Archive for the ‘history’ Category

Football Teaches Russia A Lesson

July 8, 2018

Plutocrat Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev looks dejected, while the president of Croatia celebrates.

President Croatia celebrating. Medvedev, a football fan (on the lower right) is experiencing pain.

I call Medvedev a plutocrat, be it only because he has been very powerful, for all too long, doing Putin dirty business. Also it has been alleged in detail, from different sources, that he is personally wealthy. An internationally renown bat researcher claimed he had to flee Russia for stumbling on Medvedev’s properties under construction, which destroyed caves in the Sochi area. A video by anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny purports to show “the vast trove of mansions, villas and vineyards accumulated” by Medvedev. Putin ex-wife, who had no discernable income or inheritance, ever, is also a multi-millionaire, with one property alone…

 

Friends again, at least for the next few minutes…

Russia has long felt rejected by the West. It has been. In a sense it was always from the east. Actually, the Rus, who founded Russia, where Swedes from eastern Sweden. The oldest human stock was, paradoxically, German: this is highly confusing: Germans used to live in the area more recent Germans considered peopled by Slavs (slaves). So the ancestry of Russia is a mix of Swedes, old Germans, and more recent Mongols (look at the Mongol style eyes of Lenin, Brezhnev, Putin…)

Viking colonization followed the network of mighty rivers of Russia, all the way to the Black Sea. Trade flourished, northern furs against all kinds of goodies from the south, Rome or the Muslim empires. It’s Ukraine which founded Rus, and then expanded east. Republics, such as Novgorod, appeared. Ukraine had seized Crimea from the Tartars, who, themselves had seized it from the Greco-Romans. Vladimir of Ukraine converted to Catholic Orthodoxy, eastern style.

The Russians were able to stop the eastward expansion of the Teutonic Knights. However, not the assault of the Mongols. The Mongols occupied Russia, massacring away. When the Mongols pushed further west, Western Europe united militarily, and the Mongol victories came with a heavy, unsustainable price. Then the Mongols remembered what happened to their ancestors the Huns when they invaded Gallia: they were utterly defeated, and owed their survival to the duplicity of the Roman commander Aetius (who had lived with the Huns prior). The war techniques of the Mongols were not adapted to wet,cold, forested areas. The superb bows would lose their snap, it would be impossible to move fast, etc.

The Mongols reached the Croatian coast and turned back (pretexting the election of the next Khan beckoned).

For many centuries Russia was occupied by savage invaders…

Yet the Golden Horde stayed in command of Russia, using Moscow as a tax collector. Ivan the Terrible would make Russia independent again. In the Russian psyche, a question looms: why didn’t the West call a Crusade to free Russia from the savages? First it was a problem of distance. Anne of Kiev, daughter of the Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev and Novgorod had married the king of France, Henri I in 1051 CE, and acquired a tremendous importance (she spoke 6 languages and found the French court uncouth; the king proudly signed his documents, mentioning Anne approved of them…). She had four children, including the next king Philip I of France. All subsequent French kings were her progeny. She made a scandalous second marriage (the husband, not her, was excommunicated). Anne never went back to Kiev (she was too important in France, but also it would take forever to go across Europe by land: the success of the Greco-Romans was maritime, sea transport being very fast and very cheap, relative to land transport.)

***

A refined analysis shows that the Cyrillic alphabet itself and the distanciation of Eastern Christianity from the Western one were deliberate: the Bulgarians and Constantinople wanted bad relationships with the Franks, they wanted to get, and keep them, alienated, and it worked!

Those Franks were the Eastern Franks, dominated by the Saxons whom Charlemagne had vanquished… And had become the pillars of the “Renovated Roman Empire”. In a further testimony to human frailty, after the alienation with the Franks was launched, Constantinople reached the apex of its power, around the year 1,000 CE. However, things turned quickly for the worse, and by the end of the Eleventh Century, the Franks had been called to the rescue, launching the First Crusade. Conclusion: alienation for alienation’s sake, should be avoided…

It is high time to bury the hatchet.

Football/Soccer helps, and that’s good.

Croatia beat Russia, barely, during the session of goal kicks. The Russians learned something again: that it is good never to forget: a nation of four millions can beat one of 144 millions (a lesson learned the hard way when Finland won quite a few battles against Russia in 1939-1940; then the USSR suffered five times the casualties of Finland, nearly 400,000…)

Russia found one more reason for paranoia in the 1990s: the US proposed its help, the best possible help, the one from places such as Harvard. But Harvard is, at least in the humanities, including politics and economy, is, at best, a conspiracy: it is there to make things better for the world plutocracy it partakes in. So the advice to Russia was to constitute a plutocracy founded on new stock issues. In my thought system in socioeconomy, Stalin’s rule was also a plutocracy, a plutocracy of the tyrannical type (tyran = unique): one man commanded the USSR and was the ultimate capitalist. The advice of Harvard was to constitute a diversified plutocracy (many plutocrats, not just one). Thus many Harvard professors and their ilk were able to profit (there was never a special prosecutor for that scandal).

The reaction was the ascent and popularity of Putin… And Putin military expansionism, the first such madness in Europe since Adolf Hitler’s pathetic little adventure.

The solution is diversification in very advanced technology… as China is doing. Paradoxically, China can do it better, because it’s more dictatorial… Also China believes it is high-tech for a few millennia. Putin had, long ago, proposed a strange alliance with the European Union, complete with Russian guns to protect Europe. This ignored the fact that the USA is not just a West European colony, but twice the child of France (through Great Britