Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Germany

“The Inevitable War”: WWI effectively started 2 decades earlier External Market competition between England and Germany

After Germany armies defeated France in 1870 and entered Paris, Bismarck realized that until Germany becomes a modern industrialized nation, like England and the USA, it will remain a second ranked nation.

The US, England and France were already industrialized nations and had amassed plenty of capitals. Germany was short on capitals to sustain any protracted war and decided to invest in modernizing its industry and to focus on its navy and merchant ship. Bismarck said: Only the sea can open up serious trade with the external market.

England was known as “A block of iron on a block of coal” and had developed special tools, machines and equipment for its heavy industry and products. England was master of the sea, had the vastest of colonies and exporting all over the world.

And Germany invested heavily on new ports and shipyards with the latest modern equipment, tools and machines and became almost at a par with England navy in number and firepower.

On the Rhine River, Westphalia, Saxe and Silesia… new modern furnaces for producing steel, new chemical plants, clothing industries… mushroomed within a decade.

Since 1895, England got the message loud and clear from the various consulate around the world. Its consul in Damascus wrote: “My chair, my table, and even my pen are from Germany. These countries imported everything from us and German products and competition have dislodged us from these markets…”

What irked England most, and was the last straw to definitely advance its preemptive war preparation, was the railway concession that Germany obtained from Turkey in 1903: The train will link Istanbul, Baghdad, Medina and Mecca…  Germany would then be capable to amass troops very quickly anywhere close to Egypt and India and cut the communication lines in the event of a war.

Consequently, England obtained from Turkey that Basra, Bahrain and Qatar be under her mandated power, though still nominally under Othman protectorate. Germany was effectively encircled in the Persian/Arabic Gulf

The war was between Liverpool versus Hamburg, Glasgow versus Essen.

The peaceful alternative was to propose a protectionist high tariff on imported German products, but the workers in Birmingham refused and protested this policy that would ruin their current life-style.  The big capitalist families in England decided to focus on the only remaining alternative: War.

England had to plan ways to bloc the German ports and other non-German ports from where Germany import/export all it needs for survival and for mass production.

Germany had two ports: Hamburg and Bremen. The other two major ports were Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Anvers in Belgium.

Anvers is situated 70 km deep on the Escaut River. The problem is that the small village of Flessingue at the entrance of the estuary belong to the Netherlands.

Germany asked the Netherlands to militarily fortify this village, and we a few German navy ships around the entrance will force the British ships to station far away and thus allow merchant ships to enter to Anvers.

The daily The Times, the official organ of the Foreign Office, wrote: “A fortified Flessingue is a gun pointed to the heart of London...”. The Netherlands parliament decided to postpone the fortification in order to cool down the political tension.

British General Kitchener declared: “The borders of England with Europe is not the Pas de Calais (France) but the river Meuse

Germany needed 10 bn in reserve in order to sustain an estimated 2 years of war with England, and only France had enough capital to secure this amount. Thus England signed all kinds of treaties with France to deny Germany any kind of financial credits.  England conceded to France the annexation of Morocco, a country it didn’t even have.

For example, in 1902, Emperor Guillaume II visited Paris and managed to secure the finance for the railway concession in Turkey. In 1903, England King Edward 7 visited Paris and the next day all the French capitalists reneged on their venture to finance the railway.

The navy construction programs both both countries were to end in 1914. England was to have 30 Dreadnoughts to 26 for Germany. A Dreadnought is a war ship weighting over 20,000 tons and equiped with high caliber canons (34 cm) that reach 9 km and torpedoes. Any delay in the war and Germany was to overtake England in number of Dreadnoughts and firepower.

England ordered all its battleship home from around the world

How England managed to immerse France in this unwanted war, a war that Germany didn’t see any interest in alienating France is of the utmost interest. France had the second largest and professional army in Europe, while England land army was mostly constituted of volunteers.

And the French military had no illusions: Any incursion toward river Meuse to cut off Germany occupation of Anvers will unleash instant and violent Germany military reaction.

France was badly broken after WWI and remains weakened forever, and barely considered a second class nation.

Note 1: “The Inevitable War” by Francis Delaisi (1911)

Note 2: “Palestine, Money and Oil. History of Zionism” by Lina Murr Nehme

Note 3: The US under Wilson was not hot for joining this European war: It was doing great business with Germany that needed all kinds of raw materials, meat, wheat, cotton, and new machinery… The US was the first industrial country but was contended with its internal market, Canada, Mexico and central America.

It is not correct that the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 prompted the US to declare war on Germany. It did so in 1917 under flimsy excuse when it realized that Germany is short on liquidity to sustain another year of all-out war and that England had incurred a lot of debt.  England must not lose the war in order to repay its huge debt.

And what was this excuse? German foreign minister Zimmerman had instructed his ambassador in Mexico to destabilize Mexico in the advent that US declared war on Germany.

The US wanted a seat at the table after the war: Europe was about to become its major export destination since it would be needing almost everything.

Germany and USA: The most anti-Semite and staunchest supporters of Israel… Why?

The Bund, or the General Jewish Labor Union in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, which was founded in Vilna in early October 1897, a few weeks after the convening of the first Zionist Congress in Basel in late August 1897, would become Zionism’s fiercest enemy.

The Bund joined the existing anti-Zionist Jewish coalition of Orthodox and Reform rabbis who had combined forces a few months earlier to prevent Herzl from convening the first Zionist Congress in Munich, which forced him to move it to Basel. Jewish anti-Zionism across Europe and in the United States had the support of the majority of Jews who continued to view Zionism as an anti-Jewish movement well into the 1940s.

Anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts

Realizing that its plan for the future of European Jews was in line with those of anti-Semites, Herzl’s strategy early on was an alliance with the latter. He declared in Der Judenstaat that:

“The Governments of all countries scourged by anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want.”

Herzl‘s added that “not only poor Jews” would contribute to an immigration fund for European Jews, “but also Christians who wanted to get rid of them“. Herzl unapologetically confided in his Diaries that:

The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

When Herzl began to meet in 1903 with infamous anti-Semites like the Russian minister of the interior Vyacheslav von Plehve, who oversaw anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia, it was an alliance that he sought by design. That it would be the anti-Semitic Lord Balfour, who as Prime Minister of Britain in 1905 oversaw his government’s Aliens Act, which prevented East European Jews fleeing Russian pogroms from entering Britain in order to save the country from the “undoubted evils” of “an immigration which was largely Jewish”, was hardy coincidental.

Balfour’s infamous Declaration of 1917 to create in Palestine a “national home” for the “Jewish people”, was designed, among other things, to curb Jewish support for the Russian Revolution and to stem the tide of further unwanted Jewish immigrants into Britain.

The Nazis would not be an exception in this anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts.

Indeed, the Zionists would strike a deal with the Nazis very early in their history. It was in 1933 that the infamous Transfer (Ha’avara) Agreement was signed between the Zionists and the Nazi government to facilitate the transfer of German Jews and their property to Palestine, and which broke the international Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany started by American Jews.

It was in this spirit that Zionist envoys were dispatched to Palestine to report on the successes of Jewish colonization of the country.

The Nazi officer and official, Adolf Eichmann, returned from his 1937 trip to Palestine full of fantastic stories about the achievements of the racially-separatist Ashkenazi Kibbutz, one of which he visited on Mount Carmel as a guest of the Zionists.

Despite the overwhelming opposition of most German Jews, it was the Zionist Federation of Germany that was the only Jewish group that supported the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, as they agreed with the Nazis that Jews and Aryans were separate and separable races.

This agreement was not a tactical support but one based on ideological similitude. The Nazis’ Final Solution initially meant the expulsion of Germany’s Jews to Madagascar. It is this shared goal of expelling Jews from Europe as a separate inassimilable race that created the affinity between Nazis and Zionists all along.

While the majority of Jews continued to resist the anti-Semitic basis of Zionism and its alliances with anti-Semites, the Nazi genocide not only killed 90 percent of European Jews, but in the process also killed the majority of Jewish enemies of Zionism who died precisely because they refused to heed the Zionist call of abandoning their countries and homes.

After the War, the horror at the Jewish holocaust did not stop European countries from supporting the anti-Semitic programme of Zionism. On the contrary, these countries shared with the Nazis a predilection for Zionism. They only opposed Nazism’s genocidal programme.

European countries, along with the United States, refused to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors of the holocaust.

In fact, these countries voted against a UN resolution introduced by the Arab states in 1947 calling on them to take in the Jewish survivors.

Yet, these same countries would be the ones who would support the United Nations Partition Plan of November 1947 to create a Jewish State in Palestine to which these unwanted Jewish refugees could be expelled.

The pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis

The United States and European countries, including Germany, would continue the pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis. Post-War West German governments that presented themselves as opening a new page in their relationship with Jews in reality did no such thing.

Since the establishment of the country after WWII, every West German government (and every German government since unification in1990) has continued the pro-Zionist Nazi policies unabated.

There was never a break with Nazi pro-Zionism.

The only break was with the genocidal and racial hatred of Jews that Nazism consecrated, but not with the desire to see Jews set up in a country in Asia, away from Europe. Indeed, the Germans would explain that much of the money they were sending to Israel was to help offset the costs of resettling European Jewish refugees in the country.

After World War II, a new consensus emerged in the United States and Europe that Jews had to be integrated posthumously into white Europeanness, and that the horror of the Jewish holocaust was essentially a horror at the murder of white Europeans.

Since the 1960s, Hollywood films about the holocaust began to depict Jewish victims of Nazism as white Christian-looking, middle class, educated and talented people not unlike contemporary European and American Christians who should and would identify with them.

Presumably, if the films were to depict the poor religious Jews of Eastern Europe (and most East European Jews who were killed by the Nazis were poor and many were religious), contemporary white Christians would not find commonality with them.

Hence, the post-holocaust European Christian horror at the genocide of European Jews was not based on the horror of slaughtering people in the millions who were different from European Christians, but rather a horror at the murder of millions of people who were the same as European Christians.

This should explain why in a country like the United States, which had nothing to do with the slaughter of European Jews, there exists upwards of 40 holocaust memorials and a major museum for the murdered Jews of Europe, but not one for the holocaust of Native Americans or African Americans for which the US is responsible.

Aimé Césaire understood this process very well. In his famous speech on colonialism, he affirmed that the retrospective view of European Christians about Nazism is that

The supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before [Europeans] were its victims, they were its accomplices. And they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it:  until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples.

That they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.

For Césaire, the Nazi wars and holocaust were European colonialism turned inwards is true enough.

Since the rehabilitation of Nazism’s victims as white people, Europe and its American accomplice would continue their Nazi policy of visiting horrors on non-white people around the world, on Korea, on Vietnam and Indochina, on Algeria, on Indonesia, on Central and South America, on Central and Southern Africa, on Palestine, on Iran, and on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rehabilitation of European Jews after WWII was a crucial part of US Cold War propaganda. As American social scientists and ideologues developed the theory of “totalitarianism”, which posited Soviet Communism and Nazism as essentially the same type of regime, European Jews, as victims of one totalitarian regime, became part of the atrocity exhibition that American and West European propaganda claimed was like the atrocities that the Soviet regime was allegedly committing in the pre- and post-War periods.

Israel would jump on the bandwagon by accusing the Soviets of anti-Semitism for their refusal to allow Soviet Jewish citizens to self-expel and leave to Israel was part of the propaganda.

Commitment to white supremacy

It was thus that the European and US commitment to white supremacy was preserved, except that it now included Jews as part of “white” people, and what came to be called “Judeo-Christian” civilization. European and American policies after World War II, which continued to be inspired and dictated by racism against Native Americans, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Muslims, and continued to support Zionism’s anti-Semitic programme of assimilating Jews into whiteness in a colonial settler state away from Europe, were a direct continuation of anti-Semitic policies prevalent before the War.

It was just that much of the anti-Semitic racialist venom would now be directed at Arabs and Muslims (both, those who are immigrants and citizens in Europe and the United States and those who live in Asia and Africa) while the erstwhile anti-Semitic support for Zionism would continue unhindered.

West Germany’s alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s.

In the 1960s, West Germany even provided military training to Israeli soldiers, and since the 1970s has provided Israel with nuclear-ready German-made submarines with which Israel hopes to kill more Arabs and Muslims. Israel has in recent years armed the most recent German-supplied submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, a fact that is well known to the current German government.

Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Der SPIEGELin 2012 that Germans should be “proud” that they have secured the existence of the state of Israel “for many years”. Berlin financed one-third of the cost of the submarines, around 135 million euros ($168 million) per submarine, and has allowed Israel to defer its payment until 2015.

Doesn’t these supports makes Germany an accomplice in the dispossession of the Palestinians? This is of no more concern to current German governments than it was in the 1960s to West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer who affirmed that “the Federal Republic has neither the right nor the responsibility to take a position on the Palestinian refugees“.

This is to be added to the massive billions that Germany has paid to the Israeli government as compensation for the holocaust, as if Israel and Zionism were the victims of Nazism, when in reality it was anti-Zionist Jews who were killed by the Nazis.

The current German government does not care about the fact that even those German Jews who fled the Nazis and ended up in Palestine hated Zionism and its project and were hated in turn by Zionist colonists in Palestine.

As German refugees in 1930s and 1940s Palestine refused to learn Hebrew and published half a dozen German newspapers in the country, they were attacked by the Hebrew press, including by Haartez, which called for the closure of their newspapers in 1939 and again in 1941.

Zionist colonists attacked a German-owned café in Tel Aviv because its Jewish owners refused to speak Hebrew, and the Tel Aviv municipality threatened in June 1944 some of its German Jewish residents for holding in their home on 21 Allenby street “parties and balls entirely in the German language, including programmes that are foreign to the spirit of our city” and that this would “not be tolerated in Tel Aviv”.

German Jews, or Yekkes as they were known in the Yishuv, would even organize a celebration of the Kaiser’s birthday in 1941 (for these and more details about German Jewish refugees in Palestine, read Tom Segev’s bookThe Seventh Million”.

Add to that Germany’s support for Israeli policies against Palestinians at the United Nations, and the picture becomes complete. Even the new holocaust memorial built in Berlin that opened in 2005 maintains Nazi racial apartheid, as this “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” is only for Jewish victims of the Nazis who must still today be set apart, as Hitler mandated, from the other millions of non-Jews who also fell victim to Nazism.

That a subsidiary of the German company Degussa, which collaborated with the Nazis and which produced the Zyklon B gas that was used to kill people in the gas chambers, was contracted to build the memorial was anything but surprising, as it simply confirms that those who killed Jews in Germany in the late 1930s and in the 1940s now regret what they had done because they now understand Jews to be white Europeans who must be commemorated and who should not have been killed in the first place on account of their whiteness.

The German policy of abetting the killing of Arabs by Israel, however, is hardly unrelated to this commitment to anti-Semitism, which continues through the predominant contemporary anti-Muslim German racism that targets Muslim immigrants.

Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition

The Jewish holocaust killed off the majority of Jews who fought and struggled against European anti-Semitism, including Zionism.

With their death, the only remaining “Semites” who are fighting against Zionism and its anti-Semitism today are the Palestinian people.

Whereas Israel insists that European Jews do not belong in Europe and must come to Palestine, the Palestinians have always insisted that the homelands of European Jews were their European countries and not Palestine, and that Zionist colonialism springs from its very anti-Semitism.

Whereas Zionism insists that Jews are a race separate from European Christians, the Palestinians insist that European Jews are nothing if not European and have nothing to do with Palestine, its people, or its culture. What Israel and its American and European allies have sought to do in the last six and a half decades is to convince Palestinians that they too must become anti-Semites and believe as the Nazis, Israel, and its Western anti-Semitic allies do, that Jews are a race that is different from European races, that Palestine is their country, and that Israel speaks for all Jews.

That the two largest American pro-Israel voting blocks today are Millenarian Protestants and secular imperialists continues the very same Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition that extends back to the Protestant Reformation and 19th century imperialism. 

But the Palestinians have remained unconvinced and steadfast in their resistance to anti-Semitism.

Israel and its anti-Semitic allies affirm that Israel is “the Jewish people”, that its policies are “Jewish” policies, that its achievements are “Jewish” achievements, that its crimes are “Jewish” crimes, and that therefore anyone who dares to criticize Israel is criticizing Jews and must be an anti-Semite.

The Palestinian people have mounted a major struggle against this anti-Semitic incitement. They continue to affirm instead that the Israeli government does not speak for all Jews, that it does not represent all Jews, and that its colonial crimes against the Palestinian people are its own crimes and not the crimes of “the Jewish people”, and that therefore it must be criticized, condemned and prosecuted for its ongoing war crimes against the Palestinian people.

This is not a new Palestinian position, but one that was adopted since the turn of the 20th century and continued throughout the pre-WWII Palestinian struggle against Zionism.

Israel’s claim that its critics must be anti-Semites presupposes that its critics believe its claims that it represents “the Jewish people”.

But it is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.

Today, Israel and the Western powers want to elevate anti-Semitism to an international principle around which they seek to establish full consensus. They insist that for there to be peace in the Middle East, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must become, like the West, anti-Semites by espousing Zionism and recognizing Israel’s anti-Semitic claims.

Except for dictatorial Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority and its cronies, on this 65th anniversary of the anti-Semitic conquest of Palestine by the Zionists, known to Palestinians as the Nakba, the Palestinian people and the few surviving anti-Zionist Jews continue to refuse to heed this international call and incitement to anti-Semitism.

The Palestinians affirm that they are, as the last of the Semites, the heirs of the pre-WWII Jewish and Palestinian struggles against anti-Semitism and its Zionist colonial manifestation. It is their resistance that stands in the way of a complete victory for European anti-Semitism in the Middle East and the world at large.

Note: An extract from the lengthy article by Joseph Massad.  Massad teaches Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York.

He is the author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians. 

What’s happening in Yemen? Civil war not over yet? Previous oligarchy still in power?

The latest news from Al Qaeda claim that its fighters in Yemen have relocated to Syria to fight the regime there…If Al Qaeda organization is so flexible and agile, who is moving them around to the various “fresh” hot spots, before the previous hellish spot has not regain peace and tranquility? Who is still financing Al Qaeda and the radical extremist Sunnis?

The ousted dictator Abdullah Saleh is back in Yemen and running the political scene: He is saying that Qatar is exacerbating the conditions in Yemen by infusing millions of dollars to particular military groups…

Another news: The US weapon market share is two-third the world total of $85 billion!

Stephanie Brancaforte  from Avaaz.org posted:

Former Yemeni dictator Saleh  Add your voice for peace and security in Yemen,and we’ll deliver the message to German Chancellor Angela Merkel!

Sign the petition

In recent weeks, gunmen loyal to Yemen’s former dictator Abdullah Saleh have taken over the Defense and Interior Ministries, sowing panic in the capital and threatening to drag the country into a civil war which could spillover into neighbors Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Yemenis are worried that another civil war could erupt any day, after pro-Saleh gunmen took the Interior and Defense Ministries by force, killing guards and sending a chilling signal to other pro-democracy politicians.

Saleh and his cronies have already shown that they prefer to hand over parts of Yemen to Al Qaeda affiliates, who have been bombing buildings and kidnapping innocent Yemenis and a Saudi diplomat.

Such intimidation will continue unless Saleh’s clan is removed from politics once and for all.

The international community, particularly the USA, has been all but silent as the Yemeni people suffered. It’s time for decisive action from the European Union to save the situation and stop the bloodshed.

The best way to uproot Saleh’s crushing control is to strip away his financial might by imposing sanctions and freezing his assets.  Much of Saleh’s stolen cash is in Germany. If German Chancellor Angela Merkel leads a freeze on his assets, it could accelerate the end of his reign of terror.  Let’s make sure the EU takes this crucial next step to pull Yemen back from civil war.

Germany is a major donor for Yemen and also hosts the former dictator’s stolen assets, and can lead the EU in raising the financial stakes for Saleh and his murderous allies. Now the tension has come to a head, with the old guard seeing this as its last chance to seize power by the gun before democracy takes root.

If enough of us demand action, we can build tremendous pressure on German Chancellor Merkel to lead the charge and freeze the stolen assets — add your name to help pull Yemen back from the brink!

Avaaz members successfully petitioned to freeze both Qaddafi and Mubarak’s assets — let’s do it again for the Yemeni people. Add your voice, and this petition will be delivered straight to Chancellor Merkel when we reach 10,000 signatures:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/freeze_salehs_assets/?bFAfecb&v=17423

With determination we are standing with people across the region in their struggles for freedom and dignity.

Stephanie, Wissam, Luis, Ricken, Bissan, Ian and the rest of the Avaaz team

More Information:

Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh Loyalists Encircle Defense Ministry
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/yemen-ali-abdullah-saleh_n_1765503.html

Saleh blocks key reforms needed in a ‘new’ Yemen
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/editorial/saleh-blocks-key-reforms-needed-in-a-new-yemen

Yemenis protest against Saleh’s allies
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2012-08/04/c_131760992.htm

Time to freeze Saleh’s assets
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/10/time_to_freeze_saleh_s_assets

UN envoy urges rapid Yemen power transfer
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iVw3HueQ5eaEgd3SLlvrXBySenHQ?docId=CNG.8b133ba066aa9037d241ecc82c2f5a00.91

The Euro of the European Union (EU) currency is witnessing healthy devaluation compared to the dollar and needs to be lower to arond 1.1 to the dollar.  The increasing difficulties experienced by many States in the EU result from initial weaker economies that could not compete efficiently in the European common market and then were buffeted by the US financial crisis.  The European and international financial and political medias are breaking the taboo of discussing whether maintaining the Euro is a viable alternative in the short term.

The arguments of the group that staunchly defends the Euro is mostly based on political reasons: To them it is becoming a matter of safeguarding dignity and sovereignty.  It beieves that the Euro is the major factor in the reconstruction of the European market and for the political stability and the cohesion of the European market.  This group would like you to believe that without the Euro there would be no EU.

The taboo breaker group believes that the EU is in dire difficulty because it prematurly created a common currency before ironing out and strengthening common politics.  Germany and its satellites States in the northern hemisphere benefited most from the Euro since their currencies were highly overvalued “stronger” than the Euro and thus, they managed to compete better and export more to the European common market. 

The other States in the Union could not deal with a Euro that was much overvalued compared to their national currencies and thus, had to suffer in market competition. The financial and economic commotions in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain are symptoms of the financial and economic imbalance with respect to the vaster and stronger economies in Germany, France, and Italy.  This group believes that the EU is heading toward a deflationary period within a couple of years if no structural institutions are installed.

The main source of imbalance is that the original six States in the Union had firmir and better tested administrative and political instituions that could apply regulations agreed on and the capability to supervise and monitor laws and regulations governing the union members.  The weaker States are at great disadvantage: The main powerful States in the union have no confidence in the resilient determination of the weaker States to effectively executing the agreed upon regulations and second,  the weaker States are prohibited to issuing (printing money) to satisfy liquidity in their internal trade and commerce.

It is not the Euro that created the common European market: the EU was already instituted and functioning well before the common currency was created on political grounds.  The Euro was mainly to be the material “symbol” of the Union and this symbol degenerated into a calamity at the first major problem.  The EU could have imagined much less costly symbols for its unification until political coherence was firmly established, tested, and thoroughly evaluated.

The Maastricht treaty set limits to budget deficit below 3% and public deficit below 60%.  Currently, only Spain has kept its public debt at 54% and Germany its budget debt at 3.3%.  The remaining States in the Euro have doubled and even tripled both limits. Joblessness is very bad all over the Euro zone averaging 10%; Spain has 20% and Ireland and Greece about 14%.

It seems to me that the Euro has encourage many mafia type “economies” to expand simply because it became much easier to transfer a unique currency and circumventing further money exchange regulations and constraints.

The financial institutions and the medias are sending waves of terrors claiming that there is lack of confidence in the Euro; they claim that this confidence is so low that investors are shirking the Euro zone States.  I believe that the Euro should stay but be restricted to the main large economies such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Danmark, and Norway where the same homogeneous spirit for taking seriously the application of financial and economic regulations among the member States.

The other weaker States should have an alternative common currency, far devalued from the Euro and backed by the Euro until political coherence and institutions are equalized in efficiency and modernity.  The weaker States should enjoy the privilege of pre-empting slow internal trade by issuing liquidity in the newer common currency within limits.

Currently, this Teutonic vital space of Germany is at work from an economical perspective after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Germany export is mostly oriented toward the eastern vast States that recaptured their independence from the Soviet Union in 1990.  Germany would have rather have its own European Union formed of Holland, Danmark, Sweden, Poland, Tchekoslovakia, Austria, and Ukraine. The western European States and Greece are just added burden that Germany feels it was pressured to supporting.  Probably, the European Union might adopt a second currency (alongside the Euro) just for internal trade purposes among the European States.  The internal trade currency could be labelled “Euro E” referring to the eastern European States so that the current Euro, implicitely a “Euro W” referring to the western European States, be mainly used for external trades outside the EU boundries.

It is proven that most offspring, a century ago, were the product of incests.  It is documented that Adolf Hitler was the product of incest: his father married his own daughter who was conceived by one of the father’s close relatives.  Rural areas, everywhere in the world, were the hotbeds of incestuous genes inheritance.  Only a few tribal clans in Africa had a tradition of marrying outside the tribe and maintained healthy generations.

It is mainly lack of communication with the outside world that generated myths and customs of promoting incest behaviors and family inbreeding.  This lack of communication was made difficult by primitive transport systems (along with high risks of venturing outside town limits, and the insufficient resources to marrying outside family premises in order to conserving wealth within the larger family).

If it was not for occasional wars outside the boundries of empires then, mankind would have degenerated and disappeared long time ago.  War carried in its files and ranks soldiers above average in health; the customs of taking women slaves and younger prisoners of both genders had one main consequence: improving genes for upgraded resistance to infections.  The other by-products benefits for invaders were the explicit catalysts that made mankind to survive up to now.

One of the main reasons that encouraged the racist ideology of “pure race” in Germany was that Germany and the other northern States were not invaded as frequently in ancient history of wars.  Actually, Germanic tribes were the invading hordes into the Roman Empire, England, and France.  Germanic tribes didn’t bring back slaves since they had no empires and they wanted to settle in more temperate climates; they did procreate different breeds wherever they entered. Germany before the 19th century had the lowest longevity rate and was the least populated in Europe commensurate with areas dimensions.

If it was not for the expansion of Islam in Spain from the 8th to the 14th centuries; the Crusade campaigns in the 11th and 12th centuries, and the expansion of the Othoman Empires in the 15th and 16th centuries then, the European populations would have been in a state of degeneration.

Up to the 19th century, women had high ratio of stillbirths and children dying at early ages. The few births that survived had better immunity against the countless deadly diseases.  Why this sudden exponential increase in world population?  It is not because of better hygiene or higher standards of living.  Two main factors account for this increasing trend to reach 8 billions by 2015:  First, better medical techniques that increased the odd of giving birth (instead of 3 out of 10 surviving we are experiencing 7 out of ten, even in the third world). Second, the application of urban (modern) regulations to marriage permits that excluded co-sanguine alliances and testing for blood compatibilty.  The other two secondary factors are: Immunization and qualitative transport systems that allowed communication outside town limits and mass transfer to urban centers.

What about contraceptive drugs and techniques?  We need to keep in mind that rural life and customs are predominant in most countries; rural region set the trend in matters of demography.  Maybe urban centers will embrace about 50% of world population within a decade but the poorest districts in cities (bidonviles, favella) are worse than rural areas in controlling and managing demography.   All kinds of States restrictions and regulations to limit the trend in increased population will not make a dent: Population control is tightly connected and highly correlate with higher standard of living and work opportunities for both genders. 

You may read a compatible post of mine: https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/the-priest-the-warrior-and-the-peasant/

Note:  Wars waged after the 19th century had no advantages whatsoever.

Most magical liquid glass; (Mar. 10, 2010)

A manufacturer in Germany has discovered a great application for nano-technologies.

Particles of dioxide of Silicon (sand of fine quartz) are mixed with just water or alcohol;and  the mixture produces a fine layer of liquid glass no thicker than 500 times thinner than a hair.  

No resin or other toxic substances are combined. Water or alcohol evaporates and the liquid glass layer protect against water, bacteria, dirt, heat, and moister.

Nothing can get attached to what the liquid glass covers.

As the mixture is sprayed or painted over cloths then you could dive in arctic water or walk in arid desert climate and reach destination feeling comfortable.

This liquid was sprayed on buildings such as the mausoleum of Ataturk in Turkey.  The edifices will need no further cleaning for decades.

The liquid glass can be sprayed on hospital equipments, kitchen utensils, or anything so that bacteria are out the window.

Everything slides easily on this ultra thin mixture.

I am not sure if army uniforms that are sprayed with this mixture can protect against phosphorous bombs or orange gas.

I would not rule out if this magic liquid glass is categorized as security and military material sooner than later!

Counter shock upheaval: the earlier the better (Greece)

            A developing State deciding to default on external debts should default on all its debt; then, it can rest appeased and contented for several reasons: first, defaulting does not occur frequently in any single State; second, the bad credit rating is the same whether a State default on all or partial debts; and third, the State will generate immediate cash flow on unpaid interests that covers its budget deficit.   

            Before Greece, Lithuania, Hungary, and Spain suffered the same fate of a prematurely imposed Euro on States of weak economies. There are many articles analyzing the financial crisis in Greece. I thought that I can make sense in a short post for readers eager to know but would refrain reading lengthy erudite articles.

            There are two main factors for Greece financial problems; there are two resolutions available, equally painful, but one is far better in shortening the pain and healing faster. First, the common currency Euro forced weaker economies to relinquish their sovereignty over issuing money (printing money) in time of shrinking economy to re-launch the inner trade.  Second, the US financial multinationals before the crash infused too much credit in a small economy that did not correspond to normal credit rating behaviors; this quick infusion of money inflated the sense of economic boom and generated laxity in financial control and management.  Greece is awakening to new demands for harsher financial control and imposition of higher taxes to straighten the budget balance sheet.

            The first remedy is inviting the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to intervene and infuse $1.7 billions in the Greek coffer to pay the debts due this spring. This would be a bad decision. It is worse because even the EU is encouraging Greece toward that option. For example:

            Lithuania GNP shrank 18% in the first year the IMF intervened with its draconian conditions: jobless rate climbed to 20%, the high level in health, education, and retirement suffered greatly. Actually, retired persons are bleeding and the socialist political parties lost ground.

            In Hungary, the IMF intervention made sure that the people suffer and the socialist government be replaced by like minded anti-socialist government headed by the former minister of economy. If Greece ends up asking the “help” of the IMF, as the EU wishes too, then the socialist George Papandreou will start packing; a decision that will please Merkle PM of Germany.

            Greece with budget deficit reaching 13% of GNP and growing has a reasonable solution out of this mess if it wants to avoid 10 years of suffering and humiliation. Until the EU comes up with a financial recovery plan then Greece should revert to its national currency the drachma. Greece should regain its sovereignty issuing money in this difficult period: Internal and external trades should not be hampered for lack of liquidity.

            Since Greece imports amount to only 20% of its GNP then better competitive drachma should enhance exports and reduce the loan deficit. With the already strict financial control in place, Greece will be able to shorten the period of its pain.  The EU will accept Greece currency to revert to the Euro in due time in order not to let other Euro member States following Greece decision.

            Greece should learn how Argentina recovered.  After four years insisting of keeping the currency linked to the dollar the economy faltered entirely.  Argentina decided to float its currency and it devalued accordingly. Argentina was able to default on $100 billion of foreign loans. The government insured that bank deposits of consumers keep the same purchasing power by regular re-evaluation and re-fixing of the national currency.  People living in their own properties enjoyed the same financial facility at the rate of pre-devaluation.  Within a single semester, Argentina economy was back to normal and going strong.

            Greece has choices: either the MIF intervention accompanied by ten years of suffering or reverting to the drachma until the economy is back to normal within a semester. If Greece default on all its external debts then, suppose the interest rate on debts is 8% and the debt amount to 140% its GNP, defaulting will generate fresh cash of 9% of Greece GNP which is over its annual current budget deficit. What developing State would decline such solution?  Obviously, the US, Japan, China, Germany, France, and England would refuse to default on the ground that they are actually running world economy.

            Defaulting on bad credits that financial multinational encouraged developing States to taking does not hurt badly or disturb the multinational creditors: they were not supposed to pay taxes on interests as long as debtor governments did not restitute the original entire capital; the financial multinationals have then to pay taxes on the previous 20 years of lending the same capital, minus what they submit as expenses of doing businesses.

            The neoliberal financial ideology and “The Economist” are back on the offensive after the shameful financial crash: they are ordering indebted States to reducing public employment by 10%, reducing salaries, reducing retirement benefit, and elongating the age for retirement.  The financial institutions claim that all these hassles are none of its business, even if they caused the miseries.

            Unless people revolt now with a counter shock to what they are being submitted to then any delay to the next financial crash will hurt them more than the rich classes.  People should demand that taxes be raised and increased to all capitalist transactions, financial administrators and bonuses be taxed high, and dividends to shareholders be delayed until the economy is stabilized.  Waiting for another financial crash to get in action is tantamount to increasing social injustices with a maddening upheaval that runs amuck.

Einstein speaks on “How I see the world”; (Nov. 30, 2009)

Note: The translated book in French does not provide context to what Einstein’s wrote, published or delivered. Thus, I have no sources for the dates or events or purpose for these documents except what I may conjecture.

Einstein wrote “pure religion or cosmic religiosity consists at feeling astonished and ecstatic before the harmony of nature’s laws and beauty that uncovers a superior intelligence that defies our comprehension.  I know that my existence is limited and I ignore why I am on earth.

“I do know that I have this premonition that I am alive to the others: their smiles and happy nature condition my life. What I know is that who is questioning the meaning of life is going through a miserable period: he is not finding reason to live.  More importantly is “Is there any sense for asking such a question on the meaning of life?

“I feel a thousand times a day that I am dependent to the work of the living and the dead.  My home, my food, and my cloth are contributed by man of the community. What I know and what I feel I owe it to the other man.

“I cannot imagine of a man isolated from a community since his birth: I can only conceive that he would emulate the surrounding animals and environment.  Only languages to communicate among people distinguish us from the animal kingdom.

“I am not that free and I appreciate Schopenhauer maximMan can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wishes”.

“I learned to look at the world with a sense of humor: I cannot be preoccupied with the sense or purpose of my existence because it is objectively absurd.  I have ideals such as the good, the beautiful, and the truth and I get obstinate pursuing ideals not even accessible to art or sciences.  I loath human passions for wealth, glory, luxury, and power.  Only justice is worth social engagement.”

“Creating and inventing require a unity in concept, direction, and sense of responsibility.  I devoted my entire life with un-interrupted efforts to what I achieved and here you have people thinking that they can comprehend all my work by just listening to my expositions. My only criterion for judging a man is “To what degree and to what purpose has man liberated from his I?””

Gandhi incarnates the highest political genius of our civilization.  I hate the military institution.  Any person feeling this pleasure of marching in rank is utterly content with his limbic brain.  There are no excuses for obeying orders that are contrary to our moral values, especially killing fellow man.

“I cannot imagine a God punishing and rewarding the object of his creation or regulating his will on my own experience.

“I do not want to conceive that we may survive after death: that is the ultimate in egoism.

The mechanical organization of institutions, even in the scientific world, has substituted the individual innovators; thus, men of genius are becoming rare: citizens are neglecting the intellectual intelligence and the necessity of moral rights.

“I often have mixed feeling about individuals who have improved human life: I keep wondering of their moral objectives and if they really intended to do the goo

“The discovery of the atomic bomb does not constitute a higher danger to humanity than match boxes: we have to suppress its usage.   The fabrication of the H Bomb is a feasible objective: each progress generates consequences from prior progresses.

Generalized annihilation of human kind is the most likely outcome.

“We are creating the means for our premature death.  In the actual state of technology only a supra-national institution, an organization equipped with a world legal tribunal to decide on States’ differences and with executive power can eliminate fear and the need to arm for reciprocal defense.”

After the rise of Hitler to power Einstein reverted to pragmatism:

1. first, he resigned his professorship at the University of Prussia,

2. he incited France and Belgium to arm against Nazi programs, and

3. he warned Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany might acquire the atomic bomb if the US does not get on fabricating the atomic bomb as a deterrence tool.

Einstein was also a staunch Zionist before the formal recognition of the State of Israel by the UN in 1948. https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/einstein-speaks-on-zionism/

The European Union (EU): Modern Europe leading human rights; (Nov. 10, 2009)

 

The previous post “European Union (EU) describes Modern Europe” covered a few statistics and then a short description of the EU administrative and legislative institutions. This follow up post will cover what is working, then analyzing what need to be ironed out, and then how the world community is expecting modern Europe to lead.

The 27 European States forming the EU counts 6 States among the twenty leading economy in the world.  By deceasing rank we have USA, China, Japan, India, Germany, Russia, Britain, France, Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Canada, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Australia, Taiwan, and the Netherlands. Actually, those six European economies constitute about 90% of the EU in economy and in populations.

As a block, the economy of the EU may surpass the USA with a twist: the three largest industrial multinationals in every sector are US.  For example, in aeronautics we have United Technology, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin; in medical materials we have Medtronic, United Health, and Alcon; in Medias we have Walt Disney, News Corporation, and Comcast; in pharmaceutical/biotechnology we have Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer; in informatics we have Microsoft, IBM, and Google.  Besides, the US is the first military power in technology, Navy, Bombers, and aircraft carriers.  The EU is totally dependent on oil and gas energies imported from Russia and elsewhere.  France has adopted a policy of being sufficient in electricity via nuclear energy (60% of the total of France production of energy).  Denmark is 25% sufficient in Aeolian technology and Germany about 15%.

The EU is facing problems. First, the “community vision” is eroding: the decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall and disintegration of the Soviet Union sent the wrong message of jumping in the band wagon of US globalization; thus, the well to do citizens wanted to get rich fast by emulating liberal capitalism. Individualism overshadowed the need to resume a common culture of developing institutions that are trained to work toward the common interest and be reformed to keeping the EU spirit intact in human rights and human dignity.

Second, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 took Europe by surprise.  The euphoric undertaking of uniting East Germany quickly exhausted West Germany with the multitude of social, economic and political problems of this unification and captured most of Germany’s resources and time and prevented it to ponder on the EU necessities.  The opportunity to deepen European consciousness for reformed institutions to expanding eastward was missed.

Third, the EU was discussing the two possibilities: either the strengthening the current union for the longer term expansion or hastily absorbing the many eastern European newly independent States.  The political decision was to go ahead and allowing these tiny states to adhere to the union.  I think that this was the appropriate decision because new States had to root their future into a tangible alliance or fall back into past habit, inclinations, and culture; thus, forming close alliances with Russia. The EU was the appropriate framework for ethnic communication and more democratic realization of social aspirations.  The problem is that these tiny States feel that they should aspire to the same standard of living in no times.  The latest financial crash has left al these States in bankrupt conditions and it is up to the rich EU States to salvage this predicament.  Maybe this fact should remind the EU that not all States should enjoy the same rights until they can show the same capability to shouldering responsibilities.

 

The actual challenges are many. First, there is a political space to reconstruct:  The budget of the EU institutions is merely 1% of the gross GNP while States allocate over 30% to re-distribute to collectivities, social protection, and welfare. The richer States are not that inclined to contribute heavily to the social stability of the poorer EU State members. Second, the EU has unified its currency (it overcame the States’ monopolies to issuing paper money) but is lacking a unified economic government.  For example, the EU lacks common public spaces, no political party or organization has been created or formed to focus on specific EU interests, and the EU Parliament has no power to raise taxes to finance common policies.  So far, the government chiefs are wary of relinquishing their interstates legitimacy and power.

As a block, the EU is still unable to challenge the US on crimes against humanity committed by the US and Israel;  it is fully cooperating with the US on taking Israel off the hook in the UN for daily crimes against human dignity, rights, and apartheid policies in the West bank and Gaza. There are a few States in the EU that are showing trends to opposing Israel’s apartheid practices and boycotting its products grown and manufactured in the occupied West Bank; it is the people in these States who have set the stage for human rights and dignity reversal toward the Palestinian endemic plight since 1948.

 

The world community is on its toes: will the EU refresh its initial objective of “community vision” or will it relapse in petty interstates interest of monopolies and idiosyncrasies?  We need the EU to be the caldron of community communication among ethnicities, languages, and cultures. We need the EU to be the social and political testing ground for viable alternatives in vision, institutions, ecological human survival, human rights and dignity. We need the EU to invent new reasons to living together and reducing man inequality.

The European Union is the most striking political and social achievement in the 20th century.  The backbones of most of the UN peace keeping forces around the world are European contingents; the EU is the highest contributor in humanitarian budgets and for reforming obsolete public institutions in the under-developed States. The EU needs a refresher community vision and the world community should raise its voices and aid Europe in its endeavors.

The priest, the warrior, and the peasant; (August 22, 2009)

Another alternative title could be more realistic and comprehensive such as “Elder, male, and female” but it is not catchy enough.

George Dumezil, a French researcher who can speak over 20 languages, says “The first 10 languages are the hardest to learn; the remaining languages come pretty easy because it is the same routine and same thing”.

George Dumezil wrote the trilogy “Myth and Epic” that describes the mythologies in Ireland, Iceland, Scandinavia, Germany, Roman, Greek, Ossetia (Caucasus region), and then links all these mythologies to their hierarchical transmission from the Indian Mahabharata and Bhagavat mythology.

Dumezil calls this unifying mythology “The Indo-European mythology” and end up with a summary that this mythology is based on 3 fundamentals the Priesthood, Warrior, and Peasant classes with their respective Gods.

After over 40 years of detailed research to reach this common sense conclusion is a monstrous let down.

Da! This classification of society is common to all cultures and civilizations and going pretty strong nowadays. (The main Gods in all civilizations were of Justice, War, and Fecundity. The all-encompassing unifying God was barely worshiped by the people because not symbolizing their trade or class).

The Romans had the (Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus). The Scandinavian counties had Odinn reigning over the Val-Holl of (Porr, Mimir, and Odrerir) and  Ases was their unifying God. The Germans had Wotan reigning over their Walhalla.  In the Near East mythology we had (Shamsh, Baal, and Ashtarout); El or Allah in the Arab Peninsula was their unifying God.  In the Nile civilization we had Amon (Sun), Osiris, and Isis.

The major let down is this conventional direction of researchers of thinking top down or hierarchically.  Well, after the Scandinavian got their mythology from Ossetia that got their mythology from Northern India, then from whom did the Indian receive their mythology?  If there are any written records that go many thousands of years in antiquity (not probable) we might discover that mythology transmission is no longer hierarchical but cyclical.

Adopting the easy hierarchical line of reasoning is basically wrong. It is the wrong logic to consider: simply because it stick to the conventional that the King/Priesthood classes are the transmitters of culture and civilization. The Priesthood class is mainly the conservative maintainer of the status quo and barely the transmitter of much anything.

A more realistic and promising line of reasoning is to consider that it is the warrior classes that transmitted rituals, myths, and customs.

It is the soldiers and sub officers who were in direct and daily contact with the conquered people: they are the ones who interrogated prisoners, facilitated trade and communication, and learned by osmosis the new culture and civilization of the subjugated people.  The soldiers and sub officers returned to their hometowns and villages and disseminated their story telling testimonies and accounts of their war period.

The dissemination was quick because most soldiers were mercenaries from the neighboring countries to the powerful Kingdom. Once the war was over, the soldiers were disbanded to return mainly to their families and spread the news of alternative rituals, myths, customs, and techniques of the conquered culture.

Since frequent communication of central government of Empires with their neighboring vassal countries was not sustained, it stands to reason that the peasant classes managed to occasionally change their traditions before the government realized the changes.

When central government is strong then either of two possibilities was activated:

1.  If the mercenary warriors sided with the peasants then the King/Priesthood was defeated and the newer traditions and mythologies took roots.

2.  If the King/Priesthood vanquished then many varieties of sects and cults mushroomed in the neighboring kingdom.

Empires come and go, but the tank sources for mercenaries were constant.

These warriors came from mountain chain regions and high plateaus or desert regions.  In “Indo-European civilization” the mercenaries flocked from the Turkish Anatole Plateau and its extension in the Caucasus of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Albania, and Romania.  The people were known as Cherkessk, Kurd, Tatar, Parthian, Scythe, and so on.  The other sources of mercenaries came from Central Asia such as Turkmenistan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, and Mongolia.

The main central EMPIRE was Persia that extended many times from coastal Turkey to all of Afghanistan and part of Pakistan.

Babylon and later Assyria empires were counties of current Iran that moved the Capitals to their provinces as central power weakened in Persia. The same is true for the Hittite Empire in Anatolia that expanded to Egypt and signed the first recorded peace treaty with Egypt after the battle of Caddish. The Hittite aided the Greek by all means to defeat the Empire of Troy: Troy was a major handicap to extending to the coast and building a navy.

The urban centers in plains, rich with major water resources and large river,s hires mercenaries to defend or expand empires. The Near East region was constituted of City-States) that hired mercenaries for the war effort to defend the cities. A City-State was the center for Priesthood/learning class and peasant/skilled artisans class (the bread basket).  Empires that could not maintain autochthonous soldiers as majority of their armies vanished in no times.

When studying civilizations and their continuity we should never dismiss the main factor: climate.

There are the cold, mild, and hot weather civilizations. Within these 3 categories there are the plain and mountain region people. Talking about “indo-European” languages or civilizations is stretching the imagination a tad too far and forcing issues.

It is not with the antiques written records of the elite class that civilizations and dissemination of culture can be described and comprehended, but with archeological finds of daily living, rituals, and customs within homogeneous climatic regions.

Note 1: I had the topic from “Smell of the Time” (Odeur du temps) by Jean d’Ormesson who published three articles on George Dumezil. I didn’t read “Myth and Epic” and hope that d’Ormesson did.

Notes 2:  The nomadic desert Jewish tribes could not invent but one God “Yahwa”; Jehovah ended up to be their warrior God. When the Jews of Moses got in contact with the Canaanites in Palestine, Yahwa was set aside during peaceful period to be resurrected during war period and his statues and temples moved closer to God Baal in order for the Jews to be hired as mercenaries.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,427,491 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 774 other followers

%d bloggers like this: