WHY & HOW CIVILIZATION COLLAPSE (Part 1): Alexander, Greeks, Romans, Franks, Vikings, Macron, Mali

Why Do Civilizations “collapse”?

Many have tried to say something on this subject, but their knowledge of Deep History was superficial, and Political Correctness prevented them to think in full. They didn’t do as good a job as the British historian Edward Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, published 241 years ago, by an extremely long shot. Gibbon understood the importance of system of thoughts. To understand history, one had to understand the importance of system of moods. Submissive mentalities such as Confucianism and Islamism dug their own graves. All too many success authors recently, did the same, by not understanding by not admitting that mindsets and metaphysics rule civilizations.

Why have Western Civilization and China not collapsed? Well, China was both very incompetent and very lucky. Incompetent, in no small part, because it was intellectually isolated (not anymore!) 

Western Civilization was smarter than China, that’s the non PC revelation which nobody wants to draw: non-collapse is all about intelligence. In great part because, Europe, the labyrinthine extremity of Eurasia, is less isolated than China: Europe is smack dab in the Middle Earth. Thus Europe had the opportunity to learn much more history than China, isolated by a whole array of giant mountain ranges and deserts. Those societies which learned history better did better. For example, Europe learned in various ways why its ancestors, the Sumerian cities, Egypt, Babylon, Tyr, flooded, dried up, became unrecognizable after invasions, degenerated into quasi-oblivion, were completely annihilated (Hittites, Phrygia, Assyria, Tyr, Carthage), or became irrelevant (Eastern Roman empire, and all parts of the Roman empire conquered by the Islamists and not wrestled back).

This continual learning was applied live, as events unfolded, by the master leaders. Alexander had a deep appreciation of the higher principles which made a highest civilization tick: he was tolerant and forgiving, qualities that Julius Caesar, who had studied Alexander’s life extensively, copied to excess! Julian would also sin in the same exact superior way. Clovis didn’t study the Greeks to the extent Caesar and Julian had,  yet he expressed his determination to use force to rewrite the fundamentals of Christianism, upside down (keep the good, throw away the bad!) Charlemagne took himself for a reincarnation of King David, and operated accordingly. Hence the Romans, when they took control of Hellas were careful not to annihilate their cultural ancestors and superiors, the Greeks. Instead, they just put their foot on them, and the Greeks despised them back (until they regained control, 800 years later).



And the dementia it both incarnates, and brings forth. More than 200 reasons have been evoked to explain the collapse of the Roman State. I have basically just one, but it’s a master reason which, modulo long, devious logical chains and happenstance, imply the other 200 reasons. That master reason made the Roman State completely senile. And we are repeating it now, by letting just a few do all the thinking, supposing they can think (and not just follow a public opinion which has itself been informed by plutocratic media), and having just a few do all the ordering around.

The senile, superstitious empire, and its well-meaning, evil leaders, and founding church fathers, was wiped out, and replaced by the frankly philosophically brutal Franks. However, as we will see, similarly to the Yuans, or the Romans of the morbid Republic, or the Romans of the late empire, by the Ninth Century, the Franks lost track of whom the Barbarians to be fought were. They forgot that smashing Barbarians was number one top priority.

Just like now.

And the reason for forgetting the evil of Barbarians is that we are led by an oligarchy who know all too well it’s evil (Bill Clinton surprised me by admitting that said oligarchy was nothing if it didn’t do good, at the Kohl funeral in the European Parliament; I guess he was burying himself alive? I noticed the absence of Obama, by the way…) Oligarchies are always anxious to entertain Barbarians even more abominable than it is. So that they shine, and are excused, relatively speaking.

We are indeed going through a similar process right now.  I watched ex-Kanzler Helmut Kohl funeral ceremony at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. Kohl unified Germany, held hands with the French president and consented to the French idea of the common currency (“Euro”). A great European, who had learned his fundamental lesson among the ruins of the 1000 Year Fascist-Racist Nationalist-Socialist Reich, to which the French Republic had declared war, six years prior.

Superficially it was a great Franco-German European get-together. What I saw was an assembly of potentates, some notoriously corrupt, kissy kissy with each other. Kanzlerin Merkel and French President Macron talked well. However: Words are empty at best, full of poison, at worst, when thought by only a few, they feed too much power in too few hands.

Some will object. They will say the obvious, thinking they are very smart when charging windmills. They will smirk, not knowing their prove the point they want to deride.



One guy in Strasbourg was Russian Prime Minster Medvedev. He is apparently nearly as wealthy as Bill Clinton. Not bad for a guy who was only always in government jobs. Even when they are not wealthy in properties, those oligarchs who have all the power, are wealthy in outrageous power, and we don’t have the means to talk back (several major media in the USA and the UK ban me, for example, as they are seemingly terrified that their readers would read me in a comment… And then realize I am more free, better informed, and all together more interesting).

Representative “democracy” is all about a few elected individuals taking all the decisions. Right. That’s exactly how and why Rome went down. Accepting the Earthly rule of just a few individuals is accepting the rule of a few minds, unexamined. It is accepting the rule of idiocy. The pure Republic was rather a direct democracy; the impure Republic which Augustus set-up was rather a fascist dictatorship. The pure Republic established the empire, and dreamed to extend over the whole planet! It could, and would, have done it, had it found a way to preserve direct democracy, globally. That was, on paper, easy: to conquer the world, Rome just had to globalize the anti-plutocracy mindset! That would have required to refurbish the absolute legal limit on wealth, and also to end slavery (the Franks would do the latter; absolute limit on wealth was less crucial with the Franks because of fair inheritance laws).

Rome all the way to India, China, reaching the Pacific? It didn’t happen because Roman direct democracy collapsed in a plutocratic crisis.


Notice that, most the Western Mediterranean, is divided between the Carthaginian empire and the Marseilles empire. Rome is still tiny. The logical thing to do was for Alexander to conquer all of Arabia (the south had agriculture). He intended to do just that, before taking care of Rome and Carthage (not Marseilles, or Magna Grecia in south Italy, both of which were Greek). However Alexander died at 32, while preparing the mixed sea-land invasion of Arabia. Also notice the hole in the middle, uncolored in purple: this represents Athens and her allies, which Alexander did not force to submit. The fiend Antipater, older than Alexander by half a century did, though, after he probably had the Alexander poisoned! The real Game of Throne is so complex, we don’t know yet where it started, nor how it will end…


Conquering the was tried by Alexander the Great first, but his Greek and Macedonian army longed for home, and found that India was much more powerful militarily than expected. Indians could, and were defeated, but clearly the resources were too stretched out. On his way back, Alexander, infuriated with his men, led the army through the terrible, absolute deserts of Southern Iran, suffering enormous losses. Back in Babylon, Alexander apparently decided to get more organized, conquering first all of Arabia. Then he would turn to the west, and take care of Carthage and Rome.

Then Alexander listened to his mom, the redoubtable Olympia, a royal from a kingdom west of Macedonia, whom his father Philippe had divorced to marry a youngster with whom he had an infant son. Alexander didn’t have to kill his father himself, the chief of the security detail did , and before you know it, Alexander was heading east at the head of the army his father had prepared to deal with Persia’s Achaemenid plutocracy. Greek valor, Macedonian horse, and Alexander’s military genius did the rest. In a matter of years, Alexander had created a hybrid empire with the locals. The elites would talk Greek for centuries, from Central Asia to India.

Olympia wrote to Alexander that Antipater, the most important general of Philippe, was plotting against him. Alexander ordered Antipater to come to Babylon, from Greece. Antipater refused. Next thing, Alexander is dying mysteriously. His closest helper was Antipater’s youngest son. Many (including myself) feel that it is likely that Alexander was poisoned under Antipater’s orders.

Antipater then went to destroy Athens’ direct democracy (everybody debate and vote on all important decisions), replacing it by a plutocracy (only those who are rich enough vote, and it’s to approve what the bosses have determined is to be done).

Notice that Alexander had left Athenian direct democracy alone (and Athens had not rebelled against Alexander, but did, against Antipater).

This is the problem with monarchy, or oligarchy: only a few take the decisions. If those few are excellent and not in error, it works great. But a few minds can’t get it right all the time, however smart.



An example of this ineptitude of monarchy, or oligarchy, with only a few minds thinking, is provided by Charlemagne. Charlemagne had pretty much a no-fault reign (however his gift of a large estate to the Pope would give the fascist theocrats a power base, for many centuries to come, enabling them to devastate much of Europe with their ludicrous superstition).

However, when advanced in years, Charlemagne saw the first Viking raids. He didn’t know what to do. Neither did his successors, his son and grandsons. Worse: his grandsons fought each other for control (of pieces) of the empire. That was ridiculous, all the more as Charlemagne had a potential Navy, and certainly expertise, from the Venetian Republic, a subsidiary, “march” state.

The Franks should have known what to do with the Viking raiders: after all, the Franks themselves started their career, so to speak, raiding up rivers in Hispania and Gallia, more than five centuries before the Viking imitated them!

What Charlemagne would have done, had he been a young man, and had he thought correctly, was to set-up a Navy, and go to colonize the Scandinavians. Instead, the Vikings made hundreds of major raids, ravaging about a third of “Renovated Roman Empire” before they were finally subdued, through a combination of force and civilizational persuasion.

Notice that the Franco-Romans, when they went on to (re)conquer Britannia, two centuries later, put an end to the Viking kingdoms there. William the Conqueror made his military force irresistible, by advancing democracy in England (the Franks outlawed slavery, and established a sort of monarchy-of-the-people).

By the Eleventh Century, the Franks knew all too well that wild Vikings had to be subdued. But, in 800 CE, they didn’t take the Viking seriously. And then the Viking started first by mostly raiding rich churches, that didn’t bother the half-Pagan Franks too much: the Franks liked to use the Roman Catholic churches as libraries and secular schools, but they weren’t feeling the pain of churches’ treasures being carted away… By 888 CE, when the emperor was deposed for paying the Barbarians, that mood had changed!



Some will scoff: why should they care about all these Greeks, Romans, Franks, Viking and Renovated Romans?

Because we are encountering the same sort of situation today.

The Renovated Roman Empire (“Carolingians as conventional historians have it) had to search, attack and destroy Scandinavian power, the “Fair” (Norway) and “Dark” (Denmark) Vikings. The Vikings had the same ideology: basically they saw easy pickings among the “Renovated Romans”, the world’s richest empire. Similarly the refugees nowadays see easy pickings in Europe. Just show up, get welfare.

A refugee from the wastes out there, if she can sneak into France, say on a tourist visa, can  have a child, for free: the French state will pay for everything. Whereas a French citizen from overseas (there are more than three millions) will go to France, have a child, and pay full fare.

Fine, some will say. But then there is this massive refugee crisis, millions of refugees, thousands dying a month, vaguely reminiscent of when all the Vikings, Muslims, Magyar, Avars, wanted to grab a piece of Europe for free. They were able to stay in peace after they changed their ideology.

However, the Ninth Century was an apocalypse for the Renovated Roman citizens living in West Francia (pretty much today’s France, Benelux, and Western Germany. It got so bad, that the citizens lost all respect for the authorities.

The last overall Renovated Roman emperor,  Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Fat, was reproached his inaction against the Viking: asked by We The People, to free Europe’s capital, Paris, from the Viking. Paris had been the de facto capital of Francia since the army there elected Julian The Apostate Augustus, in the Fourth Century.

Charles, great grandson of Charles I (Carlus Magnus, Charlemagne) chose to buy off the Vikings, instead of massacring them into submission (the proper course of action). As a result, the Vikings were right back. Again and again.

Charles III actually paid  the Vikings to attack Burgundy (then in revolt). He subsequently failed to deal with revolts in Swabia, Saxony, Thuringia, Franconia, and Bavaria. The nobles of the Empire deposed Charles the Fat  in 887, and he died two months later in 888. He was the last single head of the united Renovated Roman Empire (decomposing West Francia went her own way).

An anti-Viking superhero, who fought in the frontlines, close and personal, Odo, Count of Paris, nominally succeeded the deposed Charles III as king of West Francia (Neustria, Austrasia, etc.). I say nominally, because, locally, people have had enough of global governance. Imagine Brexit to the power six (2^6 = 64…)

Ultimately, as I said, a combination of military force and force of civilization, would make the Vikings submit (they got to stay in the places they had so well depopulated).

However the population of West Francia had lost all respect for the capacity of imperial authorities to protect them. Local power was seen the best protector of We The People. West Francia (the western two-thirds of present day France, and the Benelux) exploded into 60 different states (the same number of states which Julius Caesar had found there, a millennium earlier!).



Emmanuel Macron, the latest elected French king, is going around, speaking eloquently of a “Europe which protects”. Ah, yes. High time. It’s not 888 CE anymore?

Macron has learned the right lesson from the debacle of the Ninth Century: the “Renovated Roman Empire”, after 800 CE, made a terrible job at protecting its citizenry. Armies were more used to see who was top dog among the Franks than to fight the invaders (one of these battles among siblings, Fontenoy, killed more than 50,000 of the best Frankish warriors, in a few hours in 841 CE).

So what to do now? The Barbarians are at the gates, and breaching through. Europe paid the Muslim potentate, the Sultan Erdogan, billions, to keep the Barbarians away and out. The Roman empire used exactly the same method for decades, before it failed spectacularly. It had only made the Barbarians more barbaric and more demanding, and more powerful.

The way to handle the Barbarians is to go out, and destroy whatever makes them so barbaric. When Rome had its terminal refugee crisis, from too many Goths at the gates, Christianized Rome was welcoming, and thus found itself at war on its own territory. Instead, Rome should have projected force outside, and help the Germans, and Scythians, outside, against the Huns.

Right after his election, king Macron went to Mali, a country twice the size of France, where France wages war against the Barbarians. And now the king has gone there again. Good. This is the way to do it. Project force. China was doing best when projecting force outside, it’s not just a European thing. As China found out, not projecting force can result in having can result in a situation where the whim of one man could have annihilated the entire Chinese population, the entire Chinese civilization, language, everything Chinese.

However Genghis Khan was intelligent enough to have a high opinion of civilization. He brushed off the proposal of his generals to exterminate China, turn it into a steppe.

Wage war outside, exterminate the Barbarians. Let the ignorant call that “colonialism”. History knows better, they don’t.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , ,

11 Responses to “WHY & HOW CIVILIZATION COLLAPSE (Part 1): Alexander, Greeks, Romans, Franks, Vikings, Macron, Mali”

  1. Gmax Says:

    How do you pen essays like this? Awesome! It’s so full of great ideas, I don’t know where to start. Fascinating details too. So you think all the kings watched what their predecessors had done?
    And also that we have the same political system as in the Middle Ages? Sort of?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks a lot. Yes, for example, Caesar was obsessed with Alexander. There was a lot of learning in Antiquity from an even greater antiquity.
      I have said many times that “representative” democracy is what the Greeks would have called an “oligarchy”. Only direct democracy is democracy. Yes, Socrates hated the later. However it can be balanced with what we have, as Switzerland is increasingly doing…

  2. SDM Says:

    Interesting analysis. The Muslim invasion of Europe has been a recurring theme and now it is by refugee flood and abetted by terrorist attacks from within by Muslim citizens of Europe aligning themselves with the barbarians in the muslim nations. The muslims already in Europe, many as citizens, need to be forcibly assimilated through eradication of their “beliefs” system.

    Of note, however, was not the “re-conquering” of Britain by a Viking/Norman? Admittedly the Normans were by then more or less assimilated but all the same they were originally Viking invaders whereas the Saxons, Angles and Jutes in Britain were more from “Europe” than Scandinavia.

    You return to “colonialism” as being a protective/defensive action as opposed to a subjugation of native peoples by foreign invaders. Would you call the European colonization of the Americas necessary to protect civilization? I would think not. No doubt native american tribes had their own barbaric practices but were no threat to Europe or civilization and the colonization left many of those peoples lost forever through disease if not warfare and subjugation into slavery.

    Are you predicting a total breakdown of the EU, or at least more attrition by populist uprisings like Brexit? And do you think that a unified effort by the EU to take on Muslims in their homeland would help to stop populist disillusion with the EU, something akin to a new “crusades” to stamp out the “infidels”?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      On the colonialization of the Americas: there were many types of colonialism in America. I have been extremely disapproving of the US manner in many essays long ago. I still believe the same. The French model of colonization was founded on trade and instruction, not invasion and eradication. That’s why the French, who controlled most of North America lost it all. In many places French descendants led the resistance to the Anglo holocaust (happened in Canada with the “Metis” movement, happened in Colorado where 5 Franco-Indian brothers led the resistance). Those French were massacred or deported (see Prince Edward Island, etc.)

      I view Jackson and Jefferson as war criminals for their invasion of indian lands.

      England was invaded in 1066 by an army of Frankish barons led by the Duke of Normandy, hence the Magna Carta (those barons were not initially vassals of the Dux). The Viking Rollo, in the early Tenth Century had accepted the emperor of the Western Franks as his suzerain. That was 150 years before William disembarked.

      “Subjugation of native people by foreign invader” has to be taken with a grain of salt. That happened in India, the British Raj, right. However, Senegal was “conquered” by 10 French officers leading 5,000 Senegalese troops. In truth, there, it was rather a pacification and forced union (there are at least 7 very different languages in Senegal).
      However, in Congo, the Belgian plutocrat in chief, organized an horrendous exploitation system.

      Higher principles have to control Africa imperially. One can call that “colonialism” if one wants. Or not. One of the hostages in Mali is a French 66 year old woman who gave her life to help orphan children in Gao. She was already made hostage in the past (and rescued by a combined terrorist-French operation! The terrorists exfiltrated her from their own colleagues…) One can call that names.

      The point is this: to survive, European countries can’t afford nukes in the hands of madmen next door. So France is now actually putting on trial some African leading families who stole their countries blind.
      There are around 15,000 individuals in France who have decided to get to power by Islamist terror. If one did nothing, they would first force most “Muslims” to follow them. This is a new belief system: it was imported recently, the children have it, not the parents. Arabia also made a deliberate policy to infiltrate such individuals/preachers/families.
      The invasion of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons and later 2 types of Vikings was extremely complex. It led to a war mess that lasted until William the Conqueror showed up. After that, it was over, calm reigned.
      It’s a fact that Catholic North Africa was invaded by Arab armies in an extremely barbaric way. The resistance lasted decades. Latin (aka French) and Berber were talked for nine centuries (Latin) or more (Berber) and the Berber had an alphabet for 17 centuries before the Arabs showed up, still inventing written Arabic. Algeria still represses both French and Berber…
      I wrote many times that Brexit was Breakshit, and won’t happen.
      When I lived in Africa, the (American style) distinction by faith didn’t happen. “Africa” is not “Muslim”. It’s the kings of Arabia and the strategists in Washington and New York who want Africa “Muslim”. And France is not “taking on Muslims in their homelands”. African governments convened a security conference with France, Macron went. Chad, which has been at war for decades with Qaddafi, was supported by France, but now Chad is tired of fighting the terrorists (it’s expensive)… Outside of Chad.

      Presenting African security as “new “crusades” to stamp out the “infidels”” is extremely biased. My mom got lost once with her baby (me) in the most central area there, the northern Adrar of the Iforas. A Touareg on his camel, like in the movies came, gave us water, and helped us find the way back to civilization. Nobody forced him to. That’s the way it used to be. In recent years there was heavy fighting in the Adrar of the Iforas. But it’s not really a fight with the “natives”, not at all…

      Brexit was a manipulation of the 40 million “native” English by plutocratic media (with a completely hidden agenda). But it can’t happen, so it won’t. What will happen is that Britain will have to submit to the empire. Hopefully a Franco-German empire resting on a less plutocratic basis…

      • SDM Says:

        That is a lot to digest. It will be interesting to watch the Brexit mess play out and whether the French and Germans can leas the way toward less plutocracy. Always a fascinating read.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Thanks SDM. Officially MM, Macron Merkel, claim they welcome Britain back. Never mind that Britain didn’t leave yet! In truth, the franco-Germans, and especially the French have had enough of British plutocratic sabotage. So the EU is already pulling out of London, and sending the bill to 10 Downing Street!

          As it is the author of EU article 50 is British, and he clamors that activating Article 50 can be reverted. However, MM want Britain out. My guess is that they will get their way, sort of, but then Britain will be readmitted, sort of, like a big Norway. The Brits won’t like it. In any case, the economic collapse has started in the UK…

          Yes, the essay has lots to digest therein, borderline ridiculously dense and intense, and its full of idiosyncratic theses, some of which maybe too bold by half (maybe). However, I try to think real hard, just for hardness sake, and to get to push truth where it has not been before, and for my seven year old daughter (who already comes to peek at what I write!!!)

          On the question of Islam, the EU is violating separation church-state with an orgasm of Islamophilia:
          Patrice Ayme‏ @Tyranosopher 37m37 minutes ago

          Islam belongs in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not” EU foreign minister Frederica Mogherini violating separation church/state (in reply to Trump!!!!)

          • SDM Says:

            Welcoming Islam is a bad sign- that cannot stand. Church and state must be forever separate. Superstition is not fit to be law.

  3. hazxan Says:

    Nice. Before you “smash barbarians” you need to “define barbarians”. In many ways, the Romans were more barbaric than those they called barbarians. It seems a civilisations ruling oligarchy generally use the word “barbarian” as an emotional rabble rouser (and guilt alleviator) to steal land and resources from those outside of their civilisation.

    So where is the meter that can objectively measure the “barbaric-ness” of a people? Until such an instrument exists, all talk of barbarians is self-righteous polemics at best, low brow racism leading to genocide at worst.

    Isn’t it a rather barbaric attitude to even lump together a collection of thousands or millions of other people and label them as barbarians? If not barbaric, it’s certainly very convenient for those who covet the land of others.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Hazxan: I used the notion of “Barbarian” deliberately. Because it’s an important notion to have. As you say, it’s 100% correct that “in many ways, the Romans were more barbaric than those they called barbarians”. It’s exactly why the Roman imperial state collapsed. It is also true that any civilization ruled by an oligarchy internally generated is automatically “barbarian”. This is exactly the difference between the Achaemenid Persians, Macedonians and the Spartans on one side, and the Ionian Greek cities, Athenians and their allies on the other.

      The Franks too control of the Roman empire between the Fourth Century and 1204 (when they seized Constantinople) precisely because they had a better barbarian mix (so to speak). The Franks’ inner strength came from fairer inheritance laws: inheritance was spread out and women could inherit 100% in some circumstances. The way leaders were elected, a woman could become leader. That had a very positive effect on women in general. Under Germano-Celtic tradition, women had rights akin to those of men… That made less barbarian in that dimension than those embracing more sexist ideologies.

      Alright. Your questions and suggestions come close to the heart of the problem, and I am going to try to write a little essay about it (I have little time today).

      My fundamental position is that human beings are truth animals. They are not flying, swimming, galloping, burrowing animals. The essence of humanity is the search for truth. Our species evolved into it. So our genetics and epigenetics are fundamentally primed to unveil truth. When we deliberately embrace an ideology which spites truth, we deviate from genetically and epigenetically given reason, we become barbarians.

      An example: The small (for an advanced primate) sexual dimorphism of the species is a manifestation of this: women are primary care givers in early years (because they carry boobs, whereas men carry big game) and they are thus the teachers, and a teacher better be powerful, to dish it out, and have experienced it all. Accordingly, Celto-German, Scythian, Amazon and Viking women were armed and dangerous; some were war and even country leaders, and were found buried with plenty of weapons and symbols of power. That astounded the Romans, because the Romans were barbarians: the Romans had been formed by a devious and deviant culture which discriminated against women. Agrippina couldn’t become leader of Rome, because the Senate objected to be taught by her. It took another three centuries to get an Augusta, and even then, it was with the head winds of sexist Christianism.

      Thus, any religion which discriminates against women without solid genetic evidence in support is devious, deviant and barbaric. Nearly all religions tied to Middle Earth civilizations are culprit that way. Why? Because they were war civilizations and they spanned war religions The latest and most obvious example being Islam in its original form, which was written by Uthman’s generals, as ordered to them by the Third Caliph (to the despair of Muhammad’s family).

      So there can be, indeed, barbarian civilization. In crucial dimensions, relative to itself, the Roman society, by its own early Republican criterions, had become strikingly barbarian by the Late Empire. And that’s why it went down.

      As far as coveting land, It’s striking that the English, or, more exactly Britannia based civilization, who coveted Ireland for longer than Islam has existed, was highly successful in doing to entire continents what it nearly succeeded to do in Ireland: it had trained long and hard (and had been exposed to its own cooking as Angle, Saxons and 2 sorts of Viking wrecked Britain for 5 centuries, or until 1066 CE, when the Franks reconquered the archipelago in the name of Rome.

      As I explained in essays long ago, the link was formal: the English colonization of America was started by the “West Country Men”. Thus, when Englishmen were too friendly to American native women, or fled to the Natives, they were killed (quartering being a suitably disagreeable method).

      One can compare with the Spanish Conquistadores, who were busy marrying Native princesses. To the point Cortez became known, and named, by the Aztecs, as the husband of his extremely clever native American wife, who was his translator, La Malinche… Thus Spain made a hybrid civilization: Latin American is genetically mixed, big time. Whereas Native genes disappeared from North America, Australia…

      Lumping people as barbarians is not suitable. Lumping ideologies as such is. Latin America, in turn, got handicapped by Christianism, which, being fascist intrinsically (ONE god), is friendly to all too plutocracies, oligarchies, etc. Forget Inca communism! that was exactly the point. In its great effort to eradicate Native ideologies, the Spanish government enforced Christianism so badly, it self-screwed… Becoming barbarian in turn… that was clear in the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain already; although the spirit of vengeance was well grounded, it was not wise to apply it. The Franks had been much smarter. But then, of course they were conquering, not conquered…

      I will try to beef this up in an essay, thanks for the suggestions…

  4. EugenR Says:

    The faith of Europeans that modernity is irresistible did not work. Rationality and systems of thinking based on evidence are refused by cultures based on tribal values. Try to explain football club fun, that his team is playing just for fun and the last debacle to competing club has no meaning on the global scale of historical events. And here you speak with supposedly to modernity educated European. Culture, if filled with animosity towards your values, shouldn’t be accepted.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmm… That left me trying to understand what you meant, or what is meant in general by what you say…
      Seems to me you oppose “modernity”, whatever that is… And tribalism. A related dichotomy is Goethe (universalism lauded) versus Herder (tribalism lauded).

      Germany exterminated something like 15 million people in 5,000 extermination camps, and caused directly or indirectly the death of 100 millions, in World War Two alone (plus another 20 or 40 in the first one, depending if one puts the flu in it, or not; 38 million casualties in direct military action). Germany believed in “modernity”. At least, modern weapons. For the rest, it tried to go as primitive as possible.

      The football club mania is encouraged by the plutocrats: it enables plutocrats to say that nasty passions not only rule, but should rule, that’s what sports and those huge stadiums and sport obsessions and scores keeping are the most important activities.

      I do agree that people are intensely NOT interested by the sort of global subject on which I write, in the average, while thinking it’s primordial, glorious, fundamental, moral to be obsessed by the same passions Hitler banked on… But I also know that’s because they are little better than Pavlov’s dogs…

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: