Brexit, Breakxit, Breakshit

Brexit is breaking Britain. A shitty situation. The European Union Is No Big Deal, So Why All the Brexit rage? Fullfilling a need: The eternal return of the same old hatred!

The UK is headed towards proximal socio-economic decline: the health service is going down, trade is getting deeply unbalanced, and the doors with the EU are closing one door after another.

Polls show the Brits are understanding that getting out of the EU was a big mistake.

Two years after the UK transitioned out of the European Union nearly two-thirds of Britons now support a referendum on rejoining.

So why are some still so obsessed with the EU? A British friend, highly educated, cultured, traveled and otherwise sensible fiercely said: “The EU is a hideously corrupt and fascist enterprise. I would rather go back to the Stone Age than be ruled from abroad.”

He spends half of his year in Japan, every year, has lived in Germany, taught in France, etc.

I replied: Who rules you, while in Japan? Japanese law! 

European Union law is no big deal. Most of British law in 2023 CE is European law, to this day. And will probably stay that way indefinitely.

So why the foaming-at-the-mouth obsession with the EU as fascist? The EU does not even have the smallest army..

Intellectual fascism is a mental mode where one is obsessed by all too few concepts, and driven by them. This mental concentration arises from the palaeontological necessity of having to fight to death various enemies, including other men and saber tooth cats…only then could the  species survive.

Intellectual fascism as a dominant mental mode, if need be: a species’ scale survival instinct. So great pleasure is to be had, engaging in it. That’s why hatred is so addictive… And this is also why there are so many hate driven systems of thought, and why they should… carry warning labels…

Brexit is a miniature case, and an hilarious one: confused and manipulated old Brits believe that the EU was the cause of their unhappiness… When actually much had to do with a deliberate pro-immigration policy of the British government, from Blair to the Tories… If the UK had put in place the safeguards of most European governments, such as identification cards, illegal immigration would have been considerably lower. All this immigration made the UK wealthier and very quickly.  

In truth the EU has very limited powers: consider Italy and its outrageous refusal to provide citizenship to some individuals born there: sheer Italian racism. Italy will still get huge EU help with more on the way.

Hungarian PM Orban, despite all the threats, keeps on doing pretty much what he wants, including gigantic nuclear contracts with genocidal thermonuclear monster Putin… https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62695938Personally

I would financially cut off both… Constitutional racism as in Italy should not be tolerated by Europe.

***

Glynne Thomas

[European Union] Fine as originally intended commercial enterprise but descended into a corrupt political organization.

Proof of EU being a corrupt political organization? 35,000 workers to administer 450 million EU citizens plus a few hundred millions hanger-ons, because EU law is adopted worldwide. For example the EU is preparing a draft on the usage of Artificial Intelligence. Say when AI impacts someone Internet activities, that will have to be revealed. Or AI won’t be allowed for hiring, etc.

Guess what, a number of countries are in the process of adopting as law the EU AI DRAFT proposal. Including Canada and Brazil…

Actually California is typically adopting (that is voting) EU law, etc… Then the rest of the US follows…

The drumbeat against the EU comes from fascist monopolistic corporations which only get regulated by the EU as they rule the USA…

Breakshisters generally don’t even know how the EU works. The EU is an UNION of independent nation states, led by the constituents democratic governments and requiring unanimity for all big decisions, like NATO.

The EU is much more loose than the Confoederatio Helvetica. EU political power stays in the hands of nation-states governments., at all and any moment. Poland’s vigorous spats with Germany and France, or the EU, have not inflected Polish policy, or law, for example. In the end accomodations are found on further developments.

It is now known that one of the main financiers of Brexit/Breakshit was Vladimir Putin himself, because he wanted to keep Europe divided. Didn’t even work: UK is out, but is doing its best to get back in.

Now the only question is how is the UK going to reintegrate functionally the EU. A Swiss solution (hundreds of treaties) is likely… and it has already launched, to the great rage of the most observant and furious Breakxiters. Brexit was like Breakshit: no purpose and neither clean, nor smart.

The great merit of Brexit is that it is a miniature model of human folly exclusively directed by cognition problems, hooked to hatred.

Patrice Ayme

Down we go, and this is just the begining; notice the acceleration of the trade deficit in goods; within two years or so, the EU will be able to sever service trade with the UK:

Hopeless Fight With European Union Is Why PM Boris Johnson Really Resigned

Superficialists have been going around saying superficial things about parties and booze. They argue that Boris Johnson, the Brexit architect and UK Prime Minister 2019-2022 resigned because he and his collaborators merrilly got drunk, without wearing masks, nor social distancing, while imposing those constraints fiercely on the British public. The PM got fined, a first for Britain… for lockdown violation. Sure, it didn’t help, but it was survivable. 

***

What people, including Members of Parliament, say is supposed to be what they think aloud, but it is not necessarily what their brains are fully in the process of considering. Just as there is a subconscious, there is also a preconscious. The PRECONSCIOUS, remember that notion, it’s important. Yes, there were scandals, especially about inebriation, but those were in the past.

What laid heavily on the present British government’s mind was Boris Johnson’s attempted violation of its international treaty with the European Union. 

***

Days before Boris’ resignation declaration, the EU gave him an ultimatum. Boris has been trying to cancel the international treaty with the EU regarding Northern Ireland which keeps the peace there. 

The EU commission, which is the managerial executive branch of the EU, threatened the PM with immediate retaliation, for example in the distribution of scientific funding to Britain… The UK is still part of the EU’s Horizon Program, and much prestigious British scientific research depends upon it. The immediate cessation of funding would have been disastrous, and could not have been compensated by the UK government for months, if at all.    

***

Johnson was Brexit’s main architect. Brexit, as conceived by him, a complete severance, has failed, and could only fail. The fundamental reason is that the British archipelago is part of Europe, not east of New Zealand. 

To become more reasonable, the next UK PM will have to bring the UK and EU closer together...

Patrice Ayme

  

Boris was not reasonable. Not at all. Violating international treaties is what the likes of dictators do. Ursula von den Leyen, President of the EU Commission for as long as Boris Johnson had been Prime Minister, since 2019, threatened to punish him, and Britain with him. So Boris had to go. Boris couldn’t get out of that one.

Hard Time Diets: Modern Genetic Archeology Throws A Light

In harder times, diet depended less on meat, and the change of diet could be brutal. Diet in the age of Pericles was grain based, with long healthy lifespans, but the plutocratic dictatorship put in place by the Macedonians 120 years later was meat-laden, with much shorter lifespans. At least so say the historical sources.

Genetical archeology is a new scientific discipline: it is enlightening up the world. For example: “Anglo-Saxon Kings Made Sure to Eat Their Vegetables, Study Shows“
Contrary to popular belief, the ruling classes gorged on meat only on rare occasions, according to an analysis of more than 2,000 skeletons buried during medieval times… The findings are based on an analysis of more than 2,000 skeletons whose remains were buried in England from the fifth to 11th centuries.

These were hard times, starting by the withdrawal in 406 CE of the three Roman legions which protected England by preventing encroachment from various Celts, Picts, Scots, etc (to try to help out the Franks to mitigate the German invasions of the 406 winter solstice)… As England was left defenseless, Anglo-Saxons invasions followed and the highly organized and productive Roman society collapsed in slow motion until the remaining Roman forces resisted in the hills or fled en masse to Armorica which came to be known as “Britanny” (late 6C). Centuries of war and resistance was ideal ground for the Vikings who invaded next, sometimes overruning all of England (begining of the Eleventh Century). Discipline and advanced civilization were re-established only through the Reconquista of the Normand Dux William and his Frankish barons, starting in 1066 CE.  

Paradoxically, during the hard times, diet was eminently correct. And also society was more equalitarian than what would happen during the middle age renaissances.

Anglo-Saxon kings have long reigned in unproven lore, as rapacious meat lovers, eagerly feasting on thick slabs of mutton and beef, washed down with copious amounts of mead and ale.

Science shows otherwise. Their diet leaned more toward vegetables, cereal and bread, according to a study in Anglo-Saxon England. This shows that, in diet as in everything else, medieval times were more subtle than menu choices at modern-day restaurants claiming to replicate medieval times have it.

“There is no sign that elite people were disproportionately eating more meat,” Tom Lambert, a historian at the University of Cambridge, one of the study’s two authors, said. “When they were not having these big public feasts,” he said, “they were eating a vegetable broth with their bread like everyone else was.”[1]

The Vikings, appearing in 800 CE, were different: they ate much protein, especially fish. Norway exported from its far north massive amounts of dry salted cod to medieval Europe. 

Heavy meat associated diets and associated gout were much in evidence in the later middle ages (and nobles knew they got gout from eating too much venison). This is when kings used to hunt every day in gigantic royal preserves, and plutocracy based inequality ruled. 

The disintegration of the Roman state and its remaining republican structures brought a demographic collapse and very hard times. The “Renovation of the Roman Empire” culminating in 800 CE was followed by civil wars and the simultaneous invasions of Vikings, Hungarians and Islamists… The wealthiest parts of Europe (north-west Francia) would recover the wealth they knew under Rome only during the Eleventh Century… but then with increasing inequality. Only then did the unbalanced diet appear, according to historical records. 

Then the nobles of the middle ages started to become taller and healthier, to the point that they looked as if they belonged to a different ethnicity. 

General and systematic studies on hundreds of thousands of individuals over 3,000 years will be enlightening. 

A archeo-genetic study published in Science in Nov 2019 showed that the population of Rome got replaced 3 times over 3,000 years: another surprise. “Many imperial Romans had roots in the Middle East, genetic history shows. At the height of Rome’s power, city residents showed little European DNA.“

That doesn’t mean Middle Easterners are imperially superior… far from it, as the fascist empire was on a ballistic trajectory of ineluctable degeneracy… In part cause by the importation of Middle Eastern-Hydraulic Dictatorship ideologies such as the deification of leaders and Abrahamism…

Patrice Ayme

Typical Anglo Saxon house: we are far from the advanced dwellings the Romans used to have, and those who would follow when civilization got re-established in full force. West Stow Anglo-Saxon Village, an archaeological site and open-air museum in Suffolk, eastern England. Anglo-Saxon kings and other elites consumed no more meat than the rest of the population

***

[1] Sam Legget, the other author, said she analyzed the bones of 300 people for nitrogen isotopes, which indicate animal protein consumption, and examined published data on the bones of about 1,700 other people buried at around the same time. Dr. Leggett then determined the social class of the people she examined by cross-referencing her findings with evidence of status, such as whether jewelry and ornate weaponry had been buried in the graves.

This showed that the consumption of animal protein was no greater in the remains of people who most likely belonged to the ruling class, including men, who have been widely believed to be greater consumers of meat, according to the study. Once again only from the 5C to 11C, a time of continual wars and invasions…

“CRETIN” Comes From “CHRISTIAN”. A Deep & Revealing Truth From The European Middle Ages

Créstin From Chréstien. Calling Cretins Cretins, Starting With Christians, Made Europe Smart, Thus Strong. 

European supremacy (now quickly vanishing) rested on mental supremacy, and that, in turn demanded, and demands, a colossal contempt for superstitious religion [1].

Colossal contempt for superstition is why the word Chréstien became a pejorative, Créstin, now simplified as cretin (just as the Latin hospitale became modern French hopital).

Europe has been vastly misunderstood. It is usually viewed as “Christian”. Nietzsche correctly thought that the naive vision of Christianism ruling Europe, was just propaganda by the true masters of Europe (the “Lords” who were in plain sight, but, thanks to Christianism succeeded to make the Commons believe in the virtue of enslavement).

Christianism was just the superstition the slaves were supposed to be guided by, to “believe” in. Jesus urged his followers to act like slaves, implementing a slave morality… Meanwhile, in truth the nobles followed a morality more akin to that of the “blonde beast” (the lion), as Nietzsche put it. Indeed nothing stopped the aristocracy. Aristocrats, if hungry, would roast children (this happened during some Crusades, for nourishment of the hungry Frankish warriors… No, this is not a piece of Islamist propaganda: the Crusaders themselves related the facts, read Jean de Joinville and his friends…) 

Here I will present a further datapoint supporting the perspective that the literary class of the Middle Ages was perfectly aware of, despised and rejected Christianism, which they perceived as hypocrisy, exploitation and mental retardation combined. We owe those critics of Christianism a convenient concept and word, cretin. Amusingly Nietzsche, a French speaking philologist (i.e., linguist) did not think of this argument.

Incontrovertible! Thank You, Professor! Paris University Professor Bernard Cerquiglini, a top linguist, former director of the National Institute for the French language, confirms my long held interpretation.

In the early Middle Ages (500 CE to 1,000 CE), Europe was devastated. Population had collapsed, or was collapsing, well in excess of 50%. Say from perhaps 80 millions to just 18 millions (here is a link with some data and erroneous albeit interesting logic).    

I am aware of the explanation of crétin as a depiction of hypothyroidism and enthusiastic prolonged interbreeding… but medical science does not explain where the word came from.  

The usual, and true, and yet fake, story is that cretin comes from 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, “a dwarfed and deformed idiot” of a type formerly often found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, and lack of iodine. After brandishing that medical description from the Nineteenth Century, the Christian apologists pretend that the word is of uncertain origin. They are trying to hide the auditory evidence: in Old French, “créstin” and Chréstien (christian) have the exact same pronunciation.

Indeed defining “cretin” as a mental condition, does not explain where the word  comes from. I am a native French speaker (learned in Black Africa as a child, indeed). I also studied the question in depth, because, well, that’s what I do. “Cretin” comes from chréstien… “Christian” in English. In Vulgar Latin *christianus “a Christian” had generally the sense of poor fellow… or, in context, poor idiotic fellow. Throughout the Middle Ages, “Christianus” had a connotation of simpleton or mental retard. Here is a French specialists’ abstract confirming that observation:

“Plusieurs spécialistes contemporains de l’étymologie du français, tels Alain Reya ou Walther von Wartburg, estiment que l’explication la plus vraisemblable est de faire dériver crétin de chrétien, par euphémisation, un crétin étant considéré comme un innocent, un bienheureux 3,4,5,6, ou parce que les arriérés étaient recueillis dans les monastères au Moyen Age.“

(Several specialists of French etymology, such as Ar or WvW, ascertain that the most likely explanation is to make cretin derive from christian, by euphemization, a cretin being considered an innocent, a happy person, or because mental retards were welcome in the monasteries of the Middle Ages.)

Well, and if it was not just an euphemization? A look at the factual history and historiography of the middle Middle Ages shows that it is not just those in command who despised and did not obey Christianism. Those who wrote also loudly shared in the rejection and contempt of the religion which supposedly ruled the souls.

***

Below the Word Cretin, What Saved Europe; Hateful Contempt For the Fanatics:

So the origin of the word “Cretin” adds a new dimension to… the understanding of Europe. Indeed, here is another explanation, this one with full semantic dimensionality: the hatred and utter contempt with which priests and their ilk were viewed in the middle Middle Ages by most of the population, and, in particular, by the intellectuals who depicted the situation then.

Remember: late Middle Aged Christianism was a killing machine (just go ask Middle Easterners). The priests and their military allies ended up killing many millions, as the Middle Ages progressed. Burning at the stake for heresy reappeared in 1026 CE, after a Frankish imposed hiatus of more than five centuries. The full Christian insanity got unleashed with the First Crusade: as the Crusade started, so did the mass killing of European Jews (who were probably, at least in part, European by ancestry, and Jewish by conversion of said ancestor… so the conventional terminology of “anti-Semitism”, to qualify anti-Judaism, is misleading).

How do I know this of this hatred against the theocrats? It was a sane reaction to Christianism as war and genocide, the vision promoted by Saint Bernard (personal enemy of the great philosopher cum songwriter Abelard). The hatred against Christianism a la Saint Bernard was more than justified. Just an example: the (Fourth) Crusade against the Cathars killed as much if not more, in percentage terms, as the Nazis did… But the Christian leaders were themselves unhinged. To look at the Cathars again, Catharism was thoroughly annihilated, over several generations of relentless persecution. From Turkey to Spain. Not one book survived. Five millions Cathars died (at least).

I have next to my bed all the oldest French literature surviving, including the famed “Fabliaux”, in the original 9 centuries old French.

In these books, priests, chaplains and author church authorities are central. They are depicted engaging in relentless sexual adventures and fornication, murders, tortures, rape and castration, in the most comical way… It’s all roaring comical. A priest, surprised by the incoming husband, disguises himself in a statue. The enraged husband sees the statue, which reminds him of the priest, so he cuts its appendages. The fake statue says nothing to save his life, while losing wiener and jewels.

And so on. Most devious wives have a lecherous priest in their beds. Priests are depicted as terminally cretinous. This approach to religion was not new. Although (bishop) Gregory of Tours’ book on the history of the Franks, written six centuries earlier, is full of martyrs and saints, a robust reading shows many of the admirable characters, even saints, engaged in depredation… And some priests are represented in the worst light imaginable, killing for greed in extensive conspiracies. 

What is the conclusion? We The People of the Middle Ages had a robustly correct view of the theocrats. One has to realize that those writing horrors about people of the church belong to the most intellectual part of the population. Also we know that church summities as Beranger, an abbot basically said that the entire Christian religion worked only if one realized that reason should be divine. Beranger had a powerful ally: the conquering Duke of Normandy. Beranger fought the Pope… and was not defeated. 

The literal roasting of nobles during the “jacqueries’ of the Fourteenth Century (which extended to England) proves the point that there was tremendous opposition to the establishment throughout the Middle Ages (the existence of the Cathars, and the strike of the University of Paris for a full year around 1200 CE to be taught Aristotle, demonstrates the same point). After the jacqueries, which extended to England, the nobles lived in fear of a popular revolt until the final retribution of 1789… 

It took that long, because, just as in the Late Roman empire, cretinism was a method of governance. The more cretinous the people, the easier it is to rule over them.

So we see that the middle Middle Age society was such that intellectual positioning highly critical of Christianism was, de facto, tolerated, and pervasive. Calling cretins cretins and Christians, cretins, was missing in the Fourth and Fifth Century Rome: doing so after 380 CE, under the Roman emperors Theodosius I, Gratian and Valentinian was a capital crime. 

In France, the core of Western Europe, in the middle Middle Ages, a healthy contempt for superstitious religion flourished. This was a return to an old spirit. 

The Romans of the Republic often exhibited a critical distanciation for their own original Roman religion. The examples abound: an admiral, furious that the sacred chicken will not eat, a bad auguri, threw them in the sea, observing they would be forced to drink now. Caesar, invading Africa, stumbles and falls during disembarkment, a bad omen. So he grabs the sand, and says: now I hold you, Africa. Or Cicero, having become a supreme augur, in charge of interpreting the signs, observes that this is the most powerful position of the Roman Republic… As, for example, it enables the augur to validate, or not, the elections.  

When the Roman dictatorship became a Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, all distanciation from religion was gone: only Catholicism was the state religion (and the status of Judaism was unclear).  Everybody was supposed to subscribe to that superstition and its absurd orders (such as you shall not execute murderous highway robbers). The prompt result (it took only months, starting in 395 CE) was the collapse of the Roman state and civilization, led by the collapse of secularism. 

A mind freed of superstition is freer to observe the world. China and its satellites, the only center of civilization rivalling the Indo-European ensemble, was also never too subjected to terroristic superstition. So, whereas cannibalism ruled the Americas, under a superstitious umbrella, Eastern Asians did not eat their fellow man. Foot binding was enough to satisfy the sadistic instincts. 

So what happened, starting in 1026 CE, when burning people for heresy was re-engaged? The feudal order, a plutocratic system, was fundamentally resting on inequality. It needed a fascist god to justify itself. The more fascist the god, the more fascist the plutocracy could get. Hence the Cathar insurrection… and that was broken by plutocracy, for example, the king of France who had interest in breaking the super powerful county of Toulouse, a de facto parliamentary power… And Catharism was an excellent reason to do so, once its annihilation became the object of an official crusade.

However, there is something called CULTURAL INERTIA. Once contempt had been heaped on religion, for centuries, it could not be dispelled with the magic of terror. Resistance to Catholicism, obvious by the Eleventh Century, soon became frantic, and millions were killed. After four centuries of Protestantism, potentates in Western Europe (following some in North-Eastern Europe, see the Hus affair and consequences) promoted Calvin and Luther… This time reform worked enough, to cause centuries of religious wars… instead of the simple extermination by Catholic terror of its opponents.

Resistance to superstition and authority made Europe culturally smarter. It also probably made Europe EPIGENETICALLY smarter. Because there is no doubt that stupidity can be epigenetically imposed.

Oh, by the way, Christianism, as practiced by Roman tyrants, was theocratic fascism. A particular case of intellectual fascism. Now social network monopolies are imposing their own intellectual fascism… a particular case of which being what a growing group of contemporary French intellectuals call “Pensée unique“… The single thought, supported by the single emotion, hatred against The Malicious One… a characteristic of the Middle Ages. 

Calling cretins cretins is at the core of making the advancement of civilization possible. Yes, it’s not Politically Correct, or, more exactly, plutocratically correct, of calling cretins cretin, but it is philosophically correct. If one cannot call idiocy idiotic, there is no wisdom.

Idiocy is not just to be avoided, it is a teacher. Thinkers, in particular mathematicians, learn that error is a friend, a teacher. Only those who want to protect idiocy, cover it up.

Ah, and why is European supremacy vanishing? Because, precisely, Europe had increasingly learned to tolerate, or even revere cretinism. But the US President got blocked on “social media”, when all sorts of monstrosities and threats are not, and, suddenly struck by an epiphany, many leaders of European  cultural descent, worldwide, condemned the censorship. This is an encouraging sign, as censorship is the first step towards cretinism.

Our species is defined by wisdom. Cretinism is not just the religion of error embraced, it is as inhuman as one gets. This point of view carries real humanistic power. Take for example Nazism. Not too many whined that it looked cruel. But of course the Nazis got elected by pretending that they were good people, keen to resurrect Germany (defending minorities, of all things). So to counteract the nazis by claiming they were bad, when they claimed to be good, was not a powerful argument. Instead the very powerful argument was to point out that Nazism was a form of cretinism. Why? Because it did not have a snowball chance in hell to defeat the entente cordiale of France and Great Britain… all the more as their progeny, the USA, could not be really too far behind helping its parents. To this the Nazis replied with the cretinous argument that France and England, the two most aggressive, and deeply entangled nations of the last millennium, were actually degenerate, unwilling and unable, all of a sudden, to make war… although they had the largest empires the world had ever seen, and France spent 15 centuries at war, and counting… And this was just one aspect of Nazi cretinism, there were many others, like killing off intellectuals (in particular Jews), or depending upon US plutocracy to have an economy…

Fighting cretinism is most humanitarian, and most useful, in to achieve a more human civilization. One has to realize that Christianism was a slave religion, and taught this, not just by teaching to be slapped all day long, which was already cretinous, but by an entire arsenal of stupidities which were already denounced 18 centuries ago by Celsus… If one is dumb like an ass, one can be used like an ass. In these end of times times, it is high time to give cretins their marching orders towards a more meaningful future.

Cretinism is not just a secondary effect of Christianism. It is its principal raison d’être.

Demolishing cretinism has to start by not being afraid to search for, identify, and denounce stupid ideas. That’s where much of the learning is.

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Some Americans knowing vaguely the history of English America, will object that it was founded by Pilgrims…. Who were full of respect for Christianism. That’s only SC, Superficially Correct. In truth the Pilgrims were integrated in military-plutocratic investment venture. Once the first Pilgrims landed (not to well, and not where the army had sent them), they wrote back to their fellows in Europe to boast of the immense riches of the continent. Simultaneously, the Pilgrims discovered some English heathens who had intermarried with Native women. Revolted by these sins, they massacred them all. The same reasoning was then extended to the entire continent. Thus Christianism was used to give the good conscience necessary to massacre enthusiastically anybody who was in the way of greater riches. This was what the Late Roman and Feudal systems had done, by using the Inquisition, but on a much greater scale.

Where is the contempt for Christianism in the behavior of the English colonizers? Well, by using Christianism mostly as a sword. If one extracts the best of Christianism, all the talk about love, pardoning, mercifulness, etc… One obtains positive Christianism, so to speak, and one can do the same with other religions. However, the weaponization of Christianism, by using its Dark Side, is what the Pilgrims and their descendants human, or institutional, did. That shows contempt for the positive side of Christ.

Considering what the European colonizers did with Christianism demonstrates the point that Christianism was an instrument of subjugation. Lethal, if need be, as symbolized by the cult object of the Christians, torture to death by crucifixion. If one is greedy enough, that’s not cretinous.

Ongoing German Lies Destroying Europe, & World: 2) Debt & Investment

In light of the Biarritz 2019 G7 Summit:

German lies have long reigned as European lies: one of the causes of Brexit. Nobody says it, so I will: the British could only feel good, because their central bank provided their economy with enough “liquidities”… Not the case in Europe, because the ECB, tied in by German (and secondarily) French plutocracies, barely provided enough money to keep hundreds of millions of Europeans alive. The British then, felt there was something right about the UK keeping its independance… and they were right.

For years, US presidents (in particular Obama and Trump) have asked the European Union to augment “consumer spending”, or “demand”. The US can’t ask loudly Europe to augment investment (except in military matters, where the USA have long asked for more EU spending) but they mean it More surprising, Europeans themselves are lackadaisical about investing… or anything else having to do with a better future….

***

We Are, Because We Lie… says the herd, and it moos, all together now. What makes a better bound than a lie?

Plutocrats and the plutocracies they depend upon, lie. Otherwise, they would not stay in power: only with lies can a few rule the billions. Those lies, initially imposed on the billions, are believed by the billions. Attacking those lies, thus, means attacking those billions.

For Estienne La Boétie (a close friend of Montaigne who was also a judge) the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords? It is not just fear, Boetie explains in “The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Le Contr’un,” for our consent is required (La Boétie naively thought). And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn (even more naive: as soon as one strays, one’s career is destroyed, thus the power to eat, let alone influence…)

To go beyond Estienne La Boétie, and his observations on voluntary servitude, one has to realize that obedience is not as much to rulers themselves, as to lies. Systems of lies.

***

German fascism rested on lies:

The camp of those who think Germany is lying has grown a lot: Trump is in it, and now even Trump’s nemesis Paul Krugman agrees with the liar in chief on Germany. German readers may object that France also lies (and everybody knows about delusional, Brexiting UK). However German lies are convenient for French corrupt politicians, Germany (in spite of all the fascist dictators), having a reputation for seriousness.

One may even argue that Germany ended up with monsters such as the Kaiser and Hitler, precisely because it had such  a serious, quasi-scientific repute… Which the Germans were the first to believe. 

***

Lies Rule History: 

How did Germany become this fascist, racist monster, Friedrich Nietzsche stridently condemned, telling us it would bring a disaster to humanity, a full 35 years before the Zweite Reich? By telling lies. And first of all, to itself.

How come France was so unprepared to fight a world war with Germany in May 1940, after declaring war to Hitler, eight months prior? By telling lies. In this case the lies were from the French High Command, to itself. And from the French government to itself: one doesn’t launch a world war without checking first one is ready (and to be ready, France had to go to war in Spain against hitler and Mussolini)

Disasters and holocausts are often accompanied with lies, or by their mildest, yet most pervasive form, “non-saids” (“non-dits” in the original French). One such lie, or enormous “non-said” pertains to erroneous attitudes of Germany in several dimensions. Nowadays. (Instead one focused on the Greeks.) Here are some of the errors, by order of importance: immigration, ecology, and European economy activity and the attending debt problem. I will ignore the attitude to (mass) immigration (of Muslims, not all of them integrable): its main effect was Brexit. Even Krugman, following Trump, sort of, has to admit there is something rotten in Germany… As I have said for more than a decade.  

***

Want to see what lies lead to? Consider carefully the two curves in the graph below:

Degenerating, increasingly impoverished Europe. The blue EU curve, above, is similar to that of France and Germany… Except. of course, France is increasingly lagging, as German policy has been effectively advantaging Germany Uber Alles, all along, as usual… Bankrupt banking in Germany is the great secret advantage…

I have explained that those things would happen, and why, for years. Now they have. Paul Krugman (leftist Nobel star editorial of the New York Times, famous “liberal” economist) didn’t understand for years, what the problem was and now, not only does it, but his position is quite close, in practice, to… Donald Trump. (And Trump is not as far from Obama in several dimension, from MAGA, America First, to debt and championing the US economically through mercantilist policies…)

Paul Krugman in The World Has a Germany Problem

The debt obsession that ate the economy.

“…he’s [Trump] preparing to open a new front in the trade war, this time against the European Union, which he says “treats us horribly: barriers, tariffs, taxes.” 

The funny thing is that there are some aspects of European policy, especially German economic policy, that do hurt the world economy and deserve condemnation. But Trump is going after the wrong thing. Europe does not, in fact, treat us badly; its markets are about as open to U.S. products as ours are to Europe’s. (We export about three times as much to the E.U. as we do to China.)

The problem, instead, is that the Europeans, and the Germans in particular, treat themselves badly, with a ruinous obsession over public debt. And the costs of that obsession are spilling over to the world as a whole.”

***

What the European sheeple doesn’t understand is that Public Debt can be defaulted upon. The USA did this many times. It’s painful for investors. But no big deal for a truly sovereign country (thus, not Argentina… or Russia…). 

I have explained many times: Public debt is, should everything go wrong, and a default on that debt occur, a possible, partial tax. Thus European governments, by substituting tax to debt, preventing the latter by splurging in the former, engaged in the worst outcome, basically taxation equating debt going into default, while calling this over-taxation, moral and prudent.

***

And Paul Krugman to explain:

“Some background: Around 2010, politicians and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic caught a bad case of austerity fever. Somehow they lost interest in fighting unemployment, even though it remained catastrophically high, and demanded spending cuts instead. And these spending cuts, unprecedented in a weak economy, slowed the recovery and delayed the return to full employment.”

Notice here that Krugman is criticizing Obama… now… whereas at the time he didn’t (but I did, stridently; Obama didn’t do then what Trump is doing now, namely beating the drum for a stronger economy by helping We The People directly…)

“While debt alarmism ruled both here and in Europe, however, it eventually became clear that there was a crucial difference in underlying motivation. Our deficit hawks were, in fact, hypocrites, who suddenly lost all interest in debt as soon as a Republican was in the White House. The Germans, on the other hand, really meant it.

True, Germany forced debt-troubled nations in southern Europe into punishing, society-destroying spending cuts; but it also imposed a lot of austerity on itself. Textbook economics says that governments should run deficits in times of high unemployment, but Germany basically eliminated its deficit in 2012, when euro area unemployment was more than 11 percent, and then began to run ever-growing surpluses.”

And Paul explains that “Why is this a problem? Europe suffers from a chronic shortfall in private demand: Consumers and corporations don’t seem to want to spend enough to maintain full employment…

The European Central Bank, Europe’s counterpart to the Federal Reserve, has tried to fight this chronic weakness with extremely low interest rates — in fact, it has pushed rates below zero, which economists used to think was impossible…. Indeed, much of Europe may well already be in recession, and there’s little if anything the central bank can do.

There is, however, an obvious solution: European governments, and Germany in particular, should stimulate their economies by borrowing and increasing spending. The bond market is effectively begging them to do that; in fact, it’s willing to pay Germany to borrow, by lending at negative interest. And there’s no lack of things to spend on: Germany, like America, has crumbling infrastructure desperately in need of repair. But spend they won’t.

Most of the costs of German fiscal obstinacy fall on Germany and its neighbors, but there are some spillovers to the rest of us… characterizing this as a situation in which Europe is taking advantage of America gets it all wrong, and is not helpful.

What would be helpful? Realistically, America has no ability to pressure Germany into changing its domestic policies. We might be able to provide a little moral suasion if our own leadership had any intellectual or policy credibility, but, of course, it doesn’t. There’s a sense in which the whole world has a Germany problem, but it’s up to the Germans themselves to solve it.

One thing is for sure: Starting a trade war with Europe would truly be a lose-lose proposition, even more so than our trade war with China. It’s the last thing either America or Europe needs. Which means that Trump is probably going to do it.“.

As we will see next the de-industrialization of Europe, for example France, and soaring mediocrity, is striking, and is directly related to the (plutocrat favoring) austerity… The main champion of this disaster has been the one who profited the most from it, relatively speaking, but not absolutely speaking, Germany. And its weapon of mass destruction of the neighbors, has been the attitude relative to debt and deficits: giant in the US, tiny in Europe… Whereas, in truth, Europe needs debt more than the USA does…

Germany developed and pushed that attitude, precisely because it provided it with an arrogant advantage inside Europe. But this is a childish, all too childish, game, the one which brought us world wars: intra European strife leads Europe only to ever greater degeneracy… not just relative to the rest of the world (aside from the even more degenerating Prophet land), but, more importantly relative to what is needed to preserve Earth…

Patrice Ayme

ACE: No Conflict, No Change

Intensely Conflicting Debates, Thus Change: Why the Superiority of ACE, the Area Of Cultural Europe:

First, let me remind the reader that here by “Europe” is meant the European Cultural Area. This is vastly larger than “Europe” in the ridiculous sense given to this term usually. “Europa” was a Phoenician princess for an excellent reason: the Greeks knew very well how much they culturally owed to the Middle Earth. Let me rephrase this “European Cultural Area” as the AREA OF CULTURAL EUROPE (ACE)… for obvious acronymic reasons.

(The Mongols, back in their Mongolian capital of Karakorum, in the 13th Century, felt that they belonged to ACE; they had the concept; thus they recruited many Parisian artisans, including one who built the world’s fanciest fountain, flowing with precious liquids… Earlier, Genghis Khan top generals, pondering the situation from Hungary, remembering what had happened to their ancestors, the Huns, eight centuries prior, decided to not attack France, although their spearheads were on the Adriatic sea, and all European forces had been defeated, but for the French…)

ACE is a huge expanse of the world where physical geography was friendly to fast, secure, intense communications (through the steppe, the desert, the Sahel, the oceans, the seas, and the rivers; this maybe a factor explaining the less great genetic variability in Eurasia than in Africa, let me point out in passing).

The Area of Cultural Europe (ACE) is a gigantic crescent from Korea, to Ireland, back down to the Sahara, and all the way back to India. ACE is why the Koreans, the Mongols, and the Vietnamese use an alphabet.

No Suffering, No Meaning?

Now even the Chinese have to use an alphabet (something they have to do when typing, because one cannot have a keyboard with 2,500 common characters!). ACE got to the alphabet first. But it took 3,000 years, and the cooperation of many locations, from egypt to Phoenicia, to Sumer. For numeration, it took even longer, and the location of the invention spreads from Egypt to India, to Central Asia to Greece. 

China is adopting the alphabet, not because China is a European political colony, but because the alphabet was the best solution for a writing system. ACE is all about the best solutions. Finding best solutions is what the gigantic ACE produced, better than any other place in the world.

Pondering “How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?” Picard578 on February 23, 2017, said:

One important aspect in Europe’s domination was its fragmentation. Combination of cultural diversity and political fragmentation enabled it rapid advancement, which placed it into position to culturally and politically dominate the world. It did lead to conflicts, but without conflicts there is no change.

Patrice Ayme’: Greece was already fragmented, and the same argument, that fragmentation is good, was used to explain Greek superiority. Moreover, there are different types of fragmentation. It can be political, military, intellectual, economic.

Greek intellectual superiority was pretty much confined to Athens and Ionian cities. Sparta was an intellectual Black Hole, except in two ways: gender equality, and equality among “Equals” (top Spartans were called “Equals”).

Sparta went to all the way to destroy Athens, even allying itself with Persia to do so. In the end, Athens came close to destruction, Sparta collapsed into nothingness. However, the spirit of mental innovation of Greece got mangled in the process, and discouraged by the powers that be, all the more as the Macedonians established a sort of world dictatorship.

When one considers the peak mental periods of Athens and Ionian cities, one finds the same: great commercial energy, military power, extreme democracy, and enormous existential threats over the horizon. The great enemy of Greece was fascism from a giant plutocratic empire, Persia, and Greek innovation was first outlawed and then discouraged by even greater fascist imperial plutocrats: first from Macedonia, then from Rome, and finally from Arabia.

Extreme democracy caused an overabundance of mental productivity (any Athenian citizen, drawn by lot, could find himself at the head of the state, politically or judicially; thus Athenians paid a lot of attention to knowledge and wisdom, lest they be ridiculous when nominated).

Athenian total democracy was at her most mentally productive when she was an empire who got her wheat from the Black Sea, a 1,000 miles away.

Greece was rendered possible by the fact all Greeks spoke Greek (although Spartans’ Dorian accent was hard to understand; hard-to-communicate-with Spartans were too weird by half!)

Europe returned to greatness when the Franks established the Imperium Francorum whose Lingua Franca was Latin. (the franks were smart enough to speak Latin).

When the Imperium Francorum progressed quickly in all ways (from abrogation of slavery, nationalization of the church, mandatory education) it was indeed pretty much in continual strife. So the assertion that without conflicts there is no change, is indeed correct, and central to my own philosophy.

However, conflict has to be kept within bounds.

In 800 CE, the Franks officially proclaimed the “Renovation of the Roman Empire” (in the Tenth Century, the Parisians and Western Francia went their own way; but the empire can be viewed as ongoing to this day: all of the present European states, led by Francia which is still around, descend from the “Renovatio Imperium Romanorum, including Great Britain, which was reconquered in 1066 CE).

Charlemagne himself saw the first raids of the Viking. (Ironically, six centuries earlier, the Franks themselves had appeared in history as raiders of Roman rivers, all the way down to Spain!) Soon, Vikings, Saracens and Mongols (Avars) would attack the empire from three sides. And they attacked for centuries, because Europe was so rich, while the defense budget was low.  

European defense was weak from lack of will: for centuries the Franks had been hyper aggressive, hell-bent as they were to succeed where the Romans had failed earlier, and conquer Eastern Europe.

After 800 CE, with the Roman empire officially reconstituted, the Franks got, correctly, worried about the main reason for the Romans’ failure: political fascism.

In theory leaders of the Franks (= kings) were elected (differently from the Roman emperors, where a formal election system did not exist). Another factor was that Frankish law insured equality of inheritance (even women could inherit if full, if they had no brother). Thus the Frankish/Renovated Roman empire found it hard to stay in one piece, politically.

The result was a politico-military mess which lasted until the European Union.

In Greece, political fragmentation was deadly to democracy: Athens was occupied by anti-democratic forces for more than 21 centuries: the Muslims got ejected from Athens only in 1834 CE.

Intellectual diversity and debate are crucial. That can be insured only within an empire of manners which are good enough. Debate should not turn to hatred and war (we see some of this in the US now).   

The lessons of ACE, the Area of Cultural Europe, are many. The first one is a meta-lesson: we should try to reproduce deliberately, worldwide, the ways which made ACE so innovative.

Patrice Ayme’

Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre

Ultimately, & practically, the Syrian Civil War’s primary cause is not even Islam, or the plutocratic effect, but European impotence (except for the French Republic, which is engaged in half a dozen wars… but financially and diplomatically hobbled by most other European powers… and, of course, its occasionally ingrate progeny, the US). Europeans, Merkel, and especially European youth, talk big about peace, human rights, freedom. Yet, what good is talk when it is not followed by enforcement? Replacing action by the dream?

Refugees, you say? Millions of them? Well, six hundred million Africans and Middle Orientalists want to enter Europe. For starters. Any questions?

I guess not. Shall we reinstate European colonialism, so that Africans want to stay in Africa, as they used to?

Here are further observations of mine: Europeans (semi-) intellectuals talked big about imperialism, decolonization, peace, flowers, bad-mouthed the strong-arm of the USA. So who did they enable? Assad. Assad is smoother talking than Saddam Hussein. But as far as killing his own people, he is much better. Connection with the plutocrats in London made the British Parliament friendly to him. And his kind.

Obama refused, at the last moment, to strike Assad, in collaboration with France. French pilots were in their seats, ready to go unleash Scalp missiles on Assad’s palace, but The One in the White House changed his mind. Annihilating weddings, or Americans on the beach with drones in Yemen, OK. Hitting big bad dictator, whose family holds billions in assets in the West, not OK.

Alep, August 2016. Those “Leaders” Who Do Not Defend Humanity Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of Leading The Wrong Way: European Peaceniks and Obama

What happened next? Putin saw the green light from Obama. Putin is an opportunist (see below). A much encouraged Putin invaded Ukraine, grabbing Crimea… which had been Ukrainian for eleven centuries. Now Putin is in Syria, training his army, extending his empire, and helping his fellow dictator Assad re-establish his rule (of terror). (Putin had seized parts of Georgia earlier. However Sarkozy intervened in various spastic ways, and Bush put a few hundreds US troops in the way of Russian tanks, persuading Putin to back off…)

Cynics will observe that the USA is the world’s number one producer of fossil fuels… Followed by Russia. Do those two have interest to see fossil fuel prices go too low for their own comfort? As long as there is a total war mess in the Middle East, most of the oil production out of Turkey, Syria, and especially Iraq, is shut down (by some measure, Iraq has the world’s second largest reserve of conventional oil). That lack of production keeps the prices up much better than the conspiracies from (a much weakened) OPEC.

In this light, Canada, which is trying to build a new giant pipeline, to exfiltrate the planet’s dirtiest hydrocarbons has also interest to extend the mess in the Middle East as long as possible. And sure enough PM Trudeau, that dashing ecologist in words alone, pulled the Canadian Air Force out of the Middle East.

Some will say Canada acted in a spirit of peace, alleluia, let’s save lives from horrid bombardment. By the same token, the Jihadists are all for eternal peace too. One does make peace with those who organize Auschwitz. Aleppo, right now is pretty much Auschwitz for all to see. Aerial bombardment is no panacea, but it remains the ultimate weapon. Who controls the sky and bombs from it has won more than half the war.

History will not be kind to Obama and those Europeans who pay only lip service to humanity, Socrates’ style (See Socrates on the lake of selfishness). To defend the position that one should not defend humanity and humanism is beyond vile, it is also illogical… if one is not a plutocrat of the most ferocious type.  

Trump accused Obama to have founded the Islamist State, ISIS, or words to this effect. Then he explained this happened through Clinton and Obama’s lack of action. Of military action. I agree, and said so at the time. Now I am making the same charge about the Syrian war. I have been making it for several years, if anything Trump is parroting me, and not the other way around.

These are symptoms of the White Flag Syndrome.

Obama maybe vile, from a humanitarian point of view, by refusing to strike a mass-murdering dictator, but, he is in the best American tradition: the US has helped many a dictator during the Twentieth Century, starting with Kaiser Wilhelm II (from 1914 to 1917). Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, countless bananas dictators, and many others more recently (Nasser, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Saudis, etc.)

America first, make America ever greater is a policy which has been most profitable. President Franklin Roosevelt in World War Two, following President Wilson in  World War One, refused to come to the help of the French Republic in a timely manner, after being begged to do so. That did not work very well for humanity, but it worked very well for America.

Roosevelt’s refusal to help France in 1939 and 1940 against Hitler, although Auschwitz had just been opened for business by the Nazis, for all to see, was despicable, anti-humanitarian. However, it brought the death of 50 million Europeans, the loss of the European empires, and, not the least, the coming of the so-called “American Century”.

Europeans, though, do not seem to have learned history as well as US think tanks did. Weakness in front of fascism and its associated plutocrats (Yesterday Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler, Franco, now, Assad, Putin, etc.) brought calamity to Europe. Syria, like Libya, should be part of the European empire of justice and peace, because it is the neighborhood of Europe. Actually, Syria was, until it was devastated by the brutal Muslim assault, the richest part of the Roman empire.

The king of Jordan believes World War Three has started. What is sure is that, for World War Three to start, the surest strategy is weakness in the face of infamy. It is known that many in the Russian chain of command believe that a surgical nuclear strike would intimidate the Western Europeans into abject surrender. Whomever the next US president is, Trump, Clinton, Kaynes or Pence, I would not bet on it. Indeed any of these four is clearly more aggressive than Obama. And the US chain of command is very deep.

Here is an example:
Low key and calmly cerebral, four star Admiral Haney, whom some would probably insist to call an “Afro-American” is Commander, United States Strategic Command (four star is the greatest number of stars, aside from times of world war). As such he would be the one talking directly to the president in case of nuclear war, real or potential. Haney commands  not only this country’s nuclear forces but its cyber weapons and space satellites as well.

David Martin, “60 Minutes”: Is it riskier today?

Cecil Haney: Well I think today we’re at a time and place that I don’t think we’ve been to before.

It is Haney’s job to convince Vladimir Putin that resorting to nuclear weapons would be the worst mistake he could possibly make.

David Martin: When you look at what would work to deter Russia, do you have to get inside Putin’s head?

Cecil Haney: You have to have a deep, deep, deep understanding of any adversary you want to deter, including Mr. Putin.

David Martin: So how would you describe him psychologically?

Cecil Haney: Well, one I would say I’m not a psychologist. But I would just say he is clearly an individual that is an opportunist.

[Sell, most politicians are opportunists. The job selects for opportunists. This is the major problem of representative democracy. Any politician is going to be a variant on Trump or Clinton, just those two make it more blatant. However, in the case of Putin and the nationalist mood in Russia, the sky seems to be the same limit as it was for the Nazis.]

David Martin, loaded question: Does it concern you that an opportunist has a nuclear arsenal?

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

Well the psychological scenario for the use of nuclear weapons is in place. It came from weakness. No force, no moral. Only a perspective of great ferocity and fury, in defense of democracy, the republic and optimal human ethology will convince those seduced by the most devilish and oligarchic instincts to refrain from acting up.

Patrice Ayme’.

Civilization & Its Mad Haters

Anti-West Propaganda: Dumb Yet Unexamined In Causes and Extent:

There is colossal anti-West propaganda going on. I will give a striking example here: asinine graphics from no less than “The Economist” (I had noticed it when it came out, but now it has gone viral). Propaganda is not just made of systems of ideas, but systems of moods. For example, racism or ‘esclavagisme’ are certainly moods. So is nationalism. The mood that civilization, in its present form, did not blossom in Europe, is just counter-factual… And as we will see below, insane, serpentine, base and villainous. And self-serving to a malevolent elite.

Anti-Western propaganda is also anti-civilizational propaganda. Many will disagree with this; because they have been thoroughly molded by anti-Western propaganda. But actually, it is pretty clear: the United Nations charter is the French Declaration Des Droits, written large… (The various US “Bills” and “Independence Declaration” or “Constitution” are not far removed.)

Who would have interest to undermine Western ideology, also as known as civilization? Those who want to undermine correct civilization. The one and only. And replace it by plutocracy (evil boosted oligarchy).

So what did The Economist do? It published these cute, authoritatively spoken of, yet viciously lying graphics:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart-9

Just restricting Europe to “Italy” means nothing. For most of the history of the place presently known as “Italy”, “Italy” did not exist. Here is the real situation before Charlemagne conquered Eastern Europe (including the Avars in Hungary).  

Europe 800 CE, Before the Franks Conquered Eastern Europe. The Franks reconquered Britannia in 1066 CE, giving birth to the present polity there. (Yes, they called themselves “Franks” or “Europeans”.)

The description given by The Economist incredibly shrinks Europe, by comparing provinces of Europe, with giant multinational, multireligious empires. “The Economist’s” brain-molding will work only for those who know nothing of the history of the Indian subcontinent, nothing of the history of “China” and nothing of the history of Europe. Comparing two empires, India and China, with portions of the European world and its colonies is both stupid and biased, to the extreme.

So the entire idea of The Economist’s graphs (‘China back on top!’) is silly: It is little more than comparison of demographics. And wrong demographics: implicitly identifying “Italy” as its own power in 1 CE is exhibiting a total ignorance of Roman history and politics (the Gallic tribe of the Senones had captured, centuries earlier, Northern Italy, and defeated Rome; in 1 AD, Gallia Transalpina, North Italy, was still administratively, part of Gaul).

If one wants Western GDP in 1 CE,  one has to look at the entire Roman Empire, and add Britannia and Germania.  That would make for the world’s largest GDP (Rome had already 25% of the world’s population, then, more than 60 millions, and the richest areas, like Syria (!); East Asian populations would explode later, from new rice cultivars producing two harvests a year).

In the West, the (legal, political, civilizational, linguistic, imperial, spiritual!) successor of Rome was Francia (“Imperium Francorum”). It was synchronous with Tang China, and comparable in population, extent and GDP (Tang controlled a gigantic desert far west of not much import on GDP). Tang was a high point of Chinese civilization complete with empresses (like Francia!) and printed paper money.

So why not consider just GDP within the Central China Plain, if one wants to compare with portions of Europe?

China, to this day, is made, officially, of one hundred ethnicities (several times more than Europe). China was rarely united in the last 4,000 years. When Genghis Khan’s army invaded “China”, “China” was actually made of several empires with different languages and religions.

Ditto with India (many parts of India were independent nation-states with their own languages, alphabets, religions, for most of their history).

***

Ironically Enough, Those Who Promote Civilizational Decay Bemoan ‘Shrinking Europe’:

That Europe is shrinking, there is no doubt. As soon as Europe finally orders Apple Inc., the world’s largest market cap company, to pay more than 1% tax, Washington screams, and then right away retaliate by ordering Deutsche Bank to pay 14 billion dollars in fine. What does Europe do? Bleat. Even the anti-Euro Stiglitz admits that we are dealing here with a “fraud”. “Frauds” like that undermine Europe, by undermining the tax base of countries such as France, hence the French or British military and defense financing, hence system, thus all what’s left of European defense, and so on. (In the next step, naturally enough, Europe makes humiliating treaties with the Turkish Sultan, as Europe does not have the military will, let alone the military strength to go re-establish order in neighboring Syria!… and leaves the Russian and American empires in control, free to extend the mess ad nauseam).

In “Charlemagne”, The Economist pontificates that: “Unshrinking the continent: Europeans see themselves as mouse-sized. They need to man up…output in 11 EU countries has yet to recover to 2007 levels. Large economies, like France and particularly Italy, are struggling. The IMF has downgraded its forecasts for the euro zone, warning of the risks posed by Brexit. Unemployment remains over 10%, twice the American rate. And there is precious little thinking about long-term challenges like ageing, infrastructure or education. ”

Why would one to “man up”, when one is told one was always insignificant, wrong, colonialist, exploitative, cruel and degenerate? Did not insignificance and all these other wrongs work pretty well? In the fullness of time?

In truth, Europe spread civilization by the sword, and then the gun (against all sorts of established plutocrats, often, not always, to put in place neo-plutocrats). Field guns were developed by southern French to win the “100” Hundred Year War against Northern France and England… A bit earlier, the Mongols used rockets rather than guns. Later the giant “Ottoman” guns which fell the walls of Constantinople were actually made by hungarian engineers…

Civilization without guns, that’s called pasta.

Implicitly, “The Economist” concludes the same:”Hormones Needed”. Yes, well, hormones, the right hormones, come from the right moods. And that comes, in turn, from a correct version of history. The right moods come only from a correct version of history, in the individual, as much as in a civilization. 

***

Why So Much Hatred Against The West, In The West? Why So much hatred Against Civilization?

The bottom line is that civilization has always been victim of a chronic disease, plutocracy. Plutocracies rest on ideologies, including self-serving religions (Islamism and Christianism are examples).

The adversary of plutocracy is, always, the optimal civilization (OK, sometimes it is not easy to imagine how a civilization like that of the Aztecs could have quit the man-eating habit, considering the context).

What is this optimal civilization? The one closest to human ethology writ large: liberty, equality, fraternity. At a given technological level, in a given ecology there is pretty much just one. Those who hate civilization, In other words those who aspire to rule over others, using whichever ideology comes in handy, the plutocrats. This is generally how plutocrats come to power. Chains control rebellious bodies. Erroneous ideas and misleading moods control minds, eschewing the potential for rebellion altogether.

An example; the first two presidents of the USA, in the Eighteenth Century, signed a document, the first international treaty of the USA, stating that “the USA has nothing to do in any sense with the Christian religion”. Perfect. And the motto of the USA was “E Pluribus Unum” (“Out of the many, One”, a verbal version of the Roman and French Republic fascist principle). However, in 1954, apparently inspired by the Nazi SS, the US Congress replaced it with “In God We Trust”. That was a perfect mood to accompany the USA’s superficially pro-Islamist policy (pro-Wahhabist, pro-oil, pro-Saudi, anti-French, anti-British, pro-Shiite, anti-democratic Iran, etc.).

Telling us constantly that European civilization was weak trash, throughout history is self-serving propaganda on the part of those who hold (most of) the media, the plutocrats. They want We The People to be weak. So they persuade We The People that it was always weak. We have seen all before, when the Roman Republic, and, later, the Greco-Roman empire imploded. The best of the Greco-Romans, the Neo-Platonists, were told, again and again, that they were enemies of God. And often submitted to abuse, and sent to torture, or death (see Hypatia).

We don’t need to see it again. The world seems at peace now, as it seemed to be in May 1914. However, and differently from 1914, a huge catastrophe, the greatest in 65 million years, is gathering steam. That could heat up the situation quickly, in all sorts of unexpected ways: cornered, overcrowded rats tend to become very aggressive. And not just rats. When a situation gets tense, war hormones go up, and small provocations can lead to irreversible combat.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

Brexit Vote Killing Brexit Mood

It took 13 years for the Germans of old to realize that the Nazis had lied about all too many things. It took 13 hours for the British to realize that the strident anti-Europeans produced an ocean of lies. And in that ocean Brexiteers swam, claiming they were not really lies, but something else, more substantial. But one can see them, confusing sinking and thinking. Here below will be found a sample of the sort of debate. But first:

Patrice Ayme: Brexit will NOT happen. Keep calm and carry on.

Paul Handover: “Easy to write but impossible to accurately predict. If I were to make a bet it would be that Article 50 is going to happen.”

[Article 50  can be invoked by any European State at any moment, for any reason. It starts a 24 month process at the end of which said State is not a member of the European Union anymore, come what may.]

Patrice Ayme’:  It is so incredibly obvious that there will be another vote. That’s why Labor is in a rush to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, a notorious Europhobe from 43 years ago. The European Union did not extinguish one person, one vote. Just the opposite. Britain has been made rich, because it was the payment organized mostly by Germany to please Britain and its American owners. Now Germany feels strong enough to follow the more egalitarian French Republic rather than Wall Street and its London pet. The aim was always to construct a Union so strong that it could be not be undone by war, ever again. Those who stand in the way of that ought to be extirpated of all and any decision-making. Let England be the new Norway (Norway pays twice per capita, but had to accept Schengen! It learns of European Union policy through press release, as a common minnow would). 

The French Republic Will Be Delighted To Brexit The English Plutocracy. Break Shit All Over, Right On, Guys!

Article 50 of the European Union Constitution, Lisbon Treaty:

1 Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2 A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3 The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council[…]

4 For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council… in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject… Patrice: As if it never had been a member (Article 49).

Article 238 (b): “(b) ….”the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.”

Practically, in the case of Great Britain, it means that at least 23 European Nation-States representing at least 330 million people have to agree with the exit treaty.

Of course the preceding may as well be Quantum Field Theory for Brexiteers. They know very little beyond the minds plutocratically owned tabloids endowed them with.  They probably don’t know what the “European Council” is. Let me help among Brexiteers those of good will who can read beyond tabloids:

The European Council … is not one of the EU’s legislating institutions, so does not negotiate or adopt EU laws. Instead it sets the EU’s policy agenda, traditionally by adopting ‘conclusions‘ during European Council meetings which identify issues of concern and actions to take.

The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.

The European Council defines the EU’s overall political direction and priorities

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also takes part in European Council meetings when foreign affairs issues are discussed.

Decision-making process: The European Council mostly takes its decisions by consensus. However, in certain specific cases outlined in the EU treaties, it decides by unanimity or by qualified majority.

The number for France is an under-estimate. Many places in France have local English newspapers.

The European Institutions are as follows:
Section 1 – The European Parliament (Articles 223-234)
Section 2 – The European Council (Articles 235-236)
Section 3 – The Council (Articles 237-243)
Section 4 – The Commission (Articles 244-250)
Section 5 – The Court of Justice of the European Union (Articles 251-281)
Section 6 – The European Central Bank (Articles 282-284)
Section 7 – The Court of Auditors (Articles 285-287)

Here is a typical opinion of a Brexiteer in response to me.  Nick Brackenbury says: “The British Tabloids don’t get a vote. Her Majesty’s Subjects do. Patrice, the vote produced a majority to leave the European Union. We shall remain as part of Europe and possibly carry on buying French wine, cheese and motor vehicles (we have two Renault). But now none-British people are no longer able to pass Laws that govern British people. Fini!”

French made helicopters and planes will also come in handy, with most of the electronic equipment of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (it’s made by Thales), not to talk of nuclear power plants on order…

Notice in passing how proud some of the British are to be “subjects”. What’s the difference between a subject and a slave? For the slave, one needs a whip, whereas for the subject one needs only a debased perverted sense of pride? Happy to live on one’s knees, in front of a man-made deity? I wrote the following rejoinder:

Her Majesty’s slaves got their minds made up by tabloids owned by global plutocrats, for example the liar Murdoch and his lying papers. Non-British people have NEVER passed British laws. Learn. Please try to stop reading tabloids and, or listening to tabloid puppets.

Some will chuckle that the term “slave” may be a bit strong, that I do not appreciate the pride of being owned by another human being whom one reveres, like the dog reveres his master, and the Briton, his queen, and his princess, and his prince. A real fairy tale, Britain, I tell you. Complete with tax evading queen.

But slavery made Britain, and, especially America. Like in the US of A. No, this is not an allusion to the Franks retaking Britain from those who had invaded it, and liberating the slaves there, in 1066 CE.

No, it’s an allusion to how English America was made: by condemning vagrants to death, and then proposing to them deportation instead of the rope. How come that did not happen in France? Simply put, France was, and, de facto, is, much more civilized: in France peasants owned their land. However small. In Britain, they did not. Instead plutocrats employed them as quasi slaves.

The Brits are still slaves, in the sense that they do not own their land. All land in the United Kingdom is still “held of the Crown” in England and Wales and other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth realms. There is no “Allodial Title” in these desperate places. Something related to having a monarch, and being “subjects”. Exception exists, for example in parts of Australia (held by the original inhabitants). Owners of houses and businesses and the like within the United Kingdom are merely granted the use of the land by the reigning monarch, and are subject to return the land to the monarch if called to do so.

Amusingly, allodium, in earlier Latin alodis, alaudes, is already recognized in the early Salic law (circa 507–596 CE). Muslim law is often more than 13 centuries late (Islam recognizes slavery, which was abolished in Salic Law just when the Islamist empire was created, circa 650 CE). Here we see that English civilization is around 15 centuries late.

Nick Brackenbury:”Patrice, I don’t read tabloids. The Vote to Leave is done. Stop being a bad loser. When we joined the EC it was a Trading Community, now it is a controlling political movement. We like one person, one vote to count, and not be instructed by foreigners. Perhaps we are different. I often think of how the Euro Group of countries have treated Greece. Soon Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland. Many areas with over 50% unemployed, no investment, no attention to the young. Junckers is a joke, we fight wars to get rid of people like him. This time it just took a vote.”

To this Dominique Deux correctly replied: “When we joined the EC it was a Trading Community”

Yup, and moving to an ever closer union, as was EXPLICITLY stated when you voted to join. Vote as you like, but those of you who keep whining that you ONLY voted for a Common Market are liars. Then as now, now as ever. Or if not liars, suckers… then as now… now as ever.”

More than 43 years ago, in a referendum, the French population, one person, one vote, voted to let Great Britain in the European Community. Then Britain’s Parliament and government joined the European Community EVER CLOSER UNION. Within three years, Britain tried to get out, conducted a referendum, and voted to stay in.

The European construction, ever since 1948 was for an EVER CLOSER UNION. The European UNION was/is just part of it. The idea was to make war between Francia and Germania forever impossible. Economics was just one of several means to achieve this. There was a complete trade union before August 1914. Did not work too well.

Tabloids, and tabloid strength minds opted to believe that the UNION was a “bloc” or a “club”. And that this “club” was just about trade. That was a total lie. It was an EVER CLOSER Union.

I am no bad loser. The Brexiteers are bad winners. They are winners who can’t win. Their ship of lies is disintegrating for all to see. The Brexiteers’ win at the voting booth was the best way to insure the defeat of Brexit in the real world. Thankfully, it’s giving an opening for true Europeans to kick Britain out of the EMU (European MONETARY Union).

The fact so many Brexiteers, such as Nick above, think foreigners pass BRITISH laws, a 100% UNTRUTH, tabloid strength, is rather typical. It is actually astounding to see clever, well-informed, worldly and multicivilizational individuals such as Chris Snuggs, believing 100% such lies. On the positive side, it makes my study of fanaticism, Nazism, Jihadism, Stalinism, and other public mania so much easier.

The whole Brexit thing being such a silly thing. Britain will now leave Europe. Right. Keep calm and carry on. Sail east of New Zealand? Hahaha.

The English suffers from their home-made plutocracy… And accuse foreigners. Another of my correspondents, the English-born and tremendously educated, US biology professor Karen Eilbeck wrote:

“Reflecting on my trip back to the UK, I feel quite sad. It is easy to fly the St George cross out of your bedroom window and blame others for your state of affairs but harder to actually do some positive and impactful. Start with something small. Pick up the rubbish. When I see my home strewn with garbage, it hurts. Don’t stop to blame anyone. Take the initiative. Do something. I promise, it will make you feel better, and it will make those around you feel better and maybe everyone will be a little less depressed.”

Please read my essay especially around Martin Wolff’s considerations, which I have long written about. But now that the Financial Times says what I said, it should be right. Fix English plutocracy and its addiction to immigration of savage people and stolen, tax evading capital.

Meanwhile start by getting out of the European Monetary Union. Sunday, Iceland kicked England out of the European soccer cup. Today was the day the unworthy Cameron was kicked out of, and by, an exasperated EU. Tomorrow the Europe of 27 Nation-States meets and decides.  

On the EVER CLOSER UNION. The Ever Closer FEDERAL Union of 27 Nation-States (with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Montenegro and Kosovo taking orders; the last two use the Euro, the former two obey and contribute).

Europe is a matter of war, not trade.

If Great Britain cannot play democratic, or does not want to, it will still have to take orders from the democratic European Union, just like Morocco does, and for the same reasons. Guess what? The time to get rid of these tax havens which have enriched British plutocracy so much, has finally arrived! And let’s see how well the City of London does, when all Euro trading is done in the Euro Zone. No wonder the French are pressing to get Great Britain out ASAP. The UK Prime Minister has been asked to get out of Brussels for the European Union meeting of June 29, 2016.

A Union with disunited lunatics having surreal visions made little sense, indeed. It also means that the French Republic is effectively ejecting Great Britain out of the European Union, without waiting for the ignorant Britons and their tabloid addicted brains, to realize the enormous extent of the tremendous error they made. Half of the art of war is the surprise element: at Waterloo, Napoleon got surprised by the Prussian army. With Brexit, the Brexiteers are surprised. To their surprise, they found that they did not want to really leave, at least not now. And it turns out, second big surprise, that France wants them out, now. 

Patrice Ayme’

Brexit Or the Madness of Plutocracy

Brexit vote tomorrow. This is a completely idiotic, immoral referendum organized by anti-Europeans (Cameron & Al.) against even more strident anti-Europeans (right wing Nazi like extremists plutocrats’ servants and hedge fund managers desirous to keep their manger in Great Britain’s archipelago of tax havens). There are trite pros and cons of BRitain EXIT referendum, all over the media. Here are mine:

1. The fundamental mood motivating the will to exit the European Union is as ugly, violent, racist, tribal, and, to put it in one word, Nazi as it gets. The extreme right-wing fringe of the right-wing party in England launched it. For them Margaret Thatcher, who campaigned for, and ratified the Single European Act is a left-wing Marxist traitor. This was demonstrated by MP Jo Cox’s assassination by a… Nazi whose most cherished possession is a manuscript from Adolf Hitler. Even imbeciles should be able to understand that one. A Nazi assassinates in the most gory fashion the defenseless mother of two young children, just like the original, most excited Brexiters want to assassinate Europe.
2. In particular,  full bloodied Brexiters hate the “ever closer Union” concept. They have understood no history whatsoever.
3. So it’s hilarious how ill-informed some people are, who scream that Trump is a racist right extremist while supporting Brexit. Just like Hitler, they want to build a particular sort of Europe which hates. The head of Brexit, Nigel Farage posed in front of a flow of Muslim refugees, calling it the “Breaking Point”. It could not get any clearer. Guess what? After Farage flaunted this blatantly racist act, the pro-Brexit faction surged. How much clearer can one be?
   

   Head Of Brexit Faction, Nigel Farage, Said That, To Defeat The Muslim Refugee Flow, Britain Has To Close Her Borders With Europe. That Made His Popularity Surge

4. The European Union as it is does not work. But if one asks US citizens whether they like the “direction of the USA”, or the US Congress, most of them say no by up to 85%. Still, no American idiot has come up to suggest a USexit referendum. There were USexit votes around 1860, and those votes brought the deadliest American conflict, which killed 3% of the US population (thsat would be ten million killed, using the US population for 2016).
5. The British population is not the most dissatisfied by present European Union government (the so-called EC ”Commission”, a ridiculous name). The British are much more satisfied than the French, whose dissatisfaction is only surpassed by the Greeks. Still the French have not been proposed a referendum about whether they want to be in the European Union (in 2005 the French and the Dutch turned down a proposed Constitution of the EU; a more modest reform was ratified in the conventional manner). Of course they do. Why? Because the French do not confuse improving the European Union, and destroying it.

The alternative to the European Union and its “ever closer union” is war. War from “ever greater disunion” was tried before. Plutocracy would love to try it some more. War is to real plutocrats what golf is to basic oligarchs. War does not have to occur tomorrow, it’s best served cold, and starts with tariffs. (Not that tariffs cannot be justified, they can, and could be for a number of excellent reasons, some of them, like a carbon tax, approved of by the World Trade Organization). The French are much more angry against the EC than the British. But don’t throw the EU baby with the EC bath.

***

The crisis of refugees flooding into Europe is striking and intolerable. It has a precedent: this is exactly the problem Rome encountered, starting around 110 BCE. Consul Marius then solved the invasion by exterminating the three German tribes which were invading the Roman Republic in three battles (two of which happened next to Aix-en-Provence, and are celebrated to this day, in the names of locales). The Germans kept on trying to invade, and the situation became overwhelming when cretin Christian (sorry for the pleonasm) emperor Valens, to demonstrate his power did not wait for his nephew Gratian to come over with the Western Roman army (co-emperor Gratian was close-by, and marching in). The Goths then exterminated the Oriental Roman Army, and ended taking Rome, a generation later (410 CE).

The Renovated Roman empire led by the Franks suffered an even more severe sequence of simultaneous invasions in the Seventh and Eighth Century. In 715 CE, the Muslims were in Narbonne (an important regional capital in Rome). The Franks were the first to call themselves “Europeans”, and it is because they were “Europeans” that they won.   

Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) saw the battle of Poitier as a key turning point in European history (but so were the preceding European victory at Toulouse in 721 CE, and the European victories at  the Battle of Avignon, the Battle of Nîmes, and the Battle of the River Berre.

Headless, without armies, all its armies having been destroyed by the Franks and a subsequent, related revolt of the Berbers in 740 CE, the Caliphate based in Damascus then collapsed in civil war (750 CE) and the Franks started the reconquest of Spain, before the reign of Charlemagne, establishing the Marca Hispanica as early as 785 CE.

Here is British historian Edward Gibbon’s famous counterfactual passage from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-78): Had the Muslims won at Poitiers,

“A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

Could something good come out of Brexit? Yes, sure. Contrarily to what the fanatical tribal puppets of global plutocracy (whose international headquarters are Great Britain) believe, ever greater union is the way out of ALL European problems. Brexit could kick out a fifth columnist, a saboteur, and encourage the others to get together.

Those who want to divide Europe, instead of making it stronger are the real traitors. And the real enemies of freedom. To defend the borders of Europe, a European army had to march into Syria, after removing the dictator plutocrat Assad, dear to London, thanks to his assets. Anything short of this is nothing. 

For decades, stupid anti-Europeans in Britain have thought cool, smart and extremely British to declare the European Union was a “club”. Not, it’s not. Please read that again: it’s an union. Union. Get it? If you want a tax haven, go live in the British Virgin Island tax haven. The time of stealing other Europeans is near.  Actually, it has arrived. Nothing like a whiff of exasperation. After all, that’s what did the Nazis in.

Patrice Ayme’