Why Plutocrats Hate France: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

Tags: , , , ,

13 Responses to “Why Plutocrats Hate France: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”

  1. benign Says:

    Oui oui oui! If only republics would enact laws to prevent the cooptation of elected officials by Plutos! J’aime la France, plus que l’Allemagne.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed. The problem, though, is that politics attracts unworthy individuals who know they will make a buck through it. So they aren’t too good passing laws cutting down their trade. Many top officials in the US are allowed to have “consulting” on the side. Even heads of state have been known to do this (not just Trump; Sarkozy was a partner in his own 2 person law firm, while a politico…)

      The only real solution is to cut down on the power of elected officials, replace it by Direct Democracy…

      Liked by 1 person

  2. G Max Says:

    Germans were plenty crazy, and for a long time. Full of madness in German philosophy.

    Enough to read Luther, Kant, Herder, Hegel, as you pointed out in the past. These guys are always on the look out for crazy simple model to justify manifest destiny where plenty bad guys get killed. No wonder US academics love them

    You also explained that USA supported the Kaiser in WW1, until 1917. Funny you didn’t mention it this time. It was bait and switch! Vive la France, like Benign says!

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Essays are somewhat repetitive, sometimes, but can’t repeat everything all the time… The picture of US media (and that includes late night comics) hypocrisy about the French being cowards, is clear enough…
      Right, German philosophy played a crucial role in Nazism and WW1. German fascists were the first to say it, on the offense and in defense…

      Like

  3. Kieran Russell Says:

    Can you give me a source for this attitude that the British wanted France to lose in 1940?

    This is the second answer I’ve seen suggested, and I find the idea somewhat troublesome since I thought France and Britain were pretty strong allies since WWI, where hundreds of thousands of British soldiers were killed and maimed to help their French brothers in arms defeat the Germans.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I never said the British wanted France to lose in 1940. As the UK and France had sent a joint ultimatum to Hitler and had jointly declared war to Nazi Germany, and jointly made several landings in Norway, with the aim of cutting in half Hitler ally Sweden… That would have been rather self-defeating.
      What is true is that it took one month for the first British soldier to reach the continent in 1939: Britain, as in WW1, had a ridiculously small army…
      Churchill, a self-contradicting francophile, and fluent French speaker, ordered to keep crucial air squadrons in reserve. That was a mistake: it probably made the difference on May 13, 1940, as the French and British air forces were unable to disrupt the heavy concentration of the entire Luftwaffe where it succeeded to break through, crossing the Meuse. In particular, the French B division got pummeled, and the Nazi pontoon bridges were not destroyed.

      Like

  4. Jon Jones Says:

    Jon Jones:
    The cowardly French trope is almost entirely a figment of Fox News imagination. Napoleons troops. Verdun. Your foriegn Legion and even Eric Cantona prove the lie in their words.

    I’m a Brit and have never anybody who thought the French cowardly. Although I’ve met many who are infuriated by your stubboness and intransigence 🙂

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      If it were only Fox News… Fox News just follow here a trope of the US Deep Mind, because they know it pleases their audience… The situation was acute in 2003, when it was total propaganda world war between the US and French governments about invading Iraq… But the French cowardice slogan first surfaced in WW2, to mask the fact that the USA refused to attack the Nazis until it was carefully too late… And dropped its PARENTS, France and Britain, just when their survival was in question…

      Like

  5. Chris Ansett Says:

    Chris Ansett
    Wed
    “France was the mother country of the USA in still another sense: the Duke of Normandy led a large French army and conquered England in 1066 CE. The 20% slaves found in Britain were immediately freed, as per French law. William proceeded with in depth reforms promoting Parliament. The French barons, who were not vassals of the Duchy of Normandy, then forced the Magna Carta onto the king, followed by further, durable, powers for Parliament as the Count of Toulouse tried to be elected king of England.”

    The Duke Of Normandy had a claim to the English throne, he only came over when Edward died as was related. He also had Breton blood ( British blood) in him too. Godwinson had zero claim. The way you talk is like it was the Kingdom Of France that came over, it didnt !

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Chris: Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. You are indeed right that William, in several ways, had a righteous claim to the throne of England. It had been the plan, indeed, from the preceding king. The real problem of England was that all of it had fallen under brutal Danish control, a generation earlier, in a spectacular war.

      My point is rather subtle, and has not been made before, that I know of, although it is completely obvious: William was ONLY Duke (DUX, in Latin, war chief only below the emperor, or Consul(s)) He didn’t command Bretons or Angevins and others coming from Flanders, etc. William did command during the expedition itself. But once that was over, his command ceased (an old Roman method Caesar was all too familiar with…) Hence the (FRENCH) barons he created in England by distributing lands from the preceding English/Viking/Danish aristocracy of Knuth, didn’t have to be under the orders of his new English dynasty… And the Angevins would indeed succeed later…

      Anyway… hence the Magna Carta, I say… The barons were in position to limit the powers of the descendants of this uppity Duke…

      Like

  6. Alexandre Cossonet Says:

    The comment on Blum is anti-Semitic.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I didn’t see an “antisemitic” “comment on Blum”. That Blum got intimidated is a fact: first the French government of Blum said, per the request of the Spanish Republic, France would intervene. Loud and clear. Then the USA screamed against France, and Blum backed off. It’s easy to check that chronology. Meanwhile Texaco gave Hitler enough fuel to fly the rebellious Spanish armies from Africa to Spain (they were blocked by the Spanish Navy).

      Like

  7. Olivier L G P Says:

    All is said…

    Like

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: