No Assimilation: Racism & Destruction

We have to be guided by history. The present ecological, plutocratic, immigration and Islamist crises (in order of importance) are informed by history. However neither our delusional “leaders” nor the herds they guide know enough history to inform decisively the present crises. Verily, history is the best teacher.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were also guided by history, but we are in a much more advantageous position than they were: history in Greco-Roman times was at most 1,000 year old. Now the history we know of, much of it from increasingly detailed archeological work, is more than 10,000 years old.

An example: detailed archeology, recently done, revealed that the Late Roman empire was much richer than previously believed. There was no evidence of economic decay, far from it. So the catastrophes which struck it in the Sixth Century were of a different nature than Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Diocletian Baths

The Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Franks were stuck by the story of Troy, which was the limit of what they thought they knew for sure (modern archeology has not decisively determined the exact events of Troy’s adventures: it’s a work in progress). But they did not really know the truth: soon thereafter the “Greek Dark Ages” nearly obliterated history.

Something was learned though: the Franks (barely) avoided the total collapse which had struck the Greeks 15 centuries earlier. The Franks (like the Romans before them) claimed they descended from Troy. Whether that’s true or not, what they meant is that they knew how to avoid catastrophe.

And they did.

How did the Franks do it? By NOT doing what the Romans had done. Or, more exactly, by doing civilization in the spirit of Ancient Republican Rome, not the degenerated  self-obsessed imperial fascism of emperor Commodus and his successors.

I am a bit unfair to the successors here: Commodus perpetuated a mood actually launched by Augustus himself: Augustus, differently from his great uncle, Julius Caesar, had not understood the necessity to expand the empire. Augustus explicitly advised his successors to NOT conquer Germany. The advice was respected, and therein all the problems of Rome.

Had the Romans made a determined effort to conquer Germany, they would have had to reinstitute the Republic in full. If the Republic had been reconstituted, in full, Roman governance would have been much smarter, and capable of solving the problems thrown at Rome.

Thus, when speaking of war, and whining about it, the herd forgets that democracies make war best (as the Athenians demonstrated at Marathon, when they charged irresistibly the immense multitude of fascist imperial Persian storm troopers).

Thus, to push things a bit, to make war better, one has to make democracy better. Thus the army was an important factor of de-segregation in the USA.

Speaking of segregation, that was the problem which killed Rome the most. The Romans had basically renounced ASSIMILATING the Germans. Germans were viewed as hopeless, yet too strong, barbarians.

The analogy with what is going on today is total. The Germans came in with their own legal systems, their own Sharias. The Romans respected that. So states within the state grew (a bit as has been observed in France and especially Belgium, where at least one city should be de-Islamized).

And why were the Germans so strong? Because the state had grown weak, from not taxing the hyper-rich enough. Just like now. Lack of taxation of the hyper-rich has made Europe weak. Military weak. Germany is going to send 650 soldiers in Mali, to relieve the French Army there (which then will be able to attack the Islamist State). One is talking about pathetically small numbers here, for a country as large as today’s Germany. Meanwhile the French don’t have enough air refueling capacity to bomb as much as they could (Germany there is speaking to provide air refueling for the French Air Force).

When the Roman state decomposed in the “Occident”, very small numbers of warriors were involved, roughly equivalent to those the Islamist State and its various faction have.

Verdict: one has to forcefully assimilate, and make the Republic stronger, as needed to do so. Both phenomena are entangled.

And don’t try to assimilate Islam instead: that was tried before. Not just with Islam, but Christianism itself: to convert Germans to the empire, the Roman leaders (Constantine and his successors) used Christianism. Christianism is a sort of superstitious republicanism claiming all men are equal, under fascist god, etc…  Well, it did not work: Christianism devoured civilization, and did so, in particular, in the Orient. The Orient was suddenly destroyed, within a generation by the wars, and the weakness, physical, intellectual and moral, which fanatical Christianism brought. In particular it brought Islam (just read the Qur’an, Muhammad himself explains it very well!)

I am perfectly aware that the ignorant view assimilation as racism. This mentality was launched by a herd of European pseudo-philosophers who loved fascism (either Kaiser, see the deluded Bertrand Russell, Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin style). Loving fascism provided them with perks, including from American pluto-imperialism (which was delighted to see proper critique replaced by non-sense).

That assimilation was racism has been the main driving force to create racism and segregation in French society (against the very people those who denounced assimilation pretended to protect!) Same, and worse in Belgium, a state representing well the sort of degeneracy which affected Rome. Actually Belgium’s only justification, as I have explained many times, was to weaken France, by cutting off from it the fiercest part of Gaul (“Gallia”; reference on that: Julius Caesar). It’s working splendidly: France nearly lost the two world wars against fascist Germany thanks to the existence of Belgium as a mentally, and militarily tiny independent kingdom.

(For those who do not understand the preceding paragraph: all the recent terrorism in France was planned in Belgium, by pseudo, unassimilated “Belgians”, who were simply barbarians educated by the Sharia.)

Hollande seems to be taking his war against the Islamist State seriously; that’s a political U-turn: just as Rome needed to conquer Germany, the empire needs to reconquer the Orient . Because, indeed, before it got subjugated by Islam, with the results presently observed, the Orient was to Rome, and before that to the Macedonio-Greeks, and, even before, to the Zoroastrians (I don’t expect the admirers of the late Edward Said to understand any of this).

Philosophy has to guide. Philosophy which knows history, and thought about it, that is. But force is to observe that most so-called philosophers of the Twentieth Century knew no history, or then so little, that they could use it to justify their madness (this is an attack against Michel Foucault, Althusser, etc.). Simone de Beauvoir, who knew enough history to teach it to all of France under the fascist Vichy regime, was rightly infuriated by Foucault’s distortions of history. Now all these obnoxious, and cruel, self-obsessed dwarves are viewed as pinnacles of wisdom. No wonder our politicians went mad. Now they have to quit the Fourth Century Roman political line they have been repeating.

And be happy! Or the strength will not be found. One has to learn to be happy through the worst. Especially when it’s only bad news affecting others.

Patrice Ayme’   

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

20 Responses to “No Assimilation: Racism & Destruction”

  1. Gmax Says:

    So you turn a century of wishy-washy logic on its head, and well… I am sure you know Russell is a hero of the left?

  2. indravaruna Says:

    The jews have always been allied with the Gentile Elites, the anti-jewish persecutions in the Middle-Ages were the result of the exploited European lower classess fighting back against jewish usury.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, the fault initially came from Christianism, and, indeed Judaism, even more. The latter forbid usury to JEWS. The Christians imitated that. Thus Christians could not lend to Christians, and Jews could not lend to Jews. Thus Jews lent to Christians. Being the only bankers, Jews, some of them, became richer.

      However the Salafist hysteria of the First Crusade was mostly culprit. (If you will forgive the shocking identification of literal Christian to Salafist, because that’s all they were).

      The Jewish phenomenon in Europe was mostly propelled by Christians who became Jews by converting (that gave them more religious freedom). The Christian/Religious hysteria was entangled with a growth of the Feudal/Plutocratic system in Europe (at the end of the Eleventh Century). For a while Abelard, the philosopher considered there was in some ways more freedom among Muslims. (Although a Christian could become a Jew in 1000 CE, without punishment, a Muslim trying the same trick would be executed. Anyway Abelard stayed put, and fought the fascist Saint Bernard.)

  3. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “One has to learn to be happy through the worst. Especially when it’s only bad news affecting others.”

    Chris Snuggs:

    My entries in the “Find an acronym for ISLAM” competition …

    SCUM – Sick Cult of Unhinged Muslims

    SCUD – Sick Cult of Death

    MUCK – Men Unhinged by Cult of Killing

    EVIL – Evil and Violent Islamic Law

    VILE – Violent Islamic Law of Evil

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I just heard a famous French commentator on TV say that nothing the Islamist State does, has to do with the Qur’an. I am sure he never read it. Why do criminals have a monopoly of the mass media? Because it’s a crime to say huge lies which get millions killed…

  4. aaron Says:

    great post…i always thought that Salian (from the sea) law was not from rome at all, but to explain where it came from, and why, is a very long story……

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Aaron: I love long story, obviously, and that’s why I cut them in so many little essays…
      My understanding of the early Franks is that they were a confederation, made up country . (Actually, there were two of them.) The fiercest were the Salian Franks. They were the first Vikings. They raided up rivers, on their ships, deep in Gallia and Hispania, infuriating the Romans. That was around 250 CE. By 300 CE, Constantine’s father was in full war against the expanding Franks, and soon he was too. However, he had made peace with them by 310 CE, and associated them to his army to conquer the entire empire.

      By then the Franks had Salian law. But it was written in Latin, and obviously by Roman generals cum lawyers. Then the law kept expanding into a formidable opus, comprising 60 chapters by 600 CE. Salian Law superseded Roman law, when they got in conflict. Meanwhile, Salian law was applied to everybody (not just the Franks) by 600 CE, since then, everybody was a Franks. Simultaneously the Roman Law reviewed by Justinian replaced all the morass of older Roman law…
      See old reproduction of chapters in Salian/Salic law in:
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/secular-egypt-civilized-egypt/

      (BTW, the recommendation therein that essay, to OUTLAW the MUSLIM Brotherhood was followed!)

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      And thanks! Appreciation is always appreciated…

  5. picard578 Says:

    BTW, I know this is not exactly a post for it but… I believe that Paris attacks were designed to push through TTIP, as France was a major obstacle to it.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Picard, spaceship captain: I don’t think France is an adversary to TTIP [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership]. France, whatever “France” means (the political spectrum is very wide and very deep in France, from people who cry about Joan of Arc, to people who want to roast her faster such as yours truly, from people who regret Syrian armies were annihilated in France between 721 CE and 748 CE, to those who want to annihilate Islam altogether).

      I personally believe that any French citizen could be employed in the USA and any USA citizen employed in France, or, more generally, the EU, and so on.

      I am a conspiracy theorist second to none, but, precisely, I do not subscribe to extremely unlikely, to the point of uselessness, contrived logics. The basic problem with the Qur’an is as I explained: kill unbelievers, sit next to God afterwards, and go to the Paradise, for sure (after a delay). When you expose 1.2 billion people to this insanely criminal logic, many people, especially if they are told by top intellectuals in the West , are going to act on it.hat this should be extended the greatest respect, are going to act on it.

      That this Islam can be manipulated, used as a tool, no doubt. The oilocrats did this, as early as 1945:
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/great-bitter-lake/

      The main target of the Paris attacks was the stadium, the Stade de France, and that failed, because the terrorists were LATE (it happens). As the Qur’an told them they could attack at 9pm, that was already too late… As they interpreted it as the beginning of action (they should already have been in place).
      They learned and the next attacks were planned in the largest malls in Paris, but the police and secret services were able to find them out before they could strike again. The ringleader, a Belgian from a rich family, was up high in the Islamist State, very famous, and was killed in the Paris RAID raid.

      TTIP could be turned into a good thing, if the “P” does not stand for “Plutocracy”.

      • picard578 Says:

        Actually, not preventing already known attacks and using them to promote completely unrelated things is an old staple of Western corporate overlords. US politicians did everything to provoke Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (sanctions, threats, moving the Pacific fleet from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor). Then they used the attack to declare the war on Japan and Germany – at the same time when US financial and industrial sectors were busy collaborating with Hitler (and that collaboration continued until 1945). You can find other examples as well. Then there are outright false flag operations and falsifications, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

        Regarding France and TTIP, France actually refused to sign TTIP about a year ago. There were also, recently, demonstrations against TTIP in Berlin. I am very wary of believing that events which so deeply influence each another are coincidences. Western corporatists have long understood that they can use shocking events to push through unpopular policies.

        And US are one of major supporters of ISIL (so-called “moderate opposition” in Syria does exist, but is very small – many of the groups US count under it are either affiliated by ISIL or part of it).

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Picard: Arguably, Japan, by invading French Indochina (a sort of American protectorate, as the USA had recognized Vichy in a hurry), and by waging for years an attempt at conquering all of China, had clearly engaged in hostilities. The attack of Pearl Harbor (an attack of little military value, as only invading the entire Hawaiian archipelago would have made sense) was a sideshow, the main attack was towards Indonesia (where the oil was). If the fleet had been in San Francisco, the attack towards Indonesia would have had to happen anyway. As it was, and since the carriers were out, Pearl Harbor had nearly no tactical effect on USA operations.

          Even after Pearl harbor, December 7, the USA did not declare war to Hitler. Hitler declared war TO the USA, December 11. He did this probably out of despair, and to encourage the Japs (?) At this point his armies had stalled in view of the Kremlin, and 250,000 extremely well trained Siberian troops, knowing since a few weeks that the Jape were not attacking, were heading towards Moscow.

          France is very strong about the “CULTURAL EXCEPTION”, and succeeded to impose it. The country is crammed with large companies which would profit from the TTIP. French start-ups would also profit tremendously from the TTIP (small French market and systematic stealing by USA start-ups has been a problem.)

          Supporting “moderate” Muslims has been a problem as the Islamist State pout a gun, and the Qur’an, to their heads…

          • picard578 Says:

            “Dear Picard: Arguably, Japan, by invading French Indochina (a sort of American protectorate, as the USA had recognized Vichy in a hurry), and by waging for years an attempt at conquering all of China, had clearly engaged in hostilities.”

            That is indeed true, and for the record, I do not believe US actions against Japan were inappropriate. But to call the Pearl Harbor attack “unprovoked” is a falsehood, plain and simple.

            “If the fleet had been in San Francisco, the attack towards Indonesia would have had to happen anyway. As it was, and since the carriers were out, Pearl Harbor had nearly no tactical effect on USA operations. ”

            Two things here:
            1) Original Japanese plan called only for a limited action against the Dutch Indonesia while deliberately avoiding conflict with European major powers and USA. It was only after Japanese decided that US and UK would probably act to prevent any Japanese action in that direction – overall US posture, embargo and all, was a good indicator of that; as for UK, it also had major interests in the area and had, as I recall, even made some statements about supporting the US – that they decided a preventive strike against Pearl Harbor, Philipines and Singapore.
            2) Carriers are not that relevant, truth be told. Early on they mostly acted as glorified cargo ships anyway. Far greater mistake that Japanese made was not attacking fuel depots and maintenance&repair facilities inside Pearl Harbor. Had they done that, carriers would have been in good part neutralized even without sinking them, and perhaps more importantly, US submarines would have been far less effective as well (once US learned how to operate submarines properly, they did more damage to Japanese warfighting capability than the entire rest of the US military forces in Pacific combined).

            “At this point his armies had stalled in view of the Kremlin, and 250,000 extremely well trained Siberian troops, knowing since a few weeks that the Jape were not attacking, were heading towards Moscow.”

            Yes, Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack Siberia. But Japanese had made a mistake of trying to attack USSR before, and they didn’t want to repeat that mistake again. So they made a whole new mistake instead.

            “Supporting “moderate” Muslims has been a problem as the Islamist State pout a gun, and the Qur’an, to their heads…”

            True…

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              U.S. submarines worked extremely well. It’s their torpedoes which did not explode, for the first year, or so.

              There were supposed to be THREE strikes against Pearl Harbor. Only two were conducted. The Japanese admiral (later to head the Kamikaze corps) lost his cool. Why? He knew the crews had tried hard to destroy a “carrier” which won’t sink (it was a target battleship, with 3 meters of concrete on top), and the carriers were nowhere to be found.
              However, spies had said the three carriers were in Pearl Harbor, just prior (they came back in the evening).

              The Japs should have:
              Attacked when the ships were manned, sending 40,000 expert crewmen to the bottom of the sea (as Nimitz pointed out; instead they attacked Sunday morning when 90% of the crews were on shore leave).

              Destroyed the dry docks (that was planned for the third strike)

              Destroyed the fuel tank farm (5 miles away). One plane could have done it, by strafing.

              Searched for the carriers, and destroyed them. The Jap torpedo planes carried the excellent Long Lance torpedo.

              At Midway, the Japs went the other way: they took enormous risks, deliberately ignoring the possibility to be jumped on by THREE American carriers (and they left the battleships behind, although they could have help protect the carriers). In that case, as the Japs were obsessed by Midway, the atoll, they did not fan out to find the carriers, as they could have at Pearl Harbor. As it was the Enterprise and the Hornet were just 80 miles away (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

              At Midway, 6 Japs carriers sank, and the best Jap crews burned. End of the war for Japan.

            • picard578 Says:

              “U.S. submarines worked extremely well. It’s their torpedoes which did not explode, for the first year, or so.”

              They were also not properly utilized. During the Japanese invasion of Phillipines, US had forty or so large cruiser submarines present, which could have at the very least been used to patrol approaches to the archipelago and warn of the Japanese operations. Instead, they stayed in the port until being evacuated to Australia.

              “Attacked when the ships were manned, sending 40,000 expert crewmen to the bottom of the sea (as Nimitz pointed out; instead they attacked Sunday morning when 90% of the crews were on shore leave).”

              They did so to reduce their own casualties and to minimize the chance of being discovered and attacked just as they were preparing their own attack – after all, that is when carriers are at their most vulnerable. Still a mistake, though.

              “At Midway, 6 Japs carriers sank, and the best Jap crews burned. End of the war for Japan.”

              End of the war for Japan was first when they attacked the Pearl Harbor, and then when they did not take Port Moresby. Midway was just the final blow.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Indeed, I forgot the Battle of the Coral Sea, where the “Lady Lex” was lost, but the Japanese invasion of Australia crushed.
              The torpedoes were not exploding. After furious USA captains insisted that this was happening, tests were made, and, indeed, the torpedoes were not exploding.

              The initial (hare brained) idea was that the USA would negotiate after losing its Pacific Fleet. However, not a carrier was touched. Plus, Roosevelt had ordered the construction of 24 FLEET CARRIERS in 1933 (!) A little known fact. So the USA had plenty of carriers coming down the pipe, plus a very deep reservoir of trained aero-naval pilots (to accommodate said huge fleet) The idea was to have enough fleet carriers to rule both oceans.

              There was also the little problem that the USA was a democracy, not a plutocratic dictatorship (as Japan was). By attacking the USA, the Japanese dictatorship attacked We The People of the USA. There was no negotiation possible between a few tyrants and We The People. The Islamist State has committed the same mistake in the last few weeks, in Paris and California.

            • picard578 Says:

              “However, not a carrier was touched. Plus, Roosevelt had ordered the construction of 24 FLEET CARRIERS in 1933 (!) A little known fact. ”

              Just as important is the fact that after the attack Roosevelt forced the US Navy (which hated the idea) to build escort carriers – over a hundred of them. This meant that a) US were capable of countering the German submarine threat (submarines were basically submersible surface boats back then) and b) all fleet carriers were free for major operations, whereas Japanese had to use some of their carriers for convoy duties. He also forced the conversion of nine light cruisers into the Independence class carriers, which gave the US Navy needed punch until the Essex class came in numbers. Again, that was against the wishes of flag-rank morons in the “Washington Navy” (USN officers serving as bureocrats in Washington; unlike line officers – who command the ships and fleet units – they tend to have their heads in the clouds, and unlike line officers, they also have a say in designing the fleet).

              “The Islamist State has committed the same mistake in the last few weeks, in Paris and California.”

              Was it really a mistake? US and France seem to have put more effort in the high-altitude strategic bombardment campaign as a result, which is certain to create more terrorists and help ISIL (which is a typical pattern with such campaigns).

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              My understanding was that they have been much much more careful with precision bombing. Most flights, by far, are reconnaissance. The French hit specifically the highly prized camps and installations for foreign jihadists, and that totally enraged the Islamist State, as early as September. The Rafales carry these reconnaissance pods…
              The USA succeeded to target a particularly high profile jihadist with a drone strike, showing a great ability to visualize what is going on.

              To come back to FDR. He was secretary of the navy in WWI. Clearly the choices you exposed (the Independence class, the escort carriers, and the 24 fleet carriers) were astoundingly bold and extremely correct.
              Compare with the insanity of the F35 (all eggs in the same rotten basket). The American carriers were superior to the Jap carrier: the USA carriers had armored, steel decks (Japs were in wood!). After Corral Sea, the Lady Lex having been lost to fire (and many were furious she was scuttled), the gasoline pipes were then filled with nitrogen when in combat. And so on.

              The Islamist attacks in Paris were planned for a while. Clearly out of rage from ultra precise French bombing and special forces(in Africa: Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, and French trained Chadian troops intervening even against Boko Haram and Iraq). Proof? ISIL wasted some of their most precious jihadists in said attacks, exposed their networks and various tricks (putting terrorists in migrant flow, etc.)

              The French are not the Americans. They won’t let go. They are starting to understand what’s at stake: watch their philosophers (finally) turn against Islam.

            • picard578 Says:

              “The French hit specifically the highly prized camps and installations for foreign jihadists, and that totally enraged the Islamist State, as early as September.”

              Sounds nice. Though as far as I have found, many targets were either abandoned or false targets. Unavoidable when bombing from high altitude, but at least France is trying to minimize civilian casualties, unlike US. Still, a lack of a specialized CAS platform, A-10-type, has shown itself in all recent French interventions.

              “The American carriers were superior to the Jap carrier: the USA carriers had armored, steel decks (Japs were in wood!).”

              Actually, wrong for the most part. Most US carriers had wooden flight decks as well (IIRC, Midway class was the first to have armored flight deck, after British Illustrious class proved its utility; Lexington, Yorktown, Independence and Essex classes all had wooden flight decks); armored strength deck was just below the hangar. However, US had significantly superior damage control and general construction practices compared to Japanese.

              “The Islamist attacks in Paris were planned for a while.”

              Only question is by whom (ISIL is most likely just a proxy). It is rather… interesting that they happened just as TTIP is being pushed through. And it seems the situation is a bit more complex than even I had expected.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              On the armored decks of carriers: it’s all over the map. Some had armored flight decks (Saratoga, Hornet. etc.), some had armored hangar decks (for lowering center of mass, seaworthiness. However, as you say, US carriers were much harder to sink than the Jap carriers, they could sustain extreme damage (all of them did, only the Yorktown really sank, Lexington was scuttled out of panic).

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: