FRANKLIN DC: Change The Name Of The Capital Of The US to “FRANKLIN”.

Washington was a systematic racist, who, propelled by greed, invaded entire countries. Time to expose his cover-up by revealing his criminal guiles. Rename the Capital City of the USA!

Why teenie-tiny ridiculous small symbolic changes of obscure places? Master some fortitude, and Go the Whole Way! Washington, in more ways than one, is the very symbol of institutionalized racism at the service of personalized greed. A much better name offers itself: FRANKLIN. 

Pelosi, much admired corrupt politician-plutocrat, war criminal, idol of fake left fronting for real plutocracy, came on TV with her plastered, great white shark of a smile, and surprise, surprise, recommended changing the historical names of many major US military bases, such as Fort Bragg and Fort Lee. Changing those names associated with slavery will fight “systemic racism”. Right. But why stop there?

Among the Founding Fathers, two, at least, were notorious slave owners: Washington and Jefferson. Jefferson, while US ambassador to France (he had succeeded to Franklin), was told, by the French Ancien Regime police, that he couldn’t keep slaves while in France, he had to free them, pay them a living wage, and let them go if they so wished. Some of these slaves were just children and he was sexually abusing them. They pondered staying in France. Jefferson promised to free them, when back in the USA. He lied. 

Washington managed 317 slaves, yes, 317, more than three hundred slaves at his Mount Vernon property alone. Washington refused the pressing, continual, multi-year entreaties of his friend French general Lafayette to entice him to propose the Abolition of Slavery. As Washington owed his victory to Lafayette, his resistance was remarkable. Washington confessed that his refusal to let go of his slaves was because he made a lot of money from his slaves. Excellent answer! One can’t argue with such towering greed. 

A WORTHY THINKER, Ben Franklin, circa 1770: American statesman, scientist and philosopher Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790). (Photo by Stock Montage/Stock Montage/Getty Images)

Ona Judge, a slave of Washington’s wife Martha was of mixed background: her father. Mr. Judge, was white. Born a slave of Martha, she was not taught how to read and write. After she learned that she, and her children would stay a slave, even after the death of George and Martha, she fled the presidential mansion in Philadelphia. Ona Judge died at age seventy-five, on February 25, 1848 in Greenland, New Hampshire. Attesting to the systemic ferocity of the US “justice”, at the time of her death Ona Judge was still not legally a free person; she is not mentioned in Washington’s 1799 will. She and her children stayed slaves. She spent her entire life as a fugitive, evading Washington’s agents, and those of his successor estate. Something similar happened with Washington’s famous cook, Hercules, who also escaped, never to be found again.

***

Many always want to erase symbols of the past, presumably so that we can relive history, as slaves: 

The correct way to do history is to teach what happened, all of what happened, and why it could have been vastly different, with small tweaks… Bringing down the statues, and forgetting any notion of what happened which was immoral, is exactly how not how to do it: this is Islamist State style action philosophy of history… Pretend the past never happened, so one can repeat it. If one removed any symbol of the exploitation of man by man, museums would be mostly empty, as they are full of them, since mostly only tyrants and their servants had the means of celebrating themselves and their pets. 

Instead of just removing persons, or symbols, one should engrave at their bottom what’s wrong with that person, or symbol. Let me give an example.

***

Louis XIV was a disaster France, and the world, are still recovering from… Don’t erase it from memory! Teach it!

I cordially hate and despise Louis XIV of France. But I want others to learn about all he did wrong, and why, and how… It’s interesting: it reflects possible, scary futures. And so would Louis have wanted, in the end, when he realized he had been wrong all along about war (we know this from his last words, dying from gangrene; as he was talking to his grandson, Louis XV, in spite of the stench, and maybe because of the stench, Louis XV would never forget, hence the loss of Canada, and then the revenge of the US War Of Independence). 

So I detest Louis XIV: he made France from the European superpower, into a fatally wounded beast, full of Catholicism, like he was full of gangrene. But would I want to erase Les Invalides, Versailles, and the dozens of forts Louis left behind? That would be a crime against the inheritance of humanity and a grave error. 

Instead one should teach Louis XIV correctly, in full, focusing on why all of Europe in a grand coalition against him. That would focus attention on this crime against humanity, the euphemistically named “Révocation de L’Edit de Nantes”, and its “Dragonnades”. Not quite Nazi Holocaust against the Jews, but nearly all the way there (so Louis XIV is actually a pathfinder for Hitler; if Louis could do it, why not Adolf?) 

Correctly studying the history of Louis XIV has not been done, yet. Thus, Louis XIV criminal propaganda is still alive and well.

*** 

So what to do with the renaming of names?

In Europe, capitals such as Paris, Rome and London have names more than 2,000 years old. Paris, which the Romans called Lutetia for three centuries, returned to its name from the ancient local tribe of the Parisii, during the Late Roman empire.

New York started as “New Angouleme”, then “New Amsterdam”… But George Washington city? Why? Because Washington went to war to steal Indian lands in the Ohio Valley (fighting the French and committing crimes against humanity in the process), so that he is a perfect symbol of all what’s wrong with systemic, inhuman greed?

Franklin persuaded the entire French plutocracy to finance the US Revolution, and got France to declare war to the United Kingdom, when the American Independence cause looked doomed. France would be in the war for 5 years, until victory. However, the war, worth around 5 trillion 2020 dollars, ruined France… And the US didn’t reimburse one dime. In conjunction with a bad volcanic eruption of Laki in Iceland, this ushered the French Revolution

The case of general Washington is outrageous. Right, he won the War of Independence (initially engineered by the French monarchy and revanchards). But the US would have become independent anyway (just like Canada, but earlier, being eleven times bigger). In the greater scheme of things, the US War of Independence was greatly a French belated retort to her defeat in the Seven Years (World) War of 1756-1763… The latter war was partly lost from Voltaire’s aggressive, anti-French pacifism (Britain went all out to fight the war, leveraging the central bank with a vengeance, France didn’t; Voltaire told his friend the King, and everybody worthy in France, declaration after declaration, that Canada was “only a few acres of snow…”).

As I said, why France lost in 1756-1763 is intimately tied to her losing the wars at the end of Louis XIV’’s dictatorship. Hence Louis’ throwing out the Protestants, also threw out France’s future… Although Protestantism, reform started there five centuries before Luther (yes, exactly in 1026 CE in north-west France, and the church got two dozens of their opponents burned alive)… So nothing was more French than Protestantism. But was Louis XIV really French? After all, his mother was Austrian, and she prevented very deliberately, switching to a Republic during La Fronde. So Louis’ excess of Frenchitude, may just have been the grasping for straws, of one who wanted to show that he was more French than the French… Similar, once again, to the Austrian mongrel Hitler who wanted to prove to the Germans he was more German than the Germans… by killing ten million of them… 

Naturally, French Protestants included much, if not most, of the brightest part of France (quite a bit the same effect as with the Jews: as they were hounded and in conflict, they had to justify their on-going existence as distinctive by achieving said superiority; that sort of effect was long operative in the nobility, and enabled it to justify its own existence). Once ejected out of France, the French Protestants wanted to destroy the tyrant, Louis, who had tortured them, and stolen their future. All correct french textbooks of the period, should contain special Louis XIV barf bags… 

These deductions are not made by historians, especially not historians of the French persuasion. Like most of those who eat crumbs, professionally, they want to eat, and a roof, and positive repute, so they don’t want to irritate their masters.  

To come back to the initial subject, the case that Washington is not to be adulated too much anymore is strong. Look at France: down ever more, and the admiration for Louis and Napoleon, those criminals against humanity, and strategic cretins, has much to do with it. Only the enemies of France, and civilization, should celebrate them. Right, they are legions.

***

French Canada Model: Greet, Trade and Civilize. Washington’s Model: Greed, Invasion, and Slavery:

At the time, many European individuals, desirous to enjoy the much better life of the new World, sold themselves in “Indentured Servitude”, a form of slavery (in Greco-Roman antiquity, selling oneself in slavery was common). So there were graduation in slavery in the Anglo colony.

French Canada didn’t allow slavery, but it was a completely different sort of colony, founded on trading peacefully with the Natives, and “Mission Civilisatrice”. 

***

George Washington, or the Institutionalization of Systemic Slavery:

Washington’s support of slavery was very personal and very greedy… just because he wanted to stay the wealthiest man north of the Rio Grande. Washington penetrated the Ohio Valley to conduct real estate grabs. Caught, he had to recognize in writing to the French during those “French and Indian Wars” (as the short sighted US sees the 7 year war…) that he was a war criminal (for having executed three dozen French prisoners)…

Washington had learned real estate grabbing by mentoring from Lord Fairfax, who owned the north of Virginia. Here is typical sample of his activities:

“George Washington, Dr. James Craik, his personal physician, and surveyor William Crawford spent nine weeks beginning in October 1770 surveying the 20000 acres that he had been awarded for his service in the French and Indian Wars. Always seeking to obtain the best lands for the least investment, this was an opportunity that Washington was determined not to lose. He “felt an acute sense of urgency, since settlers were already flocking to the Ohio and Great Kanawha rivers, and he feared they might preempt the most productive soil. He also got wind of a huge scheme by English investors to obtain 2.5 million acres and inaugurate a new colony, Vandalia, whose borders might further curtail the bounty lands…

… Historian John E. Ferling noted that as “Washington was putting together his second team for the Great Kanawha, he received even more disconcerting news. Shortly after he returned from the Virginia convention sessions in Richmond, one of his old soldiers from his frontier days dropped by Mount Vernon bearing the tale that [British] Governor Dunmore was about to disallow all the land grants previously made to the colony’s veterans of the French and Indian War… Washington listened with disbelief. He could lose twenty-three thousand acres! He immediately contacted the governor, adducing evidence and entreating the executive’s beneficence. But Dunmore dryly responded that if Crawford was not properly certified ‘the patents will of consequence be declared null and void.

Washington’s land holdings clearly affected his political outlook – first regarding England, and later regarding the United States. Washington thought big and thought about the implications of thinking big. Glenn A. Phelps wrote that Washington’s “extensive land-holdings in the West, as well as his frequent surveying expeditions to the frontier, had placed him within a circle of Virginia politicians with somewhat more enterprising, expansionist, westward-looking interests than their tidewater brethren.”

In other words, George Washington should become the symbol of all what’s wrong with the SYSTEMIC GREED, RACISM and ANTI-HUMANISM which characterized the US ever since. That he is generally viewed as one of the three best US presidents only add to that systemic error. 

***

Franklin, Authentic Genius, Humanist: 

Franklin is a much better model than the hopelessly compromised Washington. Yes, he owned slaves, but only two, George and King, who were personal servants. Franklin led an abolitionist organization for the last ten years of his life. 

Franklin is doubly rare creature, an authentic American intellectual of civilizational weight, a real genius, and also an authentic intellectual who implemented practical progress (both in Europe and America).

The Declaration of Independence was signed by Franklin and others. HOWEVER, Franklin is the only Founding Father who signed all the founding documents of the USA. Benjamin Franklin was appointed minister to France in 1778, John Jay was appointed minister to Spain in 1779 and John Adams to Holland in 1780. Admired by the French for his experiments with electricity, inventions and for his homiristic, charming and humble personality, Franklin was a natural choice as ambassador. Franklin was the first official diplomat and ambassador to the 13 colonies.

War began, thanks greatly to French agents operating in America, who excited against Britain. On 4 December 1777, word reached Benjamin Franklin at Versailles that Philadelphia had fallen and that Burgoyne had surrendered. Two days later, Louis XVI assented to negotiations for an official alliance.The treaty was signed on 6 February 1778, and France declared war on Britain one month later, with hostilities beginning with naval skirmishes off Ushant in June, notably the Action of 17 June 1778. George III did not welcome a war with France, but he was “prepared” for it. The king believed he had tried to avoid the conflict, but “France chooses to be the Aggressor“, and Britain had taken “all the steps necessary if it should end in war“. George III was “prepared” for armed conflict with the French by remembering British victories over that Bourbon power in the Seven Years’ War.

However, then Britain had launched, and paid European powers to fight France, notably Prussia. It was not the case this time, and confronted by France alone, Britain lost. The war would last five years and finish with a Franco-American victory.

Between 1778 and 1782 France kept providing the Continental Army with arms, more than 90% of the cartridges, ammunition, troops, uniforms and naval support. That was Franklin’s work, to a great extent.

***

The inability of Washington to reach any semblance of post-Roman moral clarity relative to the exploitation of man by man is striking: slavery had been outlawed in France more than eleven centuries earlier (655CE), and reinstituted in the English American colony in 1619 CE (as I always remind readers; now even the NYT has embraced the notion…)

People are going around, looking for “institutionalized racism”. Where is it? Well, fist, in the name of the capital city, that of a major slave owner, who had it in his hands to at least try to imitate what had been done in France, eleven centuries earlier. As the Imperium Francorum dominated Europe then, the outlawing of slavery was imposed on all of Western Europe, outside of Muslim invade areas and Britain. However, by the end of the Eleventh Century, the Franks had liberated much of Europe, all the way to Sicily, and slavery was outlawed upon the invasion of England in 1066 CE.

Washington is not just hopelessly compromised, he is hopelessly compromising.

Having named the capital for him, is nothing to be proud of.

It’s not enough to not be a racist. One has to stop behaving as one. Changing the name of the capital to FRANKLIN will energize a conversation about how and why slavery was introduced to North America, and what it did to the American mind, to become so systemic. 

Patrice Ayme

 

***

***

 

Nota bene, slavery was outlawed after the Secession War. Yet, while the question of slavery was one of the causes of the SW, it was not the only one. Several dynamic imbalances between north and south played a role. In any case, the war was savage, and one of the worst civil wars ever in the history of all civilizations, and represents nothing to be proud of.  The US should have been able to find a more civilized way out of systemic racism, than to kill a million people, or so, 3% of the population (10 or 15 times, relative to population what the French “Terror” killed… but the Terror was propelled, and part of, a huge attack and conspiracy against France by all the plutocratic powers of Europe) … especially as it didn’t just changing from a form of racism which disadvantaged the north to one which looked more benign: factories of the South manned by slaves had proven at a competitive advantage to factories of the north where workers were treated like slaves (this fact is ignored; I read the study in Science magazine; looked very well done).     

Tags: Benjamin Franklin, Franklin DC, George Washington, Renaming the Capital