Archive for the ‘history’ Category

How Theodosius The Great’s Fanaticism Collapsed The Roman Empire

May 9, 2020

Augustus Valens, senior emperor, got killed in the disastrous defeat of Adrianopolis. In spite of the admonition of the Frank Richomeres, who told Valens of the proximity of the large, experienced and recently victorious Occidental Roman Field Army, Valens tried to solve the problem all by himself. Valens seems to have been driven beyond reason by the jealous mood of the Bible god. [1] 

Valens’ brother, Valentinian I, had named him Augustus. Valentinian himself then made his teenage son Gratian co-emperor with him in Occident (the same sort of arrangement Marcus Aurelius had disastrously opted for, two centuries earlier, by elevating the teenage Commodus). According to Ammianus, “Valentinian I hated the well-dressed and educated and wealthy and well-born“. Valentinian was an anti-intellectual, and brought others of the same persuasion to power. Just when the empire needed maximum smarts, the opposite road was selected.

Nineteen (!) year old emperor Gratian, a fanatical Christian under the influence of expert manipulator Ambrose, bishop of Milan, agreed to let Theodosius replace Valens. Gratian had been co-Augustus in Occident, named that way by his father… A Christian who hated intellectuals. He father died during a fit of anger he directed at some German ambassadors.

Theodosius’ own father, Flavius Theodosius, had been a supreme commander, Comes Britanniarum (British top General, companion of the emperor). He had put down a “Great Conspiracy” in Britain, and one in Mauritania, the rebellion of Firmus. As a reward, he was then executed (!). Pluto-kratia; when evil (Pluto) is in power (kratia), knives fly in all directions. His son had served under him, and retired in Spain.  

Theodosius son of Theodosius had become a famous soldier in his own right. Dux Moesiae, he drove back Sarmatians who had invaded Moesia. So, shortly after the disaster of Adrianopolis, the 33 year old Theodosius, was called upon, came out of retirement and became emperor of the Orient.

Theodosius I; Very Roman In Appearance, Very Rotten Inside

Such were the Byzantine complexities of the Roman State at the time: something was going on, but we don’t know what it was… because Christian fanatics destroyed the history books written during the Late Empire (one of those comprised 22 volumes, all lost; presumably Christianism didn’t look good enough, even to the Christians). Theodosius the Son was a fanatical Christian of the Nicene creed. He found himself Augustus, and immediately enforced that creed, decreeing punishment against “heretics”… At the whim of the emperor (all the way up to torture to death).

***

All Too Christian Biased and Traditional Historiography Has Theodosius I Upside Down:

The usual description of Emperor Theodosius found in old history books celebrate him in terms similar to those reserved to Constantine. Typically Theodosius is described as a great Roman emperor because he made peace with the Goths, extirpated Paganism, and defeated the “usurper” Eugenius, unifying the empire under his steady hand. This is a first reading, a reading at a distance, superficially true, yet violently poisonous if swallowed: out of it came the reputation of the Catholicism Inquisition for humanism, charity, wisdom and goodness.

My interpretation is quite the opposite. Emperor Theodosius established the Inquisition and made himself its enforcer. Although the Franks discontinued that barbarity in the following century, and for the five centuries after that, it would reappear in 1026 CE (and thereafter fester for eight centuries…) In the late Middle Ages, when the feudal aristocrats encountered difficulties with a restive populace, religious terror, helped by the universities, came in handy to accuse anybody who was too smart for the comfort of the established order. The Catholic fascism exerted by Theodosius brought the massive systematic destruction of books and libraries, for example that of the world’s greatest library in Alexandria. Ths was not a detail. It was the systematic annihilation of the written word, and of all of culture and knowledge. If it was not of a Christian nature it had to die (so we know of non-Christians, mostly from the critique fanatical Christians made of them!)

De facto, after the execution of Gratian by Maximus, and especially after the death of the latter, Theodosius was sole emperor of the empire (until the “usurpation” of Eugenius).    

***

Theodosius Having Opened The Empire To Goths And Huns, then Destroyed The Occidental Roman Army:

Far from pacifying the Barbarians, Theodosius, not content with making the Goths into co-leaders of the empire, also allied himself with the Huns, introducing them as military muscle inside the empire as early as 384 CE 9he did it again, eight years later, and this time the Huns didn’t leave, nor could they be caught). Theodosius also promoted to the highest command of the empire the Visigoth Alaric and the half Vandal Stilicho. Alaric and Stilicho dominated the politics and military operations of the Occidental empire in the 400-410 CE period (Stilicho was executed in 408 and Alaric seized Rome in 410 CE).

Valentinian II was suicided, some say, possibly by agents of the chief of the occidental Roman army, the very experienced Frank Arbogast (nephew of Flavius Richomeres). Under the Arbogast-Eugenius leadership, the ancestral religious rites were once again performed openly and the Altar of Victory was restored.

The very young Occidental emperor seemed to have had committed suicide. So it’s not clear that Eugenius was illegitimate. However, pushed by the mother of the defunct, Theodosius decided to pretend, after many months, that the young emperor had been suicided… And thus that Eugenius was illegitimate (as most historians have been paid to love monarchs and the established order, and tend to concur with Theodosius). 

The battle of Frigidus was the last stand of the old, proven ways and secularism against fanatical, scorched earth Catholicism. Emperor-usurper Eugenius fronting for Arbogast, the Frank heading the Occidental Roman army, fought Theodosius and his barbaric allies. Theodosius’ army was composed nearly half of Goths. They paid a heavy price on the first day (10,000 Goths killed). On the second day, Theodosius’ Goths won, thanks to the sort of peculiar hurricane  wind  which often ravages that particular valley. The wind blew in the face of the Occidental Roman army, defeating its artillery, and helping that of their adversaries. Thus, although the 55,000 soldiers of Arbogast more numerous and more experienced army should have won, they were defeated. The hurricane could only be interpreted as a sign that Bible God was stronger than Hercules (under the banner of whom the Occidental Roman army was fighting).

That catastrophic battle is generally not mentioned… Obviously because historians steeped in Christianism view it as a great victory against the forces of the past… The obverse of my point of view, which is that Pagans and Atheists were much more tolerant. But, basically, at Frigidus, two thirds of the really experienced Roman field army was annihilated.

Although the Roman army in 378 CE, just before Adrianopolis had comprised 500,000 men most were garrison soldiers manning the Limes. They were useless: invaders blitzkrieged around them, and cut them from the back. The total Roman field army was less than 100,000, and the only superlative force. Maybe 30% of the total field army had been killed at Adrianopolis. Then 55% were defeated by that hurricane at Frigidus. So basically there was no more Roman Field Army by 395CE!   

The situation didn’t escape potential invaders. Frigidus was immediately followed by German invasions targeting Illyricum (present day Western Balkans). Stilicho, a half Vandal, then regent installed by Theodosius, used the army present at Frigidus to try to repel the invaders: there was nothing else. And as I said that army, which got very lucky at Frigidus, was half composed of green, inexperienced troops. The only experienced troops were Alaric’s Goths (and that’s why they conquered Rome, 16 years later). 

One often encounters historians baffled by the fall of the Roman Occident to the Germans. Those dense gentlemen are so alien to military matters that they fail to realize that, once your empire has no army, if there are barbarians at the gates, the empire falls. Indeed the massive invasions started immediately after Frigidus. The mass crossing of the frozen Rhine on December 31, 406 CE, by many German nations, occurred only 12 years and three months after Frigidus.

***

Christian Terror Expanded:

Constantine had been prudent, Valentinian had delayed. But the ideology of Bible God condoned the greatest excesses of fascist oligarchism unchained. However the ambitious Ambrose, bishop of Milan, once governor of a Province, exerted great influence on the teenage emperor, Gratian. 

Vicious principles of religious jurisprudence were established, to punish who still adhered to the ceremonies of their Roman ancestors: that the tolerant magistrate was, in some measure, guilty of the crimes which he neglected to strike, prohibit or punish; and that the idolatrous worship of fabulous deities and real daemons was the most abominable crime against the State.

Saint. Ambrose (tom. ii. de Obit. Theodos. p. 1208 [ed. Bened.]) expressly praises and recommends the zeal of Josiah in the destruction of idolatry. The language of Senator Julius Firmicus Maternus had argued earlier (348 CE) in “De errore profanarum religionum” p. 467, edit. Gronov. [Rotterod. 1743]) is piously inhuman. It was altruistic to forcefully convert Pagans. They will thank the Emperor for forcing them to embrace Christianity, one should guide them by the sword: “Nec filio jubet (the Mosaic Law) parci, nec fratri, et per amatam conjugem gladium vindicem ducit, etc.”

Until the reign of the teenager Gratian, the Romans preserved the several colleges of the sacerdotal order. Fifteen PONTIFFs exercised their supreme jurisdiction over the service of the gods; various questions were submitted to the judgment of their holy tribunal. Fifteen  AUGURS observed the face of the heavens, and prescribed heroic actions, supposedly, from the flight of birds. According to Cicero, the auctoritas of ius augurum included the right to adjourn and overturn the process of law: Consular election could be – and was – rendered invalid by inaugural error. For Cicero, this made the augur the most powerful authority in the Republic, as augurs overruled democracy. Cicero frankly (ad Atticum, l. ii. Epist. 5) or indirectly (ad Familiar. 1. xv. Epist 4) confesses that the Augurate is the supreme object of his wishes. Pliny is proud to tread in the footsteps of Cicero (1. iv. Epist. 8)

Cicero was co-opted into the college only late in his career… but that didn’t spare him, not anymore than Caesar, who was dressed with the robes of the Pontifex Maximus when he was assassinated. The title was used by the emperors, before Gratian, and is still used for the Pope. Fifteen keepers of the mysterious Sibylline books guided Rome and her aura, since times immemorial (their name of QUINDECEMVIRS was derived from their number). The Quindecemvirs occasionally consulted the history of future, and, of contingent events. Six VESTALS devoted their virginity to the guard of the sacred fire and of the unknown pledges of the duration of Rome, which no mortal had been suffered to behold with impunity.(4) Seven EPULOS prepared the table of the gods, conducted the solemn procession, and regulated the ceremonies of the annual festival.

All this was thrown overboard in the late Fourth Century. Nobody dared to claim the destruction of the Sibylline books. According to my chronology, Rome collapsed immediately after that. 

***

Kill Them All, So Christ Can Be: 

Christianization was enforced by murderers. In 386, scholar Libanius appealed without success to emperor Theodosius so-called “The Great”, to prevent the destruction of a temple in Edessa, and pleaded for toleration and the preservation of the temples against the ongoing attacks of Christian monks, who he claimed:

hasten to attack the temples with sticks and stones and bars of iron, and in some cases, disdaining these, with hands and feet. Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs, demolition of walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the priests must either keep quiet or die

After demolishing one, they scurry to another, and to a third, and trophy is piled on trophy, in contravention of the law. Such outrages occur even in the cities, but they are most common in the countryside. Many are the foes who perpetrate the separate attacks, but after their countless crimes this scattered rabble congregates and they are in disgrace unless they have committed the foulest outrage…Temples, Sire, are the soul of the countryside: they mark the beginning of its settlement, and have been passed down through many generations to the men of today. In them the farming communities rest their hopes for husbands, wives, children, for their oxen and the soil they sow and plant. 

An estate that has suffered so has lost the inspiration of the peasantry together with their hopes, for they believe that their labour will be in vain once they are robbed of the gods who direct their labours to their due end. And if the land no longer enjoys the same care, neither can the yield match what it was before, and, if this be the case, the peasant is the poorer, and the revenue jeopardized.

***

Symmanchus, plutocrat, Senator, Proconsul, Augur and prefect of Rome, spoke in the name of Rome, by then more than eleven centuries old, and addressed the Senate: “Most excellent princes, fathers of your country! pity and respect my age, which has hitherto flowed in an uninterrupted course of piety. Since I do not repent, permit me to continue in the practice of my ancient rites. Since I am born free, allow me to enjoy my domestic institutions. This religion has reduced the world under my laws. These rites have repelled Hannibal from the city, and the Gauls from the Capitol. Were my grey hairs reserved for such intolerable disgrace? I am ignorant of the new system that I am required to adopt; but I am well assured that the correction of old age is always an ungrateful and ignominious office.”

Bishop Ambrose turned philosophical in reply, as it was most convenient to do so: one shouldn’t have to introduce an imaginary and invisible power, he said, as the cause of Roman victories, which were sufficiently explained by the valour and discipline of the legions. He derided the absurd reverence for antiquity, which discourages progress. He pronounced that Christianity alone is the doctrine of truth and salvation, and that every mode of Polytheism is an abyss of eternal perdition. Ambrose carried the mood of the times… It was all too easy: another teenage emperor, Valentinian II, even younger, had succeeded Gratian. 

***

One Crazy Catholic Emperor Succeeds Another, And The Ancient Roman Ways, Some Secular, Are Gone: 

Revolt was brewing. After a few victories against the Germans (probably due to the senior Frankish commander Richomeres) emperor Gratian became increasingly delirious and deleterious to the empire. Often dressed like a Scythian (a Hun, basically), Gratian and his Christian fanaticism had become insufferable to the army. He was defeated in battle by Maximus, the top commander in Britain, west of Paris, fled, but was executed, next to Lyon.

After defeating Maximus, thanks greatly to his Frankish commanders Richomeres and his nephew Arbogast, Theodosius put in power the 16 year old Valentinian II. The latter, egged on by Ambrose, a province governor turned bishop of Milan, refused to restore the ancient ways that Gratian had destroyed. The Anician, Bassi, the Paullini, the Gracchi Senatorial families, prestigious all, embraced the Christian religion.

The lesser plutocrats had finally understood it was in their best interest to embrace the Christian hoax, as the top plutocrats, the emperors, had long done. Now all could rule in the name of god, per the grace of god, a much better foundation for privilege:  

As Prudentius put it:

the luminaries of the world, the venerable assembly of Catos, were impatient to strip themselves of their pontifical garment — to cast the skin of the old serpent — to assume the snowy robes of baptismal innocence — and to humble the pride of the consular fasces before the tombs of the martyrs.

The pretense of God-given purity had replaced the fasces of the People united around the axe of justice. 

Senatorial plutocracy converted to showy baptismal innocence, to better keep its grip on power and slaves.

The decrees of the senate proscribed the worship of idols. The Capitol and the temples were abandoned to ruin and contempt. Rome submitted to the Gospels. 

After defeating Maximus, Theodosius ordered Cynegius, the Praetorian prefect of the East, and then Comes (top generals) Jovius and Gaudentius, two officers of the West, to shut the temples, to seize or destroy the instruments of idolatry, to abolish the privileges of the priests, and to confiscate the consecrated property for the benefit of the emperor, the Christian church, and the army.

***

Destruction Of All Books, Including the World’s Largest Library:

Magnificent temples, which could have been turned into churches, army barracks  or manufacturing centers, were destroyed by Christian mobs excited by Christian leaders, who were anxious to destroy the past, including its art. Imagine the Islamist State, on a much grander scale, and all over. Those Christian “Men in Black” were the original. Islam is a pale copy. 

In Alexandria, the Serapeum was one of the wonders of the world. it nominally celebrated a deity of Pontus (next to Byzantium). Its stately halls and exquisite statues displayed the triumph of the arts; and the treasures of ancient learning were preserved in the famous Alexandrian library therein. in 389 CE, Saint Theophilus, a bold, bad man, whose hands perpetually polluted with gold and with blood, besieged the philosopher Olympius and his followers entrenched in the fortress of the Serapis. Then a decree of Theodosius ordered the Serapis and the world’s greatest library, destroyed. So great was the authority of the emperor that the Pagans, Agnostics and intellectuals submitted. 

That the collections of the world’s greatest library had found refuge in the giant, fortress-like Serapeum is telling. It tells that Paganism was allied to erudition, and was tolerant of variegated knowledge. Serapis was itself a Greco-Egyptian deity.

In 390 CE, Theodosius decreed that: “It is our will and pleasure, that none of our subjects, whether magistrates or private citizens, however exalted or however humble may be their rank and condition, shall presume in any city or in any place to worship an inanimate idol by the sacrifice of a guiltless victim.

***

As librairies, books and temples burned all over at the hands of “Men In Black”, rebellion brewed. 

Theodosius II shortly before his death, ordered that the books of philosopher Porphyry, whose dangerous  treatise “Against the Christians” had hocked the Emperor or some of his advisers, to be burned.

The unity of the Catholic faith in matters of dogma was considered of supreme importance. “Truth, which is simple and one,” wrote Pope Leo I, “does not admit of variety.” (varietatem veritas, quae est simplex atque una, non recipit ).

Manichaeism was a mixture of Zoroastrian, Christian, Buddhist ideas, with the time-honored and excellent Zoroastrian principles prevalent. This religion was founded by Mani in Persia in the Third Century (Mani was born in 216 CE). Jesus was proclaimed to be purely divine (and a predecessor to Mani). At its height between the Third and Fourth centuries, Manichaeism was one of the most wide-spread religions in the world. Manichaean churches and scriptures existed as far east as China.

 

Theodosius made a habit to proffer frequent and  drastic laws against the Manicheans. The heresy was insidious, because the heretics were difficult to discover; they often took part in Christian ceremonies and passed for universal (katholikos) and orthodox, and they disguised their views. Theodosius deprived them of civil rights and banished them from towns. Those who sheltered themselves under harmless names were liable to the penalty of death. Theodosius ordered the Praetorian Prefect of the East to institute “inquisitors” for the purpose of discovering Manicheans. They were banned from towns. Under emperor Theodosius II and  Nestorius, a vigorous effort to sweep the heresy was conducted. The Manichaeans were stigmatised as men who had “descended to the lowest depths of wickedness“. By the early Fifth Century, Manicheans were systematically executed. 

 

So when did the empire fall? When a regime has become a predecessor of the Third Reich, where followers of an innocuous religion/superstition are systematically executed because everybody is supposed to scrupulously follow the regime’s own superstition (Catholicism) should not one consider that this regime has already failed? 

 

Here is another example. “Circumcellions” regarded martyrdom as the true Christian virtue. As the early Church Father Tertullian said, “a martyr’s death day was actually his birthday“. Analogies with Islamist martyrs are not coincidental, we are talking of their cultural ancestors here. Circumcellions focused on bringing about their own martyrdom(their name comes from their hungry circumvolutions around cellars).

The early medieval author known as Pseudo-Jerome wrote of Christian extremists: “Because they love the name martyr and because they desire human praise more than divine charity, they kill themselves.” 

Because it is written in the Gospel of John that Jesus had told Peter to put down his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:11), the Circumcellions avoided bladed weapons and used clubs, which they called “Israelites“. Using their “Israelites“, the Circumcellions would attack Roman legionaries  or random travelers on the road, while shouting “Laudate Deum!” (“Praise God!” in Latin). The object of these random beatings was to provoke the victim to kill them, thereby becoming “martyrs”. They were intertwined with their allies the Donatists who came to dominate Africa by the end of the reign of Theodosius.

At the beginning of the sixth century a Pagan historian, Zosimus, writes of the “so‑called monks“. Zosimus had been an official of the treasury; but he testifies to the growing popularity, wealth, and power of monastic institutions: “They renounce legal marriages and fill their populous institutions in cities and villages with celibate people, useless either for war or for any service to the State; but gradually growing from the time of Arcadius to the present day they have appropriated the greater part of the earth, and on the pretext of sharing all with the poor they have, so to speak, reduced all to poverty.” 

[Zosimus, (Greek Ζώσιμος), New History 5.23; Early Byzantine, pagan author of a history of the Roman Empire, published in the first quarter of the sixth century CE.]

 

And so it went. Christianism, soon named Catholicism, after assassinating all the eunuchs priests of Egypt, under Constantine, went on, similarly to the Islaist State, to kill and appropriate to itself the world. In such an approach, the collapse of the Roman State was an ally, not an impediment. Both Christians and their adversaries were incessantly talking about the second coming of another Julian, to put an end of the Catholic wasting of civilization. This urged the Catholic authorities to destroy institutions, books and buildings faster. 

***

Fortunately, to the north-west, the Franks already had power: they were fighting among each other… but they didn’t feel civilization, let alone freedom, was their enemy, quite the opposite. The franks were not the establishment. Arbogast could have been elected Augustus by the Occidental Roman army. But he was just a Frank. His uncle had become Consul, but it was too early to become emperor, de jure (besides that would not have changed anything about the hurricane wind). 

In the late Fifth Century, the mood changed, and Frankish power was recognized as fully endowed by the Roman state: Childeric, Clovis’ father, was buried in the full dress of a Roman imperator. Consular powers were given to Clovis by Constantinople. Emperor Justinian would reconquer most of the Mediterranean shore, all the way to Spain… But recognized the imperium of the Franks. The collaboration between Constantinople and the Franks would last all the way until 1204 CE, when a rogue Frankish army seized Constantinople, and established a “Latin” empire there. 

Books became harder to write after the Muslim blockade closed the Imperium Francorum from Egypt (Papyrus!) and the silk roads, and the economy got stunted from the blockade (Pirenne thesis)… but progress became the solution ever more, to better reject theocratic fascism. 

What is missing in Pirenne thesis is that it is the Catholic fanatics which destroyed all the books. Not, as far as we know, the invading Germans. And that destruction of books and intellectuals happened nearly two centuries before the birth of Muhammad. If anything, the anti-intellectualism of Theodosius was the forerunner of the anti-intellectualism of the Four Righteous Caliphs (especially Omar, Ali).

Patrice Ayme 

***

***

[1] Richomeres succeeded to extricate himself from the catastrophe, and would fight on to become Consul; head of the Oriental Roman cavalry, he died just before the Frigidus battle against his own nephew!

 

[Essay will be reinforced later, to emphasize the importance of the battle Of Frigidus, the proximal cause of the empire’s destruction.]

 

BS BBC Wants You To Believe: King Of England Was Muslim

April 8, 2020

BBC published the following title: KING HENRY II: THE MUSLIM MONARCH OF MEDIEVAL ENGLAND?

In the 12th century, furious with the archbishop of Canterbury, England’s King Henry II threatened to forsake Christianity for Islam.” 

This was obviously not the case. BBC has no sense of humor whatsoever. The absurdity of the BBC’s misleading title is immense, and reflects a total misreading of the mentality of Frankish leaders during the Middle Ages [1]. False news! BBC has little appreciation for the mood of the Franks… Henry was born in Le Mans, Maine, France, part of the “Roman empire”, in the part of the “Roman” empire known as “Francia”.  

The root for this absurdity? Henry II told, obviously in jest, his protege the Pope Alexander, then a refugee in Paris, that he “would sooner accept the errors of Nur al-Din [the Sultan of Aleppo] and become an infidel, than suffer Thomas [Becket] to hold sway in Canterbury Cathedral any longer”.

Henry II Plantagenet With His Daughter In Law Marguerite de France

Henry had raised his friend Thomas Becket high, appointing him to the position of chancellor soon after his accession. He was “considered second only to the king”. Henry had such faith in Thomas to do his bidding that after Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, died in 1161, he strong-armed a reluctant Becket into taking up the dual position of chancellor -archbishop, despite warnings from Henry’s mother, the “Roman” Empress Matilda, and from Thomas himself. Thomas thought it was ludicrous, protesting that Henry and he knew “for certain that if I am ever promoted to that dignity, I will have to forfeit either the king’s favour or… my service to God Almighty”. That should have been clear, and considering how nasty God is depicted in the Bible, not a good omen…

Indeed, to his horror, Henry discovered that he had installed a Catholic zealot, a soldier now for the eternal Christ instead of his temporal king. Henry was livid when Thomas resigned the chancellorship; king and archbishop soon became locked in a battle for supremacy between church and state… Something not seen since Theodosius I and the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, had a dust up in the Fourth Century. The balance of compromise – whereby the kings gave their archbishops dignity and in turn the archbishops sought to obey their kings’ every desire – was down and out, and that, for a Frank, was intolerable. The very rise of the Frankish civilization in the Fourth Century was propelled by putting back secular political power in command… as in the best times of Rome, but this time including most of Germany, Europe became a secular power again.

***

Frankly Cool About Religion:

The Franks were both cautious and relax about religion in general, and Islam in particular. Jokes were allowed. Emperors could employ Muslim bodyguards, and speak Arabic (as Barbarossa did)…. And then go on a Crusade. Even a Catholic fanatic such as Saint Louis toyed with the idea of becoming Sultan of Egypt. 

Being an “apostate” was not a crime under the Franks: the state was agnostics. When Clovis and thousands of his bodyguards  converted to Catholicism, that was not mandatory. 

The Franks had fought with Pope Gregory the Great, in the Sixth Century, when the Pope threatened to burn bishops who allowed secular teaching. Ultimately the Franks obliged all and any religious establishment (including monasteries, synagogues) to teach secularly the entire children population. The Franks sent spies to nascent Islam in the Seventh Century. They viewed the “Sons of Sara” (Saracens) as a Christian heresy, but most dangerous because most militarized. 

Ultimately, the Muslim invasion of Western Europe turned into a bloodbath: invading Muslims killed 25% of catholic Spain… Although their fight was against the ruling Visigoths. Then the Umayyad Caliphate launched three massive invasions of Francia but the “Europeans” (as the Franks called themselves then), rejected them and the caliphate fell (750 CE). In the following four centuries, the Franks led a reconquista of not just  Northern Spain, but Southern Italy and islands such as Sicily. 

One has to understand that, initially, the Franks took over a disintegrating Late Roman empire wrecked, and led, by “Catholic Orthodox” with did, or threatened to, kill everybody who was not considered to be a proper believer… others, emperor Theodosius I had decreed in 381CE,  were “madmen”. 

The Franks, led by king, imperator and consul Clovis, imposed a gentle form of Catholicism not adverse to Pagans or Jews… Or even, it turned out later, Muslims. This tolerant Catholicism ruled until 1026 CE… When the Catholic church bared its fangs again, and started to burn “heretics” again. What happened? Some European plutocrats (self described “nobles”) got the idea, coming from the Late Roman empire, to use Catholicism as a pretext to kill and oppress people. 

Born In Maine, France, Married His Vassal the King’s Wife, Eleanor d’Aquitaine, who had only daughters from the French King, proceeded to give him a son.

Thus Catholicism became more powerful, extremist and fanatical, just after 1000 CE, relaunching the Inquisition. In particular, the marriage of clerics was discouraged. Intellectuals, who had been church employees, technically, because of the three centuries old law pushed vigorously for independence from the church… that’s how the university system was born. And of course a battle started inside Catholicism between pacific tolerance and furious fanaticism. 

The most famous battle was that of the hyper famous philosopher and songwriter Abelard against Saint Bernard. Saint Bernard, more influential than the Pope, pushed for the Second Crusade. Excommunicated, exasperated, Abelard did threaten to go to Spain among the Muslims, claiming they looked more hospitable than fanatic Catholics. His sponsor and protector Peter the Venerable sojourned in Muslim controlled Spain to overview the translation of various Islamist text, including the Qur’an. 

The point of all this was that education, politics, the military, and the law were all independent of religion during the five centuries of Frankish control. Whereas in the Late Roman empire, Catholicism was the state religion, it was not the case under the Franks. In reconquered areas the Muslim had invaded, the Franks’ didn’t force-convert Muslims, nor were they ejected. 

The Franks were not against conversion out of Catholicism, they enabled Catholics to convert to Judaism. And sometimes entire villages did.

This is completely different from Islam. If you convert out of Islam, the holiest texts of Islam tell you, you die. Under Islam, education, politics, military, law are all one under God (“Allah”). Islam learned everything from the Late Roman empire. It’s quite similar, just worse: at least under the Roman empire, nominally, most of the law was independent of religion.   

Confronted to all this, the partisans of Islam bleat that Islam had a “Golden Age”. True, in appearance. But the reality is the exact opposite of what they believe. An immense empire had been conquered in a few years, and those huge populations found themselves mostly free, because of the Muslim conquest. 

The brutality of Muslim conquest (a few years), and its ferocity (killing all arm bearing males in Syria), followed by a hands-off policy (40,000 conquering Muslims left the millions they had conquered alone, as long as they paid taxes and let Muslims rule), paradoxically avoided destruction of cities, and freed the populations from the fanaticism of the precedingly ruling “Catholic” tyrants. So for a while the many millions living in the areas conquered by those 40,000 warriors found themselves to be much more free than before. They were still Christian and Jews. Many thinkers and their books had escaped earlier to Persia, just before the Arabic conquest. The appearance of Islam’s rich intellectual tradition won plenty of admirers in medieval Europe.

But this was secular, not religious admiration. The attitude of all leaders of parts of the Frankish empire was that the church could do its own thing, as long as it respected secular law. 

This is what happened with Henry II Plantagenet. He found himself confronted by a fanatic he had himself appointed, to the objections of many.   

Oppressed by their non-Muslim status, those populations converted to Islam over the next few centuries, and then it became clear, to the Muslim leaders themselves, that Literal Islam was adverse to civilizational progress. So many Muslim leaders took anti-fundamentalist measures. Saladin, for example passed a law rewarding those who interpreted I slam literally with the death penalty… Exactly what Wahhab did, five centuries later, enabling the Saud family to use Islam the way Late Roman emperors used that Catholicism they had invented… And the way early Muslim leaders did. 

***

Man was born free. Man thinks best, free. Democracy enables us to be as free as possible while enjoying civilization. All this is impossible following only what is in one 80,000 words book… especially when it’s full of orders to kill all sorts of people, many of them because of how they were born.  

Democracy makes people sufficiently intelligent to understand when people make jokes. But jokes are not tolerated by those who take Islam literally. Apparently the case of the BBC.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1]: Some will object to the adjective “Frankish”. How could a king of England be a Frank? Never heard of that! It’s not in Harvard textbooks! Well, until king Philippe Auguste, the king of Francia was “emperor (of the Romans) in his kingdom” and was king of the Franks. There had been complete state continuity since Clovis… Himself Roman Consul, and first king of France…

Impeaching The Impeachment, To Impeach The Impeachers: Are Pelosi and Trump Collaborating In A Machiavellian Way?

December 25, 2019

Maybe what Nancy Pelosi is doing, impeaching, then impeaching the impeachment, is not what she is really doing. Maybe, maybe, let’s keep our fingers crossed, she is in a conspiracy of two with… Donald Trump. What, Why, How? First the why: because this way, she can pass a lot of progressive legislation, much of them originating from The Donald (long a Democrat, and a rare one who was angry at Reagan and globalization… in the 1980s…) 

We have got a deal, dear friend! Let’s do as if we hated and despised each other, this is going to be fun! No more of this Obama self-befuddlement, it’s our turn, and we are smarter… Let’s confuse them all! (Guy irrelevant to Non-Racist History behind.)

Nancy can pass that legislation, because The Donald has accused Democrats to be “Do-Nothings”. So they have to do some things, lest they want to lose the next elections, and pass the only sort of legislation which can survive the the Republican controlled Senate… Precisely laws originated, or tolerated, by The Donald. Because of the latter fact, the Democratically controlled Congress would never pass them.

Nancy Pelosi is thus capable of co-sponsoring (with her frenemy The Donald) much progressive legislation, which otherwise she couldn’t pass (without being accused by the pseudo-liberal, pseudo-leftist crowd of betrayal). 

The Donald is in a somewhat symmetrical situation with the Republican Party: he can get Republican support for lots of laws because the Democrats are furious about, as they originated from The Donald…. This enables Trump to argue they have got to be “Republican” laws, as they render “Democrats” furious. Conservative, pro-globalization, pro-plutocracy of the worldwide type, Republicans, who hate treaties such as the USMCA, are now tolerant of them, and will vote for them. Confused and bleating, they decide that, after all, all they know for sure, is that their taxes went down… So this is all good.

This, if this interpretation is correct, this is a classical case of Machiavellianism: one appearance implements its opposite

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump ripped into Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday for withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate, stating that she was engaged in a “quid pro quo” and suggesting that she should be impeached.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Nancy Pelosi is looking for a Quid Pro Quo with the Senate. Why aren’t we Impeaching her?

***

Some may say that the complicity and smarts of Pelosi and Trump could not be possibly so great as to think of such a devious plot. However, I believe both are very smart… and they have known of each other, forever. Also, a plot can be subconscious, or, a fortiori, sub-vocal. It’s also possible that Trump did much of the heavy lift… The fact Trump did everything to be impeached seems to indicate he could see the benefits of impeachment for him. To believe he did this to turn around the establishment is an easy conclusion.

Leaks have shown that, months before Obama got elected, the “Fix” was in: the usual financial mafia, led by Goldman Sachs (Rubin, Summers, etc) would lead, and the nation, and even Europe, would Transfer Assets to Rich Persons (TARP).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/tarp-transfer-of-assets-to-rich-people/

That was the same crowd which had managed Clinton. With Trump, none of this: Trump knew well these financial mafiosi, already 50 years ago. New York is their capital, and real estate their abode, after all. So now we have the USMCA, with $16 an hour minimum wage (twice today’s US average, and a tad higher than the highest in the US presently, in Emeryville, California).

The satisfaction of US voters with the US Congress has been as low as 9%. Why? Because as the USA collapsed, or at least the US middle and (blue) working class collapsed, the US Congress, rotten to the core and on the payroll of plutocracy, was paid to do nothing. Under Trump and now Trump and Nancy, things have been changing in a hurry, and in depth (NAFTA was proposed and criticized, accurately and fiercely, for 30 years, see Ross Perot… Still it was legislated, enacted, and then proceeded to gut the US working class…)

To break the logjam, something sneaky and underhanded was needed.

I would be very surprised if the Nancy-Donald duo was not a plot of at least one of the two, and, probably, both. So, ladies and gentlemen, don’t bother studying Machiavel: you have better artists below your eyes…

Patrice Ayme

 

 

Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Judaism?

December 13, 2019

Judaism is a national origin, originally. A nation was located somewhere for a millenium, then expelled from that place. But the descendants didn’t forget.

French and US leadership have apparently rediscovered this indisputable fact recently: Judaism is not just a religion, or not just only a religion (just as Zionists said, forever). Let me help them, in their ponderous reflection, with a big picture of history, as usual chasing truth, and the truth about those who don’t want to chase the truth, because they claim they already have it, while accusing other of biases because biases are all they know…

The first record of the name Israel (as ysrỉꜣr) occurs in the Merneptah stele, erected for Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah (son of Ramses II) circa 1209 BCE, in a typically robust fashion: “Israel is laid waste and his seed is not.” Ironically enough, the closest civilization to Pharaonic Egypt is, arguably, Israel. The Pharaohs are gone, Israel is not.

The subject of Israel is fraught with many idiotic conditioned reflexes on all sides, in all ways. A first problem is equating “Semite” and “Jew” (the most prominent “Semitic” religion is violently, even lethally, anti-Jewish… See below!)

To understand the “Jewish Problem” (or “Jewish Question“), one has to go back to what happened in the First and Second Century. By then, Israel had existed as a regional superpower for more than a millennium. However its Northern Part, named israel, was conquered by the Assyrian superpower in 722 BCE. Its Southern Part, Judah, was conquered by Babylon (part of a coalition of empires which had killed Assyria) in 586 BCE (although some cooperative Jews were left behind, many were sent in captivity, during which time they wrote the Bible, before being sent back to exchange hostilities with the collaborators).

Israel towards maximal extension, 3,000 years ago. This is not a Zionist to show such a map, it’s being an historian. King Solomon reigned a very long time, he was the son of David, famously opposed to the jealous and somewhat demented god of the Bible, who tortured one of David’s sons, to death, just because his father had not committed genocide against two nations… as “god” had ordered him to. The Bible: a book very handy to justify genocide in all sorts of ways…

Before the end of the Republic, the Romans came to sniff around, first presenting themselves, for many decades, as guarantors of the security of Israel, before establishing a collaborating monarchy, and then a mild occupation. However fanatics didn’t like legionnaires ot be garrisoned in Jerusalem, and 600 of them were treacherously killed. A rescuing legion was then annihilated in an ambush…

Then the Jews, many of them religiously fanatical, fought the fascist Romans in messy wars rich in unlikely events (even in the first Judean war, Jewish factions fought each other). Ultimately the Romans reacted in unjust ways, according to their own definition.

So emperor Julian determined by 360 CE, and he ordered the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple and allowing Jews to come back to Israel. However, Julian was killed (probably by a Catholic), and Christianism cracked down ferociously on science, books, intellectuals, unbelievers, and Jews. Saint Augustine the Creep delighted in having the Jews exiled form Israel, and is a revered authority figure to this day (that’s in part why I call him a creep, to compensate, notwithstanding the fact that, he was, indeed a criminal against humanity… And Jews in particular…)

Jews had been promised a land, according to the Bible, and they occupied it for at least 13 centuries, before the Romans threw them out, deciding to name it “Syria Palaestina” instead of Israel. 13 centuries is how long Islam has existed. So Jews were in Israel as long as Islam has existed, before being thrown out by the Romans.

Christians, marking territory, as the big dogs they were, then built churches on top of the destroyed Jewish temple. After 650 CE, the Muslims, anxious to show they were even bigger dogs, built mosques on top of the Jewish temple, while deciding that Jerusalem, the historical capital of the Jews, was Islam’s third most sacred place.

The case of Israel is unique: it is a nation exiled from its land whose descendants of the exiles kept on remembering while being mistreated to the point of near-extinction by their best frenemies, the Christians (who revered Jews as Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, and hated them for having killed him, a bit as if one revered the French for Marie Antoinette and hated them for her demise). Identifying anti-Zionism with anti-Judaism is justified from this historical context.

And the Palestinians, in all this? Well they should start by not joining the choir of would-be Israel exterminators. Instead, they should try to welcome their long lost brethren with open arms. Not that they have a choice: what overwhelming military force taketh, overwhelming military force gaveth too. The Occident took a long time to understand what a calamity Christianism had been: little more than a plundering cover-up of a decaying, murderous plutocracy… And it goes on to this day [1]. Restoring the Jews is part of the the reparation program [2].

Patrice Ayme

***

***

P/S Context, December 12, 2019:

Assailants in a deadly mass shooting/crime against humanity on Tuesday at a Jersey City, N.J., kosher supermarket were found to have published anti-Jewish posts online. Notoriously, worldwide, university pseudo-leftist have identified Israel to plutocracy and racism… as the Nazis did, quite explicitly, in a twist of traditional lethal Christian anti-Jewish sentiment… and a cover-up of the fact they were themselves financed by plutocrats (some of them even somewhat Jewish: see the Warburgs…)

Historically Saint Louis of France and Luther said worse things about the Jews in public than even the Nazis did. Saint Louis, another of these famous Christian creeps, whose greatest pleasure in life, he said would have been to plant a knife in an atheist belly and then rotating it (that’s exactly what he wrote), expelled the Jews from France. At least he decreed it (apparently, didn’t work, though…)

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/luther-hitler-unelected/

This is our message to universities: if you want to accept the tremendous amount of federal dollars that you get every year, you must reject anti-Semitism, it’s very simple,” Trump just said, expanding the definition of anti-Semitism to include some anti-Israel sentiments.

Kenneth L. Marcus, the head of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights was already deeming Judaism a “national origin,” like Italian or Polish, to strengthen a campaign against what he sees as rampant anti-Judaism in higher education. That campaign is in part motivated by Islamophilia.

See the relevant Hadith calling for the death of all Jews before the Final Judgment. Hamas (ironically partly an Israeli secret service creation) wants all Jews killed… At least, at the level of its wishlist constitution. Hamas rules Gaza. I have quoted this saying of Prophet Muhammad in Hadith (41; 6985)  many times.

***

[1] Every year, Catholics around the world donate tens of millions of dollars to his excellency the pope. Bishops exhort the faithful to support the weak and suffering through the pope’s main charitable appeal, called Peter’s Pence.

What the church doesn’t advertise is that most of that collection, worth more than €50 million ($55 million) annually, goes toward plugging the hole in the Vatican’s own administrative budget, while as little as 10% is spent on charitable works, according to people familiar with the funds. In other words, the Vatican lies, as it has been doing for 17 centuries…

***

[2] The case of destroyed nations, all around the world, is different, because precisely, they were destroyed. The Jews contributed too much to Occident, they were part of it well before Christianism was invented… And, because of this, precisely, they were not destroyed…

“Repairing” African-Americans is no option either, because they have no land they want to return to, let alone can return to: that was tried before and didn’t work very well… most of them are part European, anyway.

 

If The USA Had Been Decent, Would The Nazis Have Disturbed The Peace?

November 10, 2019

History follows some paths. There are others. Just as with thought experiments in physics, inquiring minds inquire best by weighting the factors, making thought experiments in history (all historians have always done this, to an extent or the other, connecting the dots). The most interesting and instructive weighting of the facts occur when one changes nearly nothing, and one changes events slightly according to not just plausible, but probable scenarios. (The military learns much by running “what ifs” scenarios, and does this all the time [1]). It turns out that history is full of butterfly effects, where a small fluttering somewhere has giant effect after a while (the weather is notoriously that way with a three week horizon). Therein a morale: if one wants history to enfold optimally, looking forward, one should not neglect the utmost precautions. Including the fact that too much precaution can kill precaution, if one doesn’t understand the underground logic at hand.

This is what happened in Nazi Germany, when the army command tried to reintroduce rationality: it didn’t work, because they had missed the evil design of the Anglo-Saxon Deep State, and its attached plutocracy.

Ludwig Beck, a real hero in his belated struggle against Hitler, but too trusting of the Anglo-Saxon elite. Beck was chief of the German army and, from pro-Nazi, turned into an anti-Nazi conscious of the madness of Hitler and Al. He directed his subordinates, including the top admirals, to propose to the Americans and the British to announce that the USA and the UK would side with France in case of conflict with the Nazis. He was going to use this as a pretext to make a coup against the Nazis. Instead the US and UK warned Hitler of the conspiracy. Fired by Hitler, who couldn’t do more than that, as Beck’s prestige was immense, he organized behind the scene the coup of 1944. He was asked to commit suicide.

The question was asked: If the US joined the League of Nations, would WWII have occurred?

Let me change the question slightly into: If the US had respected its parent, France, and practiced other aspects of basic decency of a civilized nation, as its Gallic parent had tried to instill to it, would WWII have occurred? Or, otherwise said: If The USA had Been Decent, Would The Nazis Have Disturbed the Peace?

The short of it: no.

World War Two happened because the French Republic had more than enough with the Nazis. The French had been itching to go destroy Hitler since the latter invaded Spain in 1936 (with the help of the rogue Franco, and fascist Italy). However, after agreeing to come to the rescue of the Spanish Republic, the French, led by PM Jewish Socialist Blum, were submitted to scathing threats from London and Washington, so they didn’t. Then there was the Munich circus, followed by Hilter invading Czechoslovakia, Austria… 

After the fall of Spain (early 1939), the French stiffened the Polish spine, and added a chastised Great Britain in the appendix to the Franco-Polish treaty (“entente cordiale would apply…) Cornered, an enraged Hitler made his ultra secret alliance with fellow dictator Stalin official. Surely, now confronting fascist Japan, Italy, Germany and the USSR, the French won’t attack? But the French were undeterred. At that point the Nazis were stuck. They couldn’t lose face: Hitler knew that the German generals had nearly staged a coup already.

What could have stopped the war? Those German generals: they had all the power. Had the USA declared it sided with France, the generals would have known they were facing the infernal trio of France, Britain and their progeny, the USA, and, thus, Germany couldn’t win. So they had to stage a coup to save Germany, as they explained in 1937 to the Anglo-Saxon ambassadors.

However the position of the USA in 1939 relative to Nazism was not clear: plutocrat FDR detested egalitarian, socialist France, and wanted to grab all her colonies to make them part of the US empire. Moreover US plutocrats were roaming all over Germany doing excellent business under Hitler, owning a large part of it: IBM had the monopoly of computing, for example, a gift of Hitler (see “IBM and the Holocaust”). Finally, the US was a racist country, and much of Nazism was copied from US themes.

***

The very idea of League of Nation was born in France in 1916 (and then co-opted by hyper racist Wilson). So the entire US “isolationist” posture, which didn’t apply to Nazi Germany (the “Third Reich” was full of US plutocrats, US investments, US tech, etc.) was more directed against France, and an excuse for the US to deal with Germany as a new “Wild West“… like the myth of the “crippling” reparations, launched by racist plutocrat Keynes, who was enraged that Eastern Europe had been freed from Germany by Versailles… (the reparations were so little “crippling” that the French are still rebuilding, more than a century after the fascist German invaders dismantled even treasures of the Middle Ages…)

To be in the League, per se, would not have been enough, to prevent WW2. However, had the USA being just decent with its parent, France, the German generals would have seen their defeat was unavoidable, as the USA was siding with France.

And guess what, as I already said, but it’s worth repeating? The German generals, and admirals, led by a fierce colonel who wanted to overthrow Hitler, and, initially more loosely, by chief of staff Ludwig Beck, who was pro-Nazi in 1930 [2], asked, as early as 1937, the UK and US, to do just that, declare they would side with France. But they didn’t. Instead, the Anglo-Saxons told Hitler… And FDR recalled his friend Dodd, US ambassador in Berlin, an ex-history professor, viewed as too friendly to his French peer, and a determined anti-Nazi. FDR replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi, and did the same in Britain, installing the notoriously pro-fascist plutocrat mafioso Joe Kennedy as ambassador there… (More details on the Dodd-Francois-Poncet interaction in the book “The Garden of the Beasts”…)

The German generals, as a collective mind, were not smart enough to realize they were going to become victims of the greatest bait and switch imaginable… Although the same exactly had happened to Germany in WW1… (The USA encouraged the Kaiser to attack, and then sustained him, until it became clear that France and Britain were going to win, then switched sides…)

Nowadays, the Germans have finally figured it all out, deep inside… Just as the Brits lost it completely… History is the ride that never ends…

The most amazing part of this subject is that many individuals who believe they know it well, actually keep on repeating the basic Nazi themes (hence my re-education program)…

And, even more interesting, those themes often only partly originated in Germany… Keynes launched the idea that returning Eastern Europe to self-determination was a racial and economic mistake. Even the famous “stab in the back” theme the Nazis used as a pretext against Communists, Socialists, and Jews, had been uttered first by a British general who had lashed back sarcastically at war criminal general and principal original Nazi, Ludendorff… Ludendorff ran away with that theme…  A way to bury his own war crimes under fresh layers of invented indignation…

The myth of the “crippling reparations” exacted by France and Belgium in a spirit of wanton revenge was launched… And survives to this day. Actually the “reparations” amounted to only 5 trillion of 2018 Euros. One out of twenty Frenchman had been killed, in a war cold bloodily launched by fascist Germany. So, roughly the “reparation” amounted to 800,000 Euros by dead Frenchman. That gross computation doesn’t count 4.3 million wounded, including hundreds of thousands mutilated for life. The industrial north east of France had been eradicated in deliberate devastation designed to cripple France. 

Ah, relevance for today? If one can’t still see the manipulations of the plutocrats and their associated Deep State, a century ago, how could one see them today?

Indeed, the fact the deep maneuvers of the US Deep State and its sponsor, US plutocracy, the billionaires and their descendants hidden in Foundations, Boards, Institutes, “Charities”, “Think Tanks”, plutocratic universities and the like, have not been exposed in full, doesn’t just explain the amazing (however ephemeral) success of the monstrosity known as Nazism.

More fundamentally, the obliviousness, and lack of interest, in the maneuvers of the Deep State and its sponsor, Anglo-Saxon plutocracy, explains much of the rise of global plutocracy and its attendant inequality, poverty, drug abuse, decay in education, healthcare and many basic services observed since…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

P/S: If I use the expression “Deep State” in the plutophile New York Times, it will censor the comment: We The People in the present day USA have been imprinted to believe that, should they see a conspiracy somewhere, and a fortiori a machine to create conspiracies, one is deranged… BTW, it’s the US Senate which blocked the entry of the USA in the League of Nations… Roughly simultaneously, all the documents revealing the theft of German property by the US government, and its transfer to US plutocrats, conveniently burned with a building in Washington in 1921 (so US Plutos stayed in control of German property they had stolen, thereafter… enabling them to steer Nazis) .

For the mood at work, have a glance at this, from 1943:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1943-10-01/enemy-owned-property-restitution-or-confiscation

***

[1] Famously, re-runs of the 1940 Battle of France and Midway, give opposite results to what happened. In both cases, huge forces which should have been detected were not.

***

[2] Ludwig Beck, in a series of memos to the top Nazis and Hitler in May 1938: “The French army is and remains intact and is at the moment the strongest in Europe… The military-economic situation of Germany is bad, worse than in 1917–1918. In its current military, military-political and military-economic condition, Germany cannot expose itself to the risk of a long war…

Furthermore the chief of the German general staff cannot “accept these estimates of the military power of France and England…Germany, whether alone or in alliance with Italy, is not in a position militarily to match England or France. The May Crisis of 21–22 May 1938 further convinced Beck of the dangers of going to war in 1938, and led him to increase his efforts to stop a war that he felt Germany could not win. In November 1938, Beck informed a friend that, from the time of the May Crisis, the only consideration in his mind was “How can I prevent a war?”

On 29 July 1938, Beck wrote a memo stating the German Army had the duty to prepare for possible wars with foreign enemies and “for an internal conflict which need only take place in Berlin” [against the Nazis, that is]. The 29 July 1938 memo is considered the start of Beck’s efforts to overthrow the Nazi regime. However, Beck would resign too early, and alone, and Hitler manipulated him in keeping the resignation secret…

 

NAPOLEON: DIRTY & Only Memorable That Way

November 2, 2019

NAPOLEON ENVY & ADMIRATION IS A GRAVE DISEASE THAT NEEDS TREATMENT. Here is some cure against this still rampant affliction:

Napoleon was no Caesar:

To immediately focus away from what is not at issue here, let me remind the reader I am an admirer of Caesar (although aware of Julius’ flaws, including deporting millions, seizing the last free Greek city-state, Marseilles, and exterminating entire cities). The point though is that Caesar lived in the most difficult times, and, although “Dictator For Life” (a stupid, but understandable idea considering the circumstances; he should have put a ten year limit), Caesar had left the Republic intact (and that cost him his life, as he had not measured the full depth of corruption of his opponents).

Napoleon had none of the excuses of Caesar. And none of his achievements. Even as a general, Caesar was vastly superior, tactically and especially strategically.

Although Caesar led a revolution (complete with redistribution of wealth: consider his Agrarian Reform of 59 BCE), Napoleon buried one. Caesar wanted to save the Republic, Napoleon killed it.

***

Why is Napoleon Bonaparte considered a hero?
N
apoleon is admired because most people are tempted to become nasty nuts, and are mesmerized by Napoleon for having done so. That’s the positive side. On the negative side, Napoleon’s admirers are plain ignorant. They attribute to him things he wanted gone, while other things he did, they have no idea.

On one thing they are right:  Napoleon was an authentic hero in combat, on the battlefield (as Caesar, a “savage” fighter, “like a wild beast” was). Napoleon was also an expert in calculus… and geometry (there is such a thing as the intriguing Napoleon’s theorem). 

Could Napoleon have been Caesar? Did Napoleon simply chose to be a cretin? I doubt it. Caesar’s background was unequaled; he was the nephew of seven times Consul, populist and supreme general Marius, savior of Rome. Caesar got the best teachers. His first and last words were in Greek, not Latin. 

In comparison, Napoleon, with due respect to Corsican savages, was just one of them. And it showed.

Napoleon in a nutshell: A grandeur deluded, macho, sex-obsessed, misogynistic, vain-glorious, self-obsessed, tyrannical, cruel, jealous, god-crazed, mass-homicidal greedy mafioso assassin disease ridden revolution diverting slave master… What could have gone wrong?

German philosopher Hegel, a philosopher of history who made some valid points in a sea of massively lethal delusion, was transfixed by the dictator. In a letter from Iena to his friend Niethammer, October 13th, 1806, when he had just finished writing The Phenomenology of Mind : ”I saw the Emperor -this soul of the world- go out from the city to survey his realm; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it.” (Correspondance, T. I, p.114) [1].

History top biologist, Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck handing the book ‘Zoological Philosophy‘ to Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, 1809 (pastel on paper, 1920 by Ezuchevsky, Mikhail Dmitrievich (1880-1928); 32.5×24.5 cm; State Darwin Museum, Moscow; The French “naturalist historian” Lamarck (1744-1829) published ‘Philosophie zoologique‘ in 1809, in which he outlined the theory of evolution and in particular the smart mechanism now known as Lamarckism (soon to be proven right). [Russian, out of copyright. Soviets were favorable to Lamarckism, for obvious reasons, just as Napoleon had excellent reasons to hate it, preferring Cuvier’s catastrophism… Both Lamarck and Cuvier were right… ]

How Hegel Justified Hitler:

Hegel explains quite a bit the apparition of the likes of Bismarck, and, worse, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hitler. For Hegel, Napoleon is a hero because he knows “what is necessary and what to do when the time comes” (Lectures, p.35). The historical heroes, including Napoleon, know ”the truth of their times and their worlds because they are aware of the historical necessity : that is why, like Alexander and Caesar, Napoleon is a wise man because he knows the nature of his era.

Well, actually Caesar is one thing, Alexander, another. Caesar found a collapsing Republic, infused with righteous plutocrats, thoroughly corrupt at a lethal level (Cassius and Brutus, the two  main Caesar assassins, committed serious, even attempted murderous crimes against the Greeks… and that was, by sheer greed, although they were among the wealthiest men in the Republic, so powerful, their corruption was not seriously prosecuted).

Alexander, instead, found a Republic and Direct Democracy, Athens, still recovering from her near-death experience of the Peloponnese War. Alexander actually visited, as the world’s most famous tourist. The truth of the times was that Athens was the treasure. Had he really embraced progress, and the cutting edge of civilization, Alexander would have become Athens’ main weapon. Instead, Alexander adopted an ambiguous role… Which enabled Antipater, Alexander’s senior and successor, to defeat Athens and turned her into a… plutocracy. Also Alexander annihilated Thebes, and Tyre, crimes of the sort not even Hitler committed. Tyre was at the origin of the entire Greek civilization: that’s where Europe came from, or, at least, the alphabet.

For Hegel, annihilating cities such as Thebes, Tyre was a “historical necessity” which made Alexander a hero. Is there anybody reading this who still ponders why Hitler appeared where he did, speaking the same language? How come such a little jerk is viewed as a great philosopher?

Following Hegel like the sheep the shepherd to the slaughterhouse, some say Napoleon made France into a great power. False, even ridiculous, quite the opposite. It’s the Republic which won the minds, and it is the Republic which is still winning them, not the Corsican mafioso. 

Watch Brexit for further edification: in the present UK electoral campaign, all parties are running on populism, that is, Republicanism

***

France had been the superpower of Europe, nearly since the early Franks: 

Roman emperor Julian was elected Augustus by the Parisians in 360 CE (and tried to stem the slide of the empire into superstition). 

Over the next 800 years, the Franks would conquer what they called Europe, from Scotland to Sicily and from the Spanish March to Poland. The Viking even got started after the Franks gave an ultimatum to Denmark (about recovering fleeing, plotting Anglo-Saxons).

One could even say that the Franks, a confederation of Romanophile Germans were created around principles which went beyond what Rome was capable of. So no wonder they conquered Europe, succeeding where the Romans had crucially failed, with the worst consequences for the empire (maybe because conspirators assassinated Caesar five years early)

***

Napoleone di Buonaparte, from artillery officer to genius general: 

The future dictator of France didn’t learn to speak their language until he was sent to boarding school at the age of 9. It was not his second language, but his third. Napoleon, that little plutocrat from Corsica, was recognized as noble by the plutocratic Ancient Regime, so he was admitted to artillery (boarding) school (after passing an exam). Bonaparte came out an officer, and a good one: he triumphed at the siege of Toulon, which was occupied by the plutocratic, invading British. Napoleon’s attack plan worked perfectly, and the Brits, finding themselves under French guns, had to flee, giving up on their invasion of France from the south. 

Severely wounded during the Toulon assault, Napoleon was promoted from captain directly to general. Soon, the republican Directoire wisely came to hate Napoleon, and sent it to Egypt, hoping he would die there. After a lunatic and mass murdering campaign, Napoleon couldn’t take an Ottoman fort full of ammunition at Saint Jean d’Acre, in his little completely demented plan to take over the entire Ottoman empire with his small army cut from its bases petered out, and he had to flee. On the positive side, he had freed Egypt from the Ottomans, and offered it to the United Kingdom…

***

The legal system set-up by Napoleon was extremely misogynistic. He cracked a joke about it: women had all the power already, so his legal code removed all their rights. This was all the more remarkable as women played a central role in the Revolution and nearly got the right to vote. But Napoleon loved to enslave: he actually re-established slavery, which the Revolution had outlawed.

There is no doubt Napoleon was physically courageous, behaving as a hero many times, in many ways. But one can find plenty of heroes, in the sense of risking one’s life or limb, with many abominable causes.

Much is made of Napoleon’s military genius. However, other French revolutionary generals won great battles before him. A lot of these battles were won from the enthusiasm of the French revolutionary draftees, and also the fact that France had the best engineering, in particular the best explosives. The Polytechnique School, a branch of the military was created during the Revolution just to make sure French military tech was superior.

 

The enormous achievements of the French Revolution (the basis of modern egalitarian law, and UN Charter) are often considered to be due to Napoleon, by the ignorant. For example, on 7 April 1795 the metric system was formally defined in French law: nothing to do with Napoleon. Actually Napoleon hijacked the Revolution, and greatly demolished it, in fact and spirit. Instead of letting Europe unite as a Republic, he grabbed it as a plutocrat, and pressed it like a lemon.

The fact so many admire Napoleon, from Hegel, to all too many people around the planet, and implicitly, the structure of the French state (widely copied worldwide, even by the USA) is a serious problem. Indeed, it’s a glorification of fascism and the Dark Side. 

***

Why Napoleon hated evolution: because, by removing “God”, evolution made him responsible for his abominable deeds, his despicable character, and childish impulses:

Lamarck, by then immensely prestigious, offered to the self-declared emperor one of his books on evolution. Napoleon made the research professor who discovered evolution, cry. No doubt Lamarck cried seeing the world at the feet of such an unwise, primitive maniac. Napoleon suggested, even with his favorite Laplace, that the universe had been created by “God”,no doubt to justify his own primitivism: Napoleon’s crude behavior was an act of god, Napoleon was not truly responsible. Not really Napoleon’s fault that he had to kill innocent people he disliked.

Lamarck’s suggested that complexity and the striving for solutions drove evolution. In other words, intelligence drove the universe, not the happenstance of god, and thus, as Napoleon invaded Spain and caused havoc there, and thus, as Napoleon invaded Spain and caused havoc there, Napoleon, not “God”, was responsible for the atrocities in the Iberian peninsula. Spain was among other places that Napoleon, in the guise of propagating the Republican revolution, peppered, as the rest of Europe with his relatives made into the local tyrants…

This being said, the conflict between Napoleon and Lamarck was complicated… And at a very high level of mental debate: Napoleon sided with Lamarck’s deadly enemy Cuvier, himself a top evolutionist, but who believed in evolution generated by catastrophes (like the one which destroyed the dinosaurs). Cuvier has certainly been proven right, yet Lamarck, of course is a towering giant whose time is yet to fully come (Quantum Mechanics makes evolution intelligent, I reckon…) 

***

Come general, the affair is over, we have lost the day,” Napoleon told one of his officers. “Let us be off.” The day was June 18, 1815. Around 8 p.m., the emperor of France knew he had been decisively defeated at a northern French village called Waterloo, and he wanted to escape from his enemies, some of whom—such as the Prussians—had sworn to execute him (the Prussians had been keen to execute the French since 1792…). By 5 a.m. the next day, they stopped by a fire some soldiers had made in a meadow. As Napoleon warmed himself he said to one of his generals, “Eh bien, monsieur, we have done a fine thing.” Extraordinary sangfroid that even then, in the midst of catastrophe, Napoleon was able to joke. However, it was not funny: thanks, in great part, to his antics, racism and oppression were to rule over central Europe, masterminded by Prussia. And British plutocracy was on a roll, and would stay that way for another 204 years (and counting).

What?

***

Like Augustus in Rome, Napoleon had not fully defeated the Republic; instead both used the Republic as leverage. As with Augustus, that was good for the tyrant, but it wore out the Republic:

In 1815, after Napoleon, and thus French Republicanism defeat, racism, anti-Judaism, oppression, occupation of Eastern Europe by Prussia and company was reestablished. 

Let me quote from: “Why We’d Be Better Off if Napoleon Never Lost at Waterloo

On the bicentennial of the most famous battle in world history, a distinguished historian looks at what could have been. 

If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited inestimably. The reactionary Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush liberal constitutionalist movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; Jews would not have been forced back into their ghettos in the Papal States and made to wear the yellow star again; encouragement of the arts and sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.

Napoleon deserved to lose Waterloo, and Wellington to win it, but the essential point in this bicentenary year is that the epic battle did not need to be fought—and the world would have been better off if it hadn’t been.[2]

Yes, but plutocracy would have suffered, and plutocrats don’t like that, do they? if nothing else, their perverse admiration for Napoleon rested on the evidence that Napoleon was the best weapon against the Republican Revolution. There is evidence that, starting in 1812, with the Russian campaign, Napoleon military genius deserted him. In 1812, the Grande Armee, more than 600,000 strong, full of idealistic young Germans and Poles, was poorly managed: too many stupid, frontal battles (instead of the subtle victories an outmanned Caesar had no problem producing). Moreover, the Grand Army had typhus, soldiers were dying like flies, and the campaign should have been delayed. 

At Waterloo, Napoleon split stupidly the French army, and then committed a long succession of mistakes, including the charge of the French horse at the wrong moment, not ordered by him, and waiting for general Crouchy, at the risk of getting the Prussian army instead (as happened). In spite of its remaining revolutionary zeal which had been Napoleon’s not so secret fuel, this was too much for the French veterans.

And why did Napoleon attack the Czar? Long story. And the Czar, allied to perfidious Albion, managed a country with awful serfdom, close to slavery without the possibility of being sold. 

The basic irony, though, is that Napoleon, following earlier revolutionaries, wanted to unite Europe. The philosopher proximally culprit of the French Revolution, personal enemy of Napoleon, Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade, had warned them all: don’t try to impose the Republic upon Europe. Fight mostly defensely. Revolution, the Republic, would come all over in time. The revolutionaries didn’t obey Sade. Napoleon sent Sade to a mental asylum. 

However Sade was right: the Republican revolution would self-propagate. It’s now Great British plutocracy itself which is self-imploding, and Europe can be united under Republican, that is French, principles, all over. 

So, now, for the case of Russia… 

Meanwhile, please remember: Napoleon is not even worth forgetting.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1]  Hegel in Elements of the Philosophy of Right (& 348) : ” At the forefront of all actions, hence of historical actions, stand individuals or subjectivities which effectively cause the substantial reality to occur. ” In Lectures on the Philosophy of History, a few years later, Hegel teaches that historical heroes ” are practical-minded men. ” (p.35). Napoleon, like Alexander and Caesar, is thus a man of action : he is not what he thinks, neither what he hides, but what he does. In The Phenomenology of Mind, he wrote: ” The real being of man lies rather in his deed; it is in this deed that individuality is effective… the individual is what this deed is. ” (p.231).

You are what you do, not what you eat? Neither: historical heroes act according to what they feel and what they think, most of it, imprinted into them as children: Alexander’s was the exact prolongation of his father Philippe, just even more nutty (bold). Caesar was essentially Marius reborn, just newer and better… And Napoleon was just according to his formation: a classical glorified island bandit, from an island famous for its piracy… by comparison, a young Caesar was captured and held hostage by pirates allied to Mithridates (and Roman plutocrats). After a second kidnapping, Caesar, held for 38 days, promised to his captors that he would seem them crucified, and he did

Long after his defeat, Hegel admired in Napoleon the founder of the modern State. In Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Hegel relates and then justifies the coup of Brumaire, 18th. : “Again arises a government organized like the old one ; but the leader and monarch is now a changeable Directoire of five people forming undoubtedly a moral, but not individual, unity. Mistrust was prevailing among them as well and the government was in the hands of the legislative assemblies. It had therefore the same fatal destiny, because the absolute need of a governmental power had made itself felt. Napoleon reinstated it under the form of military power and then placed himself again at the head of the State as a source of individual will ; he knew how to govern and was soon done with the internal. ” (p.342).
Napoleon is thus, to Hegel, the founder of the modern State because its principle is henceforth not the will of all, not the will of a few but the will of the Prince. There is no difference with, say, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Diocletian, Clovis, Philippe Le Bel, Louis XI, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, so Hegel is either an idiot, or a clever merchant who knew all to little history to pretend teaching it, except to the deeply ignorant.

***

[2] This is only a very small list of the satanic (Pluto!) ways which arose after Napoleon’s defeat, and thus the Republican Revolution coup d’arret. Jews were racially tortured all over Europe (except France, Britain) after Napoleon/French revolution’s, defeat. As I said, Eastern Europe would not be freed until after the Versailles Treaty of 1919… And the 1914-1945 war can be seen as Waterloo’s revenge, part one. Part two is Brexit.

 

 

 

NO MILITARY SUPERIORITY, NO REPUBLIC, 30 Centuries of Franco-Gallic History Say

October 26, 2019

This is in answer to the following question:

How has modern France become such a military powerhouse? When did they become more powerful than Britain and Germany?

France did this by having the correct mindset, which has been necessary to the apparition of a large, unified military power where France and its Gallo-Roman predecessor has been for 20 centuries.

Arguably, France is, by far the country most involved in war. Ever. And there are three excellent reasons for that: location, location, location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_France 

France declared war to Hitler on September 3, 1939. The British army was tiny even smaller than the 400,000 men US army. So World War Two, initially was a duel between the French Republic and the unholy alliance of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Japan, and the fascist Soviet Union of Stalin. By 1945, Italy, Japan and Germany had been utterly vanquished, thanks to France and her Allies. They had no more army. However, France had reconstituted the strongest army in the West, behind the US and UK. The USSR had been forced to switch sides.

For reasons I will now expose, France is, first of all, all about her military.

Paul Jamin’s Gallic King Brennus “and his share of the spoils”. He contemplates Roman ladies at the ready. The Battle of the Allia was a battle fought c. 393 BC between the Senones (a Gallic tribe who had invaded northern Italy, who lived at the source of the… Seine, hence the name) allied to the Averni (modern name: “Auvergne”) and the Roman Republic. The battle was fought at the confluence of the Tiber and Allia rivers, eleven Roman miles (16 km, 10 mi) north of Rome. The Romans were routed and Rome was subsequently sacked by the Senones, who were bought out by Roman dictator Camille, to bring them to leave.

France is a Republic built at the crossroads. Some may sneer that it is only a Republic since September 21, 1792… But that’s overlooking the REPUBLICAN way political power in France was built and justified itself. Even before the Romans came, many of the 60 polities in Gaul had senates, and were de facto republic. Each of them struck coinage. After five centuries of Roman unification, invasions broke the unity. The latter, though was quickly rebuilt by the Franks, who were Roman Confederates.

Thus the Frankish army was a Roman army, and beat the Goths at Vouillé (507 CE). Far from being savages, the Franks endeavored to rebuild the State, using the general program of the “Christian Republic”… To understand the “Christian Republic”, one has to backtrack to the Fourth Century, when Christianism was imposed onto the empire: the excuse for that, among intellectuals, was that a “Christian Republic” would be established. The idea goes on, to this day.

The Founding Fathers of the Church” tried to establish the “Christian Republic” after emperor Theodosius I’s death in 395 CE: the bishops were in charge and governed (the Jew-hating bishop of Milan, Ambrose, after excommunicating him, got Theodosius I on his knees, begging forgiveness). That first attempt at establishing a Republic that would be “Christian”turned into a disaster. Indeed Theodosius’ military alliance with the Goths, plus the empire-ruling bishops’ hostility to military force, and funding the latter by force, brought the main Germanic invasions, in 406 CE. The most important thing the Roman Bishops’ government did was to formally put the Franks in charge of defending the three Roman provinces of the north-west: the two Germanias and Gallia.

The mass murdering Catholic fanatic, emperor Theodosius I, had hated the anti-Christian Franks (the Parisians had elected the de-Christianizing “Julian The Apostate” earlier). To the point that the god crazed Theodosius allied himself with the Goths, to defeat Arbogast, head of the mostly Frankish occidental Roman army at the battle of Frigidarius,in 394 CE. This destruction of the Occidental Roman army led, within 12 years, to the fall of the Occidental Roman empire… The catastrophic defeat of the Roman Occidental army at Frigidarius in 394 CE of secularism against Goths allied to fanatical Catholicism should be seen as the real moment the Roman state was mortally wounded in Occident.

The Franks, who were very fierce and free (that’s what their name means) understood, and all could see, that the Republic (Christian or not) could only be established by military force. In 507 CE, they did what Rome had never done before: they beat the Goths, and threw them out of Gaul. In the next three centuries, they would establish, through military force Western Europe as it is today (completed by the conquest of England in 1066 CE). The Franks also did something the rest of Roman power had been unable to do: they repel three invasions of the Muslim raiders between 721 CE (battle of Toulouse, huge Muslim defeat) and 748 CE (battle of Narbonne, another victory of Charles the Hammer, his phalanx and heavy cavalry). The Umayyad Arab Caliphate, based in Damascus, deprived of its army destroyed in France, then fell (750 CE).

In the Ninth Century, two things happened: disunion (think Brexit), leading to the monster (first) battle of Fontenoy, of Franks against the Franks, when the streams ran red (848 CE). Around 50,000 were killed in this fratricide (the second battle of Fontenoy would be of the French against the British, nine centuries later).

Soon enough, left without enough of an army, the “Renovated empire of the Romans” (aka Carolingian empire) was invaded on three fronts: Viking, Hungarians, Muslims. This showed to the collective French mentality, once again, as circa 400 CE, that military weakness led to devastating invasions. Disgusted by the attitude of the emperor, who negotiated with the Viking instead of destroying them during the siege of Paris, the Parisians and then the French, seceded from said empire (“Frexit”; turned out to have been a very bad idea, as it led to 1,150 years of war)… France didn’t secede formally, but by refusing to elect a Roman emperor, preferring to elect a French King “emperor in his own kingdom” as the official formula had it (so the elected French king was equivalent to the elected Roman emperor).

In the next millennium, that means in the thousand years prior to the present times, it would be proven again and again: the key to comfort, health, survival, morality, happiness, let alone sufficient food, was a strong French military. Everything else was secondary. (When the Germans invaded France in WWII, they stole as much food as they could so that the French would still be able to produce food and other stuff for them, Nazis…)

Why is France attacked so much? For the same reason as French is a melting pot, morally and intellectually superior: France is at the crossroads of Europe, it’s how one went conveniently from north to south in the last 12,000 years. If one is in the Mediterranean (thus coming from the Near East, or even further: Indies, Silk Roads, etc.), the way to reach the Atlantic or Northern Europe was through France (one route is to travel north of the Pyrenees, the other two go up the Rhone valley, one branching up right to Germany, the other, straight up to the Northern European plain and Great Britain.

The defeat of May 1940 occurred in a few days, when drugged out Nazis full of amphetamines, broke through where the Second British armored division was supposed to be, and was not, where the Prince of Wales, inspector of the British armed forces, had told his dear friend Hitler, that the French front was the weakest. Indeed, the French Front was held there by just one reserve infantry division, and three elite Panzer divisions attacked, helped by the elite Gross Deutschland regiment, and the entire Luftwaffe, concentrated their assault on a few kilometers. The French Republic had started a nuclear bomb program in January 1938 to drop bombs on Germany (it would take seven and a half year for the first bomb to be ready). The French were the first to bomb Berlin (the Nazis called for execution of the French fliers… although that was in retaliation of the bombing of French cities).

Ultimately British heavy bombers fleets (followed by US ones, years later) wreck havoc with Germany (one million soldiers had to man air defenses and German industry had to be relocated in the woods, underground…) This showed, once again, that if one is the most intelligent civilization, military superiority is all the moral right one needs to crush infamy.

The Romans purchased, for centuries superior Gallic armor and swords. At the battle of Poitiers in 732 CE, superior French steel and superior heavy cavalry on genetically formidable horses, destroyed the Muslim army (Muslim corpses were left to rot, out of contempt). The so-called “100 year war” finished when the Bureau brothers engineered the first battlefield guns. The 75 mm gun was indispensable in WWI. During the French Revolution, superior French artillery, with superior French explosives did much, if not most of the work (in particular at the crucial Battle of Valmy, September 20, 1792). Hot air balloons, invented in France, were militarily used. One of the first planes was also militarily financed, and flew, long before the Wright brothers. The first cars also made in France were the fruit of a military program: what was specified corresponded actually to tanks. The French taught the USA how to mass produce them with the required precision (this is how precision mass engineering was introduced to the USA). So the connection between superior tech and superior military was long ingrained.

The defeat of May 1940 was due in part to the exploitation by the Nazis of a few tricks which took the French military by surprise: amphetamines, good connection between the air force and ground forces, the usage of radios inside tanks… And lack of practice and arrogance of the top commanders. Morality: the Righteous should make war all the time, so as not be surprised by Evil.

All of these Nazi tricks could be fixed quickly, and they were, but not before the Franco-British being defeated in the most major battle of the Western front in WWII (the Franco-British never suffered a major defeat after that). The lesson for the future here was simple: if the French Republic had fought the Nazis in Spain in 1936, as it was asked by the Spanish Republic to do, it would not have been surprised in May 1940, and superior French military might would have done the rest. Why did France not attack the Nazis in 1936? Because the Anglo-Saxons asked France not to attack Hitler, who was, at the time, a source of enormous profit for the most major US corporations. So what is the meta lesson here? In spite of the affectionate parent to child relationship between France, England and the USA, the latter two self-obsessed buffoons should not be taken seriously all the time. France has 30 centuries of institutionalized, partly oral and behavioral tradition, that the UK and the US do not have. Only China or maybe India can reflect as deep upon the errors of history…

After World War Two, which started with the betrayal of the USA, France observed more betrayal, as the US Deep State was firmly intent to replace the French empire by an American one.

So now here we are. The defense of the West is mostly insured by a reconciled France and the US… which are at war in a dozen countries. This is good: in Libya, the French air force demonstrated it could overwhelm Russian air defense using stealthy Rafale fighters (the US is now using the same method in training with the stealthy F35). Recently, in the attack on French and US ally Saudi Arabia, the powerlessness of the most sophisticated US air defenses against drones and cruise missiles was demonstrated: now the US and France are scrambling to find counter-measure (it’s no coincidence, and entirely related, that the laser which blasted rocks on Mars was French made).

France has no oil, no gas, and no more coal. France can have only ideas; it is the only large country with a large economy which produces so little CO2 per capita that, if all countries did it, the CO2 cataclysm would be much delayed (only 4 tons/person/year for France; US is at 16 tons, and Canada and Australia are even worse). Ideas which can create technology enabling military superiority. The USA and Britain long embraced the same credo.

To be a real, thoughtful French citizen, steeped in history (as they used to be) is to learn that the Republic needs to be defended by force, that this is mission number one… of the Republic, something that the cultural ancestors to the French Republic, the Athenian and Roman ones, discovered 25 centuries ago. And just as 25 centuries ago, this superiority has to rest upon military and thus technological superiority.

As the ice caps melt, great wars are coming… And if they don’t happen this will be simply because potential aggressors understand they can’t win (as they do now). And the climate catastrophe is a war too, and only superior technology can win it. Same old, same old: if one wants a better existence, or existence at all, one has to fight for it.

Patrice Ayme 

***

P/S: Although the preceding is centered around France, it fully applies to her child, the USA. We have peace now because the relatively better guys (France, US, UK) have had military superiority, and the bad guys (Russia, China) aren’t that bad (although Putin engaged in invasion lately) and other guys surrended (Japan) to what passes for democracy, and the rest of the world is pretty powerless…

World peace depends upon the military might of that trio, another reason to look at Brexit with fear and suspicion…

 

Not Telling Truth Fosters “Anti-Semitism”, Perpetrator New York Times Reveals… Unwittingly

May 2, 2019

The Holocaust, World War Two and the Ascent of Hitler were rendered possible by US plutocracy. Said differently, with the same content: if US plutocracy had opposed Nazism, it would not have happened. It was simple: line up with the French Republic in 1933. Instead the USA, led by FDR, opposed France, and then pushed for something called “isolationism“, a fig leaf to hide US pro-Nazi feelings.

Some, who don’t even the know the basics that not only does history repeats itself, but sometimes, it just keeps on going, just the same as before, with different mask and lip service, will scoff, because they don’t realize it’s more of the same now.

New York Times had a flicker of self-consciousness today;

The Times published an appalling political cartoon in the opinion pages of its international print edition late last week. It portrayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as a dog wearing a Star of David on a collar. He was leading President Trump, drawn as a blind man wearing a skullcap… such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger — not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation.”

What a contrast 2 years make… New York Times, 2 days before the election of Trump, had proclaimed that Trump was “Anti Semitic”… Something obviously in total conflict with reality (Trump beloved daughter had married an orthodox Jew and converted to Judaism…). Anything to support hatred… Hatred for Trump, yes, but, more generally love for hatred in general…

Yes, well, the most insidious creep, the most enduring prejudice, is indifference to truth, and the search thereof. That’s the main reason for civilizational collapse. Yes, it happened before, dozens of times. However, this time is different: the biosphere will follow.

New York Times: “For decades, most American Jews felt safe to practice their religion, but now they pass through metal detectors to enter synagogues and schools. Jews face even greater hostility and danger in Europe, where the cartoon was created. In Britain, one of several members of Parliament who resigned from the Labour Party in February said that the party had become “institutionally anti-Semitic.” In France and Belgium, Jews have been the targets of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. …

This is also a period of rising criticism of Israel, much of it directed at the rightward drift of its own government and some of it even questioning Israel’s very foundation as a Jewish state… anti-Zionism can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism — and some criticism of Israel, as the cartoon demonstrated, is couched openly in anti-Semitic terms…”

“Funny Papers”. 1940 Anti Jewish propaganda on left, 2019 Anti Jewish propaganda on the right

I sent a comment to the New York Times, which censored it. Here it is:

***

Anti-Semitism” is too vague a term. It is important to have precise terms. What people generally means by “Anti-Semitism” is, truly, “Anti-Judaism”.

Nowadays, the most strident Anti-Judaism comes from a religion established by Semites… who were inspired by Judaism, but then insisted that the Jews had not respected the god of Abraham found in the Bible.

What are the roots of Anti-Judaism? They seem to be multiple, but that may be an illusion. The Roman Republic recognized the state of Israel, and presented itself as the guarantor of its independence to the rest of the Middle East. However, Rome then became a fascist empire, and subjugating the Jews culminated in the Judean War (66-73 CE). During which time the Gospels were written, which some view as Flavian propaganda (the three Flavian emperors rule finished with the assassination of Domitian). They were not favorable to the Jews. The Jewish temple was destroyed. Two subsequent revolts made matters worse. Jews were interdicted in Jerusalem.

Emperor Julian ordered (in 363 CE) the return of the Jews and the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple. However, he was assassinated by a Christian soldier. After that a Christian dictatorship was established, with “heresy” subjected to the death penalty. All Christian sects were annihilated, except for imperially defined Catholicism… And Judaism.

Next, Islam was invented, and was meant to be closer to the true word of God than Christianism, and Judaism, the latter being viewed as even more deviant. The basic texts of Islam (Quran, Hadith) are generally insulting to Judaism, and even lethally threatening.    

***

New York Times: “Both right-wing and left-wing politicians have traded in incendiary tropes, like the ideas that Jews secretly control the financial system or politicians.”

PA: If it were secret, they won’t know about it… (Hahaha)

New York Times: “most anti-Semitic assaults, and incidents of harassment and the vandalism of Jewish community buildings and cemeteries, are not carried out by the members of extremist groups. Instead, the perpetrators are hate-filled individuals.

In the 1930s and the 1940s, The Times was largely silent as anti-Semitism rose up and bathed the world in blood. That failure still haunts this newspaper. Now, rightly, The Times has declared itself “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and called it “unacceptable.” Apologies are important, but the deeper obligation of The Times is to focus on leading through unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values.”

Yes, sure. Which values at the New York Times, exactly? The Nazis, too, had “values”. Values so valuable to them, they died for them in large numbers. So tell me, NYT, why did you censor my preceding comment? Apparently your values include values intolerant of to the truth and reality I expressed.

New York Times: “Society in recent years has shown healthy signs of increased sensitivity to other forms of bigotry, yet somehow anti-Semitism can often still be dismissed as a disease gnawing only at the fringes of society. That is a dangerous mistake. As recent events have shown, it is a very mainstream problem.

As the world once again contends with this age-old enemy, it is not enough to refrain from empowering it. It is necessary to stand in opposition.

Not only did the USA not stand in opposition against Hitler (until Hitler attacked the USA), the US political class, media and the US mighty corporations and plutocratic class empowered Hitler… Sometimes throughout the war (some US corporations helped Hitler throughout the entire war, unbelievably enough; IBM went smoothly from ensuring its 35 German plants gave Nazism the organizational computing power it needed, all the way to 8 May 1945, to providing official translation of the Nuremberg tribunal proceedings… None of the 35 IBM plants was targeted in US precision bombing… nor were hundreds of other US owned plants. That was particularly blatant in Cologne: the city was thoroughly destroyed by US bombing on one side of the Rhine, whereas kilometers of US plants were intact on the other….).

Picture found in NYT, before they read my second censored comment, and removed it… When in doubt, accuse the French, it’s always safe and satisfying… Especially when they are right.

I sent another comment to the NYT for the further instruction of its deluded editorial board. I knew they were going to censor it. The point was to teach them something, supposing they can learn it (hope springs eternal). Here it is:

***

The New York Times illustrated its “anti-Semitic” description with a picture in France. That, implicitly suggests the phenomenon is stronger in France than elsewhere. However, historically was not the case; in 1939-1940, France accepted hundreds of thousand of Jewish refugees, and the USA, none.  France also declared war against the Nazis, Sept 3, 1939. The USA did not, making the Holocaust possible (Hitler declared war to the USA, Dec 11, 1941).

I sent a comment retracing how Rome launched Anti-Judaism, because of the fascist empire, and that was extended by the Roman state religion, Christianism… And that the same Anti-Judaic theme was extended by Islamism.

The NYT censored my comment… although I told the strict truth, and the Times itself admitted it did not behave well in the past, by NOT telling the truth. It is indeed the highest US authorities in media and politics which denied the Holocaust early in WWII when it could have been prevented it by helping France. Your present attitude is more of the same. Luther wrote strident texts against the Jews, wishing for their torture. Islam in its fundamental texts is lethally anti-Judaic.  

This is Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”[1]

You will censor my comment, though it is depicts the exact truth. So doing you think that you are wise, because you appease, by lying. Lying by omission is still lying. This is exactly what the US media did in 1939-41, making the Holocaust possible.

Amusingly, the New York Times did receive my comment and thought about it… because it removed the Anti-French picture they illustrated their story with, and replaced it by the lighting of candles… Not France implicitly accused anymore… I guess, even the NYT can learn a few things about itself…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1]: How much more horrendously hateful can one be as in this Hadith (which is repeated several times with micro variations, in the most basic Hadith texts)? This is allowable in fiction. However, in all too many mosques, and houses, this is taught as a basic fact of the universe.

***

Nota Bene: The essay above was posted May 1, US time. After publication, I discovered my first comment was posted (very belatedly, and well after the second comment was sent to the NYT). The second comment, more accusing, was not published. It seems it let to publication of the first… So I look like a liar now… Games…

European Union Should Extent Brexit (Article 50) Two Years. Without UK European Parliament Privileges!

March 29, 2019

Indeed, as I will explain more below, the European Parliament doesn’t create laws, just approve them. Great Britain is already out ot the European Council (which launches laws).

The House of Commons, the UK Parliament, rejected the UK government’s “Withdrawal Agreement from the European Union“, for the third time. According to the EU’s ultimatum to Great Britain, the UK will be thrown out of the EU on April 12, in 14 days. This expulsion is unwise, and no civilized way to proceed. I will thereafter suggest a different course: extending massively Article 50, putting Brexit on the European backburner, a slow simmer in the background, leaving time for Great Britain to figure out its existential issues, its Brexistential issues… Shile Europe is allowed to reconsider the future, the planet, civilization, progress, democracy, and other things which have disappeared from the Brexit debate…

The interminable Brexit process is paralyzing Europe (both UK and EU). The temptation is to expedite it, in the hope of being done with it. That will not work: instead, it will make the situation way worse. If Brexit happened on April 12, 2019, in two weeks, ten years of divisive negotiations would ensue. How to avoid that? Forget about it! Forget about Brexit, send it to the purgatory of the House of Commons, under the good care of its weaker, the excellent right honorable gentleman, Speaker John Bercow.

Another new NO, the ninth, was added on Friday. The Third No on the withdrawal agreement.

***

How And Why LEGALLY EXCLUDE the UK From The EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (Until the UK Decides to Revoke Article 50, & Remain In the EU):

Europeans have to let the British Parliament find a solution and have it ratified by the British People, in a referendum. That will take at least a year. Meanwhile, the rest of the European Union has to protect itself from the pathology known as Brexit. That means that Great Britain should be EXCLUDED from taking part in the next European Parliament.

I don’t care what the legalistically minded come up with, mumbling that EU member nations have to be represented in Parliament, that we can’t have a precedent, bla bla bla. Right, the EU is very legally minded, a French characteristic, now permeating the EU. However, sticking to the law causes rigidities which, in turn can only be removed by those periodic revolutions shaking France.

The spirit of the law always beats the letter of the law. The letter of the law has already been broken: Article 50 extended only until tomorrow, March 29, 2019, the appartenunce of the UK in the EU.  Hence the letter of the law (24 months!) has been broken. Yet the spirit survives.

So, in a way, the UK is (sort of) out: the European Council, after one meeting with UK PM Cameron, four days after the fateful Brexit, never met as 28 members again: the UK got excluded. So the new spirit of the law is that the UK is partly out of the EU. The European Council is really the government of the EU (the European Commission just implements what the EC wants).

The European Council is more important than the European Parliament (European Parliament vote laws, but doesn’t suggest them). So, no EU Parliament for the UK. Instead UK in an indefinite Article 50: all rights and duties of membership, except for voting. In many democracies, convicts don’t vote for a while. Hey, Britain self-convicted.

The solution above, extending Article 50 by two years, but no Parliament for the UK, will free the EU from Brexit. The EU will be free to progress, pass laws mitigating plutocracy, climate change, foster research, education, etc. In particular financing of UK science and advanced tech by EU budgets will proceed. Also Eurosceptics will be informed that leaving the EU, and activating Article 50, has a democratic cost, and gives a forerun of what it means to be out of the EU: no more European legislating possible.  

***

And what will happen to Great Britain? Polls show the UK would vote for Remain at this point. Within two years, the British People will come to its senses, in spite of the shrill shrieking propaganda of its plutocratic media (the EU should pass laws to limit plutocratic propaganda). So We the British People will vote to stay in the EU. Then a special EU Parliament UK election can be held.

The non-participation of the UK in the EU Parliament will prevent Parliamentary sabotage, which would otherwise paralyze Europe some more. However, if legal minds of the stupid kind insist on having that… the fact is that Article 50 should be extended 2 years, while Speaker Bercow and the House of Commons figure Brexit out.

Why? No bad feelings, looking forward… In the end no Brexit.

***

Enough, children, who go by the self-glorifying name of “leaders”! Learn from history!

The British Parliament voted No No No No No No No No, No, on all the possibilities of Brexit, a wide spectrum selected by the very interesting Speaker Bercow. A European ultimatum expires April 12. On that date, Great Britain is supposed to have decided to leave, and how. (If if with a deal then the effective day will be in May.)

You may not know this, you children who are called leaders, because you studied just what was Politically Correct, but war is a serious thing, and a seriously sneaky thing. Apparently innocuous indifference and turning-away can turn into alienation, and war. The personal history of my family has helped me know these emotional truths. I was graced by a family which harbred resistance fighters, more than 100 Jews, which was chased by the Gestapo, while my dad arrived in France in combat, fighting Nazis… In my lifetime, I have known what it feels like to be bombed by fascist racists, and to have a young uncle who was an elder brother to me, killed by Islamist  terrorists (crucially helped by a double dealing French government).

Also I spent decades studying history, in particular of the European kind. It is not as simplistic as usually depicted. The first battle of Fontenoy (around 50,000 killed by arrows, lances, swords, and axes, in a few hours of hand to hand combat) was an enormous butchery, Franks against Franks. There was a second, even more famous battle, in the same place of Fontenoy, 1,000 years, a millennium, later, this time English against French. As one can see, French military history is rich, unparalleled… These two battles of Fontenoy were pretty much brothers against brothers, not civilization against savagery, and should never have happened.

Yes, Europe had plenty of civilization against savagery battles. France was involved in all of them (the Mongols gave up their conquest of Europe, when the top Mongol generals argued that the heavy losses they had suffered in Hungary were a foretaste of suffering again the same fate as their ancestors the Huns in France). In the Eight Century, the Franks repelled three invasions of Europe by the savage Arab Islamists, over a period of thirty years. Of course, Islam would never have happened if Catholic fascism had been defeated at the Battle of the Cold River, three centuries before Muhammad’s birth.  At the Cold River, the Western Emperor, Eugenius, a secular professor promoted by the head of the Occidental Roman army, Arbogast, confronted the catholic bigot, Oriental emperor Theodosius (originally a Spaniard). Arbogast, a Frank, controlled, for many years, a Roman army full of Romanized Franks. Theodosius was allied with the Goths. Theodosius and his goons had invented the notion of “heresy”, and laws, decrees, making “heresy” punishable at the pleasure of the government.

There is a direct line between this, and the government of Brunei establishing the death penalty for homosexuality in 2019, according to Sharia. Indeed, at the Cold River, the Frigidus river, unexpectedly, Arbogast was defeated and those who wanted heresy to be punishable by death, and Catholicism to pursue its reign of terror, won. Not only that, but, left without an army, the Occidental Roman empire promptly fell to the invading barbarian hordes, 14 years later (406 CE).

The millennium of European wars started when the French of West Francia turned their backs on the rest of the “Roman” empire (actually the west of present France, the most occidental third of the “Francia” of the Franks from 500 CE to 950 CE, including Paris had very good reasons to reject the empire… which had failed to protect them against the Viking; instead the count of Paris, soon to be duke, did the work, battling back from the ramparts, with 200 men, 10,000 bloody Vikings… while the Roman/Carolingian emperors prefered negotiations with the Viking). That turning of all French backs was, to some extent, justified. However it caused alienation between Europeans. By 1200, all of Europe was united against the French-Paris monarchy (and lost the battle and war against the “French” king Philippe Auguste, at Bouvines).

***

Treat The British Well, They Don’t Have To Be Too Punished, This Is Not Versailles:

The interminable Brexit is paralyzing Europe. The temptation is to expedite it. That would be a mistake for the British: once they inspect the situation in all details, they will come to the conclusion, except for a few vested interests, like plutocrats and media moguls, and the odd deluded fisher, that staying in the EU is the less bad of all bad possibilities.

I am of the opinion that Germany was treated very well by the Versailles Treaty (contrarily to common opinion). That’s because I studied the situation in details, and I didn’t buy the Nazi opinion about Versailles. However, there is definitively a risk of mistreating a deluded Britain about Brexit. OK, the British have the wrong mentality about the European Union. This is a particular bad case of “fake news”. Just like Islamophilia is a particularly bad case of “fake news”.

So yes, there is “fake news” problem. But does that mean that British or Muslims should be mistreated? As individuals? No. The problem is that Brexit would hurt most british and European citizens, So the rest of the European Union has to be patient.

Not having the UK NOT sit in the EU Parliament will have the advantage that a lot of laws of the pro-plutocratic, anti-federal, and unequal laws, in particular the monstrous British rebate, and the even more monstrous Swiss rebate, can be legislated out.

Yes, president Macron is understandably viewing this Brexit tragicomedy as something to flush down the toilet, ASAP. However, apparently innocuous and inconsequential acts in history have resulted in immense tragedies.

Don’t forget the present system in Britain was mostly created by a succession of French adventurers, warriors, magnates and plutocrats, with a few queens and duchesses in the mix (William of Normandy, the barons of Magna Carta, Eleanor d’Aquitaine, Yolande of Aragon, Isabelle de France, Edouard III/Edward III, Lancaster/Lancastre, de Montfort come to mind; the House of Normandy was succeeded by the House of Anjou). The estrangement between England and France was the fruit of personalities more than anything else. A striking example is Yolande of Aragon, who financed Joan of Arc’s army and the illegal kinglet (the “Dolphin”) connected to them, who got the “100 Years War” relaunched all by themselves. (Yes, now there is a lamentable cult of Joan of Arc amplifying that idiotic nationalism and bigotry.)

Small things can have big consequences: models supposedly show weather systems can be created by a butterfly flapping its wings, three weeks earlier.

Macron, the French president, doesn’t want to become that butterfly of doom, flapping Europe into division and thus oblivion. Macron doesn’t want to flap all wrong. Let Macron beat on French Yellow Jackets, if that’s his won, he does that well, the French love to be beaten up, so they can beat back. Revolutions make French law progress. But Macron shouldn’t beat on the British. That could lead to war.  

The European Union will be optimal if it acts as an empire of the highest aspirations. That includes, first of all, bending over backwards not to mistreat European Peoples or nations. Europe should focus its energy on thermonuclear fusion and the space race now engaged between the USA, China, India, maybe Russia to be first (back) on the Moon. (The European thermonuclear reactor JET is based in the UK, it’s crucial to ITER, and its financing has been compromised by Brexit.)

Oh, by the way, Boris Johnson, ex-mayor of London and co-leader of the Leave (the EU) campaign, voted for the EU Withdrawal Agreement of May, today (his colleague had adopted the same position a week ago). Why? Because for the UK to leave the EU without a deal is an unfathomable catastrophe.

So, question, if the Leave campaign leaders can be that reasonable, surely the European leaders should be? Or are the leaders of the European Council truly that childish that they risk European strategic disaster, medium term? Jut on the basis of legalistically justified resentment? 

Taking away Parliament from a EU country which has left the European Council, which originates European laws, only makes sense. Beating the Brits when they are down doesn’t. Give Great Britain time to rethink Europe. Two years. No Parliament.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

The opinion of the British on Brexit has already changed a bit. It will change some more. Hey, even the New York Times is realizing it had Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here is a New York Times editorial on Trump today:, operating a U-turn on its opinion of Trump:

Opinion

“Maybe the president brilliantly played the media. Or maybe we just played ourselves.

By Bret Stephens,  Opinion Columnist

“Maybe we’ve had this all wrong.

Maybe Donald Trump isn’t just some two-bit con artist who lucked his way into the White House thanks to an overconfident opponent. Or a second-rate demagogue with a rat-like instinct for arousing his base’s baser emotions and his enemies’ knee-jerk reactions. Or a dimwit mistaken for an oracle, like some malignant version of Chauncey Gardiner from “Being There.”

Thanks to Robert Mueller, we know he isn’t Russia’s man inside, awaiting coded instruction from his handler in the Kremlin.

Maybe, in fact, Trump is the genius he claims to be, possessed — as he likes to boast — of a “very good brain.”

***

Here is the full statement from the European commissionfollowing the vote in the Commons.

The commission regrets the negative vote in the House of Commons today. As per the European council (article 50) decision on 22 March, the period provided for in article 50(3) is extended to 12 April. It will be for the UK to indicate the way forward before that date, for consideration by the European council.

A “no-deal” scenario on 12 April is now a likely scenario. The EU has been preparing for this since December 2017 and is now fully prepared for a “no-deal” scenario at midnight on 12 April. The EU will remain united. The benefits of the withdrawal agreement, including a transition period, will in no circumstances be replicated in a “no-deal” scenario. Sectoral mini-deals are not an option.

The final two sentences refer to a claim often made by Brexiters at Westminster that, in the event of a no-deal departure, the UK and the EU would in practice negotiate a series of mini-agreements to mitigate the worst consequences. This is sometimes referred to as a managed no deal.

MAAT, TRUTH, Our Definition, By Egypt For Millennia Incarnated

January 2, 2019

Civilization Is Mostly from Greco-Romano-Frankish origins (Not mostly “Judeo-Christian”)… Today, let’s concentrate on our Egyptian ancestors:

Our world civilization is not “Judeo-Christian” (Christianism was a creation and subset of degenerating Rome)… We profited from a tremendous inheritance elaborated by Ancient Egypt, in roughly all realms of knowledge and wisdom. Egypt crucially contributed to morality, law, basic fables, mathematics, astronomy and the invention of the alphabet, in a society (mostly) without slaves, which feels surprising modern. Egyptian engineers, not content with aligning the pyramids perfectly, even realized the first usage of steam power (to open temple doors…)

Why was Ancient Egypt so intelligent? Because Egypt was anti-sexist: women had equal rights, even 5,000 years ago. Many women ended up ruling Egypt (including the revolutionary Nefertiti). Having women equal more than doubles the mental power of a civilization and balances it neurohormonally (so it’s not just crazy one way; there is evidence women were in power in Egypt especially when the going was the toughest; the same can be observed in the history of France).

Anti-sexism doesn’t just double the mental power, by having twice more brains, it does much more than that: intelligent, responsible, empowered women bring up more clever, inquisitive, balanced and moral children. Whereas a sexist society is not just run by half wits, the latter spend much time, effort and mental energy keeping the women in all sorts of unnatural bondage

Maat, wearing, as the Pharaohs most often did, the Feather of Truth. She used it to weigh hearts. Maat found virtuous hearts to be lighter than the feather, and send to heavens. To the Egyptian mind, Maat bound all things together in an indestructible unity: the cosmos, the natural world, the state, and the individuals were all seen as parts of the universal order generated by Maat.

The influence of Egypt on, and intellectual exchanges with, Mesopotamia, including Sumerian cities, and the Indus civilization, and the symbiosis of Egypt with the equally non-sexist thalassocratic Cretan civilization made Egypt the core of the advancement of civilization, for millennia.   

Under successive invasions from especially the savage Achaemenid Persians (525 BCE), Egypt lost its female leadership (cruelly exterminated by the sexist Persians). When Egypt was freed by Athenians and then Greco-Macedonians a non-sexist society was not re-established, because the Greeks were too much lost in war to see the interest of being ruled by women. Instead, the Greeks progressively robbed Egyptian women of their rights. In the end, Cleopatra VII made a tremendous effort to save Egypt. She was the last of many female pharaohs… And she could have succeeded, had she been even smarter than she already was. Christian and, three centuries later, Muslim fanatics, erased all traces of ancient Egypt, replacing truth by the jealous, cruel, chaotic Bible god.

To the contrary, the fundamental divinity of Egypt was the goddess of truth. Maat denotes the Egyptian concepts of truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice. Maat is also the goddess who personified these concepts. The sun-god Ra came from the primaeval mound of creation only after he set his daughter Maat (truth) in place of Isfet (chaos). Pharaohs inherited the duty to ensure Maat (truth, rationality) remained in place and they with Ra are said to “live on Maat” (live on truth). Akhenaten and Nefertiti were accused to carry the concept too far.

Ma’at is good and its worth is lasting.

It has not been disturbed since the day of its creator,

whereas he who transgresses its ordinances is punished.

It lies as a path in front even of him who knows nothing.

Wrongdoing has never yet brought its venture to port.

It is true that evil may gain wealth but the strength of truth is that it lasts;

[from the Maxims of Ptahhotep, 45 centuries ago!]

(Much later, as sexism gained, Maat was paired with the masculine Thoth…)

We must now honor our cultural ancestors, the Egyptians. Not just because they deserve it, not just because they created us the way we think, but because we need to understand where we come from, how natural it was, and which mistakes we made more recently.  

Honoring and understanding Ancient Egypt is a question of revering what defines humanity, our search for truth. Maat.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: this was an expanded version of a comment of mine on The Radical Philosophy of Egypt: Forget God and Family, Write!

APA December 17, 2018 by Dag Herbjørnsrud

New research indicates that Plato and Aristotle were right: Philosophy and the term “love of wisdom” hail from Egypt.

A remarkable example of classical Egyptian philosophy is found in a 3,200-year-old text named “The Immortality of Writers.” This skeptical, rationalistic, and revolutionary manuscript was discovered during excavations in the 1920s, in the ancient scribal village of Deir El-Medina, across the Nile from Luxor, some 400 miles up the river from Cairo. Fittingly, this intellectual village was originally known as Set Maat: “Place of Truth.”

The paper containing the twenty horizontal lines of “The Immortality of Writers” is divided into sections by rubrication, etc.

***

Here is Irsesh, the merrekh, the Egyptian philosopher:

Man perishes; his corpse turns to dust; all his relatives return to the earth. But writings make him remembered in the mouth of the reader. A book is more effective than a well-built house or a tomb-chapel, better than an established villa or a stela in the temple!

Their gates and mansions have been destroyed, their mortuary priests are gone, their tombstones are covered with dirt, their tombs are forgotten. But their names are proclaimed on account of their books which they composed while they were alive. The memory of their authors is good: it is for eternity and for ever.

Follow your heart as long as you live! … Heap up your joys, Let your heart not sink! Follow your heart and your happiness. Do your things on earth as your heart commands!

Be a writer, take it to heart, so that your name will fare likewise. A book is more effective than a carved tombstone or a permanent sepulchre. They serve as chapels and mausolea in the mind of him who proclaims their names.

Is there one here like Hordedef? Is there another like Imhotep? None of our kin is like Neferti or Khety, their leader. May I remind you about Ptahemdjehuty and Khakheperraseneb! Is there another like Ptahhotep, or the equal of Kairsu?

As one-who-loves-knowledge mer-rekh, a philo-sopher, Irsesh concludes his immortal text, thus:

Those wise writers who foretold what was to come: what they said came into being; it is found as a maxim, written in their books. Others’ offspring will be their heirs, as if they were their own children. They hid their powers from the world, but it is read in their teachings. They are gone, their names forgotten; but writings cause them to be remembered.

And I will say more: even after the writings are gone, the ideas stay, and, should those vanish in turn, moods will perdure. Our Egyptian moods perdure. 


Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן

Thoughts about Global Economy and Existence