France & Germany, Shameless

by Serban V.C. Enache

“The haggling around rescues in the Mediterranean has to be ended.” German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas.

“We cannot continue to do nothing as thousands of men, women and children who’ve left behind everything fall into the hands of human traffickers. We cannot simply abandon them to face either shelling in Libya or drowning in the Mediterranean.” French President, Emmanuel Macron.

The West toppled Gaddafi, favoring Islamist factions to take over, and since Gaddafi’s death on November 2011, the slave trade was resurrected, the country was was carved up in numerous fiefdoms and engulfed in a civil war between the Tripoli faction and that of General Haftar. Currently, foreign powers are selling weapons and ammunition to both sides, in the attempt to hedge their bets. Whichever faction wins, the war profiteers win with them.

Other countries like Italy, who had no stake in the conflict, and even argued against regime change in Libya, are now expected to accommodate refugees and migrants, in effect, subsidizing the business of human traffickers, while some NGOs have started playing the role of intermediaries. But it’s a matter of compassion, they say, of human rights. Indeed. So why are you dumping the problem on a third party? How would you like it if a stranger came at your house with a trailer of human beings from abroad, making it your responsibility to offer them shelter, food, water, basic amenities, hire translators to communicate with them, check them for diseases etc? Then, of course, the delivery men or women take off into the spotlight, obtaining praise, and returning to their comfy houses or apartments, where nobody disturbs them.

Where does humanitarianism stop and human trafficking being? But most importantly, when will the hypocrisy end? Giving people asylum is one thing; but expecting the host countries to give them citizenship and integrate them [which is a lot harder compared to simply giving them ID cards] is another thing entirely! The rational process would be temporary asylum, conflict in source country ends, then they’re repatriated, where they’ll contribute to rebuilding their homelands.

Even the Dalai Lama supports this basic, reasonable plan of action. But the liberal elites in the West do no agree. Think just for a second the level of moral degeneracy we’re living in. The authors of a country’s destruction and dismemberment are lecturing third parties about what it means to be kind and have mercy; this pathetic appeal to humanitarianism, which exists in name and name only! It’s the same in the US. The bleeding heart liberals arguing for unlimited immigration and no borders, while their favorite political party, the Democratic Party, is waging covert and overt economic and military operations against these states from which the migrants and refugees stem. The conservatives only distinguish themselves from the liberals, in that they want secured borders and regulated immigration, but their favorite political party, the Republican Party, is busy perpetrating the same crimes abroad, adding to the numbers of refugees and migrants.

Sarkozy’s France, perchance the most rabidly determined to get Gaddafi out of power, shoulders the moral responsibility first. And now French and German political elites are lecturing other heads of state about what’s just and humane. Ditto for Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela. Salvini told them to come to Rome if they want to discuss the matter. But will they? I don’t think so. The EU establishment proved time and time again it won’t concede an inch to dissenting factions or dissenting member states, no matter how valid the argument is. We often hear about “our European” way of life, “European culture,” the Western civilization… and we hear this narrative from the center and the far right. Well, I don’t resonate with your brand of “Europeanism.” It’s been the violent chessboard of some of the mightiest empires in history and of some of the longest and bloodiest wars to boot – the spring of two world wars… I am not in favor of federalism [albeit I used to be], not with these elites in charge. I am not in favor of this neoliberal Tower of Babel suppressing the nations of this place and those nations outside Europe. I don’t favor this Satanic construct, built on falsehood, usury, rent-seeking, and war profits. To hell with it! May it collapse and join the broken graves of past, brutish empires. I want a Europe, indeed a world, of sovereign states: the Westphalian Sisterhood of Nations.

Articles I & II of the Peace of Westphalia:

“[…] And this Peace must be so honest and seriously guarded and nourished that each part furthers the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other… A faithful neighborhood should be renewed and flourish for peace and friendship, and flourish again.”

“On both sides, all should be forever forgotten and forgiven. What has from the beginning of the unrest, no matter how or where, from one side or the other, happened in terms of hostility, so that neither because of that, nor because of any other reason or pretext, should commit, or allow to happen, any hostility, unfriendliness, difficulty, or obstacle in respect to persons, the status, goods, or security himself, or through others, secretly or openly, directly or indirectly, under the pretense of the authority of the law, or by the way of violence within the Kingdom, or anywhere outside of it, and any earlier contradictory treaties should not stand against this. Instead, all and every, from here as well as from there, both before as well as during the war, committed insults, violent acts, hostilities, damages, and costs, without regard of the person or the issue, should be completely put aside, so that everything, whatever the one could demand from the other under his name, will be forgotten in eternity.”

Killing Nuclear will Kill your Green Economy

by Serban V.C. Enache

The German government vowed to shut down nuclear energy by 2022. Germany is getting half of its energy needs from alternative sources: atomic 13 percent, solar 9 percent, wind 25 percent, and hydro power 5 percent. While carbon generator sources are: biomass 8 percent, gas 9 percent, hard coal 10 percent, brown coal 20 percent. Critics said and are saying that transitioning to alternate sources while, at the same time, phasing out atomic energy is too ambitious. I don’t approve of this euphemistic term “ambitious,” I think the word deranged is more fitting.

Eight years ago, the German chancellor Angela Merkel, in wake of the Fukushima situation, announced that she would phase out nuclear energy by 2022. Wind and solar power was promised to replace that fall in output, but here’s a word the pushers of radiophobia never mention – STORAGE. If you phase out nuclear, then what’s going to happen when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow? That loss has to be replaced in the grid and the German Government, allegedly against fossil fuels and pro-green, plugged the gap with [dirty] coal, burning more and more of it. Even with 100 percent green energy generation, a country is still left seriously vulnerable to nature’s whim if it didn’t invest or invest sufficiently in diversification and storage capacity, to get batteries to feed the grid while the wind and the clouds aren’t favorable.

How can prudent and rational voices be heard when faced with so much ‘green’ propaganda? The most recent example being the crud from HBO on Chernobyl, the purpose of which is to conveniently promote radiophobia, given the historical moment facing the world today on this question. This weekend, hundreds of protesters in North Rhine Westphalia broke through a police line to demonstrate against the mining of brown coal. Note that nobody has a plan for people working in the coal sector. Nobody is interested in their livelihood or their communities. Nobody is giving them a better deal to replace their current profession.

The decision to phase out atomic power has NOTHING to do with science, but EVERYTHING to do with politics. The most effective carbon-free power source is atomic power – so why aren’t Western Governments and Western audiences in favor of nuclear energy? The technology employed by Chernobyl isn’t representative of modern reactors and modern safety regulations. German nuclear reactors should NOT be shut down, for they are the only units capable of meeting the baseload, while providing cheap energy and this energy is carbon-free. ‘Green’ opponents to atomic power say it’s worth it for the public to shoulder higher electricity bills in the short run, while the transition phase is carried out, and they claim this [higher] price will remain affordable. More so, the complete shutdown of atomic reactors in Germany is set to happen, even if renewables aren’t at a stage of covering the deficit in the grid. That shows how foolish they are, or perhaps, the word corrupt is more fitting, if we’re talking about the big interests behind these Government decisions. Ultimately, the shutting down of atomic plants in Germany means killing research and development in the nuclear sector, and making the country import more energy than before – ironically, importing energy from nuclear sources as well.

Everybody’s familiar with the bad rep of atomic energy. But here’s what not many people know about the ‘green’ propaganda’s favorite alternative source. Photo voltaic panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants; and the average lifespan of these panels is 25 years.


In 2016, solar provided 1.3 percent of the world’s electricity, with 301 GW installed. Nuclear reactors provided 10 percent of the world’s electricity in the same year. Japan is trying to chip away at a mountain of spent PV panels. Toshiba Environmental Solutions estimates it would take around 19 years to finish recycling all of the solar waste Japan produced by 2020. By 2034, the annual waste production will be 70 to 80 times larger than the waste production registered in 2020. We’re talking about one of the most advanced and orderly countries on earth, Japan.

But in countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near electronic waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the copper wires for resale. Burning off the plastic releases fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic when inhaled. When will the mainstream entertainment sector make phobia-triggering films for PV cells? Possibly never. But wait, California doesn’t have a proper and safe plan to dispose of the solar waste either, and that state is a world leader in PV panels. Having manufacturers collect and dispose of PV panels at the end of their lives, as is the case in Europe, is doubtless a policy that every responsible country should take. But this provision doesn’t mean the phenomenon is under control. Far from it.

Let’s return to Japan, that highly advanced and ordered country. Its Environmental Department warns that between 2034 and 2040 the amount of [national] solar waste will range between 700 and 800 thousand tons every year. The projected peak of 810 tons [in a year] is equivalent to 40.5 million panels. To dispose that amount in a year would require a capacity of 110 thousand panels per day. My purpose here isn’t to bash or demonize PV panels, but to warn people of the heavy environmental cost, capital cost, and health cost associated with them.

The following graph shows us one net winner in terms of throughput [tonnes of materials per Twh] and this winner should get priority funding from Governments, but in reality, the opposite is the case – at least for most countries in the West.

Without preparation and diversification, the world is heading toward a solar panel waste crisis. With atomic power being strangled and or shut down, the world will remain heavily reliant on dirty and increasingly scarce coal, and billions of people will be affected. Who will end up suffering? It’s not going to be the rich.

And yet these ridiculous protest groups who call for frugality as a means to “mitigate” climate change continue to get supporters and headlines. It’s an outright lie, for even if we were to shut down all industries and transportation, the effects of climate change would still be felt – and their frugality ‘solution’ is nothing short but a massage for a wooden leg [Romanian expression]. Besides, how legit are these supporters of frugality? Don’t they use smart phones and tablets to communicate and organize themselves? Aren’t they hooked up to the internet? To social media? Do they not own computers? Do they not consume industry-created substances and products? Please… If you’re serious about bringing down CO2 emissions, you’ll be in favor of nuclear power, especially 3rd generation and 4th generation [theoretical & experimental] reactors. If not, you’re not serious about it; you’re just another poser.

How the Allies guaranteed a 2nd World War

by Serban V.C. Enache

John Maynard Keynes, as a young adviser to the UK Treasury, successfully predicted another great conflict in Europe after what transpired at the so-called peace of Versailles. In preparation for the conference, Keynes argued that it would be better for Germany to owe no reparations, or a maximum of 2 million pound sterling at the most. He was in favor of a general forgiveness of war debts, including for Britain. Lastly, he wanted the US Government to begin a large credit program to quickly restore Europe to prosperity. But the Allies argued differently, and here is what they insisted on in Article 231 of the Versailles treaty on war debt (1919).

“The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.”

Let’s compare the cold sentiments of Versailles to the peace of Westphalia from 1648, which put an end to the Thirty Years’ War.

Article I: “[…] And this Peace must be so honest and seriously guarded and nourished that each part furthers the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other… A faithful neighborhood should be renewed and flourish for peace and friendship, and flourish again.”

Article II: “On both sides, all should be forever forgotten and forgiven. What has from the beginning of the unrest, no matter how or where, from one side or the other, happened in terms of hostility, so that neither because of that, nor because of any other reason or pretext, should commit, or allow to happen, any hostility, unfriendliness, difficulty, or obstacle in respect to persons, the status, goods, or security himself, or through others, secretly or openly, directly or indirectly, under the pretense of the authority of the law, or by the way of violence within the Kingdom, or anywhere outside of it, and any earlier contradictory treaties should not stand against this. Instead, all and every, from here as well as from there, both before as well as during the war, committed insults, violent acts, hostilities, damages, and costs, without regard of the person or the issue, should be completely put aside, so that everything, whatever the one could demand from the other under his name, will be forgotten in eternity.”

Keynes described the Versailles conference as a clash of values and world views among the principal leaders, “the cynical traditions of European power politics [vs] the promise of a more enlightened order.” Keynes held Woodrow Wilson as the game maker. “When President Wilson left Washington he enjoyed a prestige and a moral influence throughout the world unequalled in history. […] The enemy peoples trusted him to carry out the compact he had made with them; and the Allied peoples acknowledged him not as a victor only but almost as a prophet. In addition to this moral influence the realities of power were in his hands.”

In 1919, Keynes wrote The Economic Consequences of the Peace in which he criticized the Versailles treaty and its authors, while accurately predicting its grave socio-economic and political effects: high inflation, stagnation, and revanchism. He had two main points: that the treaty made it economically impossible for Europe to revive itself, and that the Allies had betrayed the tenets of the Armistice, in which they pledged to the defeated side a degree of fairness with regard to territorial and economic impositions. He judged these violations as a stain on the honor of the Allies and a primary cause for a future conflict. His prediction, that another war would begin in the next twenty years, was surgically precise.

Keynes wrote:

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. […] Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. […] Economic privation proceeds by easy stages, and so long as men suffer it patiently the outside world cares very little. Physical efficiency and resistance to disease slowly diminish, but life proceeds somehow, until the limit of human endurance is reached at last and counsels of despair and madness stir the sufferers from the lethargy which precedes the crisis. The man shakes himself, and the bonds of custom are loosed. The power of ideas is sovereign, and he listens to whatever instruction of hope, illusion, or revenge is carried to them in the air. […] But who can say how much is endurable, or in what direction men will seek at last to escape from their misfortunes?”

Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points [of the Armistice] had been widely disseminated in Germany prior to the end of the war, and were well known by the German public. Sadly, these promises turned out to be nothing but propaganda. The clear gap between this document and the final treaty of Versailles caused great anger in Germany and fueled ultra nationalist sentiments.

There’s a prevalent myth out there, which states that the nazis came to power in Germany due to hyperinflation. It can be easily debunked through the following observations…

Germany did experience hyperinflation in the early 1920s. By October 1922, the mark stood at 130 billion to the dollar. Marks had to be carried in wheelbarrows and life savings were wiped out. Yet the inflationary spiral was brought under control in November 1923 largely through the efforts of Hjalmar Schacht, currency commissioner and president of the Reichsbank and Finance Minister Hans Luther. For an in depth explanation of their policies, see this previous article.

With inflation in check by 1924, Germany entered a time of relative growth. Hitler, while active in German politics, was consigned to the political fringe. Beginning in late 1929, the German economy fell victim to the Great Depression. Industrial production, employment, and sales fell in the early ’30s , while Hitler’s support increased. Price inflation was nonexistent. Rather, by 1933, when Hitler became Chancellor, prices were going down as a result of collapsing demand. Price deflation is good when nominal economic growth is positive, not negative. Tight credit and tremendous unemployment left millions of people with very few marks to spend on anything.

What brought the nazis to power if not hyperinflation? Austerity! During the years of skyrocketing prices, the percentage of the nazis [NSDAP] ranged below 4 percent (see the 1928 elections). The Government imposed harsh austerity measures in the early 1930s [after the hyperinflation had been reined in]; this increased unemployment drastically and it also gave the nazis their first success (18.5 percent in September 1930). Two years later, the ever growing levels of unemployment and poverty drove Hitler to 37.2 percent in the 1932 elections. This graph speaks for itself.

In 5 years time (between ’33 and ’38), the Nazi Government rebuilt the army, built industries and infrastructure, eliminated unemployment, real wage growth was in the double digits – and all of this in a climate of price stability. As such, contrary to popular mythology, the hyperinflation years didn’t bring the nazis to power. What brought them to power was private debt deflation in combination with harsh fiscal austerity. The end of WW1 wasn’t the end of ‘the war to end all wars.’ Sadly, it was the groundwork for a new one, far deadlier than the first.

In an interview with William Buckley, the founder of the British Union of Fascists, Oswald Mosley, explained why Hitler got into power in Germany and why he didn’t in the UK.

“When I began, in the following six years, right until Roosevelt’s doubling of the price of gold and many other things of that sort, unemployment in Britain was halved. Those six years before Hitler came to power, unemployment in Germany was quadrupled. Now, all those things, and your analysis of the English character, simply depend on the economic situation. Neither fascism, communism, nor any new policy, whether decent, humane, or not, will succeed ever, unless you have a grave economic crisis. That’s the only thing which moves people at all.”

Liberals are so terrified of the profound psycho-political impact of economic crises [second only to war itself and similar in some ways], they dare not speak of such phenomena even when they are happening, nor admit that crises, even unmediated, have severe psychological consequences. The liberals practice this fetishistic disavowal. That’s why the status quo [the so-called center left and center right] is so dangerous to public order and peace itself. It’s a paradox, and paradoxes are nature’s way of telling us [observers] that we’re missing something, that something new waits to be discovered. By shunning alternate points of view and trying to silence them outright, the center misses the dialectic and loses the moral legitimacy in the eyes of increasingly larger sections of the population. I personally hold the creditors of the Versailles treaty, Britain, France, and the US, responsible for nurturing what was to become the most devastating conflict in human history.