History: First, Thoughts & Moods

When historical historians look at history, they tend to look at the antics of history, and their heroic actors. All too much. Although the first historian, Thucydides, analyzing the Peloponnesian war, concluded that it was caused, first of all, by the anxiety that the rise of Athens brought in Sparta.

Athens rose because she was a democracy. Sparta could not rise the same, because she was not constituted that way (ironically, Sparta had created Athenian democracy, by an armed intervention).

Peter The Great was more than two meters tall, he walked very fast, he was hyper active, domineering, he fought the “Old Believers”.

The way Peter looked at it was different: he wanted to replace Russia’s old moods and systems of thoughts with one grafted from Western Europe. To accomplish that, he determined, to his dismay, and sometimes with lots of humor, that no violence was high enough.

4,000 Year Old Celtic Crosses Switzerland

4,000 Year Old Celtic Crosses Switzerland

Semiotics is also endowed with huge mental inertia, and capability to generate mental structures: the appeal of the cross preceded Christianity by millennia, in the West.

Clearly, looking at it objectively, considering the fanatical resistance of the “Old Believers”, Peter had no choice. He was actually extremely patient, waiting years before he struck all out.

Some will whine about how violent it all was. Yet, no Peter, certainly no Russia, as we know it. Peter even contributed to the conquest of the cold regions, by having the “Old Believers” fleeing there.

The big change between the Greco-Romans and the Franks was the Franks’ refusal of going on with haughty, exploitative discrimination. Both the discrimination of the Christians, or, more exactly, the Catholics, against non-believers, and the discrimination against slaves.

When one looks at the complicated history of the Americas after the Europeans landed in force (in contrast to the weak landings of the Vikings, 500 years prior), the greatest explanatory schemes comes from biological and philosophical systems.

In biology, the Europeans were simply immunologically stronger, the Eurasian-African cesspool-petri dish, being the world’s largest.

Philosophically, the exploitative philosophy of the Conquistadores was inexhaustible, until Charles Quint called off the Conquista (precisely to stop the holocaust). They collided head to head with the Portuguese, who, although just one million, were even more hyper, in the same way.

The French, who were next, were much more careful, all too careful… Too careful with their morality, not enough with their persons and that of their allies.

Thus Philippe II sent an armada to annihilate the French colonies of the Carolinas, down to Florida. France was the enemy, being too tolerant of the Protestants (who had founded said colonies). That was highly successful, down to the last baby.

Another example: the French over-civilized the Hurons. Once the Hurons were civilized and grew crops, the Iroquois, still proudly savage, and seeing in the Huron thought system the enemy, swooped in, and killed the Hurons to the last.

Voltaire was a pseudocrat, someone with pseudo power. Voltaire became immensely rich by manipulating the highest powers in France, England, Prussia and Russia. Voltaire, under the guise of the Enlightenment, unconsciously made the work of the Dark Side. How? By advising Louis XV’s and his Pompadour not to die for a “few arpents of snow in Canada.

Indeed the English colonies in the Americas had been founded by the “West Country Men”, top English plutocrats who knew no bounds to their exploitative schemes.

Thus English America was not just founded by some men, and some accidents, but by an extreme exploitative mentality. By advising the French to fold, Voltaire posed as politically correct, Buddhist, wise man of the mountain, Christian saint, whatever despondent philosophy beasts are forced to embrace when they get devoured.

However, all what the boyfriend of Frederic the Great achieved, was to give free reins to the exploitative mentality of the West Country Men, who won the World War of the Seven Year War (1756-1763; known myopically in the USA as the French and Indian Wars))

Hand in hand the French and German presidents stood today, August 3, 2014. They were on the “Man Eating Mountain”. More than half a million French and German soldiers died there, in combat.

The presidents laid the first stone of a memorial monument to World War First, financed by Germany and France.

Why not? The French and German share the same system of thought, Republican, and the same mood, Democracy. No Kaiser in sight. The Kaiser, that is, plutocracy, was the system that ruled Germany a century ago. Cornered by the rise of democratic forces all over, all the way to Siberia, and even inside the Reichstag, Prussian plutocracy gambled that it could win a world war, and all would fall its way.

Now France and Germany are ruled by the same general mood and thoughts.

That’s how to bring peace and harmony. And nothing else ever worked, but for distance. The latter being something we absolutely do not have anymore on this small planet.

Take another example. Viciousness is a human trait. Corruption is maximum, when it cannot even be evoked, or denounced. Yet, that mood has often come to rule.

How does one fight that mood? By yet another mood, a higher one. To avoid this sorry state of affairs, where viciousness, say in the leadership, intellectual or political, cannot even be evoked, the honor of the human spirit has to rise above all. Including offending all too common courtesy. Moods against moods.

History has been, first of all, about moods and systems of thoughts. They compete, they fight, and the best overwhelm the rest. You know, like the West did with the rest.

Need a proof that this happened? Watch the United Nations (whose head just spoke of “criminal” acts by Israel: “This attack, along with other breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated and those responsible held accountable. It is a moral outrage and a criminal act,” Ban Ki Moon’s office said.).

Some fear the clash of civilizations. They are wrong. Clashes can be good. They can be a form of debate.

History is about civilization clashing, colliding and coalescing anew around better ideas, a bit like stars are formed. We should welcome such clashes as we should any effort that gives us everything we have that is good, our superior mind, the Fifth Element (found in Vedic, Celtic, and Greek mythology).

The best example of a fruitful clash of civilizations, of moods and thoughts, was the clash between Celto-Germans and Greco-Romans. It gave us. It gave us the West, for the rest.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

30 Responses to “History: First, Thoughts & Moods”

  1. gmax Says:

    You are piling up high the politically incorrect thoughts these days. I agree with you 100 percent. But you are making enemies

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Enemies can be made to last forever, friends come and go.

      • Andrej Dekleva Says:

        Patrice,
        Since you love war so much, I’ll drop bombs for free all over your blog!

        • Andrej Dekleva Says:

          Kinda like you brag of doing to NYT.

          • Andrej Dekleva Says:

            …. and please don’t mention those fascist that tried to bomb you, tired tale.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The New York Times censors me most of the time. Everybody can check this, as I am not an “approved commenter”, although I subscribed to the paper decades ago. I never censored anyone on this blog. Often, when people express themselves, their contradictions come to the fore, such as pacifists full of hatred, etc.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I had several of my closest family member violently killed (most as civilians, some in combat). I was myself attacked with deadly force thrice. I don’t love war. Yet, although a bomb made for me was thrown at me (blowing to pieces a guitar player who interposed himself), I don’t fear bombs, you can drop all you want.
          I made very clear in past essays that Humans cannot exist without love, literally, and thus love is the primary human emotion, the one that build others…

    • Andrej Dekleva Says:

      Gmin,
      We know you agree 100%, you never fail to confirm your lack of critical thought. It’s not that we who disagree with wrathful philosophy (really there is love?) are being soft skinned politically correct vegetables, we who are critical of belligerent egotism…

  2. Ken Says:

    No actions will be taken against Israel..Same as no actions have been taken against American war crimes, Until a war is fought and they lose they will not be brought to the Hague. Unfortunately they will fight to the worlds death to hold on to what they have taken from the rest of the world.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Ken, and welcome to the comments! I agree that “no action will be taken against Israel” in the sense of serious nastiness. However, I beg to slightly differ. I think that the Sec. of the UN talking about “criminal acts” is a sort of action against Israel.

      France pulled out of Algeria as I tried to relate in “Camus Mudified”. mostly because of public opinion. Same thing now with Israel. As long as Israel does not look as bad as the bad guys, and those are in command, Israel will be OK.

      All the more as Israel has the will to fight, something the French from France did not have in the case of the Algerian war.

      Israel’s moral stance is complicated. Israel was mentioned first by the Egyptian about 3,200 years ago, and that was where what’s called Israel is now. It makes Israel more than twice older than Islam it gave birth to. In turn the Muslim faith is obsessed by Judaism… A Gordian knot, and the sword keeps on cutting it.
      PA

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Actions against war crimes can be taken Nuremberg’s style… Or in the style France took it during the Algerian war: massive reprobation, and titanic change of policy (and even Constitution!)

      Thus, although no action, I agree, has been taken against USA war crimes… So far. That does not mean all avenues are forever closed. Same holds for Putin and company.

      But it’s true it’s a question of might, and People of the USA’s might is completely absent at this point.

  3. red Says:

    so who ever wins is right (moral, good) ? The current human species state could have been much better or much worse, we cant simply draw conclusions that this is the best human species could have done. Yeah the evolution took us here, it is the reality, it is what it is. Doesn’t mean we have to repeat the same stuff.

    the last 500 years were increasingly shaped by big money / plutocrats. Democracy was a means(tool) for them , to replace the old monarchism. Its the primary reason it succeeded. Not some grand, planned clash of civilizations / moods/ thoughts.

    Just some big money people (“powerful evolutionary forces”) doing their thing (“Evolving”). The rich-poor gap right now, around the world, is mind-boggling. Lets not mistake this for some blue print.

    2 guys fight. one guy was brought up with peace, empathy towards others, “war is bad” etc.etc. The other guy was taught war from birth, “us -vs- them”. Who do you think will win ? 2nd guy. And for future generation, would we at least TRY a “greater good” approach ? or we just stick with old lesson ? where is human wisdom, growth, betterment ?

    There is no grand plan. Its free will of nature in play. Everything is in motion, everything possible. Human species has a choice which force(s) to nurture. You either always “fight” it , or you accept it. One is struggle, the other FEARLESS bliss. Just because it is possible, does not mean it is a winner / good (for what).

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Red: We do not disagree on the aims. What we disagree on, I don’t even know what it is. However I know that, for many religions (Christianism then, Islam now), the Moon is not a solid body, but an ethereal expression from God.
      I am just saying that the moral, and thought systems, and moods, that survive and dominate, are solid body, and did not do it by happenstance.

      The triumph of the “West Country Men” mindset over the “more civilized” French approach (viewed as much more civilized then, and proudly so), is a case in point. Basically, the French lost, because they were not vicious and corrupt enough. In turn, the “West Country” mindset got to rule ever more.

      As descendants from the West Country Men allied themselves with anti-Semitic Prussia by 1756 CE, there is actually a direct connection to Auschwitz (as I detailed in many essays).

      I try to understand whatever “works” in morality, precisely because I want to go somewhere.

      • red Says:

        I believe what “worked” is not because they triumphed in some wars or became super power, but it is due to innate human tendency to learn and mature. Urge to ease their ignorance/pain. Wealth (and freedom) of a society usually affords the sheeple to explore this. And it so happens, the wealth is procured via wars so far in the history.

        And this is not a skill of only certain races (eg: west), they just happen to be increasingly “full of resources” (aka wealth). And democracy afforded lot of freedom(rights) that would otherwise not be possible (under monarchs, or religious high priests). And plutocrats (the agents of wealth) have not been entirely EVIL, they did their part to unchain the human bondage to old systems of moods/thoughts.

        you just have to let humans be free (from all kinds of misery, economic, social, religious dogmas, etc,etc). They will evolve much faster. And to do this some wars (force) may be required, but it is a last resort “tool” to be used and only in specific cases (radical, religious dictatorships, where there is no hope of forward change).

        There were lot of wards over the human history, as much as 80% probably resulted in misery, waste, unnecessary pain. There is such thing as bad war(s). And they probably are majority, happen as much as 90% of the time. So from practical standout, it is not a smart thing.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          War is always a terrible thing. Yet, there is sometimes good guys, good soldiers, a good side. Not always, sometimes. Germany was twice in a row on the wrong side (1914, 1939). Even worse, there are worse things, sometimes. Like, a worse war (the arch example her is the Franco-British decision to attack Hitler in 1939, instead of waiting until he was ready).

          I am afraid that the CO2 catastrophe is going to lead to wars where there will be no good side.

          • red Says:

            speaking of CO2, here is an excellent speech by uruguayan president ; He also points out why so called western “progress” is not necessarily a good thing. Currently US wages wars (aka liberation) around the world to sustain that called progress/consumerism, and hollywood and US media do their part to preach to all human species around the world. It could be called “progress” by sheeple in US, but what about 1.4 billion sheeple in india wanting the same (western culture fed by US media)…each wanting a nice car, a home, a US like dream. ? Fighting wars for this ?

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              The Uruguayan president is a genuinely good person. He lives in his poor little farm, and obscure little ramshackle house. Interesting experiments are enfolding there, in Uruguay. Thanks for the link.

    • red Says:

      And then there is the whole individual / self evolution thing. War mentality is bad for self growth. You are spending potentially unnecessary energies, resources on deviant ways. These things ripple through everybody close to you, your family, friends, your own happiness. Doesn’t matter you are fighting war with OTHER countries.

      There are good states, and then there are bad states. As an individual, and as a group, the more you assert the good, the more stronger it becomes (evolves). Doesn’t mean we have to get rid of weapons/wars, just means we clearly see it as means. (just like protecting against wild animals). Its strongly preferred we do not revel or worship wars.

  4. gmax Says:

    Andrew: if it amuses u 2 call me Gmin, does that imply I call u Dejecta? Just asking. U came on Patrice blog a little while ago, u don’know Patrice wrote hundreds of pages on love. U seem to never say anything constructive, and u don’t even see Patrice has an impressive anti neocon track record. U should read Tyranosopher

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It’s Andrej, not Andrew. The will to call me a fascist is strong in the east, witness the number of comments from the east which claimed I did not understand the Russian soul, nor the superhero status of the anti-imperialist Vladimir Putin (you know, the ex head of the KGB, whose goons shot down 90 children from the sky recently, along with another 208 passengers, including 100 AIDS specialists).
      PA

      • Andrej Dekleva Says:

        Patrice,

        I have deepest respect for what you’re making on this site, so I want to be very critical of ideas that claim superiority while supporting belligerence and bodybuilding 🙂
        I’m not east-whatever, I’m a global personage with opinions that were shaped on multiple continents.
        I was trying to push it a bit, make it moody, to see how you system of moods responds to actual conflict – but the fact you think love is primary motivation but then history is a tale of wars doesn’t make either case stronger…

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Thanks for the appreciation, Andrej! 😉
          Saying history is, first about systems of moods and thought does not imply, nor can it be reduced to “wars” in the usual sense. Conflicts of (systems of) moods and ideas, sure…

    • Andrej Dekleva Says:

      Thanks Paul,
      I wanted to stir it up a bit, since it’s 100 anniversary of WW1 and yet Patrice had to choose the day to speak of how ‘wars can be a kind of communication’ – just like someone like me tossing out stupid petards and calling it system of moods.

    • Andrej Dekleva Says:

      Yes, I use my real name Gmax, not some porn star sounding dildo name – I’e read so much Patrice and learned a lot from it tat’s why I can’t stand sloppy war mongering that appears at the edges of it’s philosophy – if we all agree with our teachers then they will become despotic.

  5. Paul Handover Says:

    The comments are more fun today than the main show. 😉

  6. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Regarding your:
    “If we want to avoid defaunation, we have to engage in “rewilding”. http://t.co/5aTQauJAwI
    REWILDING US: Rewilding is necessary, not just to instill a mood conducive to saving the planet, but also to remake us in all we are supposed to be.”

    Chris Snuggs: “us”??? Homo Sapiens is made up of the good, the bad and the indifferent. Unfortunately, the good – being good – are not nasty enough to the bad to stop the latter from doing their evil.

    Example: Anyone found killing, shipping or buying a tiger illegally should be hung by the good from the nearest tree or lamppost of their home.

    The indifferent would go along with the good, but the latter are too PC, soggy and generally pathetic to counter the bad, who by their nature don’t give a toss and will do anything to sate their greed, taking advantage of the goodness of the good.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Chris: Thus, indeed, it’s bad to be too good with the bad, a point well known to parents, and even Jesus or Muhammad (see their respective verses of the sword).
      It’s all a matter of balance: how bad this, how bad the proposed remedy, etc.
      PC is OK, and even a factor of progress, yet, pushed too far, it becomes stifling, injurious, or even lethal.

      Whenever humans go down a road, especially when paved too exclusively with abnormally polished good intentions, one has to look ahead where it goes.
      As far as rewilding is concerned, it can be best effected by the richest countries.

  7. EugenR Says:

    If someone has doubt about the fact that clash of civilizations is here he needs to watch the following videos and there are many others.


    If you watch closely the videos, you may come to the conclusion that the Islam is just a glue that puts together these destructive people and not the reason for their aggressiveness. Yet, i am not sure what makes them so aggressive.Maybe of being locked in some preconception, myths or conspiracy theories, that fill them with rage against the whole human civilization. Maybe their limited capacity, to enjoy the comfort, the modernity can provide them, because of their bad luck they had to be borne into a failed society.
    What I am quite sure is that this murderous phenomena is not of some individuals, but whole sectors of societies, that where born and grew up in these failed countries full of despotism and terror on all levels of the society.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Human beings are the most violent creatures on Earth, inhabited by a tremendous Will To Destruction. Some things trigger this. Like with rats, overcrowding, real or perceived, can be an excellent trigger. So is the Will To Survival. The latter can be triggered artificially: see the Germans in 1871-1914 or 1933-1945.

      Terror of course fosters terror, as violence fosters violence, and stupidity, or ignorance, foster stupidity, or ignorance.

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: