Archive for the ‘history’ Category

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. 

LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY II: Because Great Wealth Steers Elite Leadership. Referendums To Fix It All.

December 28, 2018

Extreme WEALTH SELF LEVERAGES THROUGH PURCHASED INFLUENCE. HOW TO FIX IT: Referendum Initiative Citizen, RIC.

The Roman Republic did it! And died from stopping to do it! Athens didn’t need to do it (its wealthiest citizens were not as wealthy as those of Rome; instead wealthy Macedonians killed Athenian democracy). The Republic of Florence didn’t do it, and died from not doing it!

This essay is a deepening, and development, focusing more on the spiritual aspect of oligarchy, and plutocracy, found in my essay “LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY”

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/limit-wealth-absolutely/

Want progress? Want democracy? Let We The PEOPLE VOTE in a referendum TO LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY! Once the issues are clearly explain and debated, it would pass.Who would object to limit wealth under, say, 100 million dollars?… Except if the work is of public utility (so the likes of Space X, Blue Origin could keep on going on private capital). Another referendum would pass universal healthcare in the USA (no need for debate there, the polls are overwhelmingly in favor)…

The ancient argument against great wealth, familiar to all organized savages, for most of the Neolithic, is that wealth exponentiates: the more of it there is, the easier it is to get more. Even the savage Plains Indians taxed extreme wealth nearly 100%, redistributing thoroughly the thousands of horses a great chief could own.

Another, newer, argument, developed here, is that in modern, massive civilization, wealth controls opinion, hence minds. Wealth can easily purchase the leaders of a Representative Oligarchy system, also known, by a common abuse of language, as “Representative Democracy”.

Corruption is intrinsic to this so-called “Representative Democracy” when wealth is not limited absolutely. Even if one put serious term limits and drastic limits on how much the private sector can influence the public sector. Indeed private actors of immense wealth have many powerful ways to influence (as I will show):

10,000 decide of everything, worldwide: that’s .00001% of the world population… Billionaires are a fifth of that in numbers… So roughly there is more than one very wealthy person for each top leader or influencer, worldwide. This is the crux of the disease attacking us and the biosphere: the leadership feels, think and acts to please wealth. Moreover, as the wealthiest are intrinsically evil (consult Christ!), bad decisions are deliberately taken to further the rule of this oligarchy, because wars, conflicts and disasters distract We The People…

Rome is our great lab study and warning sign:

The Roman Republic is our great predecessor. The Roman Republic made the principle of respecting secular law foremost, as Qin did in China roughly at the same time. This highest principle was a huge success.

Making secular law foremost is such a powerful principle that it makes powerful states: Qin (prolonged by their immediate successors and implementers, the Han) and the Roman Republic built giant empires which can be viewed as lasting to this day (France, thus Western Europe, and the Anglo-Saxon colonies are direct successor regimes of Rome: they use Roman law… refurbished by Constantinople and the Franks, foedi of Rome, and sole inheritors of Roman Imperium.

The Roman Republic collapse was long drawn out: republican elements were taken out, one after the other, for 550 years (let’s say for clarity from 150 BCE until 400 CE, when the Franks were given Roman military imperium over the Germanias and Gallia… by a strange government of Catholic bishops, who, practically then, governed the Roman empire).

Sometimes, under the fascist empire (launched by Augustus), things went back, the other way, towards more Republicanism. In particular under Trajan, with mass scholarships paid by taxes on the rich, or when emperor Caracalla gave universal citizenship. But overall, the Republican institutions decayed under the fascist empire…

The Roman Republic was an enormous success, as a territorial empire: most of the conquests were made under the Republic. If so successful, why did the Republic collapse (dragging the Roman state with it)?

***

Sylla, Cicero, Caesar and Augustus accompanied a (plutocratic) revolution they didn’t start and couldn’t control:

The Roman Republic lasted 5 centuries, in full. Then it ran into trouble, as civil wars happened all over. Caesar’s grand nephew, Octavian, aka “Caesar” (he took the name of his uncle and adoptive father, as per tradition), captured the Republic.

When Octavianus/Caesar/Augustus took control, peace got established, by force, and that enforced peace made this Augustus popular enough to stay in power.

“Caesar” made himself “Princeps” (first, principal)… First man in the Senate, somehow, controlling everything, but without the title of king. When he died, nobody knew what to do, and the generalissimo, Tiberius, stayed in seclusion, until the Senate, duly selected by Octavian/Augustus, a set of plutocrats, begged Tiberius to come out, and take some of Augustus’ responsibilities.

Indeed, by Augustus’ death, Rome’s billionaires occupied the entire political landscape… but for the army, which had been the force, and most of the will, behind Octavian/Caesar’s revolution (regressive revolution, revolution nevertheless!)

Augustus, an extremely gifted teenager who led a revolution, got unhinged early on. Plutocracy would drive anybody crazy, that’s its main purpose, in the grand scheme of evolution!

***

Roman Republic Lasted Five Centuries In Full, Because of Absolute Limit on Wealth, Vanished When they Did:

In the next four centuries after Augustus found himself “Princeps”, power would balance between billionaires, the plutocrats and the army, until the latter increasingly defanged the Senate (where billionaires ruled), and the plutocrats embraced Christianism, thanks to Constantine’s crazed family, etc.

How did the Roman Republic collapse then? From the switch to a professional army which reverted to old methods of pillage and the like (as Alexander’s men used to). That switch itself was caused by the impoverishment of Rome’s citizen-soldiers, obvious by 150 BCE (and which the Gracchi deplored in eloquent terms, claiming Roman citizen-soldiers had it “worse than wild beasts”, although they were called the “masters of the world”).

That destitution of citizen-soldiers, in turn was caused directly by the rise of the hyper wealthy. The latifundia (giant agri businesses manned by slaves, owned by hyper wealthy Senatorial class) undercut the work product of Roman traditional peasants…. That happened because globalization made it possible immense fortunes which, coming back to Italy bought out indebted citizen-peasants whose work products were undercut by slave work (on the giant latifundia).  

The Gracchi brothers tried to impose the wealth limit laws (existing, but not enforced). They were too late. A generation or two too late (but then of course the Roman army was busy destroying Carthage allies, including Macedonia). They were in turn undercut by the rise of global plutocracy eschewing local taxes and laws. As the hyper wealthy by then could afford private armies of goons, the Gracchi and more than 5,000 of their supporters were assassinated.

So the citizen-soldiers army disappeared… All the more as the invasion of the Teutoni, Cimbri and their allies, saw the near annihilation of the entire Roman army, before the peasantish Marius, helped by the Senatorial Sylla reestablished the situation spectacularly by annihilating the invading German armies.

In any case, out of that mess came professional Roman armies, and they had to be paid… by their commanders in chief, the imperators. When imperators, such as Pompey the Great and Caesar, collided, civil war resulted.

***

We Are Engaged In A Similar Decay, With The Similar Causes to Those Which Demolished the Roman Democratic Republic

The whole process of decay of the Roman Republic arose from the economic, and then social destitution of Roman citizen peasant soldiers… the same citizen peasant soldiers who had made Greek city-states so powerful and progressive (with the exception of Sparta, where citizens were just soldiers enslaving the Helots who were the peasants (and occasional soldiers, when Sparta needed massive armies).

Now, of course, we are decaying just the same, and the leading republics, France and the USA switched to professional armies. As happened in Rome, professional armies can make coups and even, revolutions (Octavian had to do what his centurions wanted him to do; one of them went to the Senate, and brandished his sword, adding that, if the Senate didn’t agree to the propositions the army made, that sword would force them to…)

***

Same process of wealth concentration in the oligarchy, while the public perishes, as under the decaying Roman Republic: public property collapses, while private holdings (the 1%!) blooms.

Representative Oligarchy, Our Present System, Attracts deliberately idiotic greedsters:

I watched ex-Président of the French Conseil Constitutionel Jean-Louis Debré. That institution, the Conseil Constitutionel, makes sure French laws are in agreement with the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 (not the one of 1793; the UN follows 1789, not 1793; 1793 recognizes the right and duty of peoples to enter insurrection when Rights of Man are gravely oppressed: it was too progressive for the founders of the UN…) The US doesn’t have really a Constitutional Court, although the Supreme Court, SCOTUS, sometimes plays that role, somebody has to…   

Jean-Louis Debré is the son Michel Debré, long a Prime Minister, and brother of Bernard Debré, MD and MP. Also the great grand-son of a Great Rabbin of France. Same family as the famous Fields Medal mathematician , Laurent Schwartz. In other words, a family as connected as one gets, to the point of having a Wikipedia entry with around 50 names! In any case, the ci-devant Debré was on all French TV networks, day after day, to explain, with the bluntest bad faith, that Direct Democracy was the rule of the mob (he used the Greek word invented by the Greek hostage Polybius when he wanted to ingratiate himself with Roman plutocracy, circa 140 BCE… Small world, no? Debré hit just at the same period when civilization took a bad turn, and, as an oligarch, 22 centuries later, stand with the bad guys… Never mind that led straight to Nazism and he is a descendant of Jews…).

So there are those who belong to the oligarchy, and those who accede to it. Several contributors to my site have suggested the obvious: that Obama’s parents were CIA connected (that would explain why he could go through school doing dope and learning very little: the future was his, as a perfect pupett), Now finally, some on the vague left have the courage to say it as it is: the Guardian ran an excellent article saying what I long said: last thing we need is more Obamaism

…Obamaism leads us to believe that we do not need to choose, and that we can actually have it all – as long as we always make sure to line up behind policies that appease the super-wealthy.

It is, in other words, the ideology undergirding the argument recently put forward by former vice-president, Joe Biden, who insisted: “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble … the folks at the top aren’t bad guys.”

Biden gets it all wrong, and that’s deliberate: 500 billionaires are precisely why we are in trouble. Actually, it’s not 500, but more than 2.200. Some of these billionaires are just creations of the powers that be, for example Abrahamovitch, a Russian sidekick of Putin, now equipped with Israeli citizenship, tight with Beatles legend Sir Paul Mccartney. I mention this, to show even artistic leadership is tight with the plutocracy, not really distinguishable from it. So here now is the beef of this essay:

BILLIONAIRES CAN BUY OUR LEADERS, SPIRITUAL  OR POLITICAL; Here Is The Math:

In the Representative Oligarchy we have now, the wealthiest can steer the few thousands politicians, CEOs, media pundits, influence peddlers, pseudo-intellectuals, university professors, etc. who drive the world.

Their total worth in 2018 is actually 10 trillion. Let’s divide by the number of individuals, like Debré, Biden, who they need to impose plutocracy aka “Representative Democracy” as the world’s best institution: 10,000 billions/10,000 = 10^13/10^4 = 10^8 = one billion.

OK, let’s be more realistic, suppose the 2,200 billionaires spent just 1% of their worth influencing the oligarchic influencers. That gives us a very sustainable, but gigantic 10 million dollars each! In other words, the world’s 2,200 billionaires can flood those 10,000 drivers of the world’s public opinion, with ten million dollars each, while spending a tiny portion of their wealth… And a spending that doesn’t function as a tax, which would go to the state, whereas here it goes to the hearts and minds of the oligarchy itself. The 1% spent influencing the influencers functions as a force multiplier! They recover much more, as when Steve Jobs persuaded Irish politicians to tax Apple just 1% on worldwide revenue, and then probably even more to persuade EU politicians to do nothing effective about this violation of EU law (minimum tax required: 12.5%).

The Guardian nails it, repeating what I said, and saw, from inside, a decade ago already : “It is easy to understand the political utility of this third-way legend: it lets Democrats continue raising gobs of cash from satisfied corporate donors and moguls, and it at least provides voters with more palatable rhetoric than what the Republican party offers. And yet the record of third-way policies over the past few years have made painfully clear that Obamaism’s refusal to choose a side can be a nihilistic choice unto itself.”

The Guardian is too generous. What we are facing here is institutionalized corruption. Past British PM (Major, Blair) made a fortune with jobs provided to them by the billionaire class and their agents. Let alone Al Gore, who made a cool billion and got a Nobel (for talking a storm about the environment while doing nothing about it when he could…)

In France the situation is hilarious: the top intelligentsia, politicos and plutocrats talk, dine and bed each other, sometimes in fancy palaces of distant monarchies. They have ruined the country, but never mind: they thrive, they rule the spiritual waves rolling over the countries. We have seen this before, say in the Ancient Regime (entangled with the Founding Fathers of the USA, nota bene…), or even earlier when Louis XIV was busy devastating France with his ethnocide against the Protestants he was so proud of (and the ensuing world wars…) Some Gilets Jaunes, Yellow Jackets, have concluded that it would best to burn the whole thing down, that entire conspiracy. I concur (are they going to try to get me convicted to inciting to burn down a conspiracy? Right now in France, as in Putinistan, inciting to rebellion sends one to jail. Well, corrupt judges will have to admit that there is one conspiracy, first. According to the 1793 Declaration Des Droits de l’Homme, it is our DUTY to rebel, then…)

So let’s recapitulate. Spending 1% of their wealth each year actually acts as a force multiplier: billionaires make more by spending 1% of their wealth a year, than by not spending it. As observed. A billionaire goes see a president in his presidential palace (happened countless times in the White House and the Palais de l’Elysée), The billionaire makes the president a very remunerative job waits for him when coming out (OK, doesn’t work with billionaire Trump, so Trump is very bad)… if the president consents NOT to tax the company of the billionaire, or his “foundation”, or if the president consents to let his company violate antitrust laws, or environmental laws, or even national security laws (as when French or US drugs have to be all purchased in China; or when “markets” are obtained from technology transfers to… fascist dictatorships, as happened plenty from the USA to Nazi Germany and the USSR).

Or then one takes all top state bankers and economists in Europe, two hundred individuals at most, and one persuades them that, to make real money they have to keep the Euro the way it is, as a  machine to further the wealth of billionaires. And so on…

***

How To Stop This? TAX WEALTH ABSOLUTELY! REFERENDUM INITIATIVE CITIZEN!

Indeed suppose wealth was limited at, say 100 millions: then the total wealth of the wealthiest 2,200 would be only 200 billions, and the amount to spend on influencers and “leaders”, only 200,000 a year… Tempting, however, not irresistible.

The RIC: Referendum Initiative Citizenry is another way around, as the wealthiest can’t buy every single one of us.

So let’s re-establish real, direct, Democracy, after a savage 23 centuries interruption, and do both!

In 1911, a referendum in California decided that women should vote: RICs are progressive, because they are anti-oligarchic and oligarchy is always regressive. That was one the first polity to give women such rights, after Pitcairn island in 1838 (!), and Australia (1894-1902). France had to wait until after the Nazis to see this happen. So referenda have the potential to change not just politics, society, but even the neurohormonal balance of the planet.

As it, those 10,000 (mostly) men who rule the planet are not just any men. They are among the greediest, most delusional, most arrogant, shallowest, most self-absorbed guys around: they are selected that way, and they favor their kind… Just as banks lend to the wealthiest, to make them, and themselves, even wealthier.

Examples? Watch Nancy Pelosi, the incoming speaker of the House.  Her and her husband’s fortune maybe as much as $100 million. Not bad for someone who has only worked in politics, starting in 1987. Of course that fortune doesn’t include her five children (long ago, Pelosi was reported to be worth $250 million). The Senior Senator of California does even better: she and her husband are billionaires, a fortune gained in China by the husband, while the wife steered US policy there… These two examples are found within a radius of ten kilometers (and I don’t dislike Nancy, I prefer her, by a very long shot, to her predecessor Republican Ryan)…

It’s like that all over the planet: watch Macron, who went from highest level public finance inspection, to Rothschild Bank, to the finance ministry, to the presidency, all in 15 years, earning a fortune, living in a million dollar apartment, and, guess what, all this fortune earned by devious means, disappeared. And of course everybody knows Trump’s fortune was at the public teat the whole way…

And this is not just France and the USA. In Britain, the third of the large historical so-called democracies, the situation has become grotesque, and hurtful. As The Economist pointed out December 28, 2018, in its lead editorial “The elite that failed” (published after the first version of the present essay): “There are two popular explanations for this mayhem…a catalyst for a long-simmering civil war between successful Britain (which is metropolitan and liberal) and left-behind Britain (which is provincial and conservative). Both explanations have merit. But there is also a third: that the country’s model of leadership is disintegrating. Britain is governed by a self-involved clique that rewards group membership above competence and self-confidence above expertise. This chumocracy has finally met its Waterloo.

Big words, and similar concepts to those I have brandished for more than a decade. If so-called Representative Democracy in Britain, France and the US has turned to “chumocracy”, in other words, oligarchy, for all to see, time for a rethink.

Verily, electoral policy doesn’t select the best, most moral and disinterested, but the exact opposite. Removing, or, at least, controlling them with referenda of We The People will make greed, delusion, arrogance, superficiality, self-absorption less influential in steering our common destiny.

Let’s do it! Limit Wealth Absolutely and modify the constitutions to enable RICs!

As explained a bit in Note 2 below, imposing an absolute wealth limit, and the Will of All through referenda, will have metaphysical consequences: it will steer humanity away from Will to Power of destruction, to Will to Power of loving creation…. 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: Most of these iconoclastic views of mine are more than a decade old. Some can be found in the European Tribune:

https://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:4331/diary

I published there until the editor at the time informed me that some prominent European bankers, men of wealth and taste, insisted that I be banned. So he told me, he was sorry, he had to ban me, because contemporary bankers insisted that my views on 1930s bankers collaborating with the Nazis were outrageous and unsupported by evidence (one of these bankers claimed to me that he did an Internet search, and all the articles he could find on the entire Internet  on the subject were… mine!) In the same few months I was banned from the Daily Kos (a popular leftist site created by the… CIA…) and relegated at the bottom of search engines. Dirty tricks work: a decade later. my obvious views, which should be taught all over the world, are not just considered outlandish, but are fully ignored, as everything was done, not to divulge them to the well-meaning, but ignorant masses…

***

Note 2: So I hold that the switch to plutocracy unchained caused by the non-observance of wealth limiting laws, brought the fall of the Roman Republic. The same holds for other Republics, like Firenze, which fell to bankers (the Medici).

The conventional view is much more celebrity bound and shrunk in context: Julius Caesar’s political maneuvers (rather than his generalship), say the common historians, dep in their academic cheese, which had long-lasting effects on Rome and Europe. Caesar’s critical role in going against the Roman Senate by crossing the Rubicon led to the eclipse of the Roman Republic and the emergence of the Roman Empire, the common view holds: Caesar was a bad boy, that’s all.

That (Pluto compatible) view neglects all which happened before, like Lucius Cornelius Sulla’s brutal and weird dictatorship, or Cicero’s dubious, foolhardy and ultimately self-destructive breach of law and process during the “Catiline conspiracy”…

Or, as I said, the view that it is this, or that individual’s fault neglects many major social, fiscal, political factors, such as the rise of an army, a professional army, which depended upon their leaders, the imperators (not the state!) to thrive (when Caesar and Pompey met, once, at the head of their legions, they saluted each other ironically as “Ave, imperator!“… both had the title and function… Clearly who was at fault was not Caesar (born in 100 BCE) but the plutocrats who opposed and killed the Gracchi and their supporters, two generations before Caesar’s birth. Even Marius’ professionalization of the army was a consequence of the unbounded rise of Roman plutocracy. By the way, when the Roman state collapsed in the West (400 CE to around 493 CE, when the Ostrogoths took Ravenna), the plutocracy, which had contributed to that fall in many ways, including rising private armies, stealing all the riches, refusing to pay taxes, and promoting supine, turn-the-other cheek Catholicism, joined the invading barbarian bands with gusto: it is often as if the barbarians gave the Roman plutocracy the tool and excuse they needed to enter the feudal regime…

All this to say this: the devolution of Roman plutocracy over 550 years, until final collapse, show that there are no limits to how low a plutocracy will sink, to promote the brutal, cruel and demented view of humanity which defines it with glee… And why this? Because, Ecce Homo, the Dark Side gives us the neurological passion dozens of millions of years of evolution have honed to the fine art of Homo.

Accept Reality, Accept Wisdom, Truth Is Its Prophet: On Those Who Deny Columbus

November 13, 2018

History is an ocean of blood over which human hope has sailed. Removing all statues of historical figures will enable to forget that. So we are in a better position to ignore all of history. Thus, we can hope to rediscover experimentally mass slavery, systematic torture to death, mass cannibalism, as most American societies had prior to Columbus… since we can’t understand it theoretically! On our own. For our future. Claiming we are not what our ancestors were, and we still are. From Politically Correct to Political Con. Columbus left 39 men behind, on his first trip. They were certainly all killed, and probably eaten.

Los Angeles took down a statue of Columbus, as if he were Karl Marx (and his evil logic). True, the consequences of Columbus’ work is mixed. But Columbus’ basic logic, a route toward the Indies, to get to spices, while avoiding those imperialist Portuguese, was not evil…. It was just trade. Whereas lots of other logics venerated today, from Christianism to its pet, Islamism, are deeply evil.

Refusing history is refusing wisdom.

What Los Angeles should have done, was to explain what happened with Columbus. And to explain that it is US ideology, not Columbus ideology, which led to the holocaust of California “Indian” Natives… After 1848!

Accusing the Spaniards, or the Mexicans, to have massacred California Natives, as the Los Angeles supervisors implicitly did, by accusing Columbus, is the same old, white Anglo-Saxon supremacist holocaustic racism.

Los Angeles is ridiculous. Not just ridiculous, criminal.

Why criminal? Let me deploy my logic a little bit more. Because the Spaniards, and the Mexicans who followed them, those living consequences of Columbus, didn’t massacre the California Natives. Spanish ideology didn’t kill the Californians. Los Angeles supervisors claim it did. They are liars, or then criminally ignorant. The US logic, inherited the West Country men’s ideology… Of Elizabethan Age ideology…. As I pointed out in “Shakespeare Against Sade“, not all logics are the same, not all ideologies are the same, not all systems of mind are the same, they are more or less evil.

Oh, by the way, “Los Angeles” is Spanish, language of the invaders. To speak Spanish is to collaborate with the invasion, celebrating it. I propose to change to a Native Americans’ name. Ah, correct, I forgot, how silly of me, Native Americans were also invaders, colonizers, discoverers of America, so the Native Americans’ version of the Los Angeles name, should be replaced by growls and grunts of the wild beasts who preceded them…  

It’s not just the PC Americans who are grotesquely hypocritical collaborators of the West Country Men criminally invasive mentality. The European Court of Human Rights decided that to call Muhammad a PEDOPHILE, because he married a six  (6) year old, and had sex with her when she was nine (9) was a crime. So for the European Court of Human Rights, reality doesn’t apply to Muslims.

Refusing reality is refusing wisdom.

Refusing wisdom means total war, in the end. Because the present economy is completely unsustainable, with present technology. Only examining reality further will make life worth living, looking forward.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

More details:

A statue of explorer Christopher Columbus that has stood for 45 years in downtown Los Angeles’ Grand Park was removed Saturday.

“The statue of Christopher Columbus rewrites a stained chapter of history that romanticizes expansions of European empires and exploitations of natural resources and of human beings,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis, who authored the motion to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day.

“We have all inherited this complex, difficult history.

Minimizing — or worse, ignoring — the pain of Los Angeles’ original inhabitants is a disservice to the truth. The removal of the Columbus statue in Grand Park is an act of restorative justice that honors and embraces the resilient spirit of our County’s original inhabitants. With its removal, we begin a new chapter of our history where we learn from past mistakes so we are no longer doomed to repeat them.”

Los Angeles’ area was discovered by Europeans around 1602 CE, generations after Columbus’ death, and then not visited by Europeans for another 166 years. Later, 11 Spanish-speaking families established themselves there. Among 5,000 Natives in the basin. By the time of the arrival of the Spanish in the 18th century A.D., there were 250,000 to 300,000 native people in California and 5,000 in the Los Angeles basin. Since contact with Europeans, the people in what became Los Angeles were known as Gabrielinos and Fernandeños, after the missions associated with them. Native Americans in North America were not massacred by followers of Columbus, but of the mood of the West Country Men

The removal event featured a news conference and a Native American ceremonial dance.

“This is a natural next step in the progression to eliminate the false narrative that Christopher Columbus discovered America,” Los Angeles City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell said earlier in the week. Maybe it will help: after all, the Vikings went all over north-east America. They couldn’t settle, because the Natives tried to exterminate them. By exterminating the Vikings, the Natives sealed their fate: interbreeding with the Viking would have made native Americans immunologically stronger.

“Columbus himself was personally responsible for committing atrocities and his actions set in motion the greatest genocide in recorded history. His image should not be celebrated anywhere.”

Well, certainly others than Columbus can be celebrated, such as Hypatia massacred by Saint Cyril. Saint Cyril is still a saint, that’s a much bigger problem than Columbus… Because Saint Cyril wanted to massacre non-Christians. Columbus didn’t particularly want to massacre Native Americans. Yes, in the end, there was a genocide. However a genocide, like all and any evil has a logic, and it is this logic that is evil. Columbus’ logic was not evil. Saint Cyril’s logic was evil. Celebrating Saint Cyril is celebrating his evil logic.  

PA

 

Pétain, Racism, Treason, Racist World Wars, USA, Macron: the Eternal Wheel of Hateful Infamy, & Smugly Ignorant Complicity

November 8, 2018

The young, yet arrogant merger and acquisition banker turned French president, Emmanuel Macron, decided to honor Marshall Petain. Parroting Chirac, Macron said Petain was a hero who made “funestes” (lethal) choices (funeste comes from the Latin “funus”, namely a burial…)

Macron’s infamy encountered an outcry, in particular from Jewish organizations.

Indeed Petain’s criminal organization (“government”) passed a number of racial laws in particular against the Jews.

Petain had succeeded to hold the German fascist invaders at Verdun in 1916. (France had plenty of other generals who could have done the same.)  

The Battle of Verdun fought from 21 February to 18 December 1916, was the largest and longest battle of the First World War on the Western Front between the German and French armies. The battle took place on the hills north of Verdun-sur-Meuse in north-eastern France. The German 5th Army attacked the defences of the Fortified Region of Verdun (RFV, Région Fortifiée de Verdun) and those of the French Second Army on the right bank of the Meuse. Inspired by the experience of the Second Battle of Champagne in 1915, the Germans planned to capture the Meuse Heights, an excellent defensive position with good observation for artillery fire on Verdun. The Germans hoped that the French would commit reserves to recapture the position and suffer catastrophic losses in a battle of annihilation, at little cost to the Germans in advantageous positions on the heights.

The Germans captured Fort Douaumont in the first three days of the offensive. The German advance slowed in the next few days. By 6 March, ​21 French divisions were in the RFV and a more extensive defence in-depth had been constructed. Pétain ordered that no withdrawals were to be made and that counter-attacks were to be conducted, despite exposing French infantry to fire from the German artillery. By 29 March, French artillery on the west bank had begun a constant bombardment of German positions on the east bank, which caused many German infantry casualties.

In August and December, French counter-offensives recaptured much of the ground lost on the east bank and recovered Fort Douaumont and Fort Vaux. The battle had lasted for 303 days, the longest and one of the most costly in human history. In 2000, Hannes Heer and K. Naumann calculated 377,231 French and 337,000 German casualties, a total of 714,231, an average of 70,000 a month. In 2014, William Philpott wrote of 976,000 casualties in 1916 and 1,250,000 suffered around the city during the war.

World War One had been launched deliberately by the German imperial fascists in early August 1914. Their aim had been to destroy France first, then Russia, and finally, after it got an army together, force Great Britain to surrender. However after smashing into Belgium, and crushing northern France, the racist fascist invaders suffered a brilliant counterattack at the First Battle of the Marnes between 6 September and 13 September 1914.

Fascist German Troops Fighting the French REPUBLIC At Verdun, France, 1916. Ultimately more than 1.2 million casualties at Verdun alone, in a radius of a few kilometers.

French Commander In Chief Joffre was able to bring General Michel-Joseph Maunoury’s newly-formed Sixth Army into line northeast of Paris and to the west of the BEF. Using these two forces, he planned to attack on September 6. On September 5, Kluck learned of the approaching enemy and began to wheel his First Army west to meet the threat posed by the French Sixth Army. In the resulting Battle of the Ourcq, Kluck’s men were able to put the French on the defensive. While the fighting prevented the Sixth Army from attacking the next day, it did open a 50 kilometer (30-mile) gap between the First and Second German Armies.

Utilizing the new technology of aviation, French reconnaissance planes quickly spotted this gap and reported it to Joffre. Moving to exploit the opportunity, Joffre ordered General Franchet d’Espérey’s French Fifth Army and the BEF into the gap. As these forces moved to isolate the German First Army, Kluck continued his attacks against Maunoury. Composed largely of reserve divisions, the Sixth Army came close to breaking but was reinforced by troops brought from Paris by taxicab, buses and other motorized vehicles on September 7. On September 8, the aggressive d’Espérey launched a large-scale attack on Bülow’s Second Army driving it back.

By the next day, both the German First and Second Armies were being threatened with encirclement and destruction. Told of the threat, Moltke suffered a nervous breakdown. (The breakdown lasted months and was kept secret; Moltke had been the main fascist behind the foolhardy German attack onto the world and civilization.) 

During that week on the Marnes, 80,000 French troops died, and so did 68,000 Germans. (1,700 British, fighting under French command, also died.; the BEF, equivalent to a French army corps was not aggressive, because of its commander, also named… French. That enabled the german invaders to escape…)

The German retreat at the Marnes marked the abandonment of the Schlieffen Plan, that sneak attack on civilization. Overall German commander, and war plotter Moltke is said to have reported to the Kaiser: “Your Majesty, we have lost the war.” In the aftermath of the battle, both sides dug in and four years of stalemate ensued.

I went into some length about the First Battle of the Marnes to explain that, relative to these great feats, by great generals, in a war of movement, Pétain’s work pales into obscurity: his main battle, Verdun, was one of fortresses. One kilometer here, one kilometer there… But there is worse.

***

So yes, Pétain was a hero at Verdun. But he was put there, under orders from higher-ups in the French hierarchy. Pétain was following orders. He organized supply lines (Voie Sacree), got French soldiers executed.

When I heard of Macron’s temporary collapse of reason, I sent a message to a number of organizations.

Marshall Pétain obeyed at Verdun. However, when dictator of France, he chose to set up racist anti-Jewish laws. A crime against humanity. Pétain also agreed to a pro-Nazi ceasefire in June 1940, instead of pursuing the war from Algeria (Nazis couldn’t seize that). So he is a Nazi traitor to France & civilization, worthy of death!

Pétain was indeed condemned to death in 1946, and struck with national indignity.

Let me repeat my points:

  1. When Pétain was a hero, he was actually not just executing soldiers, but executing orders. Executing soldiers? The orders not to retreat were given using the old Roman method of executing those who disobeyed.
  2. When Pétain was on his own, in June 1940, he betrayed, first the Republic (France was a Republic fighting a lethally racist invading tyranny, the natural scion of the despicable tyranny of 1914… Not to speak of the holocaust in Namibia earlier…). Then Pétain betrayed civilization with his racial laws.  

In 1940, France had been the victim of her own commander-in-chief, who didn’t see the trap Hitler and the German High Command had led him in (although his second in command told him it was a possibility). A number of incredible coincidences made the situation worse (for example the absence of the Second Armored British division, which was supposed to be where the Nazi tanks passed). In 40 days the Battle of France (as it came to be known) caused 360,000 dead or wounded French soldiers, and around 164,000 casualties on the Nazi and Italian side (a bit more than 6,000 Italian died, and more than 50,000 Nazis).

Considering perhaps the callous disregard the USA showed for the peril in which France and britain, its parents, were. Pétain called for a ceasefire.

Asking for a ceasefire with the Nazis in 1940 was a mistake: it made the French empire weak, when it was far from defeated. The French fleet and French aviation were ultramodern, mostly intact and in great numbers. Retreating to North Africa, they could have prevented indefinitely the Nazis to get to Africa (the British, with much smaller forces than the French had, all by themselves, succeeded to nearly do so).   

Paradoxically, by holding Africa (and the Middle East), the French Republic would have been in better situation to protect French citizens in occupied France.

But then, of course, the population of France in 1939 was less than in 1914. Thanks to the butchery of WWI. Many French didn’t feel like dying for another war whose great and only victor was going to be the USA again… French die, US profits. (And you tell me Trump is bad? Relative to what?)

So why didn’t Pétain choose that route? Because he was a racist (against Jews, at the very least). A closet Nazi. It’s also for the same reason that De Gaulle, also a racist (this one against North Africans), was so fond of Pétain’s memory.

Actually, Pétain was filth. He should be celebrated as such. And only as such. His glory in WWI is nothing: it was ordered to him. Pétain clearly deserved death much more than King Louis XVI. Ah, but then, Macron said France couldn’t get over the execution of the king (although Britain clearly had). And that France still longed for a king… So, if Louis XVI was not that culprit, then neither was Pétain…

US citizens, reading all this, could smirk: who cares? Well, the French Republic, and her multiethnic empire twice saved the world by fighting to death German lethally racist fascism in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Pétain was Hitler’s soulmate. It’s important to be able to distinguish who was with Adolf and his ilk, and who was against.

The USA played a crucial Deus Ex Machina role in both world wars, encouraging & enabling lethal fascist German racist militarism in many ways. Now many (pseudo-) progressives in the USA vent hatred at Trump. As if Trump were culprit of what the USA did for real with its German proxy in 1914-45! It’s clearly unconscious, but those (pseudo) progressives would gain in power if they knew what truly happened, in the real world of real fascism and real racism, and how US plutocracy enacted its hatred.

In 1914-1917, the USA helped the Kaiser (and then did a 180 degrees as it became clear France and Britain were going to win). In 1933-1941, the USA and its plutocracy helped Hitler (and arguably more, as many US firms collaborated with Hitler, throughout the war… IBM, for example, from New York, through Geneva, kept on managing all the computers of Nazi Germany, all the way to May 8, 1945…)

Those who judge others, as if they knew history, should learn it first.

To finish with the traitor Pétain, traitor to France, the Republic, civilization and humanity, rightly condemned to death and national indignity. Pétain’s greatest glory in WWI was to order shot to death panicked soldiers, to make French soldiers fear their own generals more than the robotic racist fascists they were fighting. The least that could have been done, was to give him some of his own medicine, all the way. (Some, who were much less culprit than Pétain were executed; France executed up to 40,000 Nazi collaborators in 1944-45-46…)

Because it was not done, now we have ignorant, arrogant twerps telling us Pétain was a great man, at some point. One can be great, according to Macron, although one engaged in racist genocide. If Pétain had been executed, as he should have been, Macron would have reviewed his copy, before uttering his racist drivel.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

The French REPUBLIC suffered 1.4 million KIA and 4.2 million wounded, including 15,000 “gueules cassees”, soldiers with atrociously destroyed faces.  Ten billion letters between French soldiers and loved ones were exchanged.

 

Physics Needs Strong Philosophy More Than Ever: Scandal of the 5%!

October 1, 2018

And it has to do with the rule of the 1%! 

Philosophy is often dominated by weaklings. Sometimes, centuries of weaklings. Let’s avert our eyes from the Nazi Heidegger: fools love Heidegger, because fools love Nazi style of thinking. So does those who favor the rule of the few, because Nazi style thinking has to do with fascist thinking, thinking according to a few ideas and a few men (“Jesus”, Constantine, Saint Augustine, Muhammad, etc.)

Perhaps the most prominent example mixing barbarity, philosophy and stupidity is the Christianized Middle Ages: Epicurus wrote 300 books. All were meticulously destroyed by Christians. Only three letters of Epicurus survived… What was Epicurus writing about, why did Christians hated him so much? Atomic theory. The Greeks considered it highly probable, they thought they had experimental proof. They also had mechanical computers and very advanced elements of mathematics and physics which the Christians also eradicated. It requires some effort to go back to barbarity!

The Christians hated atomic theory, which denied the whole transmutation of bread and wine into body and blood of Christ: Christians “thinkers” wrote millions of pages on the divine transmutation, using Plato and Aristotle’s fishy onanistic theories of the universe. (For Plato that there was a realm of pure “forms”, nothing real, and for Aristotle that there were ten categories, including “essence”; Middle Age philosophers used those heavily… ironically my own SQPR re-institute Dark Matter as essence: my DM interacts with matter some, by causing “spontaneous collapse”… but let’s not deviate from the subject at hand…)

The first thing a decadent civilization does, is to spite philosophy, spite the lovers of wisdom: decadence springs from brute force, not wisdom.

Real, deepest physicists were, and are all philosophers:

Inventing new ideas enables to discover the intricate logic of the world. Invention starts with being a friend of wisdom: why is it that I think, what is it that they think they know and take for granted, and why? Is there a more precise, better informed way?

Anti-philosophy of pop scientists is partly a consequence of the success thus domination of the “shut up & calculate” school. Top physicist Feynman, despised the philosophers he knew. But he, himself, was a philosopher, and it showed up even in what he considered a valid reasoning to be (Feynman had a peculiar way of reasoning; same with Einstein, De Broglie, etc.) Feynman’s son became a philosopher. Physics describes no more than 5% world, it needs strong philosophy!

The other reason why pop philosophers and pop scientists are also anti-philosophy? Because their masters, those who pay them and advance their careers, are themselves in the employ of plutocrats and their organizations, who hate wisdom… as it would be lethal to them, and their organizations…

And physics needs stronger, more subtle logic!

It has always been clear to me that, on a cosmic scale, Quantum Theory makes no sense: basically physics as we affect to know it, is local. However, Quantum Theory speaks as it the world was global. This leads to a contradiction, which has surfaced in the prestigious journal Nature for all to see: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06749-8

“Nature News 18 SEPTEMBER 2018
Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists
In a multi-‘cat’ experiment, the textbook interpretation of quantum theory seems to lead to contradictory pictures of reality, physicists claim.”

Logic is ever more subtle. Consider the following cartoon from “Philosophy Matters“, a consortium of US academic philosophers (which at some point told me my smarts made me insufferably obnoxious, or words to this effect):

Cute, first order correct, but subtly wrong!

Actually, if people are already dead, they can’t die anymore. People who don’t breathe could be already dead, thus can’t die. Because one doesn’t die again. Hence the second cartoon should read: people who stop breathing, die. Context: not everything, but most of the thing!

The same goes for partisanship: people love the frenzy of the herd they belong to, and the simplistic logic it leads to.

Actually Trump has ordered the FBI to make a full inquiry. But an investigation, except for the grossest things (crime against humanity), can’t be made correctly 36 years later… Defense is automatically at a disadvantage against false memories. (BTW, Republican Senator Flake, a blonde, after been cornered in an elevator by irate women, called for the FBI inquiry, saying he would vote against Kavanaugh otherwise.)

Cute cartoon. Indeed, Justice has got to be a blonde with pink skin: always was, always will. However cute, not the whole truth, which is much more tragic. Namely it’s far from being only the so-called “Republicans” who smother justice. “Partisanship” is not the solution. The entire legislative system needs a re-think. Towards direct democracy.

“Donald J. Trump‏
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!”

Right. Let’s seriously investigate the fashion, and age old tradition, in the USA, of getting drunk, especially among young people, damaging their brains, and using alcoholism to get away with the basest behaviors, and habits. This goes both for the accuser and the accused here! (By the way, frazzled by his elder brother dying of alcoholism, Donald Trump does not do drugs, including alcohol.)

One can’t have the better, and progressive civilization needed for planetary survival, when too many brains of the leadership are damaged by drugs. It’s not just a question that their performances are inferior to have they could be, or should be. The mood that drug addiction gives a sense to life brings forth the tendency, the overall mentality, that the mind should be overwhelmed by out-of-this-world modes of operations, which enable the brain to forget reality as it is. And what are the greatest out-of-this-world neurohormonal regimes? All these having to do with violence, fight or flight, and will to power.

OK, those can be correct to use, but only if one knows what one is playing around, and in the full knowledge of the associated causations. And what of those 5%? They relate to the proverbial 1% who own the world. Both are able to do so because common people are tolerant of theories which explain very little, and are impossible to understand: why is gigantic economic equality necessary, how can it be deemed to be compatible with democracy? Well, look at physics: there a theory is called Theory Of Everything, and it explains not even 5%. Similarly modern economics sustains mostly 1% and is just as impossible to understand. They are made to each other, sustain the same mood of mystification!

In the Middle Ages, persons with lots of character, knew all too well that many of the official (Christian) theories were wrong: Beranger de Tour, a church authority, held that reason was god, and thus that the church should obey to reason. The pope was not amused, councils were organized to castigate Berenger, excommunicate him and deprive him of authority. But Berenger held his ground, in spite of the fact heresy could bring the death penalty, until the natural end of his life, in no small part because he was discreetly supported by the ultra powerful Duke of Normandy, a superman in more ways than one.

William the Conqueror was known to hold that the Earth turned around the sun, and mention it during banquets. Heliocentrism, even with the empirical science of the time, was pretty obvious (the small thing, the Earth should turn around the big thing, the Sun, plus, obviously, the Sun didn’t turn around the Moon, thus the Earth-Moon system; the ancient Greeks knew how to measure those distances, using shadows…) William was not afraid to mention it: once, in combat, he vanquished 15 knights. Alone. Mental courage and physical courage are two faces of the same coin.

We need stronger philosophy, the medicine of civilization. Failure of enough of a meta-critical mentality allowed the rule of ideologies which brought us the 1%, thanks to modern economics, and the 5%, thanks to the “shut up and calculate” ideology in physics. “Shut up and calculate” is exactly the ideology defended by Barack Obama in his pseudo-autobiographies, in the service of what he called “navigation” (or how to get to the top). 

Just as genes can go across species, moods can go across fields of mental activity. The overall mood of Ionian and Greater Greece and Athens before they got broken by the Peloponnesian War, was one of inquiry, that means, maximum criticism. After that, and while, and because the great fascist regimes of Rome, Carthage and Macedonia grew in power, the spirit of inquiry shrank: Greek mathematics forgot about NON-Euclidean geometry, and concentrated upon Euclidean geometry, which is much more fascist (it has stronger axioms… restricting mental freedom). Amazingly, although Pytheas of Marseilles had computed (accurately!) the size of the Earth, 23 centuries ago, after the great fascism of Macedonia and then Christianized Rome, arose, the very possibility of spherical geometry became a scientific impossibility, so intellectually fascist the minds became, for 2,000 years…

The Aztecs were defeated because, instead of being legalistic like Qin China. they were into mass cannibalism, and Cortes’ 450 men found hundreds of thousands of local allies who were strongly motivated by their desire to escape barbecues. When the Qin empire collapsed, the Han took over, and repeated Qin mentality in detail, this time to last centuries as a giant empire. And much of Qin mentality survives to this day. (All too much, come to think of it… And yes, amazingly, this essay will be read in China’s People Republic… Qin famously practiced censorship of bad philosophy, ordering the destruction of the “100 schools” (it failed), but spared what was viewed as scientifically, legally and historically significant…)

Each civilization has one mood, it pervades all. It evolves in time, not always for the best.

Patrice Ayme