Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘France’

How Khomeini and Unknown Backers Created Islamic State of Iran?


On 1 February 1979 Khomeini flew in a chartered Air France plane to Iran. He was accompanied by supporters as well as 120 international journalists.

On 1 February 1979 Khomeini flew in a chartered Air France plane to Iran. He was accompanied by supporters as well as 120 international journalists.

Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini was the son of Seyed Mostafa Hindi (murdered) and Hajieh Agha Khanum. The ancestors of Ruhollah Khomeini migrated towards the end of the 18th century from their original home of Nishapur, Khorasan Province, in northeastern Iran, for a short stay, to the kingdom of Awadh – a region in the modern state of Uttar Pradesh, India. In 1834 Seyyed Ahmad Musavi Hindi, Khomeini’s paternal grandfather, visited Persia, and in 1839 he settled in Khomein. There are also claims that Seyyed Ahmad Musavi Hindi departed from Kashmir, instead of Lucknow.

Khomeini was jailed briefly in Iran, during the rule of Shah/ Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and kept under house arrest for a period, and then on November 4, 1964 he was sent to Turkey where he stayed in the city of Bursa hosted by a colonel in the Turkish Military Intelligence named Ali Cetiner in his own residence. Khomeini spent about 14 years in exile.

He remained in Turkey less than a year, and then relocated to Najaf in Iraq, where he stayed until 1978. He continued to agitate against the shah’s regime, and as anti government sentiment intensified in Iran throughout 1978, the Shah of Iran wanted to increase his physical distance from Iran. He was encouraged to leave by then-Vice President Saddam Hussein, some sources says Iran pressured Iraq to “expel” Khomeini, and he was deported to Kuwait on October 6, 1978, which is not far at all.

He had originally planned to “relocate” to Syria, but his aides noted that he would be monitored and highly restricted if he stayed anywhere in the Middle East. Khomeini went to Paris, France, on a tourist visa. He requested and received “political asylum” in France, and on October 8 he relocated to a rented house in Neauphle-le-Château outside of Paris.

The move was a huge boost to his cause. It put him within reach of the international news media and sympathetic (at least in their opposition to the shah) intellectuals, but perhaps more importantly, the phone infrastructure in Europe was far more reliable, enabling him to stay in close touch with contacts and participate from France in the groundwork to create Iran Islamic state on 11 February 1979.

January 31, 1979: Iranian opposition leader Ayatollah Khomeini gave a speech at Roissy airport near Paris before boarding an Air France flight to Tehran.

On 1 February Khomeini flew to Iran in a chartered Air France plane. He was accompanied by supporters as well as 120 international journalists. On February 8th Iranian air force officers went to Khomeini’s home and promised their loyalty.

There is no doubt at all that Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini and his regime are of Turkic Persian origin, similar to the Pahlavi regime and all other rulers since the Achaemenid kingdom in 550 BC, and all these rulers do not represent the Aryan Iranian peoples.

The six Turkic groups are:
1- Turkic Muslim in Anatolia and Balkan, (fake Caucasians since Byzantine–Seljuq wars in 1048 Ad),
2- Turkic Shia Persians (fake Iranians since the Achaemenids in 550 BC),
3- Turkic Khazar Zionist Jews (fake Israelite since the tricky Babylonian “Return” in 520 BC),
4- Turkic rulers of Arabia (fake Arabs, following the death of Islam in 655 AD),
5- Turkic “Hindu” Indians and Gypsy (fake Aryans since the Persian conquest in 530 BC), and
6- Turkic Europeans (fake liberal Christians since the “Holy” “Roman” “Empire” in 962 AD)

Six Turkic Groups

Six Turkic Groups

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II


Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1943-07-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1943-07-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1943-11-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1943-11-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1944-07-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1944-07-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1944-09-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1944-09-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1944-12-15

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1944-12-15

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1945-05-01

Only Russia Fought Heroically in World War II 1945-05-01

Europe and America were defeated and stood by but they later claimed victories.

1939 Soviet liberation of Poland; Battle of Lwów; Battle of Wilno; Battle of Grodno; Battle of Szack; Battle of Wytyczno.

1939 Winter War; Battle of Tolvajärvi; Battle of Suomussalmi

1941 Battle of Smolensk; Battle of Kiev;

On 22 June 1941, German, Romanian and Slovak troops invaded the Soviet Union, later also joined by Hungary (following the bombing of the Hungarian city of Kassa), effectively starting Operation Barbarossa. Having destroyed most of the Soviet Air Force on the ground, German forces quickly advanced deep into Soviet territory using blitzkrieg tactics. Armored units raced forward in pincer movements, pocketing and destroying entire Soviet armies.

1941 Battle of Moscow, The original German invasion plan, which the Axis called Operation Barbarossa, called for the capture of Moscow within four months. It took place between October 1941 and January 1942. The Soviet defensive effort frustrated Hitler’s attack on Moscow, capital of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the largest Soviet city. Moscow was one of the primary military and political objectives for Axis forces in their invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943) was a major battle of World War II in which Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in the south-western Soviet Union. Marked by constant close quarters combat and disregard for military and civilian casualties, it is amongst the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare. The heavy losses inflicted on the Wehrmacht make it arguably the most strategically decisive battle of the whole war. It was a turning point in the European theatre of World War II–the German forces never regained the initiative in the East and withdrew a vast military force from the West to reinforce their losses.

On 19 November 1942, the Red Army launched Operation Uranus, a two-pronged attack targeting the weaker Romanian and Hungarian forces protecting the German 6th Army’s flanks The Axis forces on the flanks were overrun and the 6th Army was cut off and surrounded in the Stalingrad area. Adolf Hitler ordered that the army stay in Stalingrad and make no attempt to break out; instead, attempts were made to supply the army by air and to break the encirclement from the outside. Heavy fighting continued for another two months. By the beginning of February 1943, the Axis forces in Stalingrad had exhausted their ammunition and food. The remaining elements of the 6th Army surrendered. The battle lasted five months, one week, and three days.

Battle of Smolensk 1943. The Soviets attack 850,000 German troops near Smolensk fortified region, drive them back inflicting severe losses.

Battle of Kiev (1943) Kiev retaken by Soviets.

Operation Bagration (1944) Soviet offensive destroys German Army Group Center on the Eastern Front which cleared German forces from the Belorussian SSR and eastern Poland between 22 June and 19 August 1944. The operation resulted in the almost complete destruction of an entire German army group, with the loss of Army Group Centre’s Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army. It is considered the most calamitous defeat experienced by the German armed forces during the Second World War.

Battle of Debrecen (6–29 October 1944) was conducted by the 2nd Ukrainian Front on the Eastern Front of World War II. Soviets gain ground in Hungary but German and Hungarian forces manage to withdraw relatively intact after both sides suffer similar losses.

1st, 4th, and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts of the Soviet Army crushed the last concentration of German troops (over 1,000,000 men in two army groups) in southeastern Germany and Czechoslovakia. These troops were Army Group Centre and the remnants of Army Group Ostmark.

The Battle of Berlin, designated the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation by the Soviet Union, was the final major offensive of the European Theatre of World War II.
Starting on 12 January 1945, the Red Army breached the German front as a result of the Vistula–Oder Offensive and advanced westward as much as 40 kilometres (25 miles) a day through East Prussia, Lower Silesia, East Pomerania, and Upper Silesia, temporarily halting on a line 60 km (37 mi) east of Berlin along the Oder River. When the offensive resumed, two Soviet fronts (army groups) attacked Berlin from the east and south, while a third overran German forces positioned north of Berlin. The Battle in Berlin lasted from 20 April until the morning of 2 May.

By 23 April the Red Army had completely surrounded Berlin, and Goebbels made a proclamation urging its citizens to defend the city. That same day, Göring sent a telegram from Berchtesgaden, arguing that since Hitler was isolated in Berlin, he, Göring, should assume leadership of Germany. Göring set a deadline after which he would consider Hitler incapacitated. Hitler responded by having Göring arrested, and in his last will and testament, written on 29 April, he removed Göring from all government positions. On 28 April Hitler discovered that Himmler, who had left Berlin on 20 April, was trying to discuss surrender terms with the Western Allies. He ordered Himmler’s arrest and had Hermann Fegelein (Himmler’s SS representative at Hitler’s HQ in Berlin) shot.

On 30 April 1945, after intense street-to-street combat, when Soviet troops were within a block or two of the Reich Chancellery, Hitler and Braun committed suicide; Braun bit into a cyanide capsule and Hitler shot himself.

 

Algerian President Bouteflika Convicted of Theft in 1983


Algerian President Bouteflika

Algerian President Bouteflika

After independence in 1962, Abdelaziz Bouteflika became deputy of Tlemcen in the Constituent Assembly and Minister for Youth and Sport in the government led by Ahmed Ben Bella; the following year, he was appointed as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was later a prime mover in the military coup led by Houari Boumédienne that overthrew Ben Bella on 19 June 1965. Bouteflika continued as Minister for Foreign Affairs until the death of President Boumédienne in 1978.

In 1981, he was sued for having stolen Algerian embassies money between 1965 and 1979. On 8 August 1983, Bouteflika was convicted by The Court of Financial Auditors and found guilty of having fraudulently taken 60 million dinars during his diplomatic career.

In his defence Bouteflika said that he reserved that money to build a new building for the foreign affairs ministry, the court judged his argument as fallacious. In 1979, just after the death of Boumédiène, Bouteflika reimbursed 12,212,875.81 dinars out of the 70 million dinars that was deposited in a Swiss bank. Although Bouteflika was granted amnesty by the president Chadli Bendjedid, his colleagues Senouci and Boudjakdji were jailed.

After the amnesty, Bouteflika was given back his diplomatic passport, a villa where he used to live but did not own and all his debt was erased. He never paid back the money “he reserved for a new foreign affairs ministry’s building”.

France Corrupting & Stealing Algeria and Africa


French Algeria

French Algeria

The total imports and exports on the eve of the French invasion (in 1830) did not exceed £175,000. By 1850, the figures had reached £5,000,000; in 1868, £12,000,000; in 1880, £17,000,000; and in 1890, £20,000,000. From this point progress was slower and the figures varied considerably year by year. In 1905 the total value of the foreign trade was £24,500,000. About five-sixths of the trade is with or via France, into which country several Algerian goods have been admitted duty-free since 1851, and all since 1867. French goods, except sugar, have been admitted into Algeria without payment of duty since 1835. After the 1892 increase of the French minimum tariff which applied to Algeria for the first time, foreign trade greatly diminished.

GDP per capita grew 40 percent in the Sixties reaching a peak growth of 538% in the Seventies. But this proved unsustainable and growth collapsed to a paltry 9.7% in the turbulent Eighties. Failure of timely reforms by successive governments caused the current GDP per capita to shrink by 28% in the Nineties.

This is a chart of trend of gross domestic product of Algeria at market prices estimated by the International Monetary Fund with figures in millions of Algerian Dinars.

Year Gross Domestic Product US Dollar Exchange Inflation Index
(2000=100)
Per Capita Income
(as % of USA)
1980 162,500 3.83 Algerian Dinars 9.30 18.51
1985 291,600 4.77 Algerian Dinars 14 15.55
1990 554,400 12.19 Algerian Dinars 22 10.65
1995 2,004,990 47.66 Algerian Dinars 73 5.39
2000 4,123,514 75.31 Algerian Dinars 100 5.17
2005 7,493,000 73.44 Algerian Dinars 114 7.43

In 2007 Algerian imports totaled US$26.08 billion. The principal imports were capital goods, foodstuffs, and consumer goods. The top import partners were France (22 percent), Italy (8.6 percent), China (8.5 percent), Germany (5.9 percent), Spain (5.9 percent), the United States (4.8 percent), and Turkey (4.5 percent).

The loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Prussia in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War, led to pressure on the French government to make new land available in Algeria for about 5,000 Alsatian and Lorrainer refugees who were resettled there. During the 1870s, both the amount of European-owned land and the number of settlers were doubled, and tens of thousands of unskilled Muslims, who had been uprooted from their land, wandered into the cities or to colon farming areas in search of work.

In 1958, Charles de Gaulle’s return to power in response to a military coup in Algiers on May was supposed to keep Algeria’s status quo as departments of France as hinted by his famous, yet ambiguous, speeches delivered in Oran and Mostaganem on June 6, 1958. De Gaulle’s republican constitution project was approved through the September 1958 referendum and the Fifth Republic was established the following month with De Gaulle as its President.

The latter consented independence in 1962 after a referendum on Algerian self-determination in January 1961 and despite a subsequent aborted military coup in Algiers led by four French generals in April 1961.

On February 23, 2005 the French law on colonialism was an act passed by the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) conservative majority, which imposed on high-school (lycée) teachers to teach the “positive values” of colonialism to their students, in particular in North Africa (article 4). The law created a public uproar and opposition from the whole of the left-wing, and was finally repealed by president Jacques Chirac (UMP) at the beginning of 2006, after accusations of historical revisionism from various teachers and historians.

Algerians feared that the French law on colonialism would hinder the task the French confronting the dark side of their colonial rule in Algeria because article four of the law decreed among other things that “School programmes are to recognise in particular the positive role of the French presence overseas, especially in North Africa, …” Benjamin Stora, a leading specialist on French Algerian history of colonialism, said “France has never taken on its colonial history. It is a big difference with the Anglo-Saxon countries, where post-colonial studies are now in all the universities. We are phenomenally behind the times.” In his opinion, although the historical facts were known to academics, they were not well known by the French public and this led to a lack of honesty in France over French colonial treatment of the Algerian people.

Algérie française was a slogan used about 1960 by those French people who wanted to keep Algeria ruled by France. Literally “French Algeria,” it means that the three départements of Algeria were to be considered integral parts of France.

In Paris, during the perennial traffic jams, adherence to the slogan was indicated by sounding one’s automobile horn in the form of four telegraphic dots followed by a dash, as “al-gér-ie-fran-çaise.” Whole choruses of such horn soundings were heard. This was intended to be reminiscent of the Second World War slogan, “V for Victory,” which had been three dots followed by a dash. The intention was that the opponents of Algérie française were to be considered as traitorous as the collaborators with Germany during the Occupation of France.

France Rules Algeria


France Rules Algeria

Algeria Trade Balance

France Elected Bouteflika For 4th Presidential Term in Algeria

How a sick 77 years old Bouteflika won 4th term as Algerian president?
How Abdelaziz Bouteflika came to power?
Following Boumédienne’s unexpected death in 1978, Bouteflika was seen as one of the two main candidates to succeed the powerful president. Bouteflika was thought to represent the party’s “right wing” that was more open to economic reform and rapprochement with the West.

“It is consistency that is essential,” he said in response to a question about stalled efforts on reaching an agreement for a “Treaty of Friendship” with France.
French-Algerian relations, which have been patchy since 1962, were lukewarm under Hollande’s predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy, but economic ties always prevailed.
France is a leading exporter to Algeria behind Italy, the United States and Spain, while there are 450 French companies operating in Algeria, making Paris a significant non-oil investor.
In October, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that both countries wanted to reach an agreement on a “strategic partnership” during Hollande’s visit.
In December 2012, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika told AFP in an exclusive interview that Algeria wants “strong and dynamic” relations with France, ahead of a visit to Algiers by French President Francois Hollande. In the early 1990s, nearly 20 percent of all Algerian exports and imports were destined for or originated from France. More than 1 million Algerians resided in France and there were numerous francophones in Algeria, creating a tremendous cultural overlap. French remained the language of instruction in most schools and the language used in more than two-thirds of all newspapers and periodicals and on numerous television programs.

In 1999, Zéroual unexpectedly stepped down and announced early elections. The reasons behind his decision remain unclear. France has played major role to buy the support of the army to bring Bouteflika to power and to keep him in the seat even after his very serious health problems. France is now pulling all strings in the Algerian theater.
Bouteflika appointed a new Prime Minister, Abdelaziz Belkhadem, in 2006. Belkhadem then announced plans to amend the Algerian Constitution to allow the President to run for office indefinitely and increase his powers.
Following the constitutional amendment allowing him to run for a third term, on 12 February 2009, Bouteflika announced his independent candidacy in the 2009 presidential election. On 10 April 2009, it was announced that Bouteflika had won the election with 90.24% of the vote, on a turnout of 74%, thereby obtaining a new five-year term. Several opposition parties had boycotted the election, with the opposition Socialist Forces Front citing a “tsunami of massive fraud.”
Following yet another constitutional amendment, allowing him to run for a fourth term, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika announced that he would. He very seldom appeared in person on the campaign trail. On 18 April 2014, he was re-elected with 81% of the vote., while Benflis was second placed with 12.18%. The turnout was 51.7%, down from the 75% turnout in 2009. Again several opposition parties had boycotted the election, making allegations of fraud.
Constitutional Amendment seems to be the code name for French Order.
The 2010–12 Algerian protests was a continuing series of protests taking place throughout Algeria, which started on 28 December 2010.

Seventy percent of Algeria’s population is less than 30 years old. Consequent high levels of youth unemployment, coupled with corruption and widespread poverty, are seen as reasons for dissatisfaction.
Prior to the outbreak of protests, in February 2008, United States Ambassador Robert Ford in leaked diplomatic cables called Algeria “an unhappy country”, stating “There is much discussion among political circles about the constitution, the third term and the succession issue, but precious little discussion about how to address long-standing political alienation and social discontent throughout the country.”

Once Again It Is All About Lebensraum and not Europe


Once Again It Is All About Lebensraum and not Europe

Once Again It Is All About Lebensraum and not Europe

 

Important Note from the writer of this post:

My opinion here was my believe at the time of writing it. But now it is totally different and the opposite. It took a lot of reading and analysis to discover that the Nazi were protecting Germany and Europe from the Turkic Jewish Khazar. But I still believed that the EU is an evil plan and Germany is now under the control of their enemy. I apologies to all true Germans.

I preferred not to delete this post but to add to it to explain how I was totally wrong and deceived by the main Jewish media. My latest posts express my present corrected convictions.

I am deeply sorry to write this rude and wrong post.

[Few German politicians are trying to make another big leap. This time not by their military or by aggression but rather by tricky globalist financiers and bankesters and some EU bureaucrats and politicians. They are trying to achieve Hitler’s dream of “Lebensraum”

France; Italy and Spain are making very grave mistakes by allowing Germany to design the EU and convert it into a superstate under German financial control. (A Federal Europe of federal member states!! they must be fooling Europeans).

The only difference this time is that Germany is not looking East but rather in all directions!
France; Italy and Spain will regret their shortsightedness sooner than later.

(Lebensraum (German for “habitat” or literally “living space”) was one of the major genocidal political goals of Adolf Hitler, and an important component of Nazi ideology. It served as the motivation for the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, aiming to provide extra space for the growth of the German population, for a Greater Germany. In Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, he detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum (“living space”, i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in Eastern Europe. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class).]

Anglo-Saxon Economy Is Most Dangerous Threat for World Peace


Britain peoples and Anglo-Saxons

Britain peoples and Anglo-Saxons

In a recent article titled “The World Versus the USA; Britain; Israel; and Germany (BIGS)” I wrote: [It seems more likely that the Third World War WWIII will be a triggered sooner than expected and at any time between the major financial capitals against the rest of the World or the other way around.]
To understand the bonds within the BIGS group (Britain; Israel; Germany; and the USA) we must understand three very relevant terms: 1- The Anglo-Saxons; 2- The Anglo-Saxon economy; And 3- The banking system (Why Israel is the major member in this axis? )

The term Anglo-Saxon is used by some historians to designate the Germanic tribes who invaded and settled the south and east of Britain beginning in the early 5th century and the period from their creation of the English nation up to the Norman conquest. The Anglo-Saxon era denotes the period of English history between about 550 and 1066. The term is also used for the language, now known as Old English, that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants in England (and part of southeastern Scotland) between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century.

The Benedictine monk Bede, writing in the early 8th century, identified the English as the descendants of three Germanic tribes:
the Angles, who may have come from Angeln (in modern Germany): Bede wrote that their whole nation came to Britain,[5] leaving their former land empty. The name England (Old English: Engla land or Ængla land) originates from this tribe;
the Saxons, from Lower Saxony (in modern Germany; German: Niedersachsen) and the Low Countries;
the Jutes, possibly from the Jutland peninsula (in modern Denmark; Danish: Jylland).
Their language, Old English, which derived from Ingvaeonic West Germanic dialects, transformed into Middle English from the 11th century. Old English was divided into four main dialects: West Saxon, Mercian, Northumbrian and Kentish.

Germanic languages

Germanic languages

An Anglo-Saxon economy or Anglo-Saxon capitalism (so-called because it is supposedly practiced in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland ) is a capitalist macroeconomic model in which levels of regulation and taxes are low, and government provides relatively fewer services.

Proponents of the term Anglo-Saxon economy state that Anglo-Saxon economies are more “liberal” and free-market-oriented than other capitalist economies. However, those who disagree with the use of the term claim that the economies of the Anglosphere differ as much from each other as they do from continental European economies.

Differences between Anglo-Saxon economies are illustrated by taxation and the welfare state. The UK has a significantly higher level of taxation than the US. Moreover, the UK spends far more than the US on the welfare state as a percentage of GDP and also spends more than Spain, Portugal, or the Netherlands, all of which are in mainland Europe. This spending figure is however still considerably lower than that of France or Germany.

Most countries on continental Europe (such as France, Italy and Germany) possess a macroeconomic model called continental capitalism (also called Rhine or Rhenan capitalism). Yet some see Spain and also the newer members of the EU as (non-English-speaking) examples of “Anglo-Saxon” economies. The debate amongst economists as to which economic model is better, circles around perspectives involving poverty, job insecurity, social services, and inequality. Generally speaking, their advocates argue that more liberalised economies produce greater overall prosperity, while defenders of continental models counter that they produce lesser inequality and lesser poverty at the lowest margins.

The Banking System at the Root of the “EU” Crisis

Lydia Prieg, a senior finance researcher at the New Economics Foundation, wrote:

[ The eurozone crisis is once again dominating the headlines following the €100 billion bailout of Spain’s banking system over the weekend. The Spanish crisis perfectly illustrates not the financial irresponsibility of the feckless South – a popular misconception, particularly among the German public – but instead the inherent instability of a financial model, fractional reserve banking, which has been enthusiastically adopted around the globe.

Fractional reserve banking is a system in which the value of all the deposits and savings reportedly ‘held’ in a bank exceeds the value of all the cash actually held in that bank. This is because banks lend out more money than they have in their vaults  — an activity that relies on the assumption that only a small percentage of the public will request their money back at any one time.

While many people are aware of fractional reserve banking, very few realise that it has a critical implication: banks can and do create new money. In fact, approximately 3% of the money in the UK economy is created by the Bank of England and the Royal Mint. The other 97% is created electronically by banks.

As the Deputy Governor of the Bank England puts it: “banks extend credit by creating money”. In other words, banks create new money when they lend, and the amount of money in our economy is therefore very strongly determined by banks’ lending decisions.

If banks lend more, then the amount of money in the economy increases, which can lead to an economic boom. Conversely, if banks stop lending, then the rate at which new money enters the economy slows, and the economy may fall into a recession.

Banks also have direct control over which parts of the economy get this new money.
…………]

The great Eurobanking scam! Episode one zillion and one

This opinion was written by  Maju at his blog on July 18, 2012

[More or less you know the story: European and global banksters get the money from all sources, fix the rates and conditions, and do not even have to run after all that because nobody is after them. Meanwhile the common citizens are being squeezed to the last drop of blood to pay for that scheme.

The Libor and the Euribor (the reference credit rates in the Anglosaxon and mainland European spheres respectively) have been tampered with for many years and there is nobody in jail for it, never mind resigning from their posts as bank heads… it’s almost not even in the news anymore.

The Hong-Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), a Scottish bank, is found guilty of systematical money-laundering and complicity with global drug-trafficking and what’s the penalty? A petty fine. Euronews calls it “a hefty fine” but it’s peanuts compared with the benefits already made. And what about the jail terms? If the petty drug seller down the street gets years of prison, the bank director who laundered his boss’ dirty money should get at least death by impalement, right? Nope. They don’t even go to court.

The latest is again being unreported: Greek banks are running a Ponzi scheme… but never mind, as Yannis Varoufakis puts it:

In a country where, supposedly, a new conservative, pro-European, ‘sensible’ government was freshly elected on a mandate of bolstering the nation’s credibility (at least in the eyes of Europe), this blatant attempt to bend the rules of bank recapitalisation (by means of a ponzi scheme where one bankrupt bank provides loans to another so that the latter’s ‘owners’ can inject the loans as capital into ‘their’ bank) went spectacularly unnoticed. Workers’ pay is reduced to sub-Saharan levels, hospitals are starved of chemo-drugs, ‘respected’ journalists lambast unionists who are trying to defend the starvation wages of unskilled labour but, when such a scandal directed at misleading the EBA, the ECB, the troika itself, is revealed, SILENCE. And as if that were not enough, the troika itself, the ECB, the EBA, whose will and directions are being usurped, also remain SILENT.

Nothing to see here: the whole financial system is bankrupt but if we ignore the matter it will go away… a thousand years from now… maybe.

Time to sharpen the pitchforks! ]

France rises above economics

Posted by Chris Mahoney on July 21, 2012

[The harsh realities of capitalist economics may matter elsewhere, but not in France. Those laws have been suspended because the socialists have a vision that goes beyond mere economics.

I can think of one reason why the French don’t understand capitalist economics: because it isn’t taught there. The academic discipline of postwar capitalist economics is Anglo-Saxon, not French. In the anglosphere, we are taught about neoclassicism, Keynesianism, monetarism, the Chicago School, and the other attempts to explain the workings of a capitalist economy.

In a French university, “economics” consists of the socialist critique of  capitalist economics*. The postwar French intelligentsia studied, not growth or the business cycle, but how to combine the best parts of capitalism and communism (voila: socialism!). If you go to a bookstore in Paris, you will find thousands of heavy volumes on the defects of capitalism; you won’t find one book that explains modern capitalist economics, except in translation.

When was the last time that a French economist won the Nobel prize? I can’t find any (unless you count expatriates). The Nobel prize in economics goes to the anglophone, not the francophone.

Today, the ruling political party in France is not capitalist, it is socialist. That’s not a blazing insight, but it might explain why France is distinctly uncomfortable with topics such as “competitiveness”, “real wage growth”, “structural rigidities”, “debt ratios”, and “fiscal discipline”. Those are foreign terms that are used to impose the anglosaxon world-view onto France.

I remember when I was a bank analyst in the 1980s, trying to explain credit ratios to European banks. They would deny their applicability to Europe because  credit ratios are “American”. European banks couldn’t be understood using “American ratios”.
I see that today in France. There is a prevailing sentiment that capital markets are an alien concept and a part of the anglosaxon conspiracy. The markets are “harsh” and “unforgiving”, as if there were an another way for a country to borrow trillions of euros.

This much I do know: when France blows up, it will be blamed on capitalism, not socialism.]

%d bloggers like this: