Godwin and Graybill
Boris started a tempest in a twitpot by stating that the EU is the latest in a LONG series of projects to unify Europe, all of which ultimately failed. He's right.

Naturally his opponents immediately turned his correct statement into EU IS HITLER, and started pointing out alleged differences between the 4th and 3rd Reichs.

One of the differences is partly valid: EU didn't bomb London yet. Didn't use violence in the early stages of its unification. It's only now getting around to violence, using the Dreamer Migrants as an army of occupation.

Another commonly cited difference is stupid: EU "enshrines human rights". This is actually identical to Hitler, because "human rights" means "kill the unfashionable". Hitler was just more honest.

Other opponents note that Churchill was working toward a united Europe. This is TRUE. Can't argue with it. The US government and most commentators after WW2 were also seeking a new united Europe. They believed FALSELY that Hitler gained power BECAUSE of nationalism. HItler was a neocon, the exact opposite of a nationalist. Like Lincoln or Bush or Obama or Cameron, Hitler believed that his way of thinking was universal and good, therefore all people on Earth must be forced to comply.

Those commentators also forgot the other side of the equation: Hitler's opponents were able to resist him BECAUSE of nationalism. England and Russia wanted to remain independent nations, didn't want to adopt Hitler's way of thinking.

When Europe is already unified BEFORE the Kraut dictator takes over, there's no way to resist the Kraut dictator. Hungary and Slovakia and Greece have already figured this out. It looks like other EU citizens are starting to reach the same conclusion.

And here we drop back to the item just below this one. Most mergers fail.

I asked:

Leaving aside LBOs which are MEANT to destroy the target, why does company X want to buy company Y?

We can stop right there. Mergers at the country level are always LBOs. The victim is drained of resources and geographical utility, and is made to pay for the takeover with debt and death. The buyer gains a brief advantage, but quickly uses up the resources and realizes the cost of keeping an unwilling population enslaved. Nobody wins.

The other reasons I listed for company mergers, centered on good management or patents, are null for countries.

So in the big picture: Mergers and unifications are lethal. Collaborations and LOOSE connections can work. A bilateral CONTRACT, drawn for the best advantage of BOTH sides, works nicely. Such contracts can only be maintained when BOTH sides are fully independent and willing to defend their SKILLS ferociously.

Labels: defensible spaces, skill-estate

  ¶ 7:34 AM