Sometimes All You Need Is War

“All You Need Is Love” is worse than hypocrisy. It is the wrong strategy, especially in the worst cases:

War is not fashionable among moral exhibitionists. However, as the Romans noticed more than 2,000 years ago, those who really love peace, prepare for war (Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum).

After the dictatorship of Kaiser Wilhelm II suddenly attacked the world on August 1, 1914, Earl Grey the British Foreign Minister, went to the Commons, and made an excellent speech about joining the war to defend civilization. Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, understood none of it (because like Keynes, or the Kaiser, Russell was on the plutocratic side).

War can be a horrible thing. Even for warriors:

HMS Queen Mary Exploding @ Jutland Battle. Traumatizing Churchill?

HMS Queen Mary Exploding @ Jutland Battle. Traumatizing Churchill?

[Explosion of the British battle cruiser “HMS Queen Mary” during the Battle of Jutland on 31 May 1916. Of the 1,266 crew members, only 20 were rescued. Several British capital ships exploded within minutes during a formidable artillery exchange; the top British admiral in the leading battleship quipped: “Something seems to be wrong with our bloody ships, today.” However, the Royal Navy prevailed, and the German Navy never confronted it again in force.]

Churchill was a serious warrior. It’s not just that he had an anchor tattooed on his arm. He was involved in the Boer War, and was Lord Of the Admiralty (head of the Royal Navy) in World War One. The short of it: fiercely led by Winston, the Royal Navy kept the Kaiser’s Fleet bottled in Germany, and when it tried to come out, it was defeated.

That strangled the Prussian fascists’ war economy, although our frienemies the plutocrats of the USA sold, for a good price, all sorts of war materials to the world conquering Kaiser, through the hypocritically “neutral” Netherlands.

France and Britain were furious, but could not do anything, as the largest ethnic group in the USA was that of Americans of German descent (there are more of them than people of partly sub-Saharan descent, to this day, about 50 million).

France and Britain were not too sure what fancy would catch next their rogue child the USA. After campaigning on the theme “All We Need Is Peace”, president Wilson, ex from Princeton University, apparently felt declaring war to fascism was a better deal, and duly came to the rescue of victory, so it could be stolen from those who had fought the war.

***

WORLD WAR ONE: A PHYRRIC VICTORY FOR FRANCE AND BRITAIN:

Pyrrhus was an Hellenistic adventurer, a plutocrat, a self-styled king, whose services, as an excellent general, complete with an army, were for sale. The Greek cities of Southern Italy got the bad idea to recruit him (it was a bad idea, because the better idea would have been to negotiate with the Roman Republic).

Pyrrhus used elephants and the best professionally trained army, He won his battles against Rome. However, he noticed (paraphrasing):’A few more victories like that, and I will have lost the war’.

The USA won World War One. Nobody else did.

Both France and Britain came out exhausted from World War One. About half of French men had been killed or wounded. 27% of the 18 to 28 year old French were killed in combat. France suffered the highest proportion of dead and wounded of all the powers involved. (Except for Serbia, which lost 33% of its entire population, after the Austro-Hungarian army surged back and forth through Serbia, like a tsunami.)

The British upper class, which leads the country, was full of contradictions: after all the Kaiser, just having fled to its accomplice the Netherlands (naturally) was the grandson of Queen Victoria.

Lord Keynes, a top British diplomat, and money shuffler, came out with a piece of racist trash, “The Economic Consequences of Peace”, which argued that, considering what he viewed as the inferior racial status of Poles, dismembering the imperial exploitation-occupation system set-up by German plutocracy would have an adverse effect on economic activity. (an argument ignorant intellectuals of Jewish descent such as Paul Krugman keep on brainlessly repeating, not knowing they approve Auschwitz, doing so!)

The French leadership was cynical. Blocked by the Anglo-Americans, the French Republic could not obtain the guarantees it needed.

All France got was part of her property on the left bank of the Rhine, and the heart of France (on the grandest historical scale, the entire west bank of the Rhine was Gallic, or, and Frankish; the various partitioning of the left bank were just tricks to enfeeble mighty Francia: even now, with the entire left bank, France would be 100 million strong…)

So France came out of WWI not sure of her allies, and Britain not sure of herself. Only the USA was doing great, guided by pragmatic deal making, and disposing of Germany as if it was its private reserve.

Dr. Schacht, who could be viewed as an agent of JP Morgan (not just the bank, but the man), launched the “Second Reich” (“Weimar”, not really a republic) into hyper-inflation, to pursue war against France by other means. The French reacted by invading (something Krugman, the Jew who has learned nothing important, still finds “unbelievable”). Etc.

***

ANGLO-AMERICAN COLLABORATION WITH NAZISM:

Churchill himself changed enormously. Churchill was pro-Nazi to the point of threatening the French Republic in 1929 with the… Royal Air Force… If the French kept of harassing Germany’s Second Reich (official name of ‘Weimar’!) about its secret re-armament, which violated the Versailles Treaty.

To avoid French eyes, Germany had been re-arming using not just British pets such as Portugal, but even the… Soviet Union; this sorts of situation puts to rest the theory that all there was wrong about Germany was Nazism: at the time, in 1929, the Nazis were not important as a party… But Nazi MENTALITY was already ruling. Actually it had started to rule, even before Hitler was born, as reading Nietzsche’s cogent critiques show all too well…

Churchill himself was Anglo-American (one of his parent was American, the other British).

The exploitation spirit which reigned over Britain and the USA is very old. It was launched in full by the “West Country Men” of the Elizabethan Age. (Initially Elizabeth I got the idea of endowing such men with immense powers, to go, pillage and exploit, using military might that came in handy to defeat the Gran Armada of Spain; that spirit lives to this day: see the private armies people such as Bill Gates invest in secretly, through… Monsanto; the strategy was used in WWIII, with the Flying Tigers, in Vietnam, and recently in Iraq, by Bush, with Black Water/Xe/Academi… the private army now secretly financed by Gates).

This went on until 1936 (in 1935, the British gov. organized a “Naval Treaty” with Hitler, which violated the Versailles Treaty). Hence the fiasco of Munich in 1938, when France was made understand she had to go alone against fascist Germany and Italy (this would have allowed the plutocratic Anglosphere to accuse France again of wanting to attack Germany all the time).

***

BRITAIN UNDERSTANDS IN 1939 THAT KEYNES WAS WRONG:

The UK aligned itself behind France only in 1939, after Spain fell to Hitler’s pet, Franco, and after Hitler invaded all of Czechoslovakia (and not just the Sudeten land)…).

Churchill turned around completely by 1939… But then he became hysterical and did not want to wait for the new planes to reach mass production (he wanted to mass produce obsolete types).

However, Churchill did not allow the assassination, or, let’s say, execution, of Hitler (many top German generals would have been happy to help, and had actually contacted Brits and Americans… who then betrayed them!)

That was a moral mistake. Maybe. Although it could be argued that, differently from World War One, Germany needed a thorough spanking as a civilization, and only being completely crushed, and literally decimated in May 1945, was what the doctor ordered, to express the Nazism out…

***

ALL YOU NEED IS MIND:

“All You Need Is Love” was, with all due respect, mental masturbation of the worst type.

The Beatles (Lennon, PBUH) put “All You Need With Love”) to the sound of the Marseillaise, playing in the arms, the embrace, of the Pitts, Prime Minsters, father and son, who launched a 25 year war against “Liberty Equality Fraternity”.

The Pitts were opposed in Parliament, but their extreme anger at France carried the day, and led to a generation of wars, all around Europe, and the death of more than ten million.

So John Lennon, without knowing anything about it, sided with the enemies of the Marseillaise, and thus for the partisans of that 26 year war, which was a terrible mistake, as Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain, admitted a century later.

Lennon should have read more. Getting the Member of the British Empire medal, was not all there was (he realized this later, and returned his MBE).

Make no mistake, I love the “All You Need Is Love” song, but I despise, and condemn the message.

As I have explained in all directions, Britain was certainly at fault in 1789-1792. As the British armies and Navy, plus the Prussians, Austrians, Russians who invaded France at the call of British plutocrats, invaded France, All The French, And Humanity, needed, was the Marseillaise, and spill the blood of the invaders as happened at Valmy (September 21, 1792) and soon Toulon…

***

WANT GOODNESS? AVOID HYPOCRISY.

Everybody wants goodness to triumph, to the points that some of the greatest tyrants of history, such as Saint Louis, Luther, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, spoke of little else.

Homo is the altruistic animal.

However, it’s also the Dark Side animal. And, to a great extent, the more altruism, the greater the population, and, from this rich soil, the greater the Dark Side.

How to optimize goodness then become a logical problem, even for the most loving minded.

A good rule? Avoid hypocrisy. It gets in the way of truth, thus logic, thus efficient altruism. And make no mistake: loving plutocrats will not help. Ignoring them will not be much better, as they will not ignore you. To get out of the fall into plutocracy will require war. Jihad, as the Islamists say.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Sometimes All You Need Is War”

  1. gmax Says:

    The guy who killed Lennon said at first that he killed him because he was an “hypocrite”. I think you said that yourself in the past. Why did you not mention it here?

  2. dimvisionary Says:

    Avoid hypocrisy, indeed. Another fascinating post, thanks! You may want to reconsider this line: “War can be a horrible thing. Even for warriors” Have you ever been in a fist fight? Have you been in combat? War is hell, Patrice.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the appreciation, dimvisionary!
      I have been bombed. Among other things.
      People in my family got hunted, and killed, including my young uncle who was a big and only brother to me. Lost property, even country.
      War is indeed hell.
      And it could visit all of us, all too soon.
      PA

      • dimvisionary Says:

        War will never leaves until it leaves our hearts and minds. Let the past go, you’ve learned from it. Life is a battle and life is visiting us all right now. Death catches everyone, why rush it?

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The concept of conflict is OK, After all, wisdom itself is conflictual. Wisdom is about optimizing conflict, given an ethologically grounded metaphysics.

  3. EugenR Says:

    War is more than hell. It is a crossroad, where choices have to be made, without a way of return. In the war in every moment a decission has to be made. Every decision can have catastrophic consequences. In the war you never really know what the outcome of the war will be. In war are no winners only loses. At the end someone will come out victorious, and most probably it will be the most evil and the notorious one ( viz. Gingishan, Atila, Sparta, the Muslimans, but also the more recent Stalin, Mauzetung, Pol Pot, etc.). And if it is not enough, also when the ” good” wins the evil, you never now the long term outcome. Lets not forget, war is about gaining political power, and every political power corupts on the long run.
    Yet, sometime a war has to be fought, when the enemies ideology is about your cultural annihilation. This was the case when the Nazism and the Communism were speaking about cultural annihilation and this is the case now when the radical islam, (and I call it radical and not extreme intentionality) is threatening the new after WWII European civilization. But war is about doing acts of cruelty and injustice. Many times you can’t spare the Innocent, because the innocent of today will be your enemy tomorrow, or because to save them while fighting the enemy would cost to many lifes of your own. There are no nice wars, only cruel ones, there is nothing noble in war and in dying on the battlefield. Yet if a war has to be fight, better if you and your soldiers know and believe in the cause of the war. And this is the weakness of the Western side of the war aganst the radical Islam. It is easy to endorse faith in the necessity for cruelty among the hungry and the uneducated people, but hard and almost impossible among the full-fed educated ones. And I don’t remember when in the recent history last time the war winners where the well feed armies. Not in Vietnam, not in Algeria, and not even in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: I agree with your beginning. Yes, war is decision. France hesitated for more than three years, before declaring war to Hitler and his 80 million (or so) crazed out Germans. The Anglosphere did not help, quite the opposite.

      But then you list a panel of notorious losers: Attila lost, big time, twice. Then he had a stroke, and his kingdom vanished. Sparta imploded demographically. Also Sparta was not all bad, in several dimensions (women status, free Athens early on, etc.). Islam has been slowly losing, until very recent times.

      Overall, so far, I think “good” has been winning (if I were a Jew of central European descent, I would feel not so sanguine).

      However, that’s a fragile victory, maybe like the sea going down before the great wave.

      The problem is that standard Islam IS radical Islam. The Islam I knew as a child has been nearly eradicated. Now you see women dressed like tents, even in the USA, who are MD and then consider what she calls “Islamophobia” to be a crime against humanity.(Of course she will, because that makes her interesting and powerful, like these millions of Germanoid women who hysterically supported Hitler, all the way to the hangman…)

      That was in the Silicon Valley major paper today, how all those who fear (phobia) Islam are racist criminals (basically). So the problem is a masochistic tolerance of the intolerable, exactly, without utting it that way, what Hannah Arendt meant with the “Jewish Councils” (Judenraten) and Hitler.
      PA

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Vietnam: the French army did not fight just the Vietminh, but the French communists and the Americans.
      Algeria: a subject I know all too well… Algerians are Africans who call themselves “Arabs” (some of them do!) The French who supported Algerian “Independence” were racists who called themselves “from the left”. Etc. The FNL, the “Liberation Front” has kept Algeria prisoner for more than 50 years, etc. Bouteflika, an original FNL specimen, kept alive by French medicine, is still “president”, etc.
      PA

  4. EugenR Says:

    Yes. As a Jew of central European descent i can’t be sanguine. We as a cultural identity were destroyed and Israel is hardly a compensation for that. Even less a heridetial continuation of what east European Judaism was. Yet the world partly came to its senses after WWII, and created for the time being a new tolerant culture, that can concentrate on creativity and adore multiculturalism, instead of fascism, Communism or other kind of fetishism. But now a new kind of fetishism has penetriting the world scenery. And again their flags are about them or us. But the tolerant multicultural Europe was cached out of guard. They are still asking the question, who is the evil and who is the good. Whom to join, whom to support. Asad or the Suna, Iran or Saudia, Al Sisi or the Muslim Brothers, etc. But if WWII, ended with destruction of the East European jewish culture, now the whole post WWII European culture is on the stake. The perspective for the good is very bleak, so as i said at the beginning I can’t be sanguine.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: Funny thing is that (and I think Netanyahu knows this) France, in more ways than one, is seriously Jewish deep down inside. Although they (Jewish Council, whatever) say there are only 600,000 Jews in France, but I have a feeling it’s much more than that. There are a lot of non-practicing Jews and all sorts of hybridizations in France.

      Marseilles, sort of the Muslim capital, is also the Jewish capital (Paris has 300,000 Jews officially, but it’s a metropolis).

      What went wrong with Islam is very clear in my mind. I can see how to fix it. First, in the case of France, non certified preachers ought to be outlawed. Foreign preachers ought to be jailed, and foreign money for Islam ought to be distributed only through the French Federal government (“Federal” not an official term in France).

      Moreover, all the sacred texts of Islam ought to be revisited, and all the violent stuff, especially the anti-Jew stuff, basically removed as something that can be preached.

      Netanyahu’s silly plan of concentrating all Jews in Israel, a vast ghetto, is not smart, if one thinks just survival of Judaism. Nuclear war is just a matter of time… Except if the West, somehow, succeeds to impose, through heavy, precise bombing (hahaha) a total de-nuclearization of the planet. Right now things are going the exact opposite way (and it’s getting ever easier to produce U235).

      Meanwhile a lot of what propels Israel’s technological superiority is (besides cooperation with the USA) preparation of this nuclear Armageddon…

      What Obama wants to do is to re-anchor the Middle East with Iran, the way it used to be. Netanyahu prefers just to do just with the Saudi-Israel (implicit) alliance. An alliance of extremes. Iran is doing badly economically, and needs sanctions to be lifted, thus USA help. Having Iran in the mix will allow to control the Wahhabists… That’s the idea…

      But that won’t change the fact nuclear war is coming for reasons I will explain in today’s essay.
      PA

  5. PLUTOCRATIC PRINCIPLE MEANS SLAVERY | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] It worked splendidly, until English plutocrats showed up, the “West Country Men“. […]

  6. German Aggression: Straight From Teutons | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] was supposed to happen rather clear: Britain’s Royal Navy could not be defeated (as the Battle of Jutland would demonstrate). Moreover Britain enjoyed a huge empire, let alone a “special relationship” […]

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: