February 28, 2012
The Emperor of Vanished Kingdoms … Here’s a thought. What if the euro survives the present economic crisis but the European Union—or even the United Kingdom—doesn’t? It’s the kind of question that comes to mind when you talk to Norman Davies, Britain’s pre-eminent historian of Europe. From where he sits, Europe’s problem is one of failed governance. “It all started, I guess, in the 1990s, with the Yugoslav wars and the inability of the Europeans to do anything basic about a war in their backyard.” … The Emperor of Vanished Kingdoms … Europe’s pre-eminent historian says all nations eventually end—even the United Kingdom, and perhaps America. And that inability, Mr. Davies says, stems from a fatal flaw in the way Europe approached the grand project of knitting its member nations into a union. “I now feel that the thing that is being proved wrong is what some people call the ‘gradualist fallacy’—that . . . you drive European integration forward by economic means,” he says. “And it’s just wrong.” – Wall Street Journal
Dominant Social Theme: Empires die, but in the case of the EU it will be the countries.
Free-Market Analysis: Say what? The EU’s “problem” is that the top Eurocrats are not dictatorial enough? The EU needs MORE governance?
Heck, from what we know, the top EU honchos have yet to have their “empire” officially audited even once in the past decade or so. That’s right. Accountants refuse to sign off on the numbers, so obviously “cooked” they are.
This fellow, from our point of view, is surely enunciating a kind of elite dominant social theme, that the Anglospherewith its Jewish, Vatican and corporate components has in mind ensuring the historical record justifies a LARGER EU. Here’s some more from the article:
Does the author of “Vanished Kingdoms” think that Europe itself is about to become a vanished kingdom? Mr. Davies is amused that his scholarly book on arcane dead states has suddenly become so topical. But he’s not sure the European Union (EU), formally established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, or even the euro zone, established six years later, quite fits the theme.
“I think the basic argument—that [European countries] would be much weaker on their own rather than acting together—will assert itself,” he says. “Obviously as long as they can survive by not surrendering their national interests and control of their own affairs, they will do. They’re going to be driven to it at the last minute, I think.” …
So far, what Mr. Davies sees as the real issue—governance—has remained unaddressed. “They’re talking about the nitty-gritty of the euro-zone crisis and firewalls and bailouts and central bank funds and all that sort of thing,” he says. “They’re not really going to the root of why it’s all gone wrong.”
After World War II, Europeans set about forming a union along three axes: politics, defense and economics. Britain quickly rejected political union, however, and soon enough NATO came along to become the only defense union Western Europe needed. An economic union—the European Economic Community, established in 1957—was the only remaining pillar of integration left to pursue.
But the early, unexpected success of the single market made policy makers cocky, Mr. Davies says. They forgot to answer important questions about EU governance—that little matter of whether Europe would need a more integrated political union before it could have a currency union, for instance.
Says Mr. Davies: “This is no way to run the European Union. It’s only happening because of the absence of any proper organs for dealing with these sorts of problems.”
Ah, you see? What Europe needs is MORE proper organs. More corruption. More authoritarianism. More directives from the top down on how many fish people can catch and how much carbon dioxide they can breathe before they’re fined.
All we can figure is that Davies doesn’t have any children or doesn’t plan on having any, given what the elites are trying to do to this weary world with their fear-based promotions, planned depressions and endless warring.
Alternatively, he may believe he and his family will always be part of the power elite for which he so obviously speaks. It certainly is a crazy view of history that Davies is presenting. He is postulating that in a time of extreme social stress, sociopolitical and economic facilities get BIGGER.
Funny, we never noticed that. But then again, we’re not court historians. Davies has lots of degrees, no doubt. He’s a big brain who teaches at a big university.
Our modest argument, which no doubt would be dismissed out of hand, is that the Internet Reformation is similar to its big brother – the initial Reformation that was, in our view, an outgrowth of the Gutenberg Press.
If one examines the post-Gutenberg Press history, one might well conclude that during these great “information revolutions” statist power structures tend to DEGRADE. There is a devolution of power, not an accrual of it.
Mr. Davies is an obvious contrarian! History shows us one thing and he sees another! Perhaps this explains why the book in its sixth printing. We can only assume that, as with most so many such “books,” the elites themselves are likely organizing the buying campaign.
How, after all, did George Soros‘s psychotic tracts get published? Did you ever bump into ANYONE who read Hillary Clinton‘s thousand-page reminiscence? Or Bill Clinton’s for that matter? Yet the Clintons’ books, we are told, supposedly sold hundreds of thousands or even millions.
Even the interviewer apparently can’t believe what he’s hearing toward the end of his interview. In fact, Davies himself can’t continue on with this argument. Here’s the paragraph in question:
Would he regret the passing of the EU or the euro? This is where Mr. Davies’s sensibilities as a historian rub against his personal sympathies as a European. He comes dangerously close to telling me that the European project can cheat the forces of history and economics. But he keeps his scholar’s head. “People don’t see very often their death coming. . . . Look at the French Revolution: The king of France was thinking in the 1780s, ‘We’re doing rather better than my father in the 1770s.’”
Conclusion: The idea that because people are terribly unhappy with the European Union as it is they will therefore seek to enlarge it and make it even more dictatorial seems a bit … unusual, in our view. But, hey, we’re not lucky enough to be “court historians.”
This article was posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 3:50 am