Risk – The Dirty War for Europe’s integrity and Soul
Juncker
Charlegmagne
When I was a young man I used to play a strategy board game called “Risk”. It involved concentrating armies of various sizes represented by little plastic pieces a big map of the world and then trying to concentrate them and overcome your opponents pieces by having the overwhelming numbers at the right place with the ultimate aim world domination. I wasn’t very good at it, but I soon learned one essential strategy. In order to win you always had to hold and dominate Europe.
For those with an urge for intellectual challenge on a Sunday morning, I found a detailed and challenging piece from Greek-Australian academic, author and economist Yanis Varoufakis, in which he challenges the intellectual and basis of what might be called the Federalist European agenda and the economics of the single currency entitled “The Dirty War for Europe’s Integrity and Soul”. Here is an extract:
“And it is not just Charlemagne. Other totemic notions have been usurped, even pioneered, by the continent’s Dark Side. In Europe we like to think of the European Economic Community, as an idea, an institutional blueprint, that was conjured up as a bulwark against totalitarianism. Not true. The first academic conference, with the full participation of government ministers and officials, to discuss, and I quote from the official program, “The formation of a European Economic Community”, took place in Berlin. In 1942! Under the auspices of Walther Funk, Hitler’s finance minister and president of the Reichbank. A year later, another official, had this to say: “In my view a nation’s conception of its own freedom must be harmonised with present-day facts and simple questions of efficiency and purpose… Our only requirement of European states is that they be sincere and enthusiastic members of Europe.” “In fifty years Europeans will not be thinking in terms of separate countries.” The official’s name? Joseph Goebbels!
None of this insinuates that our European Union has Nazi roots. My point is that Europeans should beware: A European Economic Union is not per se democratic or necessarily a bulwark against totalitarianism. The Dark Side can also find expression in its design if we allow the Serpent DNA that, despite de-Nazification, has not disappeared from Europe, to replicate. Our moral obligation is to keep at bay through constant reinvigoration of our democratic principles. The very principles that are now set aside by the logic of the various troikas.”
The full article can be found via this link.
With some of his commentary I agree, with other parts I am not so sure, or whether he is “right” or “wrong” (clumsy words), I am not qualified to say. But the piece made me think about what my attitude to “Europe” actually is, and whether there is struggle for its integrity and soul. I think there is.
In most ways I am naturally “pro-European” in the sense that I would encourage free trade, openness of borders as between good citizens, the ability to exchange culture and ideas and so forth. I regard it as a major plus that unlike so many of my forebears I have not been charged with crossing the Channel in order to fight some tyrant of another nation. I would much rather see warlike competition kept on the playing field, and that my team of overpaid, stupid and underperforming footballers played and got stuffed by articulate and professional French, German, Spanish (and anybody else’s) footballers than see the sharp end of a bayonet or a bullet. I love France, and I am delighted that London is now the fourth largest French city. I regard that as a cultural boon. From the fun I had watching Germany in the World Cup last Friday evening in proximity of a team of German cheerleaders I feel sure that my attitude to Anglo-German relations is very positive indeed. I frequent my local “Polski Sklep”.
However, to put the matter in a less fatuous manner, I regard the creations of what I will loosely call European culture as the high point of mankind’s artistic, cultural and intellectual manifestation. This is, of course, a very dangerous or even illegal thing to say. Racist! some would cry. It also involves something of a distinct lack of moral relativism which is so entrenched in our allegedly cultural elite. Surely it is quite improper to favour the artistic achievement of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Beethoven, Moliere or Monet with the face painting of the Fuckawi tribe? Well, not it’s not, but again I am being facetious, and is not my point as such. There are many and wondrous glorious manifestations of artistic, cultural and even political thinking and expression the world over. But taken as a whole, from the birth of democracy in the Greek City States to the expressions of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, it is Europe which has been the brightest beacon of civilization. I am therefore proud to be a European.
But there is of course a “but”. And that “but” is that I have the instinctive feel that Euro- Federalist train has a destination where I do not want to go. Whilst it is true that I get much of my political intelligence from using my eyes and ears on the reputable news media, and also sometimes the Daily Mail, I find the appointment and attitudes of someone like Jean-Claude Junket – sorry Juncker – disturbing. Why?
When I studied history at Cambridge, I did two terms of what was called the history of political thought. I found British political thinkers – Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Bentham and even the radical Thomas Paine all had something practical, pragmatic and direct to say about every day life and democracy. I found “European” philosophers – with the honourable exception of Machiavelli – to be consumed with impenetrable intellectualism and indeed any “ism” for its own sake, and out of touch with humanity. You could put it down to a narrow minded “Little Englander” attitude, but I would rather argue that it is simply a different mindset. I do not need thirty pages of self referential moral meanderings to work out whether a man beating a helpless child or animal is wrong. I just act, and if necessary punch the man, because it is the right thing to do. As that annoying Meerkat thang on the telly says, “simples”.
I found European intellectualism to be divorced from practical, every day democracy, even humanity, and prone to idolatry of self appointed elites. And whether by accident of geography or different cultural values, mainland Europe has a long history of totalitarian regimes, which last expressed itself to disastrous effect in the form of the Nazis. By comparison it is an oft repeated mantra that – at least since the death of Cromwell – no English speaking nation has ever fallen under the grip of a totalitarian regime of that ilk.
And so yes, I am concerned about seemingly faceless men like Mr. Juncker. I am concerned about the democratic deficit. I am concerned that there is a concentration of power in hands which appear to me to be without proper scrutiny. I am concerned that there is corruption and incompetence and a gravy train. I am concerned that the EU’s accounts have not been signed off in donkey’s years.
But most of all, I am concerned that people like Mr. Juncker are not the best people to defend and protect Europe. There are three imminent threats to Europe. They are financial incompetence, lack of political accountability, and the global rise of racist and sectarian violence. I want to talk about the latter because it is the most serious.
I read with horror a week or so ago of the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, probably by Hamas. I heard with equal horror of the probable revenge kidnapping and murder of a Palestinian teenager, forced to drink petrol and burned alive, so it is said. So the cycle goes on and on…. Open any newspaper or turn on any news station and we see that very large parts of the world, but particularly the Middle East and the Indian Sub Continent are involved in the ruthless sectarian conflict.
Now, I need to acknowledge that that when it comes to racism and sectarianism, Europe has a track record which is second to none. The glory of European art and cultural is set in a bloody background of sectarian and racist violence at every turn, and one could pick out a thousand examples; the destruction of the Cathars, the 100 Years War, constant pogroms against the Jews. One can even look closer to home and more recently at the troubles of Northern Ireland.
It is indeed one of the great ironies of life that so many young men supposedly gripped by religions which advocate the love and piece of God are prepared to carry out utter wickedness and cruelty in their name.
But through the Enlightenment and the convulsions of two World Wars Europe has reached a degree of secular calm in which that has mostly been put aside. My concern is that it is not imported again, from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever. I understand that there are now more British Muslims fighting with the ruthless “ISIS” forces in Syria and Iraq than there are serving in the British army. That is not healthy. I want a free, peaceful, prosperous and democratic Europe which is kept free of this kind of behaviour. I want the powers that be to be totally uncompromising and intolerant of intolerance. I am very concerned that the present instigators of the European Federalist project are not the people with the character and ideas needed to defend European culture. What we need are latter day Charlemagnes. What we have got is Brussels sprouts.
Meanwhile…
Wimbledon Whimsy
Bouchard. New balls, please?
On a slightly lighter note, my spies on Twitter have reported that former England cricket captain Andrew Strauss was caught on mike calling Kevin Pietersen “an absolute c**t”. An unfortunate faux pas, to be sure.
Now as I perused my Daily Mail yesterday morning I noted that it was reported that there had been a falling out between tennis beauties, Britain’s Laura Robson (20) and Canada’s Eugenie Bouchard (20). It appears that the two who were formerly “bestest friends EVA!” have fallen out and are not on speaking terms. The reason…shock horror! A boy! Actually I was hoping for some salacious gossip, but it seems to be something to do with the services of a coach, and Ms Bouchard’s driving ambition. It seems that rather scarily toothy, self aware and flirtatious Ms. Bouchard (20) is not adverse to a bit of self publicity on “social media” and is quite determined to make it big, on and off the court and at any cost. Anyhow, later on she got a pasting in the woman’s final from Anna Kvitova. I was listening on the BBC radio. Clare Balding was doing the main commentating and she had Judy Murray, Tracy Austin and none other than Miss Robson (20) doing the summarizing. It all passed off rather gently and with good manners as Ms. Bouchard (2O) got tonked, but after a couple of jugs of Pimms I drifted off and the Strauss incident did make me wonder how things might have gone…
BALDING: Oh what a great shot from Kvitova, back hand return, passing Bouchard..!
MURRAY: Bouchard has to hand on in their now, she needs to hold serve, and keep her nerve, keep up those deep returns and fight for each point.
ROBSON: Cow!
BALDING: What?
ROBSON: Nothing. I just though I saw a cow somewhere…over there. Oh no, it was a ball boy. Sorry.
BALDING: Right….well now it it’s Bouchard’s turn to serve, let’s see if she can hold her nerve…
AUSTIN: She needs to get a good first serve in now….
BALDING: And it’s an ace! And she waves to the crowd!
ROBSON: Tart!
BALDING: What?
ROBSON: I’m just enjoying this nice lemon tart…
BALDING: And Bouchard serves deep, but oh… what a return, a winner from Kvitova! What can Bouchard do about this I wonder?
ROBSON: She might try wearing a skirt rather than an excuse for a belt for a start.
BALDING: Erm…yes, well Bouchard serves again, this time Kvitova returns… forearm slice from Bouchard…Kvitova tries a lob….and the smash from Bouchard is good!
MURRAY: Great shot!
ROBSON: Not bad I suppose. For a man eating bitch with bingo wings…
(Enter BBC security personnel….)
Gildas the Monk
-
July 6, 2014 at 12:20 pm -
I too played Risk when I was young. And also Diplomacy, the game which from memory was really close to European politics as a large part consists of forming alliances, breaking your word and stabbing allies in the back. (We played a game at my parents’ house where I tried not very successfully to bug some of the rooms.) As for Europe, I agree with your thoughts about Continental philosophers – it seems rather as if England’s attitude is similar to Wellington’s towards Napoleon – although no democrat he. Not impressed with all the fancy theories, the basic start point is we just want our say on what happens and if we don’t agree to have the chance to boot the buggers out.
-
July 6, 2014 at 8:14 pm -
Diplomacy! Yes, I remember that, it was quite complicated. My problem was finding enough people to make the game worthwhile and stick with it
-
-
July 6, 2014 at 12:30 pm -
I was reading recently that Thatcher supported the French idea that if Germany was to be allowed to re-unify then currency union should be the quid-pro-quo to reassure the French that Germany would remain safely “in a box” as it were. That was where the Euro-project came from. There was never any question of the British joining it, it was just to tie the power-blocs of the European continent together for good.
-
July 6, 2014 at 1:36 pm -
I’ve always thought that one of the reasons the EU has no real allegiance from the peoples of Europe, as opposed to the elites, is that it has never rested on a consistent philosophical basis, which is understood and accepted by all. The rationale has changed over the years: originally it was a means of ensuring that Germany and France would never imperil European stability by their rivalry, then it was a trading bloc to promote commerce and trade which be of benefit to national economies, then it was a counterweight to the Superpowers, the USA and the USSR, then it was a means of encouraging aspirant nations to clean up their acts when it came to undemocratic internal regimes, then it was a mechanism for bringing small, impoverished nations up to speed, then it was a supranational Force for Good which would act as a beacon of enlightenment, human rights and generally nice behaviour in the world, then it was a vehicle for creating a new European Civilisation, then it was,oh my head hurts.
In other words, it was all things to all men and nothing in particular to anyone – except those making a good living out of it.
-
July 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm -
To be fair to Andrew Strauss, KP is an absolute c*nt, so its hardly news.
-
July 6, 2014 at 4:34 pm -
Strauss missed out the word ‘egotistical’ after ‘absolute’ – otherwise he’s spot on.
-
July 6, 2014 at 9:39 pm -
I don’t really doubt this, but of course the press is not allowed to say what the real issues are for fear of libel suits. Just out of curiosity, can anyone give an example of the kind of thing that KP has done to earn this soubriquet that explains why his team mates loathe him so much. Not just that he is an egotistical c**t, but how this is manifested.
-
-
-
July 6, 2014 at 2:31 pm -
I was with you all the way, especially on European philosophers, until you said we need a Charlemagne.
An imperialist, unelected tyrant is precisely what we do not need.
If there is to be a European President, what we need is a Harry Truman or a Ronald Reagan — elected men who did their honest best and left office after eight years.
But before that, a Federal Europe needs a constitution, closely modelled on that of the USA (which has stood up to over two centuries of constant attack by the corrupt and powerful). It should be brief and easily understood. What we do have is several thousand pages of obscure treaties.
-
July 6, 2014 at 8:16 pm -
Ir is a fair point Don – in retrospect I regretted putting it that way. I was simply trying to say we men and women of great spirit and resolve, so I’m with you on that
-
-
July 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm -
The one thing Europe does NOT need is a massive, slow, all-pervading bureaucracy. Someone wiser than me once said that if the industrial revolution had started in France, we’d have just about got the steam engine to work by now; the number of committees and authorisations needed would have slowed everything down to a crawl. Meanwhile, in Britain (where anybody could do pretty much what they could afford to as long as it didn’t break the law too much), we just got on with it, and ‘government’ only stepped in with the dead hand of officialdom when boilers kept blowing up and killing people. Even then, they only made people follow best practice – they didn’t ban boilers. Result? Britain led the world until everybody else started catching up and overtaking sometime about 1850.
Britain – and by extension the rest of Europe – is at it’s best when it’s most free to do as anybody pleases.
Continuing the sporting theme – has anybody else watched the Tour de Yorkshire coverage and mentally seen a multi-coloured lycra-clad throng of speeding muscle and sinew on the lightest and sleekest of two-wheeled perfection, with a raincoated figure on a sturdy sit-up-and-beg, bike clips tight to his tweed-clad ankles, flat cap turned round the wrong way for reduced wind resistance, and a look of grim determination fixed on his perspiring visage pedalling like fury in the middle of the pack? No? Oh – just my warped mind, then….
-
July 6, 2014 at 4:47 pm -
The alleged ‘Le Tour’ passes close to my maison, too close, hence my whole weekend’s access to the countryside I love and the roads which I pay for has been stolen by a bunch of lycra-clad, pharmaceutically-supported tax-exiles intent on denying the invention of the internal combustion engine.
If, for example, the Isle of Man TT races wanted to have a ‘cosmetic marketing start’ on mainland Britain, they’d have no chance of getting any public roads closed because they use engines. Same if any motor club wanted to hold a car-rally or race. What’s so special about these road-tax-free cycling-nuts that gives them the privilege of stealing road-access for those who have paid for it ? Bah humbug !
(If I’d been that raincoated figure of your fantasy, I’d have been distributing a handful of carpet-tacks from my pockets every few yards – that’d fix ’em)
-
July 6, 2014 at 5:55 pm -
Engineer, what you first describe is also the difference between the British and European legal systems which boils down to: British common law – everything is OK unless specifically banned – and European civil law – everything is banned unless specifically OKed. Hopefully the landlady will correct me if I am wrong.
-
-
July 6, 2014 at 5:08 pm -
I wasn’t very good at it, but I soon learned one essential strategy. In order to win you always had to hold and dominate Europe.
I also played with schoolpals on rainy afternoons (i.e. often) and found that the key to world domination was first to conquer Australia or South America and then Asia or North America. Europe was too hard to defend as it could be attacked from several directions and so it was usually the final battleground or Amageddon when the Australians and South Americans massed their armies for a final shootout.
-
July 6, 2014 at 6:05 pm -
I agree: always go for the Americas as the whole two continents can only be attacked from 3 places; as with Australasia only one place so enables ‘holing-up’ and building large reserves before breaking out to take bit by bit Africa, Europe and (usually) finally Asia.
-
-
July 6, 2014 at 6:07 pm -
“None of this insinuates that our European Union has Nazi roots. My point is that Europeans should beware: A European Economic Union is not per se democratic or necessarily a bulwark against totalitarianism.”
It should insinuate it; the EU is a road to totalitarianism.
-
July 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm -
What I really should have done is highlight the distinction between Europe and its glorious achievements and the EU – an institution which is highly problematic at the moment. Too many words, not enough clarity.
-
-
July 7, 2014 at 9:43 am -
According to Igor Shafarevich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Shafarevich
All Socialist systems aim to suppress individuality. I see no problem per se with personal Nationalism, or religion; but these notions are used by Utopians to further their socialist ideals, and hence become embroiled. The problem therefore is not what people believe in, but what powers of law they wish to introduce, so as to curtail others from their individually chosen paths.
And I put it to you that care to know the difference, that those who have most to lose will least cause trouble to others. Hence those with wealth, family, friends, and community, will least likely vote for war, except in self defence; whereas those who only have their ideologies, are most likely to smash the present so as to achieve their future dreams. Even those who carry banners emblazoned with ‘PEACE’ become dangerous, especially if their peace is at the expense of liberty to thwart the ‘demons’ of spontaneity.
Now ask yourselves, does the EUSSR make laws to safeguard private businesses, compared to public sector ‘services’? Or private bank accounts, instead of State debt repayments? Or mother care, instead of State crèche? Or pubs, instead of ‘community centres’? Or men in work and off state benefits, instead of women in work; especially young mothers, so that the State can raise their children, whilst ever so subtly encouraging divorce via the redundancy of fathers?
Thus with an increase in the dispossessed, the European Socialist ‘dream’, is more likely to fuel the want of war rather than peace.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }