Shakespeare Versus Sade

Why were the English, or even the Spanish and the Portuguese so much more successful in establishing a world empire than the French? On the face of obvious facts, it’s curious that France did not do better. Nowadays Latin America speaks Spanish or Portuguese, entire continents are English-speaking. Only some of the wastes of Africa speak French. How come? Why did France not grab a continent for herself? Was France… too civilized? Is too much civilization an infection?

France was the most powerful, most populous, most innovative, most central, not to say most belligerent, of the European countries, for about 13 centuries… Besides being the creator of Europe since 360 CE (election of Julian). France led a healthy reaction against Christian terrorism, and became the center of military and imperial power which made Western Europe one (rather united, “Christian”) civilization.

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

And, precisely, more civilization and more centralization may have been the problems. If one is too civilized, one may respect the Natives so much, that one may forget to take their place. This is clearly what happened to the French in Canada. The French civilized and settled the Hurons. Then the Iroquois Confederacy came down from the mountains, and exterminated the pacified Hurons. And so on. Turkeys cannot built a civilization under the watchful eyes of lions.

If one is more centralized, while civilized, one will be unable to exploit the Natives as required for a successful settlement, in a timely manner.

True, Louis XIV, the famous Sun-Tyrant, made “legalized” slavery in the French West Indies, with the “Code Noir”. However, there was no slavery in French Canada and Louisiana, while slavery was lawful in English colonies, starting with Massachusetts…to immense economic success: some English American states were mostly people by African slaves cultivating tobacco, under the white whip, terrorized by their white masters. Tobacco had made English America profitable.

So what the difference in the imperial patterns of various European powers? Moods. Basically, the French had too little too late, of the … Dark Side. I mean real Dark: the king of Portugal harassed the Pope to obtain a Papal authorization to enslave Africans (Frankish law forbid to enslave Europeans explicitly, and Charlemagne had created the Papal state). Their Catholic Majesties, Isabella and Ferdinand harassed Borgia, a fellow Spaniard and Pope to authorize the Inquisition (then used to exterminate Judaism and Islam in the Iberian peninsula). Portugal and Spain were then ready to lash out. A planned crusade to exterminate Islam, was redirected more profitably towards the conquest of the Americas.

How come the greater friendliness of the English government to the Dark Side? Not coincidentally,  the rise of Shakespeare and of the West Country Men was simultaneous in England. And they were entangled: the (ex-Scottish) King James I, one of the West Country Men (basically) supported Shakespeare. (As Dominique Deux said) the success of Shakespeare comes from his parade of monsters.

Shakespeare, just as Allah in the Qur’an (following Yahweh in the Bible), made monstrosity honorable. Thus monstrosity became a strategy at the ready, something normal to do.

One may object that it’s not clear why monstrosity worked so well for the English and not so well for the Muslims.

Well, as a metaphysics of war, Islam was superb: the initial Muslim empire went from France, through Spain, North Africa, all the way to Central Asia and India, within 89 years of its launch in 732 CE. On the way it defeated the two most powerful empires outside of China, annihilating one, eating more than half of the other.

The feat was renewed later: in the Eleventh Century, the Turks, a decade or two after converting to Islam, defeated three large empires in West Central Asia, including a mauling of the Roman empire (which called the Franks to the rescue, launching the crusades).

So Islam’s monstrous side is excellent to motivate primitives for war.

This is proven as we speak: yesterday and today, January 7 2016, two Jihadist attacks in France (some terrorists tried a car attack against soldiers, no doubt inspired by happenings in Israel, and another attacked policemen with a meat cleaver, screaming “Allah Akbar”, and carrying a fake explosive belt, he was shot to death).

However, fanaticism does not rise to the motivation and power of free, knowledgeable men, as Islam’s crushing defeats at the hands of the Franks (starting in 721-732-748 CE), would prove in the next 13 centuries). Or the reconquest of Ramadi from the Islamist State by the Iraqi army and Sunni tribes.

So how come the English were so successful: it’s simple: in the case of the English, monstrosity was an adjuvant. I was listening to the Queen’s 2016 message the other day. She charmingly, succeeded to quietly claim that her family invented Christmas (a 4,000 year old tradition). She was completely unfazed by the monstrosity of her claims. (One could easily imagine her claiming Macbeth invented Christmas, just as unfazed.)

Monstrosity worked well as an adjuvant to other, more democratic structures in society, such as Common Law, Parliament, the Monarchy, with the oath to it that all males had to take at 14 of faithfulness to the King. In the case of the Qur’an, the Qur’an was all there was. Interpreted literally, the Qur’an is unbalanced monstrosity 100% of the time (with the major inconvenience that everybody can be suspected of apostasy, something punished by death).

Admiring Macbeth’s statement that life… is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, is a perfect slogan to go kill Irishmen (as the West Country Men did). And then American Natives (as the colonies founded by the West Country Men in America soon did).

Make no mistake: the Bible is full of genocides. Just as the Qur’an, which it inspired, it enables major monsters, bent on holocaust, to claim they are doing God’s will. Shakespeare is a secular version of the same mood with which to handle the world.

In the USA, many a school children spent an entire year studying Shakespeare shaking his spears all over human society (Shakespeare himself made jokes about the spear in his name, wanting it as his coat of arms).

Some could sneer that Sade wrote worse things. True. And actually I do think that writing terrible things is not just good, and instructive, but fights boredom, and feeds the mind. However, the obsessive exposition of Anglo-Saxon children to Shakespeare (or the Queen and her grotesque lies), while presenting that author as the epitome of classical humanism is deeply wrong.

Sade did not claim to extol classical humanism as he described horrors with relish. He was actually highly critical. Differently from Shakespeare the bard, about whom we know little, we know very well that Sade played a major role in the 1789 Revolution (including instigating the attack against the Bastille). Not just that, but he personally saved thousands (and got nearly executed for his troubles, escaping at the last moment thanks to the coup against Robespierre).

Sade’s main theme is that man is (potentially) immensely cruel, and politicians even more so, as they need cruelty, just to relax.

Power is cruelty, and absolute power is absolute cruelty.

A society where spears are shaken all the time, does not just shoots itself in the foot, or the head, very much. It also shoots everything that is in the way, all too readily. Shakespeare is viewed by the Anglo-Saxons as classical, while some of what is viewed as his most classical parts is just as bad, if not worse, than the worse in Sade (who, at least, was conscious of cruelty, while extolling it). The same objection can be made, and should be made, against the devout followers of the Bible, the Qur’an, and other various books of horrors. They say it’s classical, and should be respected.

No. Those books are classical, they should be known, but then they should be debated, fiercely, and dragged in the mud, as needed. Identify, condemn, and cut off the gangrene, the gangrene of the mind, as needed.

The West Country Men, powerful plutocrats as they were, sent soldiers and “endured servants” (white slaves) to America to make a profit. The French founded Canada for the “Mission Civilisatrice” (mostly). The West Country Men, operating in connivence with Justice, sent derelicts and miscreants to America. The French government carefully selected a moral elite to go to America, help the Natives.

However, in the real world, the sheep, however clever and cultivated, does not vanquish the lion. The former eats grass, the latter, sheep. It’s as simple as that. One lesson? Instead of just criminally prosecuting Africans, the International Court of Justice in La Hague should think about engaging a procedure against ex-president G. W. Bush, for instigating so many war crimes in iraq. Then, logically, the ICJ should move against the Saudis and all those businessmen doing business with them.

Indeed. Think about it. Culture without claws and fangs, and the will to use them, is only a betrayal of civilization.

In the Sixteenth Century, the Conquistadores enslaved the Indians, made them dig for oil, grow food for them. After they exterminated the Indians this way, they brought African slaves. When, finally the Frenchman Charles Quint, Spanish king and Roman emperor was forcefully appraised of the extent of the Holocaust by men of conscience (Bartolome Las Casas, etc.), the emperor autocratically ordered a halt to the Conquista (after a supreme tribunal got hung up). Otherwise all the Americas would be speaking Spanish.

Then Charles V retired. His son, Philip II, was less French. When Philip learned of French (Protestant) colonies along the “Carolina” coast, he sent an armada to exterminate them to the last French baby. A French relief fleet was dispersed by a hurricane (showing that god, were it to exist, is not friend of goodness). The French babies got killed, down to the last one (although some may have been rescued by Indians).

Not defending goodness with fang and claw surrenders it to the wolves. The good human is not an inert human. Goodness cannot just be lauded, it needs to be defended. Being inert, is inhuman.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

20 Responses to “Shakespeare Versus Sade”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    Uncomfortable reading for this Brit but I can’t fault the premise of your essay. And apologies for not visiting your place for a while – my book has rather taken over my life just now!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, uncomfortable in more way than one. It’s well beyond Britain. It’s about the fact we have to co-habit with the Dark Side. I don’t know why Chris is all agitated about it, as I say roughly what he says, and warn against being too polite (as the Romans were with the Barbarians: they enabled… sharia.)

  2. Gmax Says:

    Patrice is pretty good at making all of us, Anglo-Saxons rather uncomfortable, but her logic is unassailable

  3. Gmax Says:

    All these continents were conquered by France indirectly because Britain was a French colony, and the US twice a colony, no?

  4. Chris Snuggs Says:

    The French are just jealous (as usual) because we invented Christmas and they didn’t. We invented most things, in fact.

    It’s not our fault we are superior, something it is time the French accepted. One always feels better after finally accepting the truth.

    “What’s the difference between the French and the English? The former think they are superior, while the latter KNOW they are superior.”

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It seems as Gmax more or less said, you colonials (colonized by the French) have a huge chip, or simply a huge French (Guillaume Le Conquerant was totally huge; I think he exploded after his death, from internal decomposition… It all stunk to high heavens), a huge French on your shoulder.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It’s well beyond Britain. It’s about the fact we have, we had to co-habit with the Dark Side to create the world we have. The prime ethical question then: is it optimal?

    • Kevin Berger Says:

      FFS, Chris Snuggs, we’ve got a live one with you! Are you even aware of how cranky and little englander you sound? That is not a chip on your shoulder, that’s a bag of potatoes, ease up, you pogue, cheers up! Your dreadful island is not the whole world.
      Anyway, my observation is and remains, the Brits obsess over the French, for all purposes, while the French, overall, just do not give a shit about the Brits – to be mitigated by the fact the “chattering classes” are enamoured with all things Brit, as the conforming little cultural colonizees they are.
      And, as you are, in love, it’s the one who loves the least who wins. But, yeah, I know, I know, “CRECY! AGINCOURT! WATERLOO!” …
      Incidentally, the “quip” you end your wounded, angered cri du coeur, is originally about “racists and niggers” (or assorted coloured sub-humans), that’s at least how I’ve known it for years. Shows well were you stand, maybe not you personally, but culturally speaking, the Master Race versus the wogs, the French first among them.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Chris speaks perfect French, and is a honorary Frenchman, he taught/directed a school of business in Quimper, Brittany, for a decade, or so. Of course that qualifies him eminently to become a part of the Franco-French war known as the “100 Years War”, which sort of lasted through every century since the French created England until 1815…

        A joke in the English military circa 1995. During a high command conference, Her Gracious Majesty’s general pointed out that, during every single century since England existed, France and England had been at war… Until the Twentieth Century. An officer in the back rose his hand: “Sorry, Sir, we can’t say this, we still have five years to go”…

  5. Chris Snuggs Says:

    ‘Sade’s main theme is that man is (potentially) immensely cruel, and politicians even more so, as they need ever more cruelty, just to relax.’

    Chris Snuggs: Not all of us are cruel. Lots of us are very kind. However, the cruel abuse our kindness. What’s needed is for we kind to be a lot crueller to the cruel. But this is not allowed in Europe, which is why Anders Breivik spends his days peacefully reading, eating and sleeping instead of rotting underground riddled with bullets from a firing squad. Meanwhile, his young victims do rot underground. This is called “justice”.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That was one of the points I made in the essay, more or less clearly. Politicians actually search cruelty, be it only to justify themselves. By exerting it, in public, they force others to agree, accept, and being subjugated to, their rule, however infamous.

    • Kevin Berger Says:

      “This is called Justice”

      You know, you’re right. Sometimes, when I read about UK pak gangs “grooming” White pre-teen girls, I think it’s pure justice that is being visited, after a fashion, on the absolutely awful History of your Nation (hey, I seem to recall that in addition to the original “joy divisions” in the original concentration camps of the Boer war, the Brits used some pak indigenous troops over there who were as rape-happy as can be, but this is just from a bit read online from a south African or the other)…
      Still, one second later, I recall that this is being inflicted on girls who are members of that very class that had been trampled underfoot, over and over and over, again and again, by the very same Masters Of the Universe who remain untouched and unpunished. Those victimizers never will be victimized, and their crimes will remain unpunished forever, and you will root for them for ever, as they meant you to do. Quick, let’s hate on the French! Let’s be wary of continental Europe! The Slavs! The Eastern Europeans!

  6. Gloucon X Says:

    I am not Anglo-Saxon, but I am trapped in the full flowering of WASP culture here in America. It has embraced the worst forms of Christianity and capitalism and the result is the dominance of plutocracy, the encouragement of racism, ethics-free religious lunacy, disrespect for reason, education, art, and beauty.

    Menken spoke of our libedo for the ugly, and its appearance in our built landscape, and now rapidly making its appearance in our own bodies. A culture of fat, ugly, superstitious slobs who exist only to service plutocracy and sit on couches watching football and war footage on CNN. Other than that it’s a great culture.

    The only thing here worthy of respect here are the handful of brave rebels that sprung up from time to time. Our plutocratic run educational system makes sure that its people know little or nothing about them, but it does want us to read our Shakespeare. And the Bible with its sadistic ISIS-like god is, of course, deeply respected.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Good points all, Gloucon X! The Bible is technically where the Islamist State is from. That’s one of the problems with Islam: created because of the Jews, from the Jews, against… Jews (after all!) Muhammad killed those who had inspired and sponsored Him!

      People like Mr. Chris Snuggs are interesting: British, believeing they are “Anglo-Saxon”, but unable to handle, or even conceive, full Anglo-Saxon WASP, Yankee war of the worlds, everything is for sale attitude, the sort of attitude which allowed the colonials to get independent, and now degenerated with plutocracy…

      I know the USA extremely well (as anybody reading this site can only ascertain…). Many admirers of the USA from Europe have zero idea about what is going on here, in the USA… In no small reason because of a fake “liberal” propaganda from the likes of Paul Krugman (PBUH!), who sincerely believe that the USA is not what it is… Not that “the USA” means anything either: most people just think what they are told to think (as Pink Floyd pointed out long ago).

      I met people (American citizens), since I ran my anti-Shakespeare essays, who told me that they really resented having to be exposed to The Bard’s infamy when in high school, for a full year, relentlessly, precisely because so much was low class… So they understood very well what I meant…
      PA

  7. EugenR Says:

    Speaking about Shakespeare, when someone praises me the wonder of the Bible or the Quran as a book exceeding anything else ever written by so much, that it has to have divine origin, i use to say so is Shakespeare, and still no one would relate to it divinity. Max someone may claim that it was writen by Francis Beacon and not by some wandering actor.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, the life of Shakespeare is weird. So little known, whereas the famous French authors’ lives, before and after are thoroughly known… Something way fishy there. Shakespeare is like a secular Bible. The Bible is fun, because it’s so… EVENTFUL & IMMORAL. In a way it’s like Star Wars, just worse (I did not see the latest Star Wars yet)…

      BTW, de la Boétie’s work has been suspected to be truly Montaigne taking chances, hidden behind his late friend’s nom de plume…

      • EugenR Says:

        The bible is not immoral, but rather its morality is not human oriented. If you get a categorical order like believe in one God the only God, it has nothing to do with morality of human’s behavior among themselves but the relations between human being and his God, (whatever God means).

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Agreed, sort of, we both know what we mean.

          “Moral”, from “mores” means SUSTAINABLE. Non humanly oriented morality means plutocratic morality, aimed at making plutocracy SUSTAINABLE. The monster dictator “god” is, by definition sustainable, thus implying the mood that, to be sustainable, one needs to have a monster dictator. So the Bible is a conspiracy.

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: