Mali: Lesson III

Abstract: The USA has to realize that enforcing civilization, worldwide, is a matter of security, not just high principle.
Yes, it was uncivilized for the USA to attack Afghanistan in 1979 and Iraq in 2003. However, it’s civilized to help the French as much as possible to defend the secular Malian republic and the Malian People.
As far as fighting a long war, the USA itself was born no earlier than 1776 from a conflict that had started earlier than 1756. Rolling back fanatical invading Islamists since 721 CE, and other invaders before that (Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc.) has been Francia’s main business. Not for the pusillanimous, right! If civilization is not strong, civilization is nought.
U.S. Weighing How Much Help to Give France’s Military Operation in Mali” say the New York Times’ David Sanger and Eric Schmitt in Sat, Jan 26 cover article. Let me discuss.

The historico-geographical context of the Mali war is global, spanning a small planet, and a very long history.

French Mirage 2000 Thirsty Over Chad

French Mirage 2000 Thirsty Over Chad

New York Times: “WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is debating how much more aid it can give the French military forces who are battling Islamic militants in Mali, weighing the benefit of striking a major blow to Qaeda-linked fighters in Africa against concern about being drawn into a lengthy conflict there.”

Oh poor little scared USA, plausibly dragged into lengthy conflict, never had a war longer than 11 years. Let me explain to USA how the civilization that gave birth to the USA a millennium later arose to start with. Well, through a lengthy conflict. Actually the present civilization arose through several lengthy conflicts, and would not have existed without them (after all after defending by themselves against invasions, starting in 400 CE, the Franks finished the conquest of Europe, something Rome had given up on).

Franks' Mirages F1, Mali: Civilization, Tradition.

Franks’ Mirages F1, Mali: Civilization, Tradition.

Several of the French quirks that irritate the Wall Street Journal, such as nationalizations, or controlling the Church as an organ of the secular state, were invented, or amplified in a terrible war against invading fanatical Islam in 721 CE to 750 CE, the first phase of a war that never really stopped.

So, speaking of lengthy conflict, that’s nearly 1,300 years of conflict. More, if one views Francia as part, and official heir of the Roman state, which she was by 400 CE. The first Muslim attack against Rome was led by Mahomet himself, mounted on a horse, at the head of his army. The Romans did not offer battle, and a disappointed Mahomet returned home to Mecca, where he promptly died…

In the early Eight Century Berber and an Arab armies, having recently embraced the war religion of Islam, wrestled Spain from the (divided) Visigoths, ruling over a divided country.

How? The population of Spain was divided in (more than) three Judeo-Christian sects and ethnic groups (including the Basque). The Visigoths did not believe that Jesus was as much of a god as his “father”, an idea traced to the bishop of Alexandria (Egypt), Arianus. So they were Arians, and not liked by the Catholic Orthodox, who made the majority of Spain, and believed in the Trinity, that is, that Jesus was god just as much as his dad.

The Jews, numerous in Spain, also did not like the Visigoths who ruled them, and some cooperated with the invading Muslims. The end result of all these acerbic divisions was that the Muslims seized Spain. Then they proceeded to kill a fifth of the Catholics (from church records).

The occupiers and decimators then got very strong, because they controlled now a huge new territory. Yet, in 718 CE, the Muslims failed for the third time, under the enormous walls of Constantinople.

In 721 CE, the Muslim armies invaded Francia. (Yes, Francia. I corrected Wikipedia which ignorantly called the place “Gaul”.) The Muslims followed the old plan to finish Constantinople from behind. Grecian fire, a mystery, but highly efficient weapon, had annihilated a Muslim fleet of more than 2,000 warships besieging the capital, thus going around was in order.

The Muslims tried to seize Toulouse, besieging it for three months. They confronted the army of Duke Eudes, the Duke of Aquitania, and put it to flight. They chased it, and fell into a trap. As they contentedly feasted, celebrating their victory, Eudes rushed back and the Muslims were taken by total surprise.

The invaders suffered an enormous defeat. According to Al-Maqqari, Duke Odo/Eudes had an army of 300,000, and the Muslim death toll was an astounding 375,000 on the invading Ummayaad troops. It is fashionable to say these numbers are inflated, as it allows to belittle the triumph of the Franks. But why not to believe the only eyewitnesses reports we have? The astounding figures give an idea of the scale of the confrontation.

In any case, all historians agree that the battle of Toulouse in 721 CE was, for sure, a gigantic defeat, and the turning of the Islamist tide, the first catastrophic defeat that the Arab, Syrians and other Yemenites had ever suffered.

The Muslim invaders had taken decades to conquer the Catholic Roman cities of the Maghreb. They had suffered reverses, until they allied with savage Berbers from the hinterlands. But never, ever, did the Arab islamist armies suffer a devastating defeat, on land before Toulouse.

They tried another method, good old fashions razzias: after seizing Narbonne and other cities they dashed all the way to Autun, not far from Paris (725 CE). But they could not hold territory.

The rest, as the commons say, is history. Exasperated and troubled, the Caliphate in Damascus insisted, and launched an even more formidable invasion, incorporating in the army crack soldiers recruited all the way to Yemen (learn, White House, that, even then, the terrorists came from afar!).

This time Duke Eudes was defeated, in a terrible battle next to Bordeaux (eyewitnesses say we would never be able to determine how many died, so many there were). The South West of Francia got ravaged.

But Charles Martel, “major of the Palace” had had 11 years to constitute the most formidable army since the heydays of Rome. To pay for it, he had nationalized the Church. The gold paid professional soldiers handsomely, to provide for their families. Charles’ formidable army had been busy conquering Germany, all the way to Frisia… a nice way to train.

The Muslims reached the region of Tours. They spread far and wide, in at least a third of Francia, pillaging, and bringing back lots of goodies and enslaved captives to a central camp, by Poitiers. Meanwhile, they kept surveillance on the Roman road between Tours and Paris. Roman roads were made to carry armies.

The Muslims had annihilated, in Syria, nearly a century before, the main Roman army, 160,000 men. After that, throwing to the winds the most basic laws of war, they had hunted and killed potential Roman soldiers all over the east. In a few decades half the Roman empire had been conquered, and all of Persia.

Charles Martel did not take the road. Suddenly he appeared half out of the woods, on a hill, just where he wanted to be. The Emir called back his troops from far and wide. They took eight days to all come back (so some may have been 200 miles away).

The Muslim cavalry charges broke on the “ice like” wall of the Frankish phalanx, bristling with lances. The Franks had better armor, better swords and battle axes (they were heir to 1,500 years of Gallic metallic superiority). Duke Eudes attacked the Muslim camp, freeing prisoners, threatening booty and camp followers of the Muslim army. The crazies with god were routed, and not buried. Frankish heavy cavalry successfully pursued them, for weeks, killing countless numbers. The whole place was named the “Alley of the Martyrs” by the discomfited Arabo-Berber invaders.

Five years later, the Muslim invaders were back, with another giant force, combining a land and sea attack. They thought they were ready for Charles’ mighty phalanx. But this time Charles had joined to his phalanx an enormous heavy cavalry with giant horses (737 CE). Fighting with lances and battle axes standing on stirrups made the “EUROPEAN” knights unstoppable. Yes, that’s when the word EUROPEAN appeared first.

The Syrian and Arab army destroyed, Arabs supported by the Persian took over, and the Caliphate was displaced to Baghdad (750 CE), close to the Iranian plateau. (Conventional historians do not point this out.)

So how does this connect to Mali?

First Muslim terrorism against the West was invented by Mohammed the Prophet himself. Islam was presented as a specifically anti-Western war machine (that can be read in the Qur’an, where the Romans are specifically mentioned, and the strategy to attack them).

Five years ago the terrorists in the Sahara desert were 200. But the Sahara was left at their disposal, and they are financed by drug trafficking and feudal Wahhabite regimes from Arabia. So around Mali alone they are now 10,000. Leaving a territory to terrorists enables them to grow.
New York Times: “The immediate issue is whether and how to supply American aerial refueling planes… any refueling would probably be approved only with restrictions.
“The discussions center on cost, and the concern about whether this becomes an open-ended mission for the French in Mali,” one Defense Department official said. “What does that mean about our commitment?” “

Is big bad Pentagon scared? France fought Qaddafi on and off for three decades, nearly killing him at some point in Chad. Instead of worrying whether France is going to fight too much, the leadership of the USA ought to worry about the fanatical Islamists in, say, Egypt (they are in power there!)

