Joan Of Arc: Pet & Pest

National myths are the paradigms of the plebs. When all they do is exalt nationalism, for nationalism’s sake, they foster fascism. And only atavism, not justice, then justifies this sorry rage.

Joan of Arc incarnated Nazism without any Social pretense (the “z” in Nazism is for “socialism”). It’s even worse: D’Arc effectively turned a three way civil war in France into a religious war.

The French Front National uses Jeanne D’Arc as a front. That’s an affront, but not the way common wisdom would have it. Indeed, even under the worst scenarios, Marine Le Pen could never turn into as much a historical monster, as Joan of Arc was. D’Arc relaunched a civil war, that, thanks to her demonic efforts, lasted another four centuries.

Separatist Sister Souls In Fanatical Bigotry

Separatist Sister Souls In Fanatical Bigotry

Once Yolande’s pet, now recycled by Marine.

[By the way, in case Le Pen did not notice, Brussels used to be in Gallia and Francia, for more than 2,500 years. So Marine Le Pen, rendered mad by greed, wants to cut France in two.]

The president-elect in Ukraine just identified the separatists there to “Somali Pirates“. That’s exactly what Johanne was: a separatist, an outlaw.

Indeed what was the alleged work of Joan of Arc? A secession. Far from being a French heroine, Joan of Arc split France in two. Far from being a liberator, Johanne enslaved Western Europe to centuries of war. Her call to ethnic hatred against the “Anglois”does not help her modern philosophical depiction.

Indeed an accord had been found between the two feuding French governments, one in Paris, and illegitimate, the other in London, and legitimate. That was after nearly 90 years of (un)civil war. An accord reunited the government. After his death, the king in Paris, was to be succeeded by the king in London, Henry V of England, who was much younger.

Henry V appears in three Shakespeare plays, and is called the “Star of England”. grandson of Edward III of England. The latter being the one and only grandson of Philippe Iv Le Bel, of France. Edward III was the true king of France, being the son of Isabelle of France, queen of England, and legitimate (according to the Salic Law), queen of France (as the only child left of Philippe Le Bel).

So this 485 year war was all a Franco-French affair. To present it, as too much nationalist histories do,  as a national conflict, with the redeeming figure of 19 year old Johanne on top, is to put nationalism and a monster war on an altar, and worship them.

From the heights of wisdom, it is more judicious to put view them as garbage, and stomp on them.

The settlement with Henry V as king of the reunited kingdom, was infinitely better than the ferocious three way civil war between Anglois, Armagnac and Bourguignons. (At the time, all sorts of languages were spoken in “France”; even by 1900, only half of the population spoke “French” as a native language!)

After months of negotiation with Charles VI of France, the Treaty of Troyes (1420), agreed to by the queen of France Isabeau de Baviere, recognized the 34 year old Henry V as regent and heir-apparent to the French throne. This treaty deprived Isabeau’s own five sons of the throne. Henry was not just an invincible conqueror, he was the legitimate king.

Henry V, the victor of Agincourt, was subsequently married to Charles’s daughter, Catherine of Valois (1401 – 1437). However, following Henry V’s sudden and unexpected death in France two years later, two months before the sickly Charles VI did, Henry was succeeded by his infant son, who reigned as Henry VI (1421 – 1471). It was a case when lethal dysentery changed history.

When Jeanne said:”King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France… settle your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France,” she is actually a child addressing an even smaller child, the king, and the legitimate head of the state of France.

All this mythology was prompted by Yolande of Aragon, queen of four kingdoms, who did not want to be vassal to a super power in the north. Or just loved power, whatever (she was in power, and a power, for 43 years).

The bottom line is that the events that Joan of Arc came to symbolize are all wrong (and it’s no wonder the so called Front National embraced her). Prior to this triumph of bigotry, what’s now called France and England, had been part of the same polity of more than a millennium. To celebrate Joan of Arc is to celebrate religious fanaticism of Osama bin Laden’s intensity, and the 400 years of further strife the victory of Yollande and Charles VII brought.

More details can be found in:

Nowadays, common commentators remember only this of the period: the Agincourt victory by the “English”, and the martyrdom of Jehanne. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the first is often used to prove the French are worthless, cowardly, inferior militarily idiots. The second is evoked to prove the viciousness of the English. Never mind that the victors of Agincourt were annihilated in a battle later, and that the southern French army developed a new weapon, field artillery, that allowed to kick the “English” out.

“English” that were French truly. Never mind too, that the main accuser of Jehanne was bishop Cauchon, who was French, whichever way one wanted to look at him (his aggressive philosophy led him later to accusations of heresy).

Joan of Arc, national hero, was nothing but: ultimately the war between Paris and London was rather lost by Paris. Certainly, that spirit of division and conflict weakened France: remember Louis XIV, chasing millions of Protestants out of France (maybe because he had been rendered mad by a festering hole in his nether region, which lasted decades).

Thus, in a way, Joan of Arc is the perfect festering, fanatical symbol for would be simple minded fascists.

Writing a new, and more correct, history, means throwing a lot of old myths, and their accompanying deleterious illusions, into the fire.

Patrice Ayme




Joan of Arc

Tags: , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “Joan Of Arc: Pet & Pest”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    OK, read the essay a couple of times and struggled to sense what had fuelled it in your mind?

    If it is to highlight the updating of history and the implications thereof, then, surely, the re-writing of history has been going on for as long as mankind. There have been national myths right across the world.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, Paul, thanks for the comment.
      Joan of Arc is a myth (a key part was her canonization in the late 19C). A positive myth: the English are sorry to “have” burned her, the “French” feel she saved the country. She had some positive qualities: clearly a feminist (but also manipulated by Yolande of Aragon, who paid to equip her, among other things).

      In truth, she, and Yolande’s strategy, were a disaster. I remind you that a near continuous state of war between France and England lasted 395 years, until 1815.

      It’s not because there are myths, that we cannot make them closer to the truth. In truth, Jehanne was made as a positive myth (nearly) for all the wrong reasons… As Marine Le Pen demonstrates.

      Shall we add this to my essay to make it clearer?


  2. Chris Snuggs Says:

    A key element of fascism is an arrogant elite which pursues its own agenda without consulting the people or respecting their wishes?

    The EU pretends it has a mandate because national governments allow it to do almost as it pleases, partly because they also benefit from it. However, democracy in Europe is deeply flawed.

    As for Merkel, she is useless and the Germans arrogant and complacent. After a massive sign of strong rejection of federalism they are going to elect an arch-crony federalist. Talk about listening to the voters? If they do not change course it is going to get worse.

    After 8 years of Boringissimo we now have to suffer another eight of Junck. The sooner the UK gets out of this lunacy the better. UK economy now likely to grow 3% this year as unemployment in France continues to rise.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Fascism is the “Justice” department of the USA condemning the largest French bank, BNP, to pay a 10 BILLION dollar fine (the largest on any bank, ever) for having conducted transactions in dollars off shore, between non USA citizens, that violated no French or European laws. Nor did they violate USA law: they make it up, as they go.

      Truth? American “justice” is taking down systematically non USA companies, especially in finance. Just like Putin (for a while), they observe nobody opposes them. That’s what I find frightening about Junker: he is all acquired to Global Finance, aka American based Global Plutocracy… Arguably the greatest source of fascism anywhere (as it gave birth, at least in part, to Hitler, and then enabled him).

      That’s the part that seems to elude you. As long as London does what its masters in Washington want, she gets petted. But when all others have been taken down, watch it. Anyway I was more interested by your opinion about my opinion on Jehanne’s myth.


  3. gmax Says:

    Why, oh why did you do that to Joan of Arc? She is a H E R O I NE! ;-(


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Jehanne d’Arc is a heroine, that’s why I zeroed in… She being a heroine means that the myth of rabid nationalistic bigotry is viewed as heroic by the myopic masses… So here I come with my thermonuclear deconstruction…


  4. Dominique Deux Says:

    I am appalled by the way classical history, up to and including Hollywood, depicts the racist, supremacist, niekulturny, gender-flouting Leonidas as a “hero” for spurning the unique opportunity presented to Greece of becoming part of a peaceful, civilized, free trade friendly empire.

    Charles Martel and Aetius also come to mind. Such golden opportunities to end war forever, wasted by self-centered individuals.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, my own teaching is just the opposite. Although the Persian empire was very worthy in some ways, under Darius, and interesting in many ways, it was a massive plutocracy. Leonidas played an important role as a symbol: 300 against half a million.
      Yet, in the two massive victories of freedom over fascism, Marathon and Salamis, the Athenians played the main role, and the Spartans, none.
      Only at Plataea, the final crushing of the fascist bugs, the Spartans, accompanied by an enormous army of Helots, played a considerable role.
      Persia was a massive fascist system, for the reasons historian Fernand Braudel summarized in the concept of “hydraulic dictatorship“.

      Speaking of that, I have a relevant essay coming up. Persia was a fascist plutocracy, along what Hitler called the “Fuerer Prinzip”. because its wealth knew no limits in individuals.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Aetius’ role was not too clear. Although the generalissimo for a long time, he did his best to get the Goths to go back to Tolosa after defeating the Huns, and then refused to finish them off with the Franks.

      No wonder he got assassinated later in a massive plot involving the Princeps. There was no reason that made sense to empower the Huns. The argument that it was to keep the Goths in check was silly, as the Franks had much more power… And it was legal.

      BTW, “flout” and “flaunt” have basically opposite meanings.

      It’s no coincidence that the separatist Jehanne d’Arc is hero to Martine Le Pen, whose hero is Putin. When Le Pen and Putin breed, the Huns come out.


      • Dominique Deux Says:

        I am completely aware of the flout-flaunt ambivalence and the common mistake it produces in native English speakers.

        My (ironic) contention was that Leonidas, wearing a skimpy skirt and very much into male bonding, was flouting gender regulations as laid down by the Le Pen-Church crowd.

        You said that Persia was a fascist plutocracy; I wrote it was a peaceful, civilized, free trade friendly empire. So we are in total agreement.

        Other, more recent empires come to mind, on which the sun never set either (a phrase invented by Herodotes about Xerxes’ Persia), and which we repeatedly declined joining. Even if the refusal took one hundred years to sink in.

        On Persia, that is…


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          OK, I am getting it. I was a bit lost in the irony, that was too thick. I think that when guys f… guys, among other creatures, in a manly way, even if they wear skirts, they certainly qualify as first class penetrators, especially if they hold a ten foot spear…

          BTW, we have Charlemagne considerations about skirts, robes and the like: he preferred mini-skirts, or then tights. Anything else got in the way of riding. Nobody could suspect the towering empereur a la barbe fleurie to be anything else than a very manly man, who even flouted Catholicism better than Luther would, seven centuries later.

          Persia under Darius covered the gamut of economic systems. That’s one thing that makes it so interesting. It when from total command and control, to total free trade. The latter once the freeway system had been built. (Actually I don’t know if they were free, but they were fast: any point of the three continental empire could be in touch with Persepolis in one week!)

          Darius also prepared the great assault on Greece. He died just before, and his son Xerxes went on to be made a fool by Leonidas, and survey the devastation of his 2,000 ship fleet at Salamis, from his throne, Athens smoldering in his back.

          The conflict between Persia and Greece lasted 170 years. It ended with that crazy youth, Alexander. But the Greeks had long determined (Xenophon) that they were vastly superior to the Persians.

          The real mystery is why Rome did not defeat Persia and Germania. The answer is that Caesar was assassinated. At that point, Rome had clearly got insane: it made zero sense for the Roman plutocrats to assassinate their natural leader, who happened to also be the leader of the Populares. Caesar was going to leave with army the next day, direction Persia.

          Gender regulations are a funny thing. Putin wants to look manly. So how come he, and his servant Mr. M need so many extravagant palaces? Is not that feminine? Charlemagne built nearly no palace, as he was on top of his horse continuously. Same for Caesar in relation to Augustus (no palace for Caesar, a huge one for Augustus).


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 )

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: