WHOSE WATERLOO WAS IT?

WATERLOO WAS A VICTORY FOR RACISM, BANKSTERISM, And Other Unsung Horrors

This is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. History is our teacher, it’s more instructive, and surprising, than fiction.

Napoleon, at some point, turned into a tyrant, and, just as Roman emperor Augustus, buried the Republic. Or, at least, just as Augustus, much of it. Thus many celebrate Napoleon’s defeat.

However, who won that war? Arguably, Europe’s worst plutocrats, racists, and their banksters. At Waterloo, plutocracy, racism, and banksterism (let alone anti-French sentiment) won. We are living with the consequences. Yet, ultimately, how Napoleon started his career, the Revolution, is winning over civilization. As it has to.

Revolutionary General Napoleon On His Way To Free Italy From Outrageous Plutocracy & Occupation

Revolutionary General Napoleon On His Way To Free Italy From Outrageous Plutocracy & Occupation

Not so coincidentally, a white blonde supremacist youth went to a church in the USA , sat quietly for an hour, and then killed nine people there, just because he did not like their color. He probably did not know his own white skin was a recently acquired trait of darker skin ancestors.

What does racism have to do with Waterloo? Everything. The French Revolution had “black” generals, and so did Napoleon (an excellent example being Alexandre Dumas Senior, a top general). French anti-racism was also defeated at Waterloo.

In 1815, after Napoleon’s defeat, Prussian racist laws were extended to all of Germany. If one were of the wrong race, one could not be a lawyer, a doctor, etc. Karl Marx’s father, who was a doctor, was prevented to exercise as a consequence of anti-racism’s defeat at Waterloo.

Poles, in particular, were the object of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism from the Prussian (that is, “German”) empire. Poland was occupied, dismembered, treated worse than most African nations would be treated later under colonialism.

Napoleon went to military school under king Louis XVI, at age nine. He and his elder brother, did not see Corsica again, nor their family, for six years. After it was checked that the Buonaparte family belonged to the Corsican nobility, Napoleon and Joseph attended for free. Napoleon came out as an artillery officer. He stayed in the army as the Revolution happened.

In April 1792, all the plutocrats of Europe attacked France, although France was still, nominally, a Constitutional Monarchy headed by Louis XVI. In that period, Napoleon found himself in Corsica, trying to control Pasquale Paoli, the “dictator” of Corsica, who had led the ephemeral Republic there, before it had been expelled by Louis XVI’s army. Paoli had gone to live in England, handsomely paid by the British government. Twenty years later, the Revolution allowed Paoli to come back. Napoleon, an active Jacobin, organized elections which Paoli president. However, soon enough, Paoli was heading a weird “British Corsican” kingdom.

In July 1792, unbelievably the Duke of Brunswick, who led the plutocratic coalition against Revolutionary France, threatened to “execute” and submit to horrible “supplices” the entire population of Paris.

This is why Auschwitz was not an accident. Nor was the attack on Paris of Kaiser Wilhelm II in August 1914. Threatening publicly to torture to death Europe’s largest city, just because it enjoyed a revolution, was clearly the official launch of the Prussian Will to Genocide. (This did not come out of the blue: the initial invasion of Pagan Prussia by the Christian Teutonic Knights, the Prussian Crusade, was an extremely bloody affair, capped by a genocide of the natives.)

In Fall 1793, British and Spanish forces had seized Toulon. Napoleon, then a 24 year old captain, insisted that the two preceding generals be fired. His battle plan was finally implemented. It worked superbly. The British commanding general was captured, the British and Spanish fleets had to flee under the fire of red hot cannon balls (balls were heated in special ovens so that, when they landed inside a ship, they would set it on fire; many British boats exploded during the attack, some scuttled so that the French could not seize the munitions; the Brits had brought enough explosives to destroy everything on their way to Paris).

Napoleon was severely wounded during the assault by a British bayonet which went through his thigh. He kept on fighting.

After the victory and healing, Napoleon was convoked by the top generals. Wines, and a great meal were served. Laughing, the high command told the Corsican youth to change first to his brand new general’s uniform.

Often the Brits gloat that they saved the world against tyranny, by defeating Napoleon. Well, on the face of what happened in the following 130 years, not so. Prussia, Britain’s pet monster, came back to bite everybody. But not just that. The truth? British armed forces were on the side, of racism, fascism, plutocracy, imperialism, banksterism and exploitation. And this is what launched Napoleon.

Another lie, by the way, is that the Netherlands and Belgium were freed of France… by defeating the French.

Indeed, the Belgiae were always part of Gallia, Gaul, and the Franks were Dutch. Not just this, but, in an eighty year war, France around 1600, freed the Netherlands from Spain (before that the most powerful land army). If France had not been around to intervene each time the Spanish army attacked the Netherlands, the Dutch would be speaking Spanish.

As a telling aside, Edward III of England (grandson of Philippe IV Le Bel of France) launched the so-called 100 year war, at the urging of the count of Artois, who used to fight in a bright red costume and armor, just to make sure his combative nature was fully in evidence. He had been deprived of his land by the King of France. Artois’ land were fully in present day Belgium. Belgium was created, after Napoleon’s defeat, just to weaken France. The obvious truth, in the fullness of history, considering the jurisdiction given to the Francks in 400 CE by the Roman government, the entire west bank of the Rhine is clearly French.

The creation of the Netherlands and Belgium, to a great extent correspond to the attempt of creating a British controlled Provence in 1793.

The inheritance of Napoleon is mixed. Napoleon’s own younger brother Lucien, when he was 17, wrote prescient words about the danger his brother could become. However flawed, his unification of Europe worked in more ways than one. Germany found itself united, and liked it. Poland found itself sort of free, and certainly not grievously racially discriminated against, and loved it. Italy was united, and loved it too (Napoleon III would throw the Austrian plutocrats out at the battles of Magenta and Solferino, in 1856, making, Italy free and whole again).

The invasion of Russia was made necessary by Alexander III’s behavior, and on-going British interference. It failed for similar reason as Athens’ war with Sparta failed: a plague (of unknown nature for Athens, typhus for the Grande Armee). Napoleon’s greatest mistake, was to bend over backwards to integrate the old European nobility plutocracy inside his supranational state. He may as well have tried to cohabit with snakes in his bed.

“It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.” the Duke of Wellington, speaking of the battle of Waterloo (which was lost because Marshall Grouchy and his 30,000 man army got lost, and the Prussian Blucher 50,000 men intervened instead).

“Waterloo is not a battle; it is the changing face of the universe.” Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables.

And the universe did not change for the best. The idea of European supranational state was defeated at Waterloo, and replaced by racism, plutocracy, banksterism, etc. It made both Great Britain and the USA superpowers, while greatly dismantling France, as the War of the Spanish Succession finishing in 1713 already had .

Guess what? The supranational European state is back. Prussia and its racism were been annihilated in 1945. Instead, the German Republic became exactly what the French revolutionaries of 1792 wanted to see next door. And Napoleon was one of these French Revolutionaries. What Napoleon and Grouchy did not succeed to do in 1815, was done by other as Allies and extensions of the French Republic, in 1945.

Now, having saved the ruling banksters, we are being told by the dictators who govern us, that the Greeks need to be punished some more.  And the Republic of South Africa let the war criminal heading Sudan escape (in violation of the International Criminal Court, something undermined by the refusal of the USA to participate, an apparent admission that the policy of the USA is firmly committed to war criminality, looking forward…).

Napoleon started his career fighting for independence, freedom, and against plutocracy. But one does not fight hell with flowers. Napoleon vastly overshot on the Dark Side. In 1815, human rights were defeated, and the way to Auschwitz, cleared. However, the tide has turned in 1945 (after much French sacrifice, and more than 100 million killed in the 1914-45 war).

It’s time for the right side to win more Waterloos. Not only do we need a European Supranational state, but we need a World Supranational state. And it needs to be led by the best ideals of Revolutionary France. The rest is hopeless babble heading irresistibly to humanity’s Waterloo.

Patrice Ayme’

Nota Bene: .17% of the Chinese (PRC) population is incarcerated. 3% of the population of the USA is either incarcerated, or on probation. The world’s highest rate. Plutocracy financed by banksters, also translates as incarceration violence.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

11 Responses to “WHOSE WATERLOO WAS IT?”

  1. gmax Says:

    France’ s defeat at the hands of Europe’s nobles unleashed racism? Yes, well the detestable French fostered “EQUALITY”. Including racial equality. That’s unfortunate. French armies led by black generals were certainly a vision of apocalypse. Last judgment could not be far behind

  2. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Chris Snuggs: Sorry. Any tin-pot general who declares himself to be Emperor and sends imperial soldiers bulldozing and massacring and subjugating entire countries to his rule is a fascist. What the hell was he doing invading Russia, for example? Had he stayed in France history might have treated him better. He had the chance to repair the damage of the revolution and build a free, prosperous and maybe democratic society in France, and he totally blew it with his grandiose delusions of imperial grandeur. Thank God Wellington prevailed and sent him to rot in exile.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Chris: Maybe you should read what I wrote, which is deep, cogent, and unusual, instead of charging stale windmills. What in the hell where the British doing, invading Corsica and Provence in Fall 1793????? Or Brunswick threatening to annihilate Paris in July 1792. Repeating always the same things at the same level of analysis, little different from insults, does not promote establishing the truth of what happened. In general. Not just about the REVOLUTION.

    • EugenR Says:

      Dear Chris, let me ask you, why you think a general, becoming a self proclaimed leader is less legitimate, than a half retarded kings (viz comment bellow) getting to their position due to “inherited rights”?

  3. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, with most of what you write about Napoleon i do agree, as expressed in my comment in one of your previous essays;

    https://rodeneugen.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/napoleon-and-all-the-rest/

    Yet, the Bonapartism phenomena (later called fascism) invented by Napoleon need much deeper analysis, than expressed in your article above. Bonapartism by itself is an other form of centrally managed authoritarian, despotic reign of a political entity, that prevailed (with very few short time exceptions like Athens) in the human history.
    You write about the success of the French revolution to create the post war united European democracy. I have to disagree. The main contribution of France, be it by Louis XVI or latter the revolutionary France is its support for creation of US, the only real democratic political entity in human history that the world had to reckon with. This wonder of creating democratic US out of nowhere, when all around where ruled by crazy kings (George III), anachronistic Habsburgs, militarized Prussians, or retarded Ottoman rulers, happened not due to French revolution (which broke out latter), but due to the intellect, integrity, and commitment to human rights to all (except to African-Americans) of the US founding fathers.
    US, with all its faults, like slavery, plutocratization of the politics etc. made the world to a better place to live in. Unfortunately, as i am watching from distance the today’s political happenings in US, rising the flag of anti intellectualism and denial of scientifically evident truths about in the world, that is so much opposing all the principles the founding fathers of US believed in, i am not very hopeful about the capacity of US to fulfill their historical mission.

    Back to Bonapartism, rather than expressing my views about the subject i would ask some questions;

    1. How come the majority of humans, educated or non, are so easily ready to give up their right for free choice and follow some self proclaimed fuhrer? Maybe after all there is no free choice for the humans, as most of the scientists and philosophers believe in, in these days?

    2. Does religious or ideological faith necessarily leads to a despotism?

    3. Does a centrally managed political entity have to bring abuse of power of its leaders?

    4. Can a political leadership sustain in power for more than a decade, and not to base its political legitimacy on mafioso style practices?

    5. And the final and ultimate question is, could the world create a whole world united universal social grouping, without be ruled by any political structures?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have been, over the years, very anti-Napoleon (see my exchanges on this with Dominique Deux). I hold by my old critiques. However, the other side is as ugly, if not worse, because he got it started.

      BTW, I modified and de-typed the essay extensively, so I don’t know which version you got.

      Calling the USA a democracy is tongue in cheek: see the incarceration rate. 8 million people in the USA are actively punished by the justice system. Calling the most incarcerating country on Earth, the only true democracy is neither here nor there. In 1939, France tried to destroy Hitler, the USA fed him. This is no light critique: if the USA had declared war with France and Britain to Hitler, Hitler would have fallen, 70 million people would have been saved, including European Jews.

      The USA is arguably more an oilocracy than a democracy. The Founding Fathers were OK, the generation immediately before them, greater.

      A lot of human behavior is explained by fact I consider to be the FASCIST INSTINCT.

      The whole world should learn to use INTERRNET DEBATING, formally to decided political questions.

      • EugenR Says:

        I think we have 100% agreement. The founding fathers where all right, even Jefferson in-spite of his double standards policy, that had disastrous consequences, when enabled slavery in new territories acquired by him from France. I think the US policy made a negative turn after WWI with Warren G. Harding being elected. It showed to the politician and the public, that politicians with right marketing, even if the candidate is just a good looking wrap, empty from inside can win the elections. After him even Bush the Junior could be excepted as president, even twice, while his much more capable father, was elected only once.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The father got elected once, because he was more reasonable. The son was dirty, so got elected twice. Namely Bush Senior had to rise taxes, so he did (as Reagan had, before). G W Bush just activated the fascist instinct in the population of the USA, and ran away with it, thanks to lies which, although not as extreme as Hitler’s, were way up there.
          What both G W Bush and A Hitler did was to make the population partake in lying, made them complicit in it. Then the entire population becomes co-conspirators.

          Slavery, as established in the USA, has no excuses. Especially the horrendous racial slavery. None, whatsoever. Napoleon turned to the Dark Side quite a bit too much: but he had plenty of excuses. As I pointed out, Great Britain’s plutocracy Chris is so blindly enamored with, spent years attacking and occupying parts of France (1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, etc.), from the Atlantic coast to the Mediterranean coast.

          The USA racist slavery had consequences, even in Europe. So did the holocaust of the First American nations: they inspired directly, and explicitly, the Nazis. The Holocaust of the Jews was thus, partly, a consequence of what happened in North America. For all their defects, the Spaniards, the Conquistadores, never went that far, and, when some of them did, it was hotly contested at the time. And judicial decisions were taken, inside Spain to either stop the conquest, the holocausts, or the perpetrators of said holocausts.

          For example the general who had destroyed the pacific nation west south-west of the Aztecs, got demoted completely. He went down to his grave, decades later, claiming he had been right, because Catholic Spaniards would have otherwise shared Mexico with a Pagan Mesoamerican First Nation. But the point is that he got demoted, deprived of all power, and thus his exterminating policies were condemned. Nothing like that in the USA: notorious holocausters and enslavers were, and are, revered to this day.

          Not so Founding Fathers of the USA. They had no excuse. Their country was not under attack. They attacked. They were just motivated by greed.

  4. Patrice Ayme Says:

    “History is our teacher, it’s more instructive, and surprising, than fiction.”

    Chris Snuggs: In dictatorships, history IS fiction.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme Thus, as we are clearly dictated to, our history ought to be fiction, as indeed it is. Watch George III of the UK, making himself sovereign of Corsica, starting in 1793, for further enlightenment. Or then the Greek public made to pay back loans of the Troika contracted as the latter refloated French, German (and also British) banks who had lost their money, and much more, to fellow plutocrats…

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: