CONQUEST Of England, 950 Years Ago: End of Slavery, Birth of Modern Democracy

The BATTLE OF HASTINGS, WON By The FRANKS 950 YEARS AGO: Outlawing Slavery, Jump Starting Democracy

How did British democracy arise? With the exact opposite maneuver from Brexit. What is the opposite of Brit-exit? Frank-in. And when William the Conqueror, came in, conquered-in, he did not just bring, but enforced a more advanced civilization, and much more, a process to self-feed democracy.

The ascent of Britain, blossoming into the edge of world civilization is a long story which started well before Caesar’s two landings in England. The mighty, yet disorganized Celtic civilization had been divided into a diversity of a bewildering obfuscation (fostered by the Druids) of countless small units: Gaul had 60 nations, with 60 central banks, senates and three languages. Roman organization put an end to that non-sense, and Gaul came out much stronger, wealthier and more intelligent (the Druids cultivated stupidity, by outlawing written expression, except among themselves).

The collapse of the Roman state brought an even greater mess to Britain, while the continent got reorganized under the Franks’ Lex Salica (see chapter inside the essay on Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood). The reconquest of England by the Franks under the command of a Roman duke of Normandy added a whole new layer of complexity in the subtilty of government. It is William’s Conquest, a conquest by a plurality, and the most advanced principles, which instigated the rise of the world’s most advanced democracy, protected, as it was thereafter, by the insular nature of Britain (whereas the rest of the Roman empire, on the other side of the Channel, fell in ever worse divisions sheared from ever mightier armies).

After its conquest under Claudius, a Roman emperor born in Lyon (Lugdunum), Britannia was unified and pacified for more than four centuries. However budget cuts by the theologically minded plutocrats who ruled Rome around 400 CE, led to the withdrawal of the legions (which constituted the core of the crack field armies of the empire). Local Roman militia was unable to repel waves of invasion of determined Angles and Saxons in the next two centuries. Finally British forces retreated towards Wales or took refuge in what came to be known as Brittany (formerly Armorica, the large western peninsula of France advancing in the Atlantic). Then the Viking came, overrunning much of England, and all of Ireland.

By the Eleventh Century, the king ruling England, Edward the Confessor, had no direct descendant. (His earlier life had been astoundingly full of battles and unlikely events; suffices to say he was the seventh son of his father, from his second wife, Emma of Normandy who ended up marrying a Viking invader, Cnut, who conveniently executed some of Edward’s half brothers. Edward spent many years in exile in Normandy (and acted accordingly: Edward could see that Frankish civilization was superior). 

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of Some Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue (Poitou, Anjou, Flanders) or Green (Bretagne)

The Reconquista Of Britannia By A Dux Of The Roman Empire:

The reconquest of Britannia by a Roman Dux was no accident: five centuries after being overrun by the Angles and Saxons, the British Isles were more of a wasteland than ever, as waves of Viking sloshed all over. It was high time for re-establishing civilization. Only force can re-establish civilization (a theme of mine). William would apply overwhelming force, in the service of the most advanced civilization anywhere. And it worked splendidly: the progress he launched became self-feeding, and promoted peace. Indeed, after William’s conquest, except for a victorious Dutch invasion in 1688 CE (with the objective of defeating France’s dictator, Louis XIV), England would never be conquered again. 

The closest relative of king Edward the Confessor was the Norman Dux (“Dux”, Duc, Duke, was a Roman military title of the Late Empire: a Dux was the superior military officer of a large province, only subject to command from the Emperor himself). More exactly, Edward was the grandson of the maternal uncle of William the Conqueror. The accession of William to the ducal throne had been difficult because his father had died in Nicea (Anatolia), when William was seven years old. William’s mother was his father’s mistress, an independent business woman who then married somebody else. However, Dukes of Normandy were often “illegitimate”, and there is no doubt that his father intended William to be Duke (he made his vassals take an oath of obedience to his son, before leaving for the crusade, over his family’s objections).

By the age of 23, the battle tested William was the uncontested Duke of Normandy, and Edward was back, overlording an English realm streaked by Viking raids. Thus, in 1051 CE, Edward selected William as heir (no doubt feeling that Britain needed to be reintegrated in the Roman ensemble, for its own good as it indeed turned out). In 1064 CE, a top officer of Edward, Harold, showed up in Normandy, helped William wage war in Brittany, and told him that he, Harold, would support his claim to the throne (at least that is what Normand discrediting propaganda claimed at the time).

On January 5, 1066, Edward died and Harold, treacherously, took power as king of England. Many other claimants and grandees were not happy, and a complicated war started, with four parties involved.

However William was an official Duke of the Roman empire, had been named future king 15 years prior, and thus William was the only one with real legitimacy, and enormous clout (but making William king meant that Britain was reintegrating the Roman empire! And thus who thrived from the mess were going to suffer). Indeed, consent of Pope Alexander II for the invasion was obtained, and a Papal banner was flown by William. The Roman emperor also gave consent. On top of this, William was an extremely experienced military leader, used to command in the Roman imperator tradition (namely ready to execute miscreants as needed). William had been at war since age 8. And he was now 38 years old.

An enormous fleet was built, 3,000 ships it has been said. It sailed from the Somme river, once intelligence informed William that Harold’s army had been removed from the Channel and was battling in the north.

William led an army greatly composed of contingents under the direct command of many French barons who were not his vassals. In particular William’s forces comprised Breton, Anjou, Poitou armies (which made the left wing at the Hastings battle, commanded by Alan the Red, a relative of the Comte de Bretagne) and a French, Picardy, Flanders army (which made the right wing at Hastings, and was commanded by the Count of Boulogne, who was severely wounded in the pursuit of the Anglo-Saxon forces).


That two-third of William’s army was made of Frankish allies not his vassals was of great consequence: his non-vassal allies would shortly enforce upon the king the MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM, the Great Charter of Liberty.

During the battle, William’s left wing, the Breton army at some point cracked and fled, and was pursued by Harold’s forces, led by two of his brothers. That stretching of the enemy in the open enabled William’s cavalry to surprise and destroy them. The Normans feigned retreat twice more, to expose Harold’s army to cavalry (Harold had no cavalry, and no archers, William had both). William engineered attacks after attacks, changing strategy repeatedly, and had several horses killed under him. In the end, Harold was killed, some say by William himself (that Harold was killed by an arrow is apparently a later legend which arose when the Bayeux tapestry was misinterpreted).

The war was not finished.  English clergy and aristocrat nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king to replace Howard (whose body William had ordered thrown in the sea). To win the war, William instigated reforms right away.

William changed England in many ways. For example he was partly financed by Jewish financiers and brought rich Jews from Rouen to foster lending in England (an activity forbidden to Christians with Christians, but allowed from Jews to Christians). Thus William introduced Judaism to England (so Jews were not always victimized by it did not exist prior to that there).

William had made church reforms in Normandy. He extended them to England, and replaced English clergy by Normand clergy. William also enforced all the laws passed by Edward the Confessor (the preceding English king, who had spent most of his formative years in Normandy, thanks to William’s family, and much of his life, and had made his relative William his heir). Some laws protected especially the “Frenchmen who had come with William to England”, as one would expect after a conquest. But William went much further.


William The Conqueror’s Laws Created A New Polity And New Civilization:

William introduced ten major new laws. The first made Christianism the official religion (exit the pagan gods).

William’s second law made all Englishmen take a direct, personal oath of loyalty to the king, as if they were soldiers in the Roman army. Those who did not take the oath would not be considered to be freemen. The oath had to be witnessed by many. That was a very significant advance: prior to this, citizens did not have to take an oath of loyalty (only the Roman soldiers had to, except for a few years under Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius around 308 CE).

All problems have to be solved in court, ordered William. Non-attendees were heavily fined, up to the amount of the charge against them.

The final two laws passed by William were stunning:

No man is allowed to sell another man. Anyone breaking this law will pay a fine to the king.” This law outlawed slavery in England. 20% of the population had been enslaved under Harold. William, as a Roman Dux, had to implement the Lex Salica’s most prominent feature, the one that distinguished it more saillantly from Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman Law, was the interdiction of slavery. It is also on that law that the prosperity of the “Renovated Roman Empire” rested. Britain had been reunited with the empire (although, it was implicitly intimated that it never left).

No one shall be executed for crimes they have committed; but if they are guilty of a crime, they will be blinded and castrated. This law is not to be challenged.” Outlawing the death penalty was very much a world first. (Although the EU has outlawed the death penalty, the USA still uses it, 950 years later.)


Outlawing Slavery Was Not Just Frankish Law, But An Essential Part of William’s Power Grab

As a Dux of the Roman empire, William had to implement (Franco-)Roman law. Slavery had been made unlawful by the (English-born) Queen Bathilde of the Franks in 650 CE. Later the Franks conquered most of Western Europe, including the British isles and the part of Iberian and Italian peninsulas still held by the Muslims. The outlawing of slavery by the Franks was extended to these liberated territories where Roman rule was re-imposed.

In turn, the outlawing of slavery no doubt facilitated this Roman reconquest. For example, the 20% of Englishmen who found themselves to be “freemen” as long as they took a loyalty oath to William were no doubt enthusiastic supporters of William.


Frenchmen, and French

In the following centuries, many powerful French characters and adventurers in England, would try to preserve their power, or try to seize power, and would push for various democratic reforms limiting the power of the king. Out of that came the Magna Carta Libertatum (the descendants of the allies of William wanted to keep the powers William had conferred to them, that of allies, not vassals), the power of Parliament (Lancastre hoped to be elected king through Parliament, so he boosted its power; Lancastre was killed on the battlefield, but his reforms stayed). And so on.

Ever since William’s conquest, France and England have been entangled (although intellectual life on both sides of the Channel had been entangled for two millennia already: Druids would study in Wales, Saint Patrick was educated in Cannes, Anti-slavery queen of the Franks Bathide was from Kent, Alcuin, Charlemagne’s main PM and philosopher was English).

The reason for thinking otherwise, that England and France have serious differences (instead of being family), was the dictatorial drift under the fanatical Jihadist tyrant Louis XIV, while England went the other way, towards more democracy. Democracy brings power, dictatorship, weakness. The result was that France became weaker and England blossomed into a superpower. In the (world) wars of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Year War, and the Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars, a haggard France was defeated and more subtly plutocratic England became a world empire.  

It is the mess of more distributed power which rendered England ever more democratic. Whereas in France, the emperor-in-his-own-kingdom (that was the official expression!) Philippe-Auguste (literally: the lover of horses who augments!) colluded with the Pope to destroy the (quasi-republican) giant County of Toulouse (which was ruled under a Count, but mostly by Parliament).

However, moods perdure. Lancastre, one of those who exploited Toulouse got there the idea of using Parliament as a weapon against the king, and implemented the idea in England.

Intelligence is greater, the greater the ability to detect, distinguish, identify & imagine (knowledge, distinctions, equations & allusions).

Contemplating history shows that reason is not linear, but a web. And guess what? Quantum Theory says the same, and it has a name, entanglement. This is an entangled world, and to reveal it, one has to reveal its implicit order. It arises from occurrences. By building one’s neurology while missing the most important occurrences in the world pertaining to it, one risks becoming stupid. 

Patrice Ayme’.   


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to “CONQUEST Of England, 950 Years Ago: End of Slavery, Birth of Modern Democracy”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    Is there no limit to what you present to your devoted followers! Fascinating! And that’s just me reacting to a quick skim read through your essay!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Paul! Much appreciated. You of course understand that the dialogue with men of wealth and taste such as yourself, are part of the engine of this enterprise. I wait for any astute remark you may have. (They are always kind! ;-))


  2. ianmillerblog Says:

    My guess is, if Harold could have maintained more discipline and kept his soldiers on the hill, he probably would have prevailed. But before we get too enthused about William, recall that he effectively stole the assets of England and gave them to his lords. It was a conquest, nothing more and nothing less.


  3. EugenR Says:

    And i thought Simon de Montfort was the first to start democratic tradition, and not William, the most hated ruler of the time, who wasn’t even properly buried. If Simon would kill and not imprisoned Henry III, England could have become a parliamentary kingdom already in 13 century. Ian rightly wrote, William after invading England imposed policy of terror against the local Saxons, who continued to revolt. The Norman nobleman had to build dozens of castles to be able to rule the country with terror.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, I just alluded to Simon de Montfort (who brought the Republican, Parliamentary traditions he learned in Toulouse to England). It was just a 2,200 words essay, not a 22,000 treaty… You are correct that William had to engage in a ferocious repression (he built not just castles, but the tower of London). But my point was that the repression worked only because it was founded on severely democratic reforms (the loyalty oath, making tying up sovereign and We The People; the outlawing of slavery; the shutting down of the Viking, as their ways were outlawed, etc.) This is how six centuries of war and violent instability, raids by soldiers, came to an end.

      The “terror” was mostly against the old aristocracy, which was replaced by a Frankish aristocracy.


  4. John Rogers Says:

    Good stuff. Thank you.
    A little off topic, but what I’ve always found fascinating about the Norman conquest is the resulting distinction between meat on the hoof (cattle, sheep, pigs raised by the English peasants) and enjoyed on the Norman table (beef-boeuf, mutton-mouton, pork-porc) which survives to this day.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi John, thanks for thanking me, it’s my pleasure. The linguistic feature you point out is most striking, indeed, it shows a French aristocracy lived on top of the English population for many centuries (at least five, until the Elizabethan age; the king of England renounced France formally only in 1815).

      The basic population of England spoke English. They had been suffering from the constant war and raids. When the FRANKS (they were not yet the French) took military control of England, they made a giant deal, or contract, instigated by William, between the simple business people and peasants of England, and the new king. All the peasants who were actually slaves working for the English or Viking strongmen were freed, so they were grateful. Meanwhile land was redistributed to the French noble, often around new castles as Eugen said.

      The bottom line was the English prefered the new, French led, William led, system. At the same time, they kept they language and their ways: the local assemblies, etc, inherited from Roman, Angle, Saxon and Viking roots was preserved and blossomed into Parliament. Although new laws were imposed (some from the Lex Salica), no formal constitution was drawn. (One had to wait France to start drawing Constitutions formally, strating with Henri III’s civil code, 16 C, which legalized homosexuality).

      In any case, democratic England arose mostly as a Franko-French led adventure (see Simon de Montford, as Eugen rightly points out). The next near-miss was when the Duke of Bedford administered France with English soldiers (to save money for the Regency). That restarted the “100 Years War” (and it was 260 years later)


  5. indravaruna Says:

    France is onlynthe butt of the jokes of the Anglo-Zionist world order and you know it Patrice.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Insulting comments without justification maybe removed. This being said, there is some truthiness in what you say, so I let it pass. “The American Century” has little to do with Zionism, except if you want to go back to the “City on the Hill” from the Bible. The mood of the Bible was indeed very useful to justify the Holocaust of the Indians, France did not have it, so preserved the Indians, hence France was kicked out of North America, etc…
      Please make the effort to go beyond insults and go into specifics. Right now French CAESAR guns with 50 kilometer range are pounding Mosul. Interesting case of Franco-US cooperation…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As you may have notice, from my essay, it’s the French who brought the Jews to England. So who is using whom?


  6. Kevin Berger Says:

    (As a foreword, just let me re-iterate that indravaruna is not one of my alt nor sockpuppets, and reciprocally. I’m not that much of a troll).

    “France is onlynthe butt of the jokes of the Anglo-Zionist world order and you know it Patrice.”

    Well, that is quite true, isn’t it? (And to please IV, I could go on a bit about the way the heavily Jewish US pundicracy & entertainment helped drag France into shit, to some lasting effects, during the latest surge of periodical anti-French racism. Hell, even SNL, that bastion of self-righteous PCness ,is somehow so ashamed of one of its skits back then, that it has apparently been scrubbed off the internet, openly racist that it was)

    This is a very interesting text, full of meat to digest (that short-lived second French invasion leading up, in reaction, to the Magna Carta the anglos are thinking about, when they think Magna Carta : yet one more deliberately cultivated blindspot, along the “Glorious Revoultion”, when the Godons circle-jerk about not “having been invaded for a millenium”).
    But, it doesn’t matter, really, just like when you taunt your US friends with the (intrinsically true) notion that the US civilisation is French civilisation; it is just as true, but it doesn’t matter at all.
    The Anglo, world has decided once for all, quite a while ago (19th? Earlier, with the shift from Catholicism to Anglicanism?) that they are not, I repeat, they are not “French”. You, or everybody else can come up and start putting historical facts on the table, it doesn’t matter. It is a conscious decision, a self-identity built on the fact that they are not, I repeat, not “French”; never were (“it was the Normans! The Normans!), never have been, never will be. It is all about “Middle-English”, “Anglo Norman”, “Normans”,… The cultural equivalent of “na na na, can’t hear you!”…
    It doesn’t matter, when there is enough of a sentiment to make a book like this commercially viable (but, remember, it’s “banter”…”Crecy! Azincourt! Waterloo!”) :
    Your Franks just don’t cut it; the Anglo cultural hard-on is all about Northern Europe, the Nordics, the Germanic people a bit, the Celtic ones also, granted they are the “cools ones” (IE, the anglo Celts are Celts, the French are Gallic)… Ah, the Vikings! Now that is something that leave them throbbing.

    As a matter of fact, “they”, meaning the cultural, chtonic core of the anglo soul, not every Brit, obviously, never, ever will forgive France for going its own way (didn’t the British crown actually include its “French” possessions into some kind of yearly ceremonial speech, well into the 1850’s?), and this is not a resentment prone to forgiveness too. My best guess is the heart of this unspoken, everlasting regret, is not to have been able to do to the French what could be done to the Irish; even today, there is a crypto-genocidal nastiness in the (absolutely unreciprocated, and I believe I am being honest in this assessment) anglo obsession about France and the French, manifesting in obvious racist undertones (do I need to list them? French as weak, lazy, untrustworthy, dirty, smelly, cowardly, effeminate, ineffectual, lecherous, arrogant, etc, etc…), and actual efforts to diminish French influence – cue in the ongoing push to drop French out of the languages used in international institutions -, or even to “erase” France a posteriori, through the anglo cultural dominance (cf. the POS nordic games designer company, with its latest blockbuster game on WWI, through which hundred of thousands of dumbfucks will “get” their worldview by cultural osmosis, and in which the main WWI protagonists on the West front are the Germans, the USA, and the UK; France? Well, you can buy a later extension.)

    This really is one of your points I just cannot feel like agreeing about (not that it matters much, to you nor to everyone else); your pet ideas about religion, I can wrap my mind around, come to the conclusion that you are essentially right, but don’t care much for it and leave it on the side.
    But this is I just cannot go along, as its companion notion that the USA, UK and France are “sister Republics” – whereas your very writing underlines the falseness of this idea.

    Anyhow. Aside from my own pet obsessions, it all boils down to the idea that, intrinsically right as you may be, it simply doesn’t matter. Because collective identity is what people agree about, and the anglo world has agreed a long time it was its own, unique, superior thing, its own singularity, and your Franks can go to hell.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, Kevin, to get along what you say, I actually had a (sort of) funny exchange with an old Brit this morning, who had not read my essay, not at all, but informed me that “we know where it comes from”. And then to tell me that in North England William is viewed as monster. Monster that (re) founded Britannia?

      My point of view on what you express above (which is all too often, way too real!) is that it all came from the “West Country Men”, under Elizabeth and James I. They wasted Irlenad, indeed, and then founded the North American colony (Jamestown, and then Massachusetts). Their plutocratic, in the sense of satanic, model of civilization and conquest was highly successful, but had to defeat the much milder French civilization first. So this turn around 1600 CE to the Dark Side is still what we are living through today. Four centuries of success with backstabbing (the latest spectacular one being Adolf Hitler, a sort of Wall Street unconscious agent).

      Not to despair: the Assyrians were nasty for longer than that, before their charade got called of… 😉


      • Kevin Berger Says:

        “(the latest spectacular one being Adolf Hitler, a sort of Wall Street unconscious agent). “
        On a somewhat similar level, it is now openly known (mentioned in news articles from a few years ago) that Mussolini had been a paid UK agent between the two WW; not sure of the timetable, but that doesn’t leave much of a window before 1922. AFAICT, Fascist Italy was something of a sprint-run for Nazi Germany, when it came to collaboration between UK & Us industrialists and fascist regimes – though in Italy, it was more about setting an anti-unions, anti-communists template, then copied in the US proper with corporate militias, while Germany involved huge amount of investments, thanks to the war debt merry-go round and the loophole of domestic anti-trust legislation, the Nazis seen as good anti-USSR guards dogs for those investments.
        So, not just Germany, but Italy to, and earlier. Fascism-wise, it seems that only Franquism was not popular with the Anglo elites (I can vaguely think of hearing about one single US high-ranking military guy, from Mac Arthur staff?, who was very fond of it, but IIRC, he was enamoured with Franco proper); too Catholic/reactionary, maybe? Plus the Phalangists were possibly more Strasserite, revolutionary-fascists.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Mussolini was brought to Milan by the Communists who had shot him, and hanged upside down from a Standard Oil Of New Jersey (ESSO aka EXXON) service station, with his delightful mistress with the luscious thighs (later covered by some prude Italian woman). That was no accident.

          The involvement of Anglo-Saxonia in the rise of European fascism was crucial, fundamental, generating, inchoating, disturbing, very telling and even bettered covered-up. Basically, if the Anglo-Saxons had just been neutral, the French Republic would have crushed the German and Italian and Spanish fascists. But they were not. The Nobel Prize (same category as Dylan) Winston Churchill threatened to bomb France in 1929, simply because France has had enough of the secret rearmament of the German Second Reich (aka “Weimar “republic””). Germany was rearming because the Anglo-Saxons had decided that, and with the active collaboration of another Wall Street pawn… the USSR (go ask specialists of the lives of the Harriman Brothers about that one).

          Obama’s mercantilist (let Apple-Amazon-Google-Facebook-etc.) pay no taxes and serve as generalized NSA… is pure corporate fascism in a sense that Benito and Adolf prescribed, and implemented… with US companies (and to a lesser extent, British ones). They were all following professor Gentile. Secretly, the US government was no acting any differently.

          FDR was told as clearly as possible that Franco was “the war will be long, because it is the war of an army against a nation”. So Washington knew about Franco.


          • Kevin Berger Says:

            I still wonder if the particular USian animus against France and the French (different from the Brit one in that there is no, IMHO, a paradoxical Francophilia/fixation upon France that also happens to be a class marker) is not due in part to the US Elites (MIC, intelligence) having “digested” a good swath of the Nazi & Nazi collaborators elites right after WWII (visible to this day, with the remainders and followers of such cadre-in-exile being used first in Yugoslavia, then in the Baltic countries, then in Ukraine)?
            Added to demography leading to a pro-Germanic bias (1/4 of early 20th USA being of German descent IIRC), this would go a long way to help explain the seriously nasty, racist tone of recent French-bashing.
            Well, this, plus the pants-shitting fear and sense of violation of 9/11, I guess, that would need to be projected onto a coward that would be someone else.

            In any case, we always are circling back to WWII being a bait & switch con game, with the two victors (USA & USSR) being the two main enablers of this con game (and the marks being the sorry European powers, Germany foremost, deprived of what should have been its rightful place in the 20th Century by its own greed and autism).
            Which btw makes the WWII mythology at the (quasi-theological) core of the US/UK world order even more infuriating. It’s one thing to be a mark; having the conmen drape themselves in self-righteousness and holier-than-you self-flattering, all based largely on pretty and not-so pretty lies, is an another thing altogether (cf. the “appeasement” BS tropes pushed right before the iraq war, to quell criticism).
            With such a success story, there is no way it won’t be attempted again; as you noted, wars always have been good for the Anglos, UK or US, win-win businesses that are fought on the other side of their moats. The template is clear.


          • Gmax Says:

            I think this is all one of the main gist of Patrice’s work. The connection between fascism and the US. Patrice explained the difference arose with West Country Men


          • Gmax Says:

            Did you read Patrice latest on Von Braun? That he was pushed to make the ways of Nazism more palatable


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      They view themselves as different, but they are, civilizationally speaking, Franks. In California (where Clinton is more than 20 points ahead of Trump), the Frank/French component is nearly dominant (hundreds of thousands of people, in the Bay Area alone descend from the French. And the French are crawling all over the place, even this morning I met 2 French I never saw before…)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Another thing: a lot of the problems of France nowadays originate from the French adopting the official US discourse as the way civilization ought to be organized. However, California does not work that way. In many ways, California is more Franko-French than contemporary France, thus demonstrating several of my points.


      • Kevin Berger Says:

        Juste un truc, petit moratoire à venir sur mes commentaires, parce que je me répète et je tourne en rond, et que je ne voudrais pas asphyxier le forum en décourageant d’autres commentateurs plus anciens ou plus versatiles.

        En ce qui concerne la France, outre ce problème d’ordre “spirituel” que je ne vois pas réglé avant longtemps (comment, d’ailleurs?), il y a vraiment un délitement continu de tout ce qui est structurant dans ce qui était autrefois une Nation. Peuple, état, idée de soi (avec par exemple l’auto-perception des français qui s’effectue désormais à travers un prisme anglo complètement déformé et déformant, car basé sur des constructions davantage en relation avec ce qu’ils sont que ce que nous sommes, cf. l'”Onion Johnny” que ces rats de F2 utilisent régulièrement pour leurs infographies), ce qui grippe complètement ce qui aurait pu être “l’assimilation à la française” de ce bouleversement démographique inédit à une échelle humaine), histoire, destin,…

        A titre d’exemple : il y a un moment que j’ai arrêté de consulter régulièrement la fachosphère, trop déprimant, trop salissant, mais je suis amusé de constater que les “petits” faits-divers, ceux qui ne remontaient quasi-jamais au niveau national et étaient leur pain quotidien d’agrégateurs de niouzes, ces faits-divers font vraiment l’actualité depuis quelques semaines. Effet psychologique des attentats? (Pas sur les journalistes, mais peut-être sur les auteurs?).
        En l’espace de quelques jours, agressions notables de profs (avec aspect religieux), d’établissements scolaires, de mairies, de médecins et d’urgentistes, et l’attentat – pas d’autres mots – sur les deux ADS à Evry, avec la police qui manifeste contre les ordres.
        Il n’y a rien de fondamentalement nouveau, les deux poulets rôtis (désolé…) au cocktail molotov sont dans la droite lignée de tout ce qui a été délibérement toléré depuis 20, 30 ans, et je pourrais de toute manière vous sortir d’autres exemples plus anciens – de tête, ce vigile de supermarché, défiguré et mutilé par le feu vers la fin des années 90, et dont je me souviens de la très courte et terrible interview après l’audience du procès qui avait condamné ses agresseurs à des peines ridicules; ou alors, cette infirmière à domicile également mutilée par le feu, deux mains perdues je crois, lors d’une agression raciste gratuite un soir de Noël, début années 2000?

        Enfin, bref, plus que l’énumération des chiens écrasés, ce que j’essaye de décrire avec mon broken créole est cette sensation floue mais bien réelle qu’il y a un changement; une remarque que j’ai déjà faite auparavant, mais dont je suis certain : la situation en France se “raidit”.
        Tout ce qui a été caché sous le tapis, pour que l’entre-soit du pouvoir se gave tranquillement, tout cela n’est plus niable. Il n’y a même pas encore de changement de discours, encore moins d’action, mais tout est là. Avec Charlie hebdo, je pense, tout a éclaté en vol, et même si l’on continue comme avant ou presque (le théâtre de “Sentinelle”, avec tous ses non-dits inquiétants…), le roi est nu, cul à l’air, “ça ne va pas”, tout le monde le sent, tout le monde le sait, chacun à son petit niveau, mais… il n’y a pas de réponses, pas de solutions en l’état. Il va falloir reconstruire ce qui a été mis à bas, par trahison et par intérêt personnel.
        Donc, que faire, comme disait l’autre? Moi, je n’en sais rien, et je m’en branle au fond, mais quel gâchis, quelle honte, quand même.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          First Kevin, please relax about your comments, I find them interesting. Now as far as the French national spirit disintegrating, the same problem happens in the USA, Britain, and now even Germany. The cause is everywhere the same. Global plutocratization targets We The Peoples, and transform them into impotent mulch. It is a plan, conscious or not (theory of subconscious coming soon!!!!) We saw it before with the Populus Romanus. It is the exact same thing. For plutocracy to rise, the mood of the People needs to be depressed.

          For plutocracy to rise, the mood of We The People needs to get depressed. It happens in France, Britain, the USA. As It happened in BCE Rome.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Still another thing: England, full of hubris at this point from Brexit, will collapse, thanks to Brexit (watch the Pound!) So lots of the arrogance will be gone pretty soon.


      • Kevin Berger Says:

        Well, we’ll see. As long as the EU is well aware of its (soon to be?) new neighbour’s typical shenanigans, when it comes to making the continentals act like the proverbial nest of crabs…
        Starting with Brexit, if it happens at all, the Brits just won’t try to have any sort of continental union stall, they’ll in all likelihood try to have it crash and burn – “Virtuous Albion” it isn’t. Beware.


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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: