Rihanna, Education, Administration, Empire

Rihanna is another miracle on legs similarly to the hyper blonde Colombian Shakira, or Beyonce a very pretty package who incorporated tricks invented in places such as 1950s strip bars, all over. I must recognize she seems to have more brains and more advanced, more intelligent and controversial passions.   

63 million of children are known to not go to school in developing countries But the delightful future billionaire exhibitionist Rihanna, expert in sideways glances, eyelids down, wants to help.

Rihanna‏Verified account @rihanna  Jun 23   bonjour @EmmanuelMacron, will France commit to #FundEducation?

Glad to see Rihanna cares about getting educated, this site is all about education. Rihanna has pretty violent videos out there, which meet, of course, my approbation, as thoroughly educative programs. I approve of showing violence, because violence there is, and it festers more if it can stay stealthy. Making it obvious deprives it of stealth, hence surprise, half of a successful aggression.


Rihanna has sold more than 250 million records, and was named the 2017 Harvard University Humanitarian of the Year (so, apparently Harvard doesn’t mind so much the violence anymore…). Intriguingly, Rihanna’s latest boyfriend, Hasan Jameel, is a wealthy plutocrat (two billion dollars plus), a Saudi heir. No doubt she can improve his education, open new perspectives on the worth of woman.

So the pulpy Caribbean native may get money for education, but the problem of poorly-developing countries do not arise because not enough money has been thrown at education. One problem is that throwing money at developing countries just enrich plutocrats, local or global. If a country is headed by plutocrats, feeding them is like feeding crocodiles in a crocodile farm. 

Rihanna, here in Paris, July 25th 2017, to feed Macron fleshy perspectives top pop to pop top.

Poorly developing countries have fundamentally the same two problems:1. bad administration arising from dictatorship and, or wrong ideology. 2. Not being part of an empire. It goes without saying that self-described good people will view such views with a jaundiced eye, because their own “good” logic tells them developing countries are good and empires are bad.

Take Islam, where women are legislatively, half of men, cloistered and forbidden the freedom human ethology gives them. They end up somewhat stupid and acculturated. As women are frontlines for educating children, the next generation of Islamist children will be more  stupid and uneducated than they would be otherwise.Hence a vicious circle.  

When Lebanon and Syria were administered by France, they were doing well. They didn’t do good before that, under the Caliphate, or after that, under the dictatorships.

National education without appropriate administration to make it sustainable is a non sequitur. One can’t have an appropriate administration without proper command and control. In other words, an appropriate empire.

When thinking of empire, people tend to think of malevolent empires on military rampages; the invasive Caliphates, the Mongols, Napoleon, etc. But the greatest civilizations were, and are, empires. China formed giant empires and owe its persistence to empires (as its brush with annihilation when Genghis Khan conquered it shows). The Greco-Roman world defined an empire which in turn defines today’s civilization, when properly extended to its roots (Egypt, Phoenicia, Crete) and its successors (the Franks who created the “Occident” in which we all bathe now).

Right now, whether we like it or not, we are in a world empire. It’s called the United Nations, and it’s not a democracy. And that’s very good as some nations proved culturally unable to distinguish between civilization and genocide (of Japan, Germany, Italy and their allies we think).

The UN is composed essentially of two components: the West, and China. (Russia and the USA are two colonies of the West; Russia, from the Vikings, plus back influence from the Greeks mostly; the USA is the double descendant of France, as England herself was a Franco-Frankish creation.)

The UN empire has not been extended in all corners. Actually “decolonization” was more of a de-administrationalization substituting often a republican form to more dictatorial variants. For example, under the french, Algeria was arguably under the (defective and unjust) administration of various (French) parties, some on the right, some on the left. Since “independence”, Algeria has been under the administration of just one party. Actually, the present president of Algeria, Bouteflika, was one of the principals of the Algerian “revolution”, so he has been in power personally for nearly 70 years…  Yes, he is in a wheelchair, and gets repaired periodically in France.

Now the empire needs to be re-extended in all corners. It is in these distant corners not under direct imperial control that war and lack of education, rule. An example is the confines of Congo where an unsavory interaction between Rwanda military, and plutocratic corporations anxious for minerals, brought five million dead, let alone poor education.

Other muscular interventions are needed. Interpretations of Islam which subjugate women more than men need to be discouraged much more (although with Saudi Arabia in charge of enforcing this at the UN, the situation has become surrealistic…)

It’s a violent world. The violence is supported by, and supports, a violent lack of advanced, all-encompassing education. Unfortunately impositions of mass violence are nearly never solved pacifically, contrarily to legend(those who are already rolling out Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as they read this, are rolling out people who didn’t make the main effort: the Brits were pulling out of India, anyway, Gandhi arguably made things worse; MLK came long after military force was used massively to end racism in the USA, by president Lincoln, and Eisenhower…)

Lack of education is an imposition of mass violence (teaching is not very costly, so the obstacle to education is not cost, but will, will to impose brutishness). Thus it has to be solved with massive power, the power of proper administration, on the heels of imperial intervention (imperial intervention does not necessarily start with special forces, it can start with judges and accountants).

I don’t doubt Rihanna’s sincerity, which is more than eleven years old. I don’t doubt that micro and local humanitarian help is important. However, it’s little relative to the big picture. When France decolonized itself out of Africa, there was a hospital every one hundred kilometer. France left, the hospitals are mostly gone. In a related phenomenon, the growth of literal Islamist schools directed to very small children, at the detriment of real, secular education, has been all over. Consequence? Islamist invasion and military counter-offensives from the French Republic. Some will whine: leave them alone. But then they contradict themselves. Children don’t chose to die and be uneducated: it’s imposed on them by local potentates, symbiotic with global plutocracy (to which they extent access to resources). Once again, the framework already exists: the UN, with its mighty Security Council. 

Want a correct, massive world educational system? Impose a correct, appropriate world empire!

Let Rihanna sing about that!
Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , ,

11 Responses to “Rihanna, Education, Administration, Empire”

  1. dominique deux Says:

    Just to say I basically agree with your three last posts.

    A small observation on Gen. de Villiers’ resignation: IMHO there may be more to it that meets the eye.

    It is well known, although not widely advertised, that France’s diplomatic and defense apparatus are still riddled with a great many neocons – the genuine article, influential people in thrall to the PNAC project. Macron may signal a willingness to nurture France-US strategic links, but not under constraint, and he seems to have initiated a purge of such elements.

    If Gen. de Villiers – an avowed rightist, brother to the loony politician of the same name – was part of this, he may have been on Macron’s hit list from the start. Yet simply dismissing him (not renewing his assignment) would have smacked of the spoil system, not a French thing.

    So the bizarre outing of a supposedly secret Parliamentary testimony, with its strong wording, might have been engineered. Observe how, literally minutes after his resignation, a well respected officer was given his job. No improvisation there.

    And yes, this is only speculation.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Interesting speculation. That would correspond to the curious Macron-Putin relationship. Macron opened himself to Putin, then chastised him, and Putin played the game as if he had been a bad boy who was just caught raiding the cookie jar. Macho man spanked by the little boy… In the USA, the Russia-Trump story has gone beyond weird. Not just what the trump family did, but what Congress is doing: they found a way to block Trump and regain control…

      PNAC? The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by talking head William Kristol and historian Robert Kagan. PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership.” The organization stated that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world,” and sought to build support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.

      By 2006, PNAC had become too obvious, quaint and obsolete, as full blown plutocracy was on. Led by Nancy Pelosi (“Democrat”, hahaha)…

      So let me understand. Macron wants to become independent of the USA? The “Deep State” USA (in contrast to the Trump USA…) So Macron would be on the Trump side, no more PNAC?

      Your comments are always very appreciated, please keep them coming….


  2. gmax Says:

    This is all sick. You can put all the smiley face you want, Rihanna is just a showgirl, without any education, Harvard probably gave her a dostorate. I am a showgirl myself I have nothing against us showgirls, but this is not democracy. At least she had the good taste to put horrible baggy clothes to go see Macron, to hide her charms


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      An earlier version of the essay was much more critical of Rihanna! ;-)! But then I didn’t feel like telling 80 million tweeter followers of Rihanna that they are idiots, which they are, so… The ultra baggy homeless clothing she was wearing made a nice touch, derelict at heart.


  3. SDM Says:

    As for England, what do you mean be Franco-Frankish creation? Are you not at least somewhat redundant or is there something else you were trying to express?
    And what is the fixation on Rhianna all about? She is just a pop music celebrity without any serious following in a political or cultural sense. Celebrity culture is mostly about distraction and silly fashion. Who will be quoting Rhianna in 5 or 10 years?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The Franks, not the french, conquered England in 1066 CE (William was leading a large Frankish army).
      When Eleanor of Aquitaine joined her second husband, vassal to the the first one, on the Second Crusade, these were still, officially, all Franks.
      Richard the Lion Hearted was disheartened when his compagnon d’armes, his Lord Philipe II of France left during the Third Crusade. Richard said: “It is a shame and a disgrace on my lord if he goes away without having finished the business that brought him hither. But still, if he finds himself in bad health, or is afraid lest he should die here, his will be done.”

      However, Philip II Augustus defeated much later a coalition of all other “Frankish” forces in 1214 CE at Bouvines. These included the Angevine empire presided over by the English monarchy (actually made of Frankish nobles), and the Germans. After that, the notion of French king-emperor in his own kingdom was never challenged again.

      But that does not mean that England became an independent power. Immediately after Bouvines, the Frankish/French barons rebelled, and forced the English king to sign the “Magna Carta”. Then Simon de Montfort tried to be elected king by reinforcing the English Parliament first; Isabelle of France would kill her husband, her son launched the 100 year war, which was supposed to end with a united monarchy by the time a conspiracy featuring Joan of Arc decided otherwise… Etc, etc… England was pretty much a rogue part of France, but it’s the initial Frankish invasion which outlawed slavery there…


  4. benign Says:

    It can only be madness when it’s 98-2 (hold-outs Sanders and Paul) in the Senate and only three hold-outs in House in the vote to sanction Russia (and indirectly, Europe) and to hog-tie the President.

    The deep state apparently dreams of being on top of the world just like in 1945…. All it *might* take is a false flag to rile the American people, but the Russians and Chinese seem ready to exact proportionate response to any truly unprovoked attack. And then it would be up to the Americans to raise the stakes.

    One can only hope the people will rise up and overthrow this world empire, before it goes monetary-feudal.



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am overseas, and, frankly, in the last few months, the ridicule in Washington has reached such heights, and not just from Trump, but also from his many opponents (Dems, Deepe State, etc.) that I have not been following closely the soap opera…

      Revealing was the submission of both Trump and Putin to Macron… Macron flattered Trump, not in the beginning, but in the end, but he gave a dress down to a chastised Putin. It all smacked down of a gigantic global plutocracy show. Something about Macron we don’t (officially) know (he has been put in charge of saving plutocracy).

      Meanwhile Bezos, all so often at the White House, has become the world’s richest man (whatever that means…)

      To overthrow the world plutocracy, people would have to understand how they are subjugated. To do that, they should learn about civilization, not Rihanna…


  5. ianmillerblog Says:

    I can’t help feeling your views on the UN are more in line with what it ought to be, rather than what it is. I know it tries, but it is rather hog-tied through its desire not to irritate any of the countries relevant to any issue.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed, indeed, Ian. That was a recommendation. However notice that the United Nations DOES WORK, GOOD ENOUGH. When a country gets out of line, it ends up a bit harassed… For example, Israel is harassed: does not stop Israel to do whatever it’s doing (invading Palestine), but forces Israel to be careful, not too obvious….
      And in case of say North Korea, the UN has sanction… They could turn into much more muscular measures, if China and USSR agree (that was a typo reflecting reality a bit…)

      Countries such as Rhodesia and South Africa were FORCED by the UN


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Philosophy is not just about what is, and is not, but also about what it ought to be.


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: