather zones, must mean *something*. ”
So does Ukraine . . .
The comment about Netherlands-Greece and also German manufacturing implies that the monetary value does mean something. But maybe waht it means is being defined by the troika? Is this the main point?
Not sure it matters to the discussion, but anyhow, horticulture covers a lot more than flowers. Also, seeds and plants, and these not all ornamental. Per http://www.dutchagrofood.com/english/horticulture/facts-figures/ ,
“In 2011, total horticultural production amounted to €8.6 billion. Exports (including re-exports) amounted to €16.2 billion. Horticulture accounts for 39 percent of Dutch agricultural production. The share of horticulture in the total Dutch exports in 2010 was 4% (share of agricultural exports 34%).”
What the Troika do and why is way beyond me. Well, maybe not the why (sort of), but what and how.
I love Greek food, or course. Who doesn’t?
Especially the tomatoes, olive oil, and moussaka and yoghurt (although moussaka in France may well be better than in Greece, since the French always prepare food better). Dutch tomatoes will never match Greek ones. But you have to go to Greece to get the latter. In the summer.
But there is such a huge difference in the way farming is done between Greece and the Netherlands– it is hard for me to imagine comparing or trying to make both countries function the same way or even comparably. Of course, you were talking about France. But Greece got into it. Why don’t they build some greenhouses in Greece? And Germany? In fact, when you come right down to it, doesn’t the Dutch way of growing produce imply that this could, actually, be done almost anywhere and certainly doesn’t require acres of fertile fields, since so much of it is done in greenhouses, and also vertically. It does require water infrastructure.
In fact, some of the big greenhouse companies have major projects in Russia.
The Dutch bring to their agriculture, as to everything they do (as far as I can see), an incredibly sophisticated understanding of planning/engineering/integrated infrastructure, not to mention centuries of applied horticulture (that means also breeding new varieties of food plants, etc.—not just flowers). And social planning (that bike infrastructure is not an accident but the result of decades of planning—you might even call it social engineering). However, these observations are probably off-topic.
I think I follow your arguments re internal French politics but am still not sure of the role played by food in the France-Germany dynamic.
So does Ukraine . .
I wouldn’t want to eat anything made of agricultural products of Ukraine, even if the political situation were entirely different. Whenever someone is babbling about the good quality of Ukrainian earth I’m wondering if those people are considering the good quality of the radioactive contamination as well. According to some reports the radioactive impact of Chernobyl still can be detected (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/super-gau-von-tschnerobyl-was-von-der-wolke-uebrig-bleibt-1.1076722). So, no thanks to Ukrainian food. (This should be considered only in case of an emergency situation.)
Katherine, even before WW1 Germany was unable to feed itself, and as the biggest bread eaters in the world, was forced to import 70% of its wheat. This is why Germany turned to the east – to the breadbaskets of eastern Europe Roumania and Turkey. The situation is worse today.
When war or catastrophe strikes you can’t eat Mercedes.
Whereas France is 100% food self sufficient AND an exporter – and what food!
Comparing the Netherlands to Greece is pointless: one is completely flat and partly reclaimed from the sea….’artificial’ land that needs hard science to maintain. Whereas Greece is mainly mountains punctuated by a few plains. Despite this, and despite the EU CAP policies [over-production in specialised areas] Greece is also self-sufficient in food, and within 2 years of freedom from CAP could, like Russia after sanctions, rebalance its output.
Unfortunately for the Netherlands, its food tastes like something engineered in a lab..
Jackes Chirac: “Without Africa, France will smoothly go down to the rank of a third world power”
Francois Mitterand: “If there was nothing like Africa, France would not have had any history in
the 21st century”
Congratulations from South America for your knowledge on the genocide against Paraguay in the XIX Century!
BTW, I prefer the other photo.
The background on this one is distracting—is that an empty clothes closet with hangers in it?
As for the “head shot” aspect, the light strikes the nose in a disadvantageous way.
The photo was taken at noon?
Why not get a nice photo done on the Pont Neuf during the “golden hour”?
Or, from the top of the Eiffel Tower. That would fit the “bird’s eye view of the Vineyard” idea.
Glad there was 1 fan of the previous photo, Katherine!
That photo was taken in Iran…somewhere south of Tehran, if I recall correctly.
Regarding our previous discussion: Ukraine – they are indeed the breadbasket of Central Europe, no? Great farmland, just not great management our resources. Also, unlike the Dutch the Ukrainians did not imperialize places like Indonesia, Ceylon, Guiana and elsewhere and steal their rare flowers and spices, so….
As I wrote regarding my theory of “France-Germany-food” – they were “theories” I was “indulging” in. They need further study, but it has enough common sense to merit it, I think. Somebody’s gotta produce the food….
Just a comment on how the germans may be able to take away those two elements that allow France survival: food and nukes. And the role that plays south america on it.
Lets start with the nukes. Once the brexit happened and the US attacks on its frankeistein, Merkel saw the possibility to achieve Hitler’s dream: an unified europe by a unifed army… under the leadership of Berlin of course. Here I believe is common knowledge how Germany is taking all the steps for the merging of the armies and the great role that plays on it his edipus-afflicted Macron in Paris. While simultaneously partially freezing the NATO Germany plans that the 3rd European army (after those of Napoleon and Hitler respectively) will be founded with themilitary founds of the region, especially from the north “solidarity” (because on Nordic eyes guns are more relevant to be paid than health or shelter) while all the military structure will be based on the only trully cappable army of europe: France. So French generals under the German chancellor below a liberal flag. However the threat here resides on how much Macron will be willign to renounce of its sovereignty: the day that Macron hands the nuclear arsenal to the new army it will be de facto a ocupation army to anything at the west of the Rhin and at the south of the Alps.
Now on food here Merkel has moved too: Despite the total collapse of the FTA with US MErkel got an unexpected opportunity: the coup in Brazil and the fall of peronists in Argentina allowed the 21st century version of the triple alliance to rebirth and seize the largest economic union of latinoamerica: Mercosur. Now with the Venezuelan commies out and bought the loyalty of Ururguay The Mercosur can continue the neoliberal proyect frozed since Lula’s arrival: the FTA with Europe. The only reason why the FTA was never signed was conflict of interests between two main powers: the industrial capitalists of Sao Paulo and the politicians of Paris. Any government with a bit of sovereignty in Brazil would understand that a FTA with Europe would be undoing 80 hyears of industrialization and development making Brazil what they have been for 4 centuries: the largest hacienda of the world. However Temer’s coup and the fall in disgrace of the industry in Sao Paulo due to the crisis allowed the oligarchs along with Monsanto to seize the goverment. They along with the neocons of Buenos Aires give two fucks on their own cities if they can achieve to sell weath, cattle, pollutry and coffe in Europe. In the other hand the only goverment that would defend their farmers in Europe was France. THe arrival of Macron makes posible to Berlin forcethe french to the destruction of their land-based economic model constructed in the XIV century after the expelling of the English invaders. So this is the perfect storm: totally short-sight oligarchs in the south with lands to feed 1 billion people and Germany trusts with no opposition in the block; the result will be a win for Germany car plants, a win for the haciendas and loose for everyone else, especially French country-side and the big megalopolis of Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo. What are your thoughts on it Ramin?? Merkel and Temer will be able to f*** all of us?? or in any of the sides there is hope to avoid this cathastropic fruit of capitalism?? Greetings from Bolivia
You might want to check out Circus Politicus, Deloire and Dubois, for their take on the origins of the EU.
“But as soon as the British soldiers returned they did something extremely intelligent: they voted out the alcoholic, reactionary, racist Churchill and voted in the Labor Party. You can imagine that – in rabidly anti-socialist America – this made Washington very suspicious. The US immediately decided that better a fascist than a socialist (the same decision they routinely make in 2017), called off the in-progress plan to deindustrialize Germany and instead tapped West Germany for their imperial collaborators. That is why Germany is the industrial powerhouse of Europe today even though they lost WWII, make no mistake about it: US patronage.”
What does Britain have to do with Germany rebuilding its industry. Britain already lost its industry by the end of WW 1, so how is Churchill relevant. US patronage? Are you questioning the Marshall Plan? I am certain the allies would still have won WW 2 without having to resort to bombing thousands of civilian targets. Was the firebombing of Dresden by the British and the Americans necessary? If given a choice, the Germans would have preferred losing a war and not needing a Marshall Plan if many civilians and civilian buildings could have been spared. I think your question is why France was not “chosen” by the USA as a future industrial powerhouse.
“France’s crucial error was just that -they failed to realize how completely capitalistic Germany is: Grandma was a Nazi and Pops was a US boot-licker – no wonder the kids in Germany think Merkel’s austerity against Greece is justified.”
“Germany remains imperialistic in 2017 – they have not changed.”
Germany has used the common market of the EU as a dumping ground (an “Absatzmarkt”) for manufactured goods. As a result, they put a lot of French, Italian, Greek, et al companies out of business. Centralization of industry to coincide with the centralization of political power is inevitable. The United States is a common market. Look at how many smaller, regional companies no longer exist in the USA since de-industrialization began in 1973. Most American companies have either merged, been bought out, or have been forced out of business. America is run by huge corporate conglomerates. Why should we not expect to see the same results in a united Europe?
Teutonic discipline? What is that supposed to mean. The German people are respected and feared for their strong, relentless work ethic. Ever spend time with any Germans? Everything is viewed in terms of work. Even when on vacation, Germans view it as another form of work.
“France has been trying to “convince” Germany into giving up their surplus dominance and, literally, sharing the wealth with Europe’s deficit nations.”
Why should Germany share. What does it owe France. What will France give Germany in return. German banks own most French foreign debt. When or how will the French pay their debts?
“West Germany (now just “Germany) sees, as they stood on America’s shoulders while France could only crane their neck, that they can control everything; they can make a “United States of Europe” with Berlin as Washington DC, Frankfurt as New York City, and everyone else as flyover country full of poor deplorables.”
Correct analogy. The French wanted a United States of Europe, they are not happy with the inevitable centralization of economic power. However, what does France want from Germany? Which French assets does Germany own and/or control in France? If the quality of life in France is better than in Germany, then why should the French people care about Germany? The Chinese own much more than the Germans. For example, the Chinese own most of the French vineyards. Why are the French happy with that.