New York Times: “Most of the reservations about whether President Obama has the legal authority to engage in military operations were resolved, officials said, after it was determined that the main targets were linked to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. But the degree to which President Obama wants to get involved in Mali is still an open question, presenting the president and his national security team with the latest in a series of decisions about how heavily to intervene in remote conflicts.
Also in play is the depth of the American commitment to France…”

There is nothing very remote about Mali. Florida and Senegal are geologically identical: they used to be part of the same plate.They are facing each other across the ocean, six hours of subsonic flying will get you there from USA territory, it’s about half the distance to Hawai’i from washington, DC.
Lose Mali, lose West Africa (including Nigeria).
Commitment this, commitment that, commitment to, our commitment… The USA seems to have lots of problems with the concept of commitment. Do the USA need to be committed?
As far as being committed to France, well, ought a son be committed to his mother? Camus said yes. I concur.

New York Times: Mr. Obama’s aides say that the model under way in Mali now — with the French taking the lead, and a force from the region backing them up — is exactly what they want to encourage. But some officials say they believe the French went into Mali hastily, in the words of one official “before they understood exactly what they were biting off.”

France has fought in the desert for centuries, and won quite a few. There was nothing hasty about the French counter-attack. Left alone, left to seize Bamako, which they could have done in one day, the followers of the fanatical terrorists would soon have been millions (they indoctrinate children as young as 12 as soldiers).

It’s a strange sight to see those warriors, crazed with god, driving the largest trucks, on which they mount tanks’ gun turrets… why did nobody think of this before? Because never before warriors so little attached to their own lives thrived in such great numbers.

New York Times: “White House officials say they want to understand the broader political and strategic plan to end the conflict before they get more involved.”

There is nothing to understand strategically, while the house is burning down: destroying the terrorists is the immediate goal. Another immediate goal should be to make sure the black Malian forces do not exert reprisals against the white, Tuareg or Arab “Malian” rebels. That is where pacifying officers from the West could help.

More subtle, but long term necessary, is giving the Tuareg a state (“Azawad”?), or secure autonomy (but say, Algeria, Morocco, will not like it).

New York Times: “But since France entered the conflict in early January, there has been little time for strategic planning. The United States has begun transporting a 600-member French mechanized battalion and its gear to Mali, and is providing intelligence information, including satellite imagery, American officials said on Friday. “The spigot is opened all the way,” one official said. So far that help has been provided at no cost to the French.
But the refueling would bring the American involvement to a new level, directly supporting military attacks. And for Mr. Obama, who devoted part of his Inaugural Address on Monday to a celebration of the end of a war in Iraq and the winding down of the American commitment in Afghanistan, the prospect of getting involved in a conflict against a shadowy enemy far from the United States is unwelcome.”

There is nothing far, anywhere, in this world. North Korea is closer to the USA than England and France were under Napoleon.

One has to distinguish wars one should not have done (Afghanistan since Carter attacked it on July 3, 1979; Iraq since the West has been messing with it, that is since before Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein December 20, 1983)… And wars one should do.

The only reason the enemy is “shadowy” is that the USA is unwilling to trace the money back to the feudal oil states it supports. Because they are part of the world’s plutocratic order. It is of course troubling to see Socialist France attack with wild abandon the mignons of the world plutocratic order’s feudal branch.

New York Times: “In the case of Mali, one official said, American intelligence assessments have concluded that the Islamic extremists have little ability to threaten the United States. “But they can threaten the region,” he said, “and that’s where the argument for American involvement comes in.””

Once again, that’s an illusion, that they don’t threaten the USA. Indeed with French precision bombing in the middle of the night, it’s hard for them to concentrate on the USA (but they do threaten the USA when they talk on French TV!).

True the Islamic extremists have little ability to threaten the 48 contiguous states at this very moment, but if they come to dominate the region, they will.

New York Times: “The government of President François Hollande has said it will stay in Mali and the surrounding region as long as needed. The United States has been more hesitant about supporting the new government in Mali, which came to power in a coup mounted by an American-trained military leader.”

These are details. True, American trained troops in Mali were a disaster. But Mali is SECULAR REPUBLIC. One can have a republic, even after or during a coup, because republican institutions are not restricted to the (“elected“) upper governmental structure.

Another point is that sending an army to free a country from terrorists support We The PEOPLE of that country. When France sent an army and a fleet to the English colony of North America, she was not sending them to a government, but to We The PEOPLE of the USA.

New York Times: Mr. Obama talked on the phone on Friday with Mr. Hollande, but White House officials did not say whether the leaders had dwelled on the refueling issue… Several French tankers are providing air-to-air refueling for … Mirage and Rafale combat and reconnaissance aircraft… but officials in Paris would like to have American tankers ready as a backup if the ground operation faces stiffer resistance than anticipated, or an unforeseen crisis requires France to send more aircraft.
A White House statement said [Obama and Hollande] had talked about the need to quickly establish an African-led force in Mali, as well as the importance of Mali’s establishing a path to elections and to “restoration of democratic governance” in the country.
Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French defense minister, said:“The goal is the total reconquest of Mali, we will not leave any pockets.”But Gen. Carter F. Ham, the head of the Pentagon’s Africa Command, voiced more limited objectives.
“We would all like to see the elimination of Al Qaeda and others from northern Mali, realistically, probably the best you can get is containment and disruption so that Al Qaeda is no longer able to control territory.”

Well the best way to wage war is to win it. That is, if one is not just humoring a greedy military-industrial complex, and friendly rapacious feudal states in the Middle East.

Ultimately, Islamic terrorism is not compatible with the pursuit of an advanced technological civilization, and will have to be dealt with it thoroughly, that is, philosophically. That is, deal with it definitively, as we did, say, with Moloch, Gallic human sacrifices, or with Aztec terrorism.
But first the military side, the Dark Side, has to be taken care of. This is now.
Patrice Ayme

Tags: , ,

20 Responses to “Mali: Lesson III”

  1. aaron greenbird Says:

    “the first phase of a war that never really stopped….” how true….a really great post, thank you. its so interesting how history turns on a dime, so ta speak…..if odo didn’t talk charles the hammer into fighting with him, we would be speaking arabic….would love to hear THAT conversation…..


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thank you for expressing your appreciation, Aaron, that means much to me!

      Well Odo/Eudes, the Aquitania Dux and Charles had a somewhat antagonistic (!) relationship. At some point eudes was fighting the Muslims on one side, Charles on the other. Charles was the de facto Prime Minister of a multinational state (“Europe”). Eudes headed Aquitania, which had been independent as a country even before the Romans showed up. it was one of the three supra national entities and linguistic group in Gallia. so naturally they disagreed. But in the end, they cooperated.
      There is absolutely NO DOUBT Charles intented to destroy the Muslims. He prepared for it thoroughly, rising a republican army. Actually the anti-Islam policy came from before 632 CE. The Franks sent spies to the inchoating Muslims as soon as they heard of them. The reason being that they had been the hard edge of the Roman army since Constantine associated himself with them (after fighting them). So they were keen to know what was going on.

      I believe that Islam, as a political system is intrinsically fascist, and thus condemned to die at its own hand. The Mongols tried to explain that to the Caliphe in Baghdad, before trampling him and his family with horses…

      It’s actually what happened in Al Andalus, which pretty much imploded, not just once, but many times, and ever worse (after the initial push back by Carlus Magnus, Charlemagne, the Franks let Al Andalus be, as long as Catalonia and its sibblings were left alone). Now we just have to see those plutocratic Muslim Brothers implode too, in Egypt and Tunisia. All they want is the Sharia, which is against the congenetitally given law of man (or against human ethology to use a mot savant…).


  2. Hildegarde the favorite Says:

    You’re a bit unfair with the US. In 1940, they weren’t ready to go to war, also because the congress was “isolationist”. Though Roosevelt managed to conturn it by helping the Brits within surveying the sea lanes, noticeably from Iceland. They also financed our Resistance.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hildegarde: Please read my site, and discover that the USA was the main force behind Hitler.
      Roosevelt circumvented nothing. Even after the Nazis had attacked US Navy destroyers, Roosevelt did nothing. It was lamentable. Roosevelt basically did nothing until Hitler declared war to the USA. There is no doubt somebody like JFK would have stood there and bellowed:
      Don’t ask what civilization can do for you, USA! Ask what you do for civilization!

      All he had to was to declare war, as countless countries (Canada, India, etc.) did. He had the power.

      Instead, he eerily declared, after three weeks of desperate fighting in Europe:

      “But if and when war unhappily comes, the Government and the Nation must exert every possible effort to avoid being

      drawn into the war.

      The executive branch of the Government did its utmost, within our traditional policy of noninvolvement, to aid in averting the present appalling war. Having thus striven and failed, this Government must lose no time or effort to keep the Nation from being drawn into the war.

      In my candid judgment we shall succeed in these efforts.”

      There was nothing candid there. Even after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt did nothing, although the allied of Nazi Germany had declared war. Even Hitler had more honor.

      The USA had nothing to do in 1939 or 1940, just declare war. German generals would have done the rest, a coup.


  3. jokotalo Says:

    Well French military heads prefer the idea to be the only ones on the ground (with the African forces), it makes things a lot easier for them. But definitely France needs logistic and intel support


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      jokotalo: From all what the French say, they do not like to see “France bien seule” (“France All Alone”). They just had to act, so they did. In 1936, they did not act, because everybody wanted to be friends with Hitler. But at that point, driving to Berlin would have been no harder than driving to Tombouctou (Timbuktu) now.


  4. Hildegarde the favorite Says:

    “France bien seule” managed to invest Gao ! The terrorists are getting scared !


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Hildegarde: France is not fighting this the war the way the USA fought in Afghanistan under Bush, through telerobotics. In Afghanistan, the USA was not really there. A sprinkling of U.S. special forces and massive Air Force bombing opened the way to (the late) Massoud’s Northern Alliance (which did the job). Now apparently France has 4,500 soldiers on the ground, plus hundreds of armored vehicles and tanks. In other words, much more force, much more effectively deployed.


  5. jophoenix Says:

    France has done a remarkable job as always. We need to join in or give them Everything they need. In meany ways the experience is on Frances side so we should fellow them. Our lead has not proven to be the face of experience.
    The problem. We in the US have had the biggest heist in the history of man. by our own. Our President I believes is fearful of more expense after all we just GAVE EVERYTHING with Geithners help to the rich if our country Wall Street and Bankers leaving our treasury empty so the one per cent has the treasure and the presidents hands are tied. He was the driver of this but he will not admit it!! So the problem is how to save face …… bleak I believe we are facing a class war with in the USA.. You would not know this because the Media or what is left of the media has consolidated to so few all with the same interest. You will read nothing about while the talking heads say “ITS BEHIND “US” just read the comments section in you will see what I mean
    Anyway with the new gun control we have a very real problem.with in America. The people are ravaged and the rage is palatable only the fools in power don’t see it.. so how do help others when our base is fragmented


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Jophoenix: Wellcome to the comment side of this site, and I approve your message 100%! The Secret Service has been going around trying to find better system to locate gunshots in real time… I know snipers in the French army deployed in Mali efficiently kill at one kilometer distance (the Swiss army says). So f one has to protect all the potentates in a radius of, say, two kilometers, this will make for a very policed society…

      Jared Diamond is publishing a new book where he argues, among (many) other things, that the USA is so religious, relative to other industrial countries, for reasons related to inequality (the explanation he favors is not doubt correct, but meek, second order, the first order being that superstitious religion is not just the opium, but the stupidity of the People).

      France, as the leading republic on the continent (that is the heat of the kitchen of European civilization), has got to intervene. But intervening has to be done right, and not wrong.
      Examples of wrong: when madame de Pompadour, Louis XV’s defacto Prime Minister, disastrously inverted alliances, leading to the 1756 world war… Or when Napoleon III, a fascist, fell in the trap set by Bismarck, an even bigger fascist (although tiny, fascism-wise, relative to those who would fillow him). Right, France was no republic then (Nap III had made a coup, from his position as…president.)

      Since 1871, France has strived to intervene right. Although there were couacs, with Vietnam, and Algeria. In the latter case, deciders in Paris piled up the wrong, anti-French decisions since way back in the nineteenth century. In Black Africa, France did not make too many mistakes (at least in the so called “colonial” period.)

      I agree that the giving of 8 trillion dollars to the banksters, no strings attached, was delirious. Obama is persisting and signing, as he just nominated total insiders to key positions. The foxes will administer the chicken coop, while Geithner go to make tens of millions for himself, using his influence with his former colleagues…


  6. Hildegarde the favorite Says:

    In 1936, The Brits were trading with Germany, so imagine if France had gone against Hitler, she would have been regarded as the AGRESSOR


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hildergarde; Certainly so. Actually the Americans (Congress, President) decided, in 1939, that France was the aggressor, when she attacked Hitler. I guess aggressing the plutocrats. I have an excellent discourse of President Roosevelt on September 21, 1939:

      Roosevelt the Idiot, speaking: “But if and when war unhappily comes, the Government and the Nation must exert every possible effort to avoid being

      drawn into the war.

      The executive branch of the Government did its utmost, within our traditional policy of noninvolvement, to aid in averting the present appalling war. Having thus striven and failed, this Government must lose no time or effort to keep the Nation from being drawn into the war.

      In my candid judgment we shall succeed in these efforts.”

      Roosevelt, the Idiot: World War Two had STARTED THREE WEEKS EARLIER, France, Poland, Germany were fighting, and more than 300 divisions were at war. The UK, Canada, etc., had declared war to Hitler. But here is Roosevelt, the Idiot, speaking:”But if and when war unhappily comes, the Government and the Nation must exert every possible effort to avoid being drawn into the war.”

      In my opinion, all positive mentions of Roosevelt on French public places OUGHT TO BE removed.

      Meanwhile, I give a good point to Obama. For enabling refueling of French war planes.


  7. Dominique Deux Says:

    Note that France’s request points out US refueling assistance is really backup in case air strikes had to be significantly notched up; it currently is self-sufficient.

    If US refueling comes at a cost, France should decline and use its very favorable Govt bond interest rate and borrow whatever is needed to purchase the necessary planes, which it needs anyway. And think of ways to make the free-riding Europeans pay.

    The only reason for not doing so would be if Europe was in the last stage of developing a better air refueling plane. But billing France for US help would still be unconscionable.

    See the free granting of refueling assistance as partial compensation for the wonderful outcome of US interference in Malian troop training.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I agree on everything, Dominique. I did not see France charging for the Afghanistan war after 9/11, althout the Afghan war was STARTED BY THE USA, July 3, 1979, under Senor Presidente The Saint Carter (the one who used to embrace Reza Palahvi, Shah and toruring dictator of Iran, put in place by the USA in 1953, after throwing out the democratically elected government!).
      In any case the Wars Powers Act authorizes total war against Al qaeda, thus against AQMI/AQIM…


  8. Ed the Ed Says:

    France did not really fight Qaddaffi. Much t the contrary, France was chum with the mad dog for quite a long time. YXou know, oil and gas interests, and French state companies and all that jazz.
    President Sarkozi decided to play some electoral card against Libya but only when he was sure Qaddafi was nearly finished.
    Now see the mess Liby is in.
    Worse, France has not managed to rip all the juicy contracts it was hoping to get.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Ed The Ed: You do not know the facts. Claiming France did not fight Qaddafi is counter-factual.

      Qaddafi and France had a very hot war, throughout the Sahara for decades. Especially in Chad. Qaddafi occupied a huge area of Chad, for many years, until the French dislodged him.

      East Germans flying large supersonic Soviet bombers even attacked the capital of Chad, for Qaddafi. They stopped when the French shot them down.
      Qaddafi was nearly killed at an airfield in North Chad, when low flying French supersonic planes attacked it.

      In the 2000s, France made a truce with Qaddafi after Bush and Blair did disgusting deals with him, true. But then, when it got clear that France could topple him, she went right ahead, and saw the job to the bitter end. France fired the first and last shots.

      Libya is not in worse shape than it was under Qaddafi, clearly. Islamists are a problem, though. Time to go to the source. One of the sources is anti-French sentiment in you style, saying absurd stuff.


  9. Hazxan Says:

    I’m uncomfortable with your concept of “enforcing civilization’. Elsewhere you write intelligently about the destruction being done to the planet by the self proclaimed ‘civilized’ nations. Wouldn’t the planet be better of if civilization had never been ‘enforced’ on the Americas? Millions of people there seemed to be able to live without anywhere near the destructivess of the European invaders. Well, the Aztecs were a bit crazy, but there was no chance of over population!

    I guess it all revolves around what you exactly mean by ‘civilization”. It’s one of those words, like “freedom” that stirs up the emotions, yet when you try to define it, disapperas into vapour. It is near impossible to get 2 people in agreement. There are many examples where the barbarians behaved more civil than the cilvilized.

    Isn’t plutocracy an aspect of civilization? There does seem a tendancy, from Mayans to Americans, for a civilization to inevitably end up a a plutocracy. Are there any that didn’t?

    When I read that Mali is Africa’s 3rd biggest gold producer, has uranium and a good chance of oil, then I can’t help but be suspicious of the western nations motives. I see both an Islamic theocracy and a Free Market Plutocracy as opposed to humanity and equally repellant. But then I’ve only ever lived in one of those, so the other could be worse…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Hazxan: Good questions all, and I have written extensively about them on my way to answer them all, in the past.

      Intriguingly, the war in Mali is actually happening on my old turf, where I am from. I have confronted that situation all my life, the situation of civilization. I was the first non Muslim infant/child in an oasis called Gardhaia, and once was caught playing with the local crawfish size yellow scorpion, capable of killing an elephant, saying “Coucou Be'” (Hi Beastie).

      I had lots of time to ponder diverse ways and means, right from the start. Later I crossed many tragedies, on my way to deeper understanding, as my old world got torn off from me, never to be seen again, as it got annihilated, and survives only in the memories of people such as me.

      People I will never see again, and whom made me, and I have so much to say. People who made me more civilized, some born in Africa, and all their ancestors too.

      So the most dangerous natives were my interlocutors, right from the start… Not that I think talking is always the best: I talked with some (French) fascists, long ago, and, after apparently thinking carefully about it, they reacted by trying to kill me with a bomb (!).

      Once my mother had been walking alone in the Adrar des Iforas, nearly stepping three times on horned vipers (they bury in the sand). She was getting tired, when a Tuareg all in blue appeared on his white mehari (a giant dromadary). He approached her, saying nothing until he was very close. Then he handed her his water canteen, and said just one word, an order:”Bois!” (“Drink!”). He could see she was ready to pass out from heat stroke.

      Right now the French army is conducting air strikes in the Adrar des Iforas, and has launched its special forces to nomadize there. The Adrar des Iforas is 250,000 km sq, more than half of California, nearly half of France. It’s a stunningly beautiful eroded granitic range, with striking peaks, boulder fields, caves, and even what certainly passes for forests in the Sahara. It even has water. The French army is helped by the secular Tuareg MNLA (Mouvement national de Liberation de l’Azawad).

      So what is civilized, what is not? What is more civilized, more exactly, and what is less so?

      One has to proceed item by item. Clearly when the Celts, or the Carthaginians were conducting human sacrifices, that was not civilized, and the Romans were right to do away with these, forbidding those religions.

      Notice, though, that more than 98% of cultures/religions and civilizations known practiced human sacrifices. So basically what I am saying here is that we were right to get rid of those 98+% of known cultures. This being said, nearly all of them had cultural aspects worth preserving. Personally, although extremely anti-Salafist, some parts of my behavior strictly follow some of the doctrine (not because I made a concession to Salafism, but because I found some traits, such as not drinking alcohol, to my advantage).

      Now, of course, when Roma annihilated Carthage, that was extremely uncivilized, and rome dug its own grave (as the commanding imperator thought, and he wept as Carthage burned).

      Plutocracy is an aspect of civilization, just as cancer is an aspect of life. it’s an outgrowth. As I have explained in my essays:

      Fascism Instinct + Capital + Exponential = Plutocracy.

      I am actually working on an essay that will touch of those in the USA/Economic Crisis context.

      We will see if I succeed to convince you, and if I fail, I will try harder! KNOWING WHAT’S MORE CIVILIZED, AND WHAT’S LESS SO IS CORE TO SURVIVAL.
      It’s not about comfort, but survival. There again, I am in good position to judge. Many people died in various wars in my family, in Europe and Africa, and all of my family’s property was lost (my family is half African born).

      So, yes, civilization has to be enforced. Certainly, if the French republic had gone to war against Hitler in 1938 at the latest, before the Nazi dictator, already part of the USA plutocracy, could ally himself with the USSR, and the Congress and presidency of the USA, lots of things would have been very different.

      That’s why France is tight to make all out war in Mali (and not war through proxy, often for the worst reasons, as the USA did in Afghanistan in 1079-2005).

      The allegation that Mali is rich and that’s why France is there, is, let’s not say beyond contempt, not to make anybody angry, but not factual. Mali is actually one of the poorest countries on Earth. And lots of it because of the foreign terrorists France is presently wiping out (hopefully to the last). Uranium is in Niger (and many other countries).

      If one wanted to really eradicate Salafism, the French army should conquer Saudi Arabia, and establish a republic there (and in the Emirates). That’s where the trouble is coming from (hence from Wall Street, as usual, as that’s where the money is recirculating). That’s what enforcing civilization more thoroughly would mean.


  10. Paul Says:

    Excellent overview of Francia wars.
    Brillant answers inbound the post you have to deal with.
    Congratulations !


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Paul! The West has to deal with the (unsurprising) fact that it was mostly created by its geographical core, Francia! The USA, by trying hard to forget that, ever since it was created, is denying the very essence of its organizing principle. Looking forward reading you!


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: