Elevate The Games Of Thrones

Many people told me to watch “Game of Thrones”, that it was like my essays, full of gore and what not. Not to say: why not. A lot of why not. Why not, indeed? “Popular” “cultural” references to “Game of Thrones” are climbing up, I have to stay with the times, to engage in cultural combat.

So I watched Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2. It is indeed entertaining. Some elements of the Feudal moral code are well reproduced. The fact that explicit references to all too well-known world history (such as Christianism and Islamism) do not occur, is much appreciated.

On the other hand, so far, I see no references to religiously motivated human sacrifices, which were ubiquitous in all cults before the rise of writing (and even after, as in the Euro-Mediterranean case of Carthage and the Celts… and a tiny sprinkling of ancient Romans and Greeks).

“Games of Thrones” shows characters who seem to be significantly more complex than is usual in fiction. I read few novels, because I find usual fictional characters very low dimensional, and base, dealing with all too ordinary circumstances.(Although there are exceptions, most notably in sci-fi, of all places.) Reality always beat fiction to a fine pulp, and then burn it to a crisp:

Game of Thrones, The Old Fashion Way: Killing 300,000, to Save Millions. Hiroshima Uranium Bomb Left, Nagasaki, Plutonium Implosion Bomb, Right.

Game of Thrones, The Old Fashion Way: Killing 300,000, to Save Millions. Hiroshima Uranium Bomb Left, Nagasaki, Plutonium Implosion Bomb, Right.

Real history, on the other hand, is full of extremely complex characters, with very complex fates. Athenian history alone provides with many major characters with incredibly rich personalities, who moreover, had a tremendous impact on civilization through their actions: Draco, Solon, Themistocles, Pericles, Alcibiades, Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle. The lives of these people were those of superheroes, their fates complex and contradictory. As soon as one digs a bit, one finds other influences (say of major philosophers, some female, on Pericles and Socrates).

“Games of Thrones” is an effort in that direction. Some of the bad guys doing very bad things are actually deep and subtle in their analysis of the world.

The real world is worse than “Games Of Thrones”. Brutus is an example. I confess I did not read Shakespeare about Brutus. Why would I? What did a playwright such as Shakespeare know? Five centuries ago? Not much, and certainly not much beyond what the government of Queen Elizabeth wanted to hear. Because, if that government heard something it did not like, horrible punishments were ready on a whim.

So, to know Brutus, I did not go along the route many of those who claim to be literate have followed. After all, Shakespeare was a mental puppet of Elizabeth government, thus, those who learn the world through Shakespeare, become parrots of the puppet whose string were pulled by more or less virgin tyrant. Learning such teaching by rote is assuredly far removed from mastery of reality.

Not that Elizabeth was a tyrant, for tyranny’s sake, only. Among other contrarieties, she was in a world war with Philippe II, the fascist Catholic emperor of Spain. Spain had conquered the entire world. There was only one problem left: the French army, which, not only defended France, but also the Netherlands.

Subjugating England was going to help. After trying marriage, the Spanish Catholic fundamentalist tyrants tried brute force. England did not have much of an army, especially when comparing to the famous “Spanish Squares”, and did not have much of a fleet. But Sir Francis Drake and his colleagues were skilled, and lucky: they repelled the Gran Armada.

So Elizabeth could not be mild. And Shakespeare respected the lines she drew. (Just as Game of Thrones does!) It is under Queen Elizabeth that the “West Country Men” came to dominate the system of mind that brought British supremacy, and Bush to invade Iraq, to grab the oil (since the Geneva Convention was “quaint”!)

The real history of (Marcus Junius) Brutus was fascinating enough. He was long suspected to be Caesar’s son. But there is worse, and much more telling: Brutus was corrupt. At some point he was governor in Anatolia (present day Turkey), and he filled up his coffers industrially, to the point that he had to be recalled. He also got the trust of Senate in Cyprus, and then abused it by lending money to it at the extortionate rate of 48 percent and by using force to exact its payments.

Thus, Brutus could hardly pose as the moral hero he is often depicted to be. Like his co-conspirator Cassius, greed was probably his main motivation in assassinating Caesar (followed by the moral code of plutocracy, which is that the plutocrats deserve the world, and We The People, the Populares Caesar headed, nothing. Or, let’s say, the fact he did, condemn him in the eyes of history. And, indeed, when the Populus Romanus learned that the leader of the Populares, Caesar, had been treacherously assassinated in the Senate, the entire city of Rome was gloomy.

Caesar was the last, and best hope of the Republic. Some will say: but was not he himself corrupt, and the Senate wanted to charge him with war crimes in Gaul, for waging an extravagant war there, even against historical allies of Rome?

Yes. However, corruption is not as much the problem as what one does with it. The Clintons wanted to be nice to the most aggressive “money changers”, so they could fill their own coffers. Caesar wanted to conquer more than Alexander. As it turned out, that was exactly what the Roman Republic needed at the time.

To launch a huge war to the East, in the Orient, and present day Russia, Caesar needed peace at home, so he needed the sort of reforms the Gracchi had tried to make.

Caesar, though, was naive: he did not anticipate the depth of corruption in the likes of Brutus, who were ready for anything, to keep being able to splurge at the through. This is probably why, after blocking several strikes, Caesar gave up the fight, when he saw Brutus armed with a dagger. Caesar was shattered psychologically, by the extent of the mental corruption in plain evidence.

Thus it is why, when we contemplate corruption, in say the European Union, led by the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker, we have to show no mercy: corruption starts with money, and often ends with murder. The early Obama’s administration “signature strikes” are an example of murder which the (secret) decision of Jimmy Carter, on July 3, 1979, led to. Leading astray can take a while (Obama had the head of the Taliban executed in a drone strike over the weekend: this was not a “signature strike”, but a precise strike against a determined enemy of civilization, perfectly appropriate.

Another perfectly appropriate strike was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: in tandem with the nuclear strike against Nagasaki, it finished the Second World War in less than a week. Yes tens of thousands of innocent people and children died (plus 35 US prisoners, some butchered in reprisal). However, that was the price of peace. Not dropping the bombs would have extended the war for months, with many millions of all ethnicities killed all over Japan, Korea, China. It also told the Soviets slaves to Stalin that an attack in Europe would bring the annihilation of Russian cities.

The Japanese found themselves in a monstrous war that their own emperor, following the game of throne there, had engaged in. Today, US president Obama goes to Hiroshima. Let all those who feel otherwise, be reminded that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima is entangled with the vicious war Japanese plutocracy engaged in, during the 1930s. That war itself was an enormous crime, which assassinated more than 30 million people outside of Japan (latest numbers). Few Japanese, relatively speaking, died: around two million soldiers, mostly through disease, and less than one million Japanese civilians (including the spectacular fire bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo).

The nuclear bomb program was launched by the French in January 1938. And the goal was to nuclear bomb Nazi Germany. After a lot of James Bond like action, for real, from France to Norway, the bomb was not ready soon enough to smash Nazi impudence and violence against civilization. However, The Bomb snuffed the top Japanese military arrogance. The top Japanese General had written poems expressing his desire to see one hundred million Japanese lives cut like flowers in bloom. It did not happen because fissioning the atom went straight through Bushido, the art of the Samurai. The emperor on his throne finally had an excuse to brandish the futility of it all (once he was told he could keep… his throne). The top General tried a coup, which failed, and then seppuku, which worked.

Two moral atrocities, the nuclear bombings of Japan, were morally optimal., in the greater scheme of systems of minds. Polls actually support this view, worldwide, and even in Japan, atomic survivor want no apology. Those who should apologize are those who engineered the attack of Japan onto the world (in French Indochina alone, the Japanese military attack killed two millions). And those who support ideas and moods conducive to this sort of aggression. They are the ones who got all these children killed.

We need to change the nature of the game of thrones. Instead of having particular humans sitting on a throne, with considerable powers, after spending a huge amount of energy to get there, we need to learn to sit ideas on a throne, fight for those, and spend considerable energy debating them.

If you want peace, make ideas fight each other, until the best win, until the best win, in the fair fight which makes understanding grow.

Patrice Ayme’


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

45 Responses to “Elevate The Games Of Thrones”

  1. Gmax Says:

    You are for changing the game of thrones, so you will be the empress on the highest throne ruling the minds

  2. EugenR Says:

    There is a historian of history of future who once said, “There is not even one Scott to be find, who would be ready to suffice his life for independent Scotland. On the other hand there are too many self proclaimed righteous Muslims, who are ready to die, to destroy modernity, free expression and cultural freedom. This is the new game in the Town, much more intensive and cruel than the game of thrones.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There were plenty of righteous, furious, suicidal Nazis in 1940. Crossing the Meuse under French fire was nearly suicidal, the Nazi generals balked at it. Hitler, who knew it was the weak point, thanks to personal communication(s) with the DUKE of WALES, insisted the Nazi horde had to go through. The only way the Nazis could do this was by suicide charges by engineers carrying explosive backpacks to demolish French fortifications.

      Hitler was much inspired by Islam. He said it himself: reading Hitler is very instructive.

      Hate laws should be applied against Literal Islam. End of the story.

      This being said, for centuries, Scotts died for an independent Scotland, starting with those who resisted Agricola and other Roman generals, some of it, in tremendous battles. See also Braveheart, 12 centuries later, and the period when French and Scott had common citizenship… Now, of course guys defending land makes sense. Guys killing to help the omnipotent god is a case of sheer madness: if you god is that strong, why does it need your puny help?

  3. dominique deux Says:

    You did not read “Game of Thrones” to the end (as it stands now). Although mainstream religions are, as you observe, strangely benign and do not use human sacrifice, even symbolic, later in the book a new religion appears; its deity is real, complete with miracles; it stands for the good of mankind, as it is the only force opposing the forces of ancient darkness threatening to kill mankind; yet it is a cruel one, burning people with gay abandon. Complexity, again.

    Generally GoT is a distillate, rather than a depiction, of the European Middle-Age: the pageantry and the codes are the same (even though the heraldics are a bit disheveled). It is easy to identify the English (they’re the baddies), the French and other nations, but the actual history of these is not referred to. It could be seen as an historical thought experiment. Note that the societies depicted are millenaries old, basically never changing: as in a lab experiment, all things are maintained constant, except relevant events. Although there is science, it is subservient and prevented from changing the world.

    The popular success of this and other HBO forays into history-like entertainment means that mythology, rather than history, now feeds the views of the masses about their roots. Same thing for the “300” movies, hilarious, which bring to the popular psyche real figures such as Leonidas, Xerxes, Themistocles, Artemisia, (un-)clad in superhero garments. In the movies, Themistocles stands for civilization, fighting a Mid-Eastern horde complete with suicide bombers; in reality, he actually spent his last years as a satrap overseeing a Persian province for Xerxes’ son Artaxerxes. Only mythology depicts what was really a struggle between empires as a clash of civilizations.

    Mythology is a propaganda device. The rash of “historical” movies from China and Russia, full of super-warriors, has to be seen in the same light. Western Europe is not into this pseudo-memory frig fest, because the conflicts are all too recent for comfort: no blowing on the ashes, they might be burning still. But it should not ignore what it means: the world is becoming actively hostile.

    • EugenR Says:

      The question is, if Europe has done with the violence. Historically it was the most violent place on earth. Even the Muslim conquerors where mild if compared to the Europeans. Then the horrors of WWII and the demographic development since 1945 in Europe compared to the third world countries, and the aging population pacified them. Unfortunately a half century to late. So now the continuity of the new pacified and liberal European civilization is at stake, and no-one is even considering to stop this self-annihilating trend. Amazingly Europe turned to Turkey for help. Turkey that every day is becoming more and more authoritarian and less and less democratic, and this is source of its appeal for Europeans. This is the same Turkey, that for centuries threatened Christendom, when finally it destroyed itself in its own decadence. And now again Europe is scorned by Erdogan, the new Anti-Attaturk.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        I agree that Merkel is playing a dangerous game with Erdogan, who looks increasingly like a taller version of Hitler without the moustache. France, distracted by other matters, is letting her do her thing.

        As far as Europe being the most violent place on Earth, I rather doubt that’s true (you sound like Rousseau, hahaha). Except for civilized Asia, most of the rest of the planet was still into cannibalism until 1500…

        But I should let Dominique write…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have covered only seasons one and two, so far, indeed. And even in a very cursory fashion, as I was doing other things. I am trying to figure out how it would differ, if written by Franco-African civilization authors…

  4. dominique deux Says:

    About Brutus: I completely agree with your assessment; he was the weak-willed, personally corrupt tool of the decaying Roman oligo-plutocracy masquerading under Republican rags. Cicero: ditto.

    Yet his depiction as a fearless, principled hero harks back to Antiquity, way before Elizabethan propaganda kicked in. See Plutarch. Cicero: ditto.

    What is interesting there is that, for the purpose of ennobling yet another plutocrat mercenary, he was cast into the part of the tyrant killer. Perhaps unique to Western civilization is the enduring positive view of the figure of the tyrant killer. Harmodios and Aristogiton, the (gay) killers of the Tyrant of Syracuse, were the real thing; their statues were all over the Hellenistic world, in city-states and (later) kingdoms under tyrannies themselves, and prayed to.

    I see this peculiarity as a tolerated outlet for popular and philosophical impatience with rulers. That outlet could expand to early revolutionary works such as La Boétie’s. The British managed to mesh this undercurrent with their uninterrupted love of monarchy; France nurtured it into Revolution and that changed the world over the following century, despite military defeat. Ideas rule.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Ideas indeed rule. France lost may be an area comparable to the present day USA in 50 years (1754-1804), ten million square kilometers. In great part to greater plutocracy (that is satanic viciousness), and high finance (by high financial leveraging), and haughty philosophy of flower power (Voltaire’s “we shall not die for a few arpents de neige au Canada…”; Voltaire was Louis XV trusted adviser and friend).

      However, France won the war of ideas: the UN Charter is the 1789 Constitution of France, writ large. A consequence, in particular was the suppression of slavery in the New World.

      Thanks for the heads up on the would-be tyrant killers. Much of history is thus perverted. An example of perversion is Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc was Frexit. at the point of a sword, nothing to crow about, but a plutocratic victory, and an offering to the demons of tribalism…

  5. Duviel Says:

    Interesting opinion.

    Few points:

    It is believed by some that previous to two bombs being dropped Japan was ready to surrender if the terms of unconditional surrender were lessened. If an invasion of Japan would have been necessary (and this is very possible) I agree that much more then 300,000 (argument is it would have been many million) Japanese would have been killed and also maybe a million Allied troops. But, it is possible that if terms were relaxed Japan would have surrendered without dropping the bombs.

    It is pretty clear I believe that Nuclear weapons prevented a third World War between Soviets and Western Allies. Probably initiating as early as late 1940’s.

    Also, I am not sure where your data comes from but my sources say it was the Germans that were close to developing a nuclear bomb not France. In fact, it was exiled German scientists that gave US the ability to finalize a nuclear bomb before anyone else. I have not heard of France being close to a bomb. Maybe you are getting your info from French sources and I am getting mine from Anglo-American sources? But, why would they credit the German (who were the evil boogeymen at that time) and not the French?

    Maybe I’ll try to watch Game of Thrones as well. I too stay away from televised dramas. I mostly watch sport, documentaries, and other informational programming.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Duviel: Not only do I have a passion for studying World War Two, but I am a physicist. So I know this subject real well, and not just the official history which, surprise, surprise, is completely false on important points (including who deserved the Nobel and for what)

      Germany was never close to developing a nuclear bomb, because the head of the project, Heisenberg, thought it impossible. He realized his mistake on August 6, 1945. He immediately gave a lecture on how it could have worked (all the German physicists were in one mansion, full of hidden mikes).

      Long story short: it’s (already Nobel Laureate) Irene Joliot Curie who discovered the nuclear chain reaction (and informed Otto Hahn and his assistant/colleague Louise Meitner in Germany, although it took them 4 years to get where she was). The French Ministere de la Guerre, contacted by the Curies in January 1938, removed all nuclear patents from public access, and bemoaned to Irene:” Pourquoi n’etes-vous pas venu me voir plus tot?”

      (The French developments of [steam] cars (18C) and the first planes (19C) were all military programs.)

      Irene should have got a second Nobel for the chain reaction. Instead it was given to Otto Hahn (who tried to kill himself).

      It’s a part of history where much is still hidden. This is why the nuclear bomb project got called “Manhattan”. First located in France, it had to flee to Britain, and then to the US (“Manhattan”).

      • Duviel Says:

        Okay, seeing that I dont have time to verify your story i’ll have to accept it as a maybe?

        I give the same sort of acceptance to most things, everything is always a maybe for me.

        It does seem to me by reading your blog that almost every good idea or invention came from France and French culture is superior to all others.

        You have some interesting opinions and now that I understand that this is just who you are I no longer get angry about it.

        I have met Americans that believe that America is just superior to every other country in everything but they are usually not highly educated Americans. I am a bit confounded as to how you can be so Franco-Centric and yet highly educated.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Highly uneducated Americans believe that their country invented mother and apple pie. I know that common cultivar apples came from Kirgizstan… Until native American apples were found in North America.
          The US itself is Franco-Centric: 85% of the words are in common with French, and the US would not exist without France, as France created both England in 1066, and the USA, by declaring war to England, just when the Crown had prepared a general amnesty of the American rebels (which had been approved by many rebel leaders). I have detailed all of this, with links, in millions of words, on the Internet.
          After decades of hatred against the French in the US, I am trying to re-establish the truth… I came to understand the hatred of France to be related to the rise of Neocons.
          Last detail: although I have lived in France, it was more like many Americans have done. France has not been my main, or even secondary, residence. Sorry to be another boring American who reads lots of history…

          • Duviel Says:

            Things were complicated back in 1066. It was hard to tell what was France, Normandy, or England. It was just different nobles and kings fighting for control of lands and peoples.

            Without support of France the American Revolution would have likely failed and the history of US and Canada would likely be a bit different today.

            Just as without England and the USA, France would likely have faded into nothing but a province of Germany or vassal of USSR and history of France would be different today.

            I am not sure the hate towards France you speak of exists. Most Americans are very fond of France and French culture.

            I do agree that due to past disagreements between governments there was some sense of contempt toward France among many Americans, mostly those of a lower education.

            France originally apposed US gov attempts to Invade Iraq (until the French powers within got a deal to share in the spoils) and that apposition was reported in the American press as support for “our enemies”

            I’m sure press in France spins many things as well that US does that dont benefit French power brokers within.

            I’m a big fan of France and French culture. in fact I am 1/4 French and 3/4 Spanish in blood. But you Patrice, are truly a fan in the true meaning of the word.

            I honestly wish I had more time for reading and intellectual enrichment. One of the issues in America is that we work way too many hours and our lives are made too complicated by our consumerist, economic growth at all costs type of culture. That and my wife and kids require way too much attention.

            I do know that nearly everything has a spin, an opinion, and a bias.

            I’m not sure you are aware that you are biased which is one of the first things an educated person should acknowledge.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            I am not obsessed by “France”. It’s true that in 1066 CE, “France” did not exist. The word used was “Francia”. I agree with a lot of the things you say. My aim, precisely, is not to have “bias”.
            I was in the USA in 2003 (as I was in 1993, 1983, etc.). Not far from where I lived, a business called the “French Bakery” was burned down because of its name (it had only “French” as a connection with France). There was total anti-French hysteria in 2003. Several “friends” I had never talked to me again, because I defended the French position about the invasion of Iraq.

            Educated persons who are biased would improve themselves by admitting they are biased. Indeed. This principle has guided me forever. I don’t even crack jokes, lest people would think I am biased.

            So, if I am biased, tell me where, I will try to find time to defend myself. Charges without foundations are called insults by unbiased people.

          • Duviel Says:

            Patrice the point is that yes you are biased and so am I and everyone else to varying degrees.

            Just by saying that you are trying to not be biased shows you dont understand the impossibility of this.

            What we should try is to acknowledge our individual biases and try to study them to minimize them while always acknowledging that what we say is from our point of view and not absolute truth.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Nestling too many comments. I have an essay coming on this. I reposted your comment to avoid nestling, and will answer it now and with the essay.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      To know more details about why the nuclear bombings were the moral thing to do:

      The war at that point killed a minimum of 7,000 people a day.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Even after the emperor was allowed to keep the throne, the top general announced his will to see 100 million Japanese die. The fanatics had gigantic stockpiles of buried weapons, including maybe 10,000 planes in the greater Tokyo area.

      Even after the order of stand down had been explicitly given by the emperor himself, on the radio, and all Japan listened, the entire high command of the kamikaze force, headed by the admiral who struck Pearl Harbor, took off, in 40 planes or so, and was never seen again.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The SCIENTIFIC head of the Manhattan project in the US was Italian anti-fascist immigrant Nobel Laureate Enrico Fermi (the overall head was a US general). No German was technically involved whom I know off (although several Hungarians were: Ulam, Teller, etc.) Einstein was asked by the Hungarian physicist Szilard to write a letter to FDR asking for money.

      The fundamental idea came from Irene and (secondarily) Frederic Joliot Curie. However, a switch was made from Heavy Water as a moderator, to Boron in University of Chicago. The Germans knew enough to grab the electric plant in Norway which made the heavy water for the French. Hence (part of the reason for) the Nazi attack on Norway. That plant was attacked many times during the war.

      After the war, Churchill wanted to jail the top French physicists…

    • EugenR Says:

      Actually following the famous e=mc2, Einstein did not believe that in near future it will have any practical implication. But at 1939, Otto Hahn made first time a chain reaction while experimenting with Uranium 235 isotope. He was an experimental chemist, and could not figure out to where the mass disappeared , so he wrote a letter to his colleague, Lisa Maitnar, an Austrian born Jewish physicists, who by then had to take refuge in Sweeden, what all this means. Lisa, with her naive way of trusting Otto, who was a Nazi party member, explained him about chain reaction and what it means. Fortunately her cousin, also a physicist, told Neal Bohr about the event. He took the next boat to US, and told Einstein about it. Einstein himself a Jewish refuge of Hitler and the Nazi regime, wrote then his famous letter to Roosevelt, that started the Manhattan project.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Studying the original literature, as I did, shows that Otto Hahn was just reproducing the experiments Irene Curie had written to him about (until she shut up, in 1938, at the directive of French War Ministry). Irene was ALREADY a Nobel Laureate.

        The story you told is the “official” one. Not the real one. In the real one the French nuclear bomb program was transferred to England first, and then the joint program went to… “Manhattan”. It’s Szilard who contacted Einstein, but by then, the nuclear effort had been considered topmost top secret ultra important by the French, then the Brits, etc.

  6. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    Did you spend the last days watching Game of Thrones instead of writing as is your duty?;-)

  7. Gmax Says:

    @ Duviel:
    Accusing Patrice of bias without telling us what the bias is smacks of an insult.
    In 1066, the Duke of Normandy had been a Frank for five generations. The Frankish army which invaded England was mostly led by barons who were not vassals of William

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      True. It was mostly a Frankish army from outside Normandy, which invaded England, hence the Magna Carta.

    • Duviel Says:

      Its in most of what she writes. If you dont see it you must be completely bought into the whole greatness of France B.S. someone is selling you. France has much to be proud of and much to not be proud of just like the US and most other large nations of its type.

      Lets just look at a couple quick excerpts from her current article.

      “in a world war with Philippe II, the fascist Catholic emperor of Spain. Spain had conquered the entire world. There was only one problem left: the French army, which, not only defended France, but also the Netherlands”

      Its always the Spanish, German, English, American that are Fascists (or whatever other derogatory term) and always France the great noble nation according to Patrice.

      “Bush to invade Iraq, to grab the oil”

      Always harping on American imperialistic advantage taking (and she might be correct) but never mentions French Invasions in SE Asia, Africa and the ME to grab resources too.

      “The nuclear bomb program was launched by the French in January 1938. And the goal was to nuclear bomb Nazi Germany. After a lot of James Bond like action, for real, from France to Norway, the bomb was not ready soon enough to smash Nazi impudence and violence against civilization. However, The Bomb snuffed the top Japanese military arrogance”

      You would think by reading this quote that it was France that developed the Nuclear bomb all by itself! And that is in no stretch of imagination correct. Patrice can pick out small excerpts of history to try to argue that point but any even minded individual that researches the topic knows that although French scientists played a part so did many others from many countries and it all came together in the US through the Manhattan project. Not in France.

      I am very busy but I could go on all day if I had time.

      • Gmax Says:

        That Philip 2 of Spain was a fascist conqueror is a historical fact. He spent his life trying to conquer the Netherlands. And France was in the way. Militarily. France and Spain fought from the 1400s until 1660 when the French army defeated the Spanish Squares.

        Also on the bomb. Patrice told the whole story before IN essays, years ago. She said: “LAUNCHED”. You read: “DEVELOPED”. And so on.

        It’s not Patrice’s fault if the US did not exist 5 centuries ago

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        ““in a world war with Philippe II, the fascist Catholic emperor of Spain. Spain had conquered the entire world. There was only one problem left: the French army, which, not only defended France, but also the Netherlands”

        Its always the Spanish, German, English, American that are Fascists (or whatever other derogatory term) and always France the great noble nation according to Patrice.”

        OK, so Dear Duviel considers “biased” to express satisfaction about the fact that fascist theocratic war criminal, inquisition grand master Philipp II did not succeed to vanquish France, and thus the Netherlands and Britain… Thus, criticizing the Grand Catholic Inquisition, and being ready to grab weapons to prevent Jewish and French Protestant to be burned alive is being… biased!!! I guess calling the Nazis bird names makes me… biased too…

        • Duviel Says:

          No its not just this its in most of what you write. I very rarely hear you say of French attempts to conquer other lands and crimes committed in colonies and wars.

          Unfortunately history has many more examples of nation states being evil than of good deeds but France is just as big a player in the good and the bad as anyone.

      • EugenR Says:

        And France was also a colonial power, in South-East Asia, fought a colonial war against Vietnam and lost. The later US-Vietnam war, Pol Pot, (who by the way studied in France), etc. was partly caused by France. As to Algeria, France at first fought a colonial war, then withdrew sacrificing 1 milion French nationals, who were partly murdered by the Arabs, and mostly had to start their life in France, without any recognition of being victims of French colonial policy. The French French called them “pied noire, ( black foot)” not a very flattering name, that represented the general negative attitudes towards them of the French lefty intellectuals, leaded by Sartre. By the way Sartre, the intellectual who influenced France more than anyone else, when left alone in the intellectual salons after the unfortunate death of Camus. How wrong he was about the Communists and many other things. No one speaks about it.

        • Duviel Says:

          France is an old and large nation. Much too be proud about but also much to not be proud about. Just like any other comparative nation. From my perspective, Patrice makes it seem like all good comes from France and all bad comes from other nations. Im exaggerating but you get my point im sure.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            You are deducing I have bias, because you came across a few things of mine, which gave you some aspects you generalized from. I have written very critically about much of the sacred cows of Frankish and French history. Example:

            In particular, I have written extremely condemning things about Saint Louis (Louis IX).
            However, three centuries ago, the US did not exist.
            Thus the modern judicial system was not created under the government of US king George Washington IX, more than six centuries ago. It was created under Louis IX, king of France, and the US inherited that system.

            The Imperium Francorum/Renovatio Imperium Romanorum actually covered all of Europe, arguably, to this day.

            Those who say France was a nation among others do not understand that Francia, and then France is the mothership for both Great Britain and the US. And not just them, but also: Spain, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands… There is nothing like “comparative nation”. Pride has nothing to do with Frankish/French supremacy. It’s a question of history. Invasion, and military and philosophical might, everything to do with it.

            Even the plutophile plutocratic British historian Edward Gibbon wrote, in his most famous passage, well before the birth of the US, that the Frankish victories against the Muslims are the one and only reason why Europe did not become Muslim.

            Maybe you should have a look at the map in:

            I feel pretty sure that Eugen, who has commented on this site for many years, does not get your point. Objectivity and truth are the engines of this site. He knows that.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The US actually armed the Vietminh against France, starting in 1945 (hint: that was not to establish a communist regime). In that sense, Obama’s visit in Vietnam, 71 years later (!!!!) is a direct continuation: the Vietminh (aka Vietnam) is going to get weapons from the US, just like 71 years ago…

          The problem of the Franco-Algerian war is that it was considered, and partly fought as, a colonial war. But it was also a civil war, and a religious war, and a foreign intervention, and a war of democracy against plutocracy, and one of the past against the future.

          BTW, these quandaries are all over, not just Israel. But all over the Middle east, and now even Europe.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I have fiercely attacked Sartre many times on this site. Sartre himself recognized he was much more a writer than a philosopher (I agree 100%!)
          I have also attacked Camus, especially for “The Stranger”, his most famous book, which I view as a piece of racist trash.

          An Algerian author recently wrote a book/novel agreeing with me: “Meursault, contre-enquete”.

  8. Duviel Says:

    Patrice the point is that yes you are biased and so am I and everyone else to varying degrees.

    Just by saying that you are trying to not be biased shows you dont understand the impossibility of this.

    What we should try is to acknowledge our individual biases and try to study them to minimize them while always acknowledging that what we say is from our point of view and not absolute truth.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It seems to me that you conflated “trying to be not biased” and “not being biased”. If I am trying not to be biased, it means I am aware of the possibility of bias.
      So I agree with you, and you charged through an open door.
      The way to fight bias is, paradoxically, with deliberate bias. Just as the way to fight aircraft accidents is to run through aircraft accident scenarios.
      So the way against bias is not minimization, but to out-devil the devil.

      BTW, if I don’t understand the impossibility of something, that means I understand its possibility (double negative is a positive; clearer logic is always superior).

  9. Duviel Says:

    “If I am trying not to be biased, it means I am aware of the possibility of bias”

    Yes, and It also means you must think being un-biased is a possibility.

    Unless you try to accomplish what you believe is unaccomplishable?

    Regardless, I applaud the effort if its sincere.

    So you fight bias by being biased purposefully and then analyzing said bias?

    Okay so your logic play in words says that:

    You understand the possibility of being un-biased?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am a scientist. One learns science by making exercises, that is, errors. Systemic errors are caused by inappropriate bias. The way to remove bias, is to learn all possible biases. Just as to learn science is to learn all errors one can find. Same in philosophy, or history… Anyway, I try to post an essay on this today.

  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Defense issues]

    The Manhattan project was called Manhattan, because… Because the British nuclear bomb program was safer in Manhattan… And who got that started? The French, in January 1938.

    The Germans never thought a nuclear chain reaction was possible, until Irene Curie (who was already a Nobel Laureate) taught it to Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, who kept it away from Heisenberg, scientific head of the vague Nazi effort…

    It goes without saying that nearly nobody knows that the Manhattan project was actually started as a French nuclear bomb project…

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: