This piece (not all of it, the parts about the Nazi roots of the “European Economic Union” and the quotes from William Blum were not included) was originally written as a reply to the article Yanis Varoufakis published in the German Newspaper DIE ZEIT and which he also presented on his blog in English.
I posted it yesterday in the comment section of his blog but it was completely censored, it simply ‘disappeared’. I wonder why ….
My first question was:
If “Grexit” was the alpha and omega of the German Euro-strategy then why did they give it up in the end?
Yanis, I respect your intellectual honesty very much but I think you have been hoodwinked to believe that “Grexit” was planned all along. They knew perfectly well that Syriza wanted to stay in the EMU (apparently) at any cost (as a matter of national honour) so they
“had no incentive to give any ground at all. They can continue to make demands, no matter how unreasonable, with no possible political recourse on the part of Syriza. Hence all Greeks .. [became] prisoners of the Eurozone.” (quote from Andrew Ryder).
It was all a huge Machiavellian bluff, a kind of “psyop”: by showing you the “Schäuble-Plan” they instilled fear (also in the other deficit countries) (like the Holy Officium torturers knew that in some cases just showing the victim the gruesome torture tools was enough for a heretic to “recant” or “confess”)and if that was not enough, they counted on another psychological effect: Schäuble’s ostensible determination to “kick Greece out” of the Eurozone (for which there is NO LEGAL basis) would provoke the desired reaction: after accepting the Troika’s draconian, dictatorial terms, PM Tsipras could cling to the somewhat consoling notion that Syriza had at least “foiled” Germany’s humiliating plan.
At the same time the Greek people were subjected to even more economic “shock treatment” (by cutting off liquidity to the Greek banks) and the ultimate humiliation: after the great “OXI”-vote (which gave them for a brief moment a glimmer of hope) “their” government accepted even harsher terms than originally presented by the Troika: Greece is now effectively FOR SALE (at bargain prices …). The message to all left parties (and their voters) in all of Europe is clear:
IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.
You can vote … but you cannot decide …
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Carroll Quigley
The “request” for aid was written by the State Department but presented to the world as reflecting the wishes of the Greek government:
Blum also quotes from a letter to the director of the US “aid-program” in Greece (AMAG), written by then Secretary of State, George Marshall in 1947 offering the following advice:
Talk about the arrogance of power. Today, the unholy “Troika” does not even bother to camouflage the economic dictatorship they impose on Greece since they control the financial weapons as well as public opinion.
We know that during the Cold War the Anglo-American imperial ruling class stopped at nothing to prevent a (coalition) government with a socialist or communist party (and who knows this better than Greeks …UK/US-assisted fascist take-over in 1944, 1967, then the corrupt, US-trained PASOK puppets …etc.) in Western Europe, including NATO-supported terrorism (see “Gladio”). This is no longer necessary since the neoliberal, totalitarian economic “ThinkPol” has succeeded in brainwashing European political leaders and journalists to accept the “TINA”-principle. They realize of course that the huge inequality this system produces will generate opposition, even rebellion but the tyranny of finance* has now reached such a stage that resistance seems futile (at least in the Eurozone).
*excerpt: “I had had the opportunity to hear Mr Alexandre Lamfallusy, the leading technocrat tasked with the introduction of the single currency, speak in Tokyo around 1996. He presented his road map. The astonishing aspect was the level of detail. He told us, years in advance, in which European cities the chiefs of central banks and the finance ministers would meet and WHAT THEY WOULD DECIDE; when and where their deputies would meet and WHAT THEY WOULD DECIDE; and where and when the heads of government would meet, and WHAT THEY WOULD DECIDE: month after month of detailed scheduled meetings, with a complete script of pre-ordained outcomes, named after the cities in which the meetings were to take place. His confident presentation made it clear that he expected this script to be followed to the letter. I saw no reason to doubt his words. (Needless to mention, this is what happened).”
(Back to my questions for Yanis Varoufakis): What I do not understand is this: You know perfectly well that the whole design of the Eurozone is crazy (economically unviable) and I am sure that you are aware of the spot-on warnings of Wynne Godley in 1992:
[…] “the power to issue its own money, to make drafts on its own central bank, is the main thing which defines national independence. If a country gives up or loses this power, it acquires the status of a local authority or colony.”
In several interviews I heard you say that the Euro is doomed if no structural reforms are undertaken (and you know they will not come since Germany is not even willing to confront the question let alone change a system (apparently) to its advantage) then why did you support Syriza’s plan to stay in the EMU as Minister of Finance? Why throw away your pride (as a nation and in your case as a brilliant scholar), give up your sovereignty to keep your place on the Titanic? Why did Syriza not explain to the Greek public what the Euro really is (an instrument of political subjugation)?
Einstein once quipped that
‘You cannot solve a problem with the same way of thinking that created it in the first place’.
The (German) idea that you have “to discipline” European governments with the “threat” of being kicked out of the Eurozone (for which there is NO LEGAL basis) to make the stupid fiscal union work is a perfect embodiment of this insight and shows that we are ruled by “idiots”, [Ιδιώτης / idiotikos: “unprofessional, unskilled; not done by rules of art] not intellectually mature people who really engage in politics for the community [democrates].
The bitter truth is, the EU never was a truly democratic project, in fact its origins can be traced back to the Third Reich “Großraumwirtschaft”. The incredible irony is, that although these plans were based on dictatorial Germany calling the economic shots (with the “Reichsmark” having the hegemonic position the dollar has today and Berlin replacing London as the financial centre), the economic planning was a lot more intelligent and socially just than the Maastricht regime – here are some major points (taken from the book The Tainted Source by John Laughland):
(See also this – 1942: Conference on the European Economic Community)
- Labour instead of capital must be the economic yardstick.
- Prices are no longer the regulator of all economic phenomena. Instead, prices are regulated by the state according to the needs of the collectivity (!). (Ferdinand Fried, Professor of Economics)
- The need for an integrated European clearing-system (regarding the balance of payments) was clearly identified.
- Primacy should not be accorded to the exchange rate, instead full employment and purchasing power stability should be the primary goals of currency management … (Dr. Bernhard Benning / The State Theory of Money)
- Walter Funk was defending the need for state control of foreign exchange to prevent uncontrollable capital flows from disturbing the economy; He realized that in order to establish the greatest possible degree of economic and political autarky, a monetary regime would have to be set up to protect Europe from “uncontrollable international” influences that “could be used as power-political instruments to suppress us”
- To maintain currency stability, price controls and the control of credit (!) were considered necess British commentators criticized the German “hostility to the Gold standard” (and for good reason…), called their ideas “totalitarian” as opposed to economic “liberalism”, the “free-market”-scam, etc.
Well, by now we should realize that nothing is more “totalitarian” than neo-liberalism (with the “market” as cover for plutocratic rule by bankers and their rich clients)
- Gold became irrelevant once prices were determined not by the market but by governments which regulated all economic activity and once trade was managed through clearing arrangements.
- Francis Delaisi, an ardent opponent of the gold standard, hated “the reign of money” and was convinced that the economic history of Europe after 1918 had shown the capitalist system to be on the verge of collapse. He rightly argued that the explosion of credit between 1919-29 in the US had led to the crash of 1929, and that the consequent depression had brought massive unemployment in the Anglo-Saxon economies. This threatened to destroy the entire social structure in Europe. (sound familiar?)
- In Delaisi’s view the gold standard restricted social progress, because (being a world currency), it opened labour markets to world competition and thereby forced down wages .. he considered it to be an “instrument of inhumane competition”. It was important to liberate producers from the competition of exotic countries whose standard of living was too low … (Hitler abolished the gold-standard as soon as he came to power).
- Capitalism is a political system based on class interests triumphing over those of the community as a whole.
(I never understood where the “socialist” part (in National-Socialist) came from – how could an extreme right, fascist, corporate-friendly party be ‘socialist’ at the same time? Now I get the picture …)
To be clear: I am not endorsing far-right parties here at all but I want to make the point that the rule of “the free market” (serving as a cover for the financial aristocracy) is no less authoritarian than what the Nazis had planned, it is a totalitarian system – just look at what is happening in Greece. There is no ‘agreement’ here, this was pure mafia-style coercion (a ‘reverse Corleone’ someone called it): accept or bury your economy.
So it seems they took the fascist plan for a European “Union”, got rid of the “socialist” part (commanded by the state) and replaced it with the totalitarian market-regime (still favouring Berlin). Dictatorial economic “rules” that must be adhered to – at all cost – (some are more equal here than others as we have seen, since Germany and France were the first countries to violate the Maastricht rules but no ‘punishment’ was meted out to them) should evoke huge resistance but presenting these rules as “necessary” adjustments to which there is no alternative (except economic isolation and bankruptcy) has succeeded in blaming the victims for the crime … the “market” has become the new Hitler … the banks the new weapons of mass (social) destruction .. the governments the willing executioner of a neo-feudal ideology (“neo-liberalism”).
Paul Krugman noted in an interview that the German word for debt (Schulden) is almost synonymous with the German word for guilt (Schuld) and speculated how this would influence German thinking …
Joe Stiglitz recently wrote about the problems in the Eurozone (and the Greek drama within it):
That concern for popular legitimacy is incompatible with the politics of the eurozone, which was never a very democratic project. Most of its members’ governments did not seek their people’s approval to turn over their monetary sovereignty to the ECB. When Sweden’s did, Swedes said no. They understood that unemployment would rise if the country’s monetary policy were set by a central bank that focused single-mindedly on inflation (and also that there would be insufficient attention to financial stability). The economy would suffer, because the economic model underlying the eurozone was predicated on power relationships that disadvantaged workers.
Yes, this is the key point: economic policy and financial control are about POWER RELATIONSHIPS not mathematical models that have nothing to do with the real world. Steve Keen makes fun of the fact that banks and credit play no role in neoclassical economic models (and rightly so) but I now think this was no “mistake” or oversight, this was done on purpose … to hide the role of banks, finance as power-players in the economy … (they even invented a FAKE NOBEL prize to glorify the fancy mathematics that passes as “econometrics”)
If the consequences for the Greek people – and all of us in Europe – were not so dire, this whole charade (“of debt negotiations”) would be laughable. A kind of sinister, political farce, written by Kafka (“the institutions”) and directed by Orwell (Eurogroup should change its name to “MINISTRY OF TRUTH”.
I leave the last words to Guido Preparata (author of Conjuring Hitler, a very distressing exposé about the rise of Hitler, financed by Anglo-American money …. and encourage you to think about what the role of the US oligarchy in all of this Euro-Game is ….)
So-called democracy is a sham, the ballot a travesty. In modern bureaucratized systems whose birth dates from the mid 19th century, the feudal organization has been carried to the next level, so to speak. A chief objective of what Thucydides referred to in his epoch as synomosiai (literally “exchange of oaths”) – i.e. the out-of-sight fraternities acting behind the ruling clans – has been the process of the exaction of rents from the population (i.e. a free income in the form of rents, financial charges and like thefts) as unfathomable and impenetrable as possible. The tremendous sophistication, and the propagandistic wall of artfully divulged misconceptions surrounding the banking systems which is the chief instrument wherewith the hierarchs expropriate and control the wealth of their supporting community, is the limpid testimony of this essential transformation undergone by the feudal / oligarchic organization in the modern era.
The West has moved from a low-tech agrarian establishment built upon the backs of disenfranchised serfs to a highly mechanized post-industrial hive that feeds off the strength of no less disenfranchised blue- and white collar slaves, whose lives are mortgaged to buy into the vogue of modern consumption. The latter-day lords of the manor are no longer seen demanding tribute since they have relied on the mechanics of banking accounts for the purpose, whereas the sycophants of the median class, as academics and publicists, have consistently remained loyal to the synomosiai.
From the “Agreement” with the Troika (page 5):
“The government NEEDS TO CONSULT AND AGREE with the institutions ON ALL DRAFT LEGISLATION in relevant areas with adequate time BEFORE submitting it for public consultation or to Parliament …” !!!!
How could Alexis Tsipras even contemplate to sign this capitulation to the “modern dictatorship of money”?! If Greece wants to regain her dignity she MUST get out of the Euro (and NATO) and prevent the BIG SALE of her assets before it is too late …
AND FINALLY ….WHAT ABOUT THIS?
Tulane University oil expert David Hynes told an audience in Athens recently that Greece could potentially solve its entire public debt crisis through development of its new-found gas and oil. He conservatively estimates that exploitation of the reserves already discovered could bring the country more than €302 billion over 25 years. The Greek government instead has just been forced to agree to huge government layoffs, wage cuts and pension cuts to get access to a second EU and IMF loan that will only drive the country deeper into an economic decline.