Historical Mumbo Jumbo Dissected

Too much of the interpretation of history is propaganda. Much of that propaganda is so deep that it lurks inside the emotional and linguistic semantics (From Greek semantikos: signify or indicate by a sign).

By uttering the traditional word(s) one present as factual the time honored bias.

For example the word “colonial” is often used to describe the French League of Nations/SDN Mandate in Syria, completely misrepresenting both the history of Syria and the role France played there (it’s not of academic interest only, because, under the French, the Alawites were liberated, and now those (mostly ex-) victims make sure that what happened to them won’t happen again). Hence, that simple adjective convey semantics which are unfair to the French, the Alawites, the Syrians, History, and civilization itself, while standing in the way of a sustainable just solution in Syria. Now to answer some comments I received:

Chris Snuggs: “The French Revolution? Well, it didn’t remain a revolution for long did it? We ended up fighting yet another continental dictator. What is it with you lot? Something in the water.”

Actually, the French Revolution won the global interdiction of the slave trade, the American Civil War, crushed Anglo-Prussian institutionalized enslaving racism, and is now itself institutionalized by the United Nations Charter, (formally) accepted by all nations, even North Korea.  So the French Revolution rules the globe. 

If Russia is the way it is right now, with a pseudo, yet duly elected Czar, and a Parliament, and a state of quasi-law, it’s thanks to the French Revolution. This is why, for decades, French anthems were used as national anthems in Russia (the Marseillaise and the Internationale).

Empire Means Force: Berkeley, California, Temple of American “Liberalism” & Its Municipal Police In Full Military Gear (March 2016). Yes It has Armored Vehicles & Helicopters

Empire Means Force: Berkeley, California, Temple of American “Liberalism” & Its Municipal Police In Full Military Gear (March 2016). Yes It has Armored Vehicles & Helicopters

One dictator? It was more like a trinity: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Hitler, Mussolini? (And I forgot Franz-Joseph of Austro-Hungary.)

Historically, Britain, under Pitt, used Prussia as a war machine against France, and did it again 1792 (against the French Revolution led by that great rebel, Louis XVI, King of France) and of course after 1812. Prussia instituted a proto-Nazi regime in 1815 (racist oppression and abuse against Jews, Poles; as the advances brought by the French revolution were rolled back).

In 1914, after encouragement by the White House (not so white and innocent after all), the Kaiser, grandson of Queen Victoria, moved swiftly his entire army by surprise against France, to subjugate the part of France which he did not occupy yet.

Imperial German occupation of Alsace and Lorraine  was not bad in all respects: the universal health care system was great, and some good investments and restauration in occupied Alsace happened. However the attack of 1914 was conceived as a world war, which fascist Germany could win, by being swift enough: it was known that Russian mobilization would be very slow, taking weeks, and Britain had “no army” (as its commander and British minister of defense put it). In other words, the Anglo-Saxon role in inciting the Kaiser and his goons to attack in 1914, although well hidden, was considerable.

A proof is that the USA then broke the Franco-British high seas embargo against Imperial Germany. (The USA, having baited Germany, switched brutally in 1917, as, by then, it seemed clear who the victors were going to be.)

Even worse, starting in 1919, the USA did its best to ensure that German fascism could try an encore against France. The French were not blind to this, and did not like it, while the government in Washington, to justify its anti-French policy, depicted France under the worst ways.

The aim of the government USA was to completely destroy the French empire, and French influence, worldwide, and replace it by the American empire and influence. We have explicit orders of Franklin D. Roosevelt to his subordinates in this matter. FDR, a plutocrat more than a bit similar to Trump, had the interest of the American empire foremost in his thoughts.

FDR did not understand how the Roman Republic went down, although it is black on white in Sallust’s work. Interestingly, I long deduced that the aggression wars of 146 BCE destroyed the Roman Republic, without knowing of Sallust’s thinking. Thus, it should be obvious to anybody familiar with Roman history. In 146 BCE, Rome deliberately attacked and destroyed Carthage (in Africa) and Corinth (in Greece).

The monster attacks were promoted by Roman plutocracy, and, in turn, amplified it enormously. The amplification was not just military and economic, but moral and psychological. The success of the destruction visited on others, and the resulting grab of immense riches in minerals and agricultural lands, told the Roman population that evil worked. The system may have been wrong, some Romans may have felt, but the system worked, observed most Romans, and it was not as if they had a choice.

In the case of the USA, the propaganda has been so profound, university professors of history may not even know the facts above, let alone give them the importance they deserve.

Hence psychological angles come to dominate the knowledge of history.

In the case of contemporary Britain, people were told for years, that all what ailed them originated with the European construction. This hid the erection of monstrous plutocratic contraptions which made England, or London and a few satellites, more exactly, the headquarters of the global elite of inequality.

So, while London and satellites became extremely rich, the 99% got ever poorer… And the more enraged they got, the more that rage was artfully diverted towards the European Union.

***

Anglo-Saxons, or Franco-Saxons?

Chris Snuggs: “As for we much maligned Anglo-Saxons, we specialise in defeating dictators…

Kevin Berger also wonder how can I call the USA and the UK, “sister republics”. Following is an answer to both:

The very concept of “Anglo-Saxon” is a piece of propaganda.

First, way back, the Celtic world extended from Ireland to central Anatolia (yes 4,000 miles to the east). The Celts were savages in some ways, but world experts in others (they had, not just cheese, beer, and barrels, but the best ocean going ships, but the best metallurgy: the Gauls sold weapons to the Romans, from swords to helmets).

(Then demographically) smaller England was Franco-Romanized several times: first Julius Caesar landed, then the subordinates of Nero conquered it thoroughly, and a state of three million Romans, Britannia lived for centuries, until well after the legions were evacuated in 406 CE for austerity reasons.

At some point in the Sixth or Seventh Century, harassed by the Angles and the Saxons, British troops evacuated towards French Brittany. This were confusing times, as the Franks were also found in England (Queen Bathilde the victor of slavery circa 650 CE, and Alcuin, Charlemagne philosopher and Prime Minister, were from England).

In any case, a French army invaded and occupied irreversibly England in 1066-1067 CE, re-establishing Franco-Roman rule… But the “Renovated Roman Empire” of the Franks and Charlemagne had the same problem as the Roman empire, namely no stable way to anchor legally the state (this came in part from admiration for Aristotle, a fasco-monarchist).

For centuries, the part of Europe conquered by Romans and Franks was aquiver with various attempts to organize elections, Christian republics (including the Christian Republic of 400 CE, which collapsed immediately under invasions), re-establishing the Roman Senate (this was tried in the Eleventh Century). This lack of constitution explains the on-going existence of Republics (Venice, Florence, Genoa), or quasi Republics (in the Alps, or Toulouse)…

In the case of Britain, continual conflict between the ruling French, or them and Paris led to increasingly democratic ways (although violence was extensive between the War of the Roses, which was finished when Tudor got help from a French army, and the Glorious Revolution, two centuries later).

After the Glorious Invasion of William of Orange, a parliamentary plutocracy was established in the UK whose official target was France (France, under the tyrant Louis XIV had become a place of Catholic Fundamentalism, hostile to Protestants: that was the excuse; the full truth is that British-Dutch plutocracy dreamed of becoming bigger than the French one, and soon succeeded, from high leveraging and the use of slavery and the invasion of North America by unsavory, but efficient means).

In the end, the Angles had very little influence on the Celtic, Roman, and Frankish origin of Britain. The adjective “Anglo-Saxon” itself is a propaganda notion, when used as full descriptive  (at most the “Anglo-Saxons” controlled no more than half of Britain for much less than five centuries, whereas the Celto-Roman-Franco influence lasted millennia, over the full extent).

***

So Why The Differences In Mentality Between Recent France & UK/USA?

First Britain is very often much closer to France than to the USA: French municipal police, up to 2015, was not armed, and the British bobbies are not. American police is super-armed, and even looks, in “liberal” places such as Berkeley California, as an occupation army, with a willingness, and even tradition, to shoot first and ask questions later.

Gentlemen such as Chris Snuggs, who lived in France for more than a decade, could not stand living in the USA. In the USA’s richest regions, most people are immigrants (a paradox which has very rational, entangled explanations).

Secondly, Britain and the USA are islands (OK, a very big island is called a continent). France does not have this mental handicap: France has been at the crossroads, millennia before taking its present name. So France has evolved more inclusive and tolerant philosophies which were in turn impelled on her political descendants, Britain and the USA. (Straying from tolerance under Saint Louis, who threw the Jews out, and repulsed alliance with the Mongols, or under Louis XIV fasco-Catholicism, did not help.)

Thirdly, as I have explained many times, the “evil” mentality which presided over the British, and then American conquest of America proved capable to kick out the French’s softer approach. Then one had the same problem as with plutocratic Rome: nothing succeeds better than success.

Just ask Donald Trump.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

29 Responses to “Historical Mumbo Jumbo Dissected”

  1. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    When it’s millions and billions of people, its more physics than politics.

    As biological organisms, we are programed to grow and move forward, from “Go forth and multiply,” To, “Go west, young man.”

    The problem is that our linear, growth directed tendencies have to contend with a limited planet, occupied by others with the same beliefs.

    So our solution of creating ever larger groups, of social, economic and political movements, from nations and empires, to ideologies and both conceptual and technical mechanisms, from currencies, to the internal combustion engine, to the internet, is to keep pushing that wave ever higher.

    The reality though, is we are just masses of quite small creatures in a fairly large, but otherwise finite world, ruled by thermodynamic processes.

    This is why I think the next great advancement for humanity is to move from our current linear, temporal view of reality, to a thermodynamic and cyclical/reciprocal view, where accumulation simply creates high pressure zones that will eventually dissipate.

    We realized a fairly long time ago that the earth is not flat, but round. Now we need to appreciate nature is also not linear, but cyclical.

    We are never going to escape what is ultimately a zero sum game and so we need to put back much of what we take out, or nature will do it for us.

    We might also begin to appreciate life much more, if it wasn’t so much about the bottom line. As they say, it is a journey, not a destination.

    • dominique deux Says:

      Blaise Pascal summed it up nicely (and he was a devout Christian fundamentalist, albeit a civilized one): “Tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre”

      (All the misfortunes of mankind come from being unable to stay quietly in one’s chambers)

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Yes, well, I have done that a lot, still do, it goes only so far. And from a social butterfly, it’s rather ironical. However, I actually still do this a lot, a lot more than Pascal, as I generally reject nearly all social contact….
        Except now, because I have a joint daughter-friends breakfast (and it helps the friend is a top banker who can give me the top scoops… About how rotten the system is…). So I have to run…

      • brodix Says:

        All of the fortunes as well…..

  2. picard578 Says:

    You might be interested in this:
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/09/how-america-double-crossed-russia-and-shamed-the-west.html

    Anger creates hate, hate gives rise to plutocracy. Ergo, Putin.

    • picard578 Says:

      But more importantly, it describes US system of thought and US imperialism as applied to Russia.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Interesting. However:
      Russia, and not just Russia, France, and Britain, were manipulated into believing into “trickle down” (the Reagan-Summers-Krugman-Feldstein). It devastated Russia and France, it has been good to Britain (until very recently).
      That Gorby was “promised” whatever is neither here, nor there: a promise, supposing there was one, is not a treaty, and, anyway, Gorby was brought down by a coup shortly thereafter. If one has promise to a coup victim, that does not mean one has promise to the putschists. Moreover, Russians don’t own other peoples. If other peoples decided to become members of NATO, tough luck for Russia.
      The West, considering Putin’s derangement, and other factors (such as corruption) have refused to let Ukraine and Georgia in.

      The Warsaw Pact was just a piece of paper to justify an occupation which started in 1944/45 (with American help). Poland never wanted to be “”””allied”””” to Moscow, Poland hates Moscow’s guts. You may as well be allied to an angry, hungry grizzly. Even the military dictator the Soviets put to head Poland hated Moscow. It’s something from way back, Catherine the Great.

      Eastern Europe rightly hates Russia, with few exception (Serbia, which is changing its ways, as it would like to join the EU…) If the Nazis has been half smart, they could have made Ukraine an ally (as they were initially proposed). Instead, they racial hatred blinded them…

      • picard578 Says:

        “Russia, and not just Russia, France, and Britain, were manipulated into believing into “trickle down” (the Reagan-Summers-Krugman-Feldstein).”

        Aye. Trickle-down was a lie, originally created by Milton Friedman, who wanted to go down to glorious days of unregulated capitalism. Fun fact: Milton’s father was a capitalist (a factory owner, I believe), and had major problems with rather strong and militant workers’ unions. Ergo, neoliberal ideology is entirely based around empowering plutocracy: taking away power from the people, workers unions included, and giving power to capitalists. All under a guise of “free market” (which itself is but one of tools they use to achieve their ultimate goal).

        “Moreover, Russians don’t own other peoples. If other peoples decided to become members of NATO, tough luck for Russia.”

        Russians have every right to be concerned. And what I really have a problem here with is Western (read: US) hypocrisy. Do you know how USA would have reacted if, suddenly, Canada decided to become a member of Warshaw Pact? Tanks, bombs… compared to that, Russia’s response is relatively measured. Which by no means excuses it, but it does give a perspective. One should clean up one’s own backyard first.

        I think this explains it best:

        Of course, most countries invited the US in to prevent Russia from coming and trashing the place… just like Iran and Syria invited Russia in to prevent US from coming in and trashing the place.

        And you have to see both sides’ perspectives. Of course, both sides lie, but from the lies you can gleam the truth. Ergo:
        http://www.mintpressnews.com/putin-publish-a-world-map-and-mark-al-the-u-s-military-bases-on-it-you-will-see-the-difference-between-russia-and-the-us/206343/

        Fact is, United States have always seen Russia as the enemy. US plutocrats want to control the world, no ifs, buts, ors, ands. Europe is their target as well, and seeing how Russia has major trade with Europe, it is correct in feeling threatened. I think Europe needs to stand on its own, and not serve anybody’s interests – not US, not Russian, not Chinese, but its own. But right now, EU is US puppet, for the most part, and US are doing their best to destroy Europe along with Russia. And whenever someone threatenes US interests, it’s the same story: coup d’etat, assassination, sanctions. That is what happened in Ukraine, which is why Russia felt threatened and lashed out.

        And much of what Putin said above is true. If Kosovo gained independence, why couldn’t Russian areas in Ukraine gain certain measure of autonomy? Back during the Homeland War in Croatia, Serbs were offered autonomy – even United States supported it – but they refused. Or rather, Belgrade refused and forced Croatian Serbs to refuse it as well. But I don’t think Russians in Ukraine have refused autonomy – did Ukraine even consider it? And do you know what actually sparked the rebellion in Ukraine? Monsanto. You see, Ukraine is one of the largest exporters of crops. And Monsanto wanted to come in and take over the land – public and private alike – to grow extremely poisonous GMO crops (I believe I mentioned that in my upcoming article “False freedom of information”). Farmers refused, after which Ukrainian Government tried to take the land and give it to Monsanto by force. They – people in eastern Ukraine – had no choice but to run into arms of Russia. Bad choice? Maybe, but better than the alternative, seeing how it is corporations such as Monsanto that literally own both US and EU governments. Plutocracy strikes again. And you won’t find that in any major Western media. Why? Because they serve the plutocracy. Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.” I say: “Don’t trust until you verify.” Russia has precious few bases abroad – United States have dozens, maybe hundreds, of them. United States never stopped flying bombers and surveillance aircraft near the Russian territory. They withdrew from the missile treaty. They are basing missiles at Russian borders. Those are the facts, and I think Putin was quite honest in the interview (he even admitted he is supressing the opposition).

        I’m not saying Russia is good. But it is definetly not the only devil out there, or solely to blame for the present crisis. It is in fact defending itself – and if you look at history, all great powers tended to have a chain of client states surrounding them, to act as a buffer zone against dangers from outside. Without them, they feel vulnerable. That is what Russia is aiming at, why they don’t want NATO at their borders – and also why NATO wants to come to their borders. You say: Russians don’t own other people. But it is not people who have decided that their countries are going to become a part of NATO. It is the governments. And governments do not represent the people – not anymore, at least.

        “The Warsaw Pact was just a piece of paper to justify an occupation which started in 1944/45 ”

        Same as NATO. NATO is nothing but US tool to prevent Europe from drafting an independent policy, that might be harmful to US interests.

        “Poland never wanted to be “”””allied”””” to Moscow, Poland hates Moscow’s guts. You may as well be allied to an angry, hungry grizzly.”

        Entirely correct. Same with the entire Latin America versus United States. It is always hazardous to be near a great power – it will do its best to swallow you. And Poland had a misfortune to find itself sandwiched between great powers (Germany, Russia, and during much of its history, Austria as well).

        “Eastern Europe rightly hates Russia, with few exception (Serbia, which is changing its ways, as it would like to join the EU…) If the Nazis has been half smart, they could have made Ukraine an ally (as they were initially proposed). Instead, they racial hatred blinded them…”

        Agreed.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Sorry for the delayed publication, I was off the Internet, and WordPress blocks multilinks…

          The history of Eastern Europe is Russian invasion. This was started before Peter the Great, but was drawn to a paroxysm by Catherine the Great (an ex-German princess). That’s when the concept of “New Russia”, namely southern Ukraine, all the way to Moldava, including Crimea, was launched.
          Now, I do understand how the Russian invasive mood got started (Teutonic Knights, Mongols’ Golden Horde, Tatars). And I agree there is lots of justification in that.

          Ideally, the Russian Federation would become part of the EU (so could also… the USA). After all, if the EU can swallow Turkey… I noticed my site is not blocked in Russia at this point (it’s blocked in China, Cuba, etc…)

          I do understand Putin. Actually, Europe should draw lessons from Putin, especially about the usage of… force. Many people in France understand Putin the same way, and so are lenient with him. However, the line to be drawn, precisely, is Britain and France. Russia can’t afford to cross the legacy democracies of the world (even before the French Revolution, the French monarchy was endowed with aspects associated to post-1789. Same in Britain). Russia has to duplicate France and Britain, not go to war with them.

          Actually, during the Cold War, Soviet invasion plans called to stop at the French border (although the French plans were to use nuke east of that, for some reason… ;-))

          Poland was a great power for centuries, and destroyed the Teutonic Knights at some point, then occupying most of (the late) Prussia (it was allied to the grand duchy of Lithuania)… Poland is its full nation, and not a small one.

          In any case the European Union concept which enrages Chris so much, is the way to go at it. And Putin should stop obsessing about NATO and the EU. Letting his opponents getting killed is more what he should worry about.

          • picard578 Says:

            “The history of Eastern Europe is Russian invasion. ”

            The history of Eastern Europe is invasion, period. First invaded the Celts, then the Germans, then the Slavs, the the Magyars, then Germans invaded again and carried out ethnic cleansing of Slavs (several times, Teutonic order was responsible for an outright genocide), then Russians kicked Teutonic order and decided to start invading themselves (invade or be invaded, apparently… my own people stopped invading others in 7th-8th century and spent the time being invaded by everybody else – from Franks to Ottomans), then Mongols, followed by Ottomans. Theirs was the last “great” invasion (of migrational type), and that was followed by politically motivated invasions of Germans (Prussians, Austrians), Russians, Swedish, French, Germans again (Hitler), and now it seems Muslims want to get their shot at it as well with a migrational invasion again.

            “Now, I do understand how the Russian invasive mood got started (Teutonic Knights, Mongols’ Golden Horde, Tatars). And I agree there is lots of justification in that. ”

            Justification is not the word I would use (how do you justify invasions?) but yes, there is the causational link there.

            “Ideally, the Russian Federation would become part of the EU (so could also… the USA). After all, if the EU can swallow Turkey… I noticed my site is not blocked in Russia at this point (it’s blocked in China, Cuba, etc…) ”

            That’s interesting. But I doubt that EU can swallow Turkey. Islamic fundamentalism is strong with that country despite its “civil” society, which will cause trouble. It already does, in fact.

            “even before the French Revolution, the French monarchy was endowed with aspects associated to post-1789. Same in Britain”

            Yes, the French monarchy was a parliamentary monarchy before the 1789., but a political shitstorm happened and… well.

            “Poland was a great power for centuries, and destroyed the Teutonic Knights at some point, then occupying most of (the late) Prussia (it was allied to the grand duchy of Lithuania)… ”

            Indeed. It also kicked Ottomans’ butts, basically saving Europe. It is interesting to note that Croatia, Hungary and Poland spent better part of three centuries (1389-1699) saving Europe from Muslim Ottoman invasion, with little to no help from other countries – Austria and Germany helped when they felt threatened, French monarchy helped Ottomans as much as they helped Christians, Venice only helped when its own holdings were threatened – and even then, Croatians in Dalmatia mostly fought on their own, not to mention that Venice also often helped the Ottomans as well, and Russia also fought Ottomans once they came to border them but did nothing to help the other countries.

            This might interest you:
            http://www.historyofjihad.org/croatia.html

            “And Putin should stop obsessing about NATO and the EU. Letting his opponents getting killed is more what he should worry about.”

            To be fair, United States treat NATO like their own private army, and US are obsessing about Putin. So it is not really weird for Putin to be obsessing about NATO in return.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              One has to distinguish the USA, the US Deep State, the elected politicians, the global plutocracy. Everything is entangled, all over. NATO does not have to be an instrument of the USA. It mostly is, because the only military power which matters, nowadays, aside from the USA and Russia, is France (France had more planes than Russia all along in Syria, but precision has been an obsession, and rightly so!)

              So the USA military power rules in the EU, mostly because the EU has a demilitarized mentality. Ergo, the problem in Syria, Libya, all over the Middle East, etc.

              The dismemberment of Yugoslavia was a military event: Slovenia revolted, and vanquished the Yugoslav army. That got the ball rolling. Ultimately, without oppression, in a full and future EU, Yugoslavia could be reconstituted… the good sides of it. Right now the EU is a mess, precisely from a lack of imperial power. Plutocrats move into that vacuum.

              Actually, the French monarchy had been parliamentary before Louis XIV reign of himself as the Sun. Louis XVI, blocked by the Plutos, decided to convene the General Estates, to force a Constitutional change… He succeeded beyond his own expectations. Louis had been warned stridently and repeatedly that his policy in North America would bring an American Republic, BTW.

              The fight against plutocracy is no fight against the USA. It’s a fight against global plutocracy. Some Plutos are half in London, half in Moscow… And they are throughout the EU, but that’s a European problem… foremost.

            • picard578 Says:

              “One has to distinguish the USA, the US Deep State, the elected politicians, the global plutocracy.”

              I’m not sure that distinction exists… US plutocrats are part of the global plutocracy, and they control the USA, elected politicians included. It is all one system.

              “So the USA military power rules in the EU, mostly because the EU has a demilitarized mentality.”

              Not just the military power. Many corporations in Europe are owned by US multinationals, which means that governments are heavily influenced by those.

              “Ultimately, without oppression, in a full and future EU, Yugoslavia could be reconstituted… the good sides of it.”

              I don’t think that is possible. In civilizational terms, Croatia and Slovenia are Western European countries, rest of it are the Eastern European countries. Cultural and civilizational differences are simply too great for it to work.

              “The fight against plutocracy is no fight against the USA. It’s a fight against global plutocracy. Some Plutos are half in London, half in Moscow… And they are throughout the EU, but that’s a European problem… foremost.”

              Agreed. But most international institutions that protect plutocracy – United Nations, NATO etc. – are dependant on the USA, and US are the most powerful country in the world right now. So change should probably start there.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              I agree with most of what you say. A few points:

              When Obama became president, I saw how he was captured. The plutocrats operated bluntly, but so did the Deep State. The plutocrats think they control the Deep State, and reciprocally. In Russia, they all fought together, still do, and moreover, there 2 generations of plutocrats, and even Chechen (let alone Ukrainian) plutocrats… And the elected politicians (Medvedev, Putin, etc…0 or even generals are plutocrats on their own, not just in political power, but also financial.

              The difference between Eastern and Western Europe exist, but was mostly the fruit of malevolence (on the part of some in Constantinople, or associated; or on the part of the Mongols, etc.) So there is no deep, good reason for it to be. And actually Russia itself is closer in its mentality from Western Europe than it ever was.
              Used to take days for the fastest to go from Paris to Marseilles, now it takes 3 hours from Paris to Moscow…
              Change in the USA could happen. I am working on it (hahaha). Not easy, I agree. If I had known how badly it was going to be with Barry (original name Obama used in childhood) I would have let him simmer another few years.

              What has to be changed is ideas. Even Obama is under the spell of Reagan… That was the core of his demise.

            • picard578 Says:

              “The difference between Eastern and Western Europe exist, but was mostly the fruit of malevolence (on the part of some in Constantinople, or associated; or on the part of the Mongols, etc.) So there is no deep, good reason for it to be.”

              Specifically Croatia vs Serbia, there is a lot of cultural difference, due to religion (Catholic vs Orthodox) and different historical circumstances. In Croatia, we are taught to forgive (for the most part, but everybody has limits). In Serbia, mentality is basically one of “holy revenge” and lying to further one’s goals (such as basically everything they say about Jasenovac: in reality, there were few thousand dead, not few hundred thousand; camp was closed in 1951, not in 1945, and most murders were carried out by Communists, not by Ustashi). That Serb mentality is likely a consequence of living under Ottomans for centuries.

              Having very different cultures in one country doesn’t work. Ever.

              “What has to be changed is ideas. Even Obama is under the spell of Reagan… That was the core of his demise.”

              If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have become a president.

              “no more passport controls for Turks”

              Which also means no more passport controls for suicide bombers. Effing great.

              “the Armenians decimated”

              Let’s call it what it was: a genocide.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Yes, it’s the funny thing is that the Serbs, who are so anti-Muslims have adopted some of their adversaries (Middle Age Turkish military) mentality. This is a general phenomenon: the Russians out-Tatars the Tatars, just as Count Dracul out-terrified the Turks (or, more exactly out-impaled them)

            • picard578 Says:

              “Yes, it’s the funny thing is that the Serbs, who are so anti-Muslims have adopted some of their adversaries”

              Beat them at their own game… worst part is, if things continue this way, the West might be left with no option other than that when it comes to Islam.

              “Another point is that the border between the Occident and the Orient of the Greco-Roman empire passed just east of Croatia.”

              Yes, and that could be argued to be the reason for much of the trouble betwen Croatia and Serbia. Albeit, if it weren’t for that little fact, it might have been even worse – Orthodox Church had a lot of leeway under Ottoman rule. On the other hand, Catholics were persecuted – as a result, we have Islamic Bosnia in the neighbourhood. Almost half of Croatia land border is shared with Bosnia, and Bosnian Muslims hate our guts. Not the very best position.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Another point is that the border between the Occident and the Orient of the Greco-Roman empire passed just east of Croatia. They had very different fates: in the Occident, Frankish (very loose) control; in the Orient, Constantinople control, often full of resentment towards Occident (as the franks had escaped control from Constantinople, very legally so, and their might unapproachable militarily, so they had to collaborate with them for 7 centuries, before calling them to rescue them from the Turks…)

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              BTW, Merkel being cornered, with the French PM biting, inside Germany, at her ankles (widely reported in German media!), she surrendered to Erdogan, and Turkey is supposed to enter Schengen (whatever that means!) in June: no more passport controls for Turks (France did not object, notice).
              Turkey is its own mess. One reason is that the Franco-British offensive around 1920 failed, and Turkey was not as fully dismantled as it should have been. That’s why the Greeks were kicked out, the Armenians decimated, and the Kurds subjugated. Erdogan has been playing the Muslim violin in a way he may be regretting.

            • picard578 Says:

              “BTW, Merkel being cornered, with the French PM biting, inside Germany, at her ankles (widely reported in German media!), she surrendered to Erdogan, and Turkey is supposed to enter Schengen (whatever that means!) in June:”

              Plutocrats at work again: they want fresh workforce, consequences be damned.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Well, as you probably know, new attacks today by Wahhabists in Europe. (I have some details in my Twitter). More than 210 killed and or wounded in Brussels…

            • picard578 Says:

              Yes, I just heard about it not long ago (was busy over the day, and I don’t listen radio or watch TV). Anyway, this is not surprising, considering refugee influx.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              At least two attackers in Paris came with the refugee flow. They were Iraqis, knew nothing about France, so were intercepted in the parking of the Stade de France (killing only themselves and another).
              Two other would-be attackers in France were intercepted by Austrian police, one Algerian, the other Syrian…

              According to some intercepts, 90 would have come in, disguised as refugees… And that does not even count Apple Inc…

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              I have Turkish friends, BTW. The lady views herself as an observant Muslim (with Muslims like that who needs atheism…), but I make her laugh (enough said, as I apply zero censorship, including berating god any occasion I get!) She won’t let her son acquire Turkish citizenship, by fear of the draft.

              The Muslim Fundamentalist thing was pretty much engineered in the West, from 2 main sources, as I have tried to explain. And the intellectual source was actually infeodated to the US Pluto source…

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              I did not mean there was a justification for the invasions of Russia, but that there was a justification for acquiring a pretty nasty/ferocious mentality in return. It’s actually because of the latter that the Russians are still around.
              This being said, there is a big difference between Peter the Great’s defensive war against Charles of Sweden, and Catherine the Great’s invasion of Ukraine or invading all the way until less than 100 kilometers from Berlin.
              So what we have a mentality, on the Russians’ part, long justified, but now not anymore.

  3. SDM Says:

    FDR more than a bit similar to Trump? FDR was a plutocrat but had also been a politician as opposed to a huckster. Trump does nothing to hide his fascist and racist tendencies and his campaign is based on a notion of making America “great again”. Some have called it a “White lives matter” campaign. Born to wealth and with a long trail of questionable business dealings, he would appear to be plutocratic to the core. Yet he has popularity among the white working class that seems based on nationalistic-racist-tribal anxiety despite the economics-inequality (trickle down) grinding on them. Sanders rationality and honesty gets lost on many as the corporate media has done its best to defuse his message. Trump, also a TV celebrity, has managed to get “free” and 24/7 exposure.

    The whole Brexit situation appears to be a plutocratic tactic to slip out from the EU and to do so by “democratic” means using nationalistic propaganda on the common Brit. Anglo-Saxon historical propaganda has been quite effective. National identity taps into the tribal tendencies quite well.
    There is genuine anger among the US working and dwindling middle class and Trump has been successful in channeling this, to his own ends. His sexist and racist leanings could be his undoing. Only time will tell? Trump is enigmatic. He has upended the GOP establishment and gleefully exposed the lack of any serious major (corporate) media coverage of presidential elections much less anything else. The battle rages on…

    • brodix Says:

      When the primary narrative fails, people branch out into secondary narratives and the Donald has been bubbling just under the surface for a long time, as an intersection of the driving forces of popular media and wealth as social validation.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      FDR was under Sec of the Navy in WWI and then governor of New York. He was also the practically adopted son of Teddy.
      I used to consider Trump the poster boy of financial badness. That was before what happened since 1992.

      An underclass friend of mine has a strong opinion on the subject. He is US citizen, born that way, but does not have the money to replace missing front teeth. He never had a roof. He lives in 40 year old Volvo. But he is a keen observer of reality. You could say he is the opposite of Trump. He believes, and so do I, that it’s impossible to know what Trump will do (because he has been all over the map in the last 50 years). My bet, is that he will break the system. I see plenty of people super excited against Trump, who used to view Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Facebook Z, Apple Inc. etc. as their best friends…

      French TV the other day translated Trump saying: “Give me a break!” into “FUCK OFF!”. That’s Trump coverage by the establishment. The Economist announces the end of the GOP and civilization because of Trump, etc… Hey, a guy who proposed to tax financiers as much as secretaries can only be terrible, no?

      Also they announce Trump will build a giant and very pretty wall, Clinton talks about it, rolling her eyes… But that’s lying 100%: the wall already exists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where there is no wall, there is plenty of desert and patrolling drones… Anyway Mexicans are going back to Mexico…

      My point: Clinton is really horrendous, I saw her being deeply abominable in her lies to counter Sanders. She is actually so horrendous, people are going to figure it out. Accusing Trump of racism works now, but will not work by October.

      Last, not least: Trump has been very political for very long, and he is used to call himself “not politically correct”. For three decades. He went to government tribal councils, and accused Indians to not be Indians, etc… He has fought accusations of racism (from the US government, no less) successfully, since the early 1970s (he sued the US government for libel!)

      And, more importantly, he talks off the top of his head, not from the teleprompter as Obama does, reading a text prepared by his handlers… People are getting up to speed with that, and appreciate the honesty…

  4. Chris Snuggs Says:

    ‘Leave your senses, leave your mind, leave geography, leave Europe. Even bliar Blair gets it…’

    Chris Snuggs: You have a closed mind. Look at the evidence. It is overwhelming:

    http://www.eutruth.info/

    Blair is a plutocrat shit. I thought you hated plutocrats …… those who want to stay in are either continental banks, associated continental fascists, large companies and millionaire failed politicians – and of course the French elite, which seems to be scared stiff of Germany, even refusing the SLIGHTEST criticism of Merkel’s INSANE behaviour.

    The EU is a quasi-fascist disaster that is ruining Europe. No doubt at some point NATO will have to save the pathetic continent AGAIN. Why do you always choose idiot leaders?

    The TRUTH about the EU

    When the British people voted “YES” in the referendum of 1975, it was on the basis assured to us that our entry would not involve loss of sovereignty.
    eutruth.info

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme I do not “hate” plutocrats. For example, I do not hate Gates, Trump, Musk, etc… I think plutocracy is a great danger, and should be decapitated. The rabid anti-EU madness is something else. The EU has been, and is, pro-plutocratic: all governments in the world are, more or less (less would be Switzerland, more, North Korea).

      There is no doubt EU governance should be changed. Recently the EU has started to ask global Pluto corporations to pay their taxes. That’s good, even if enacted by a bandit (JC Junkers).

      Trump is the first one to say he has been a bandit, but “the system is wrong”. So let’s change it. There is no doubt the EU should be more like Suisse, and actually Chancellor Osborne is going that way… French leaders, at least the PM, has gone to Germany, and criticized Merkel there. German media has paid strong attention to that, espe. before the last elections…

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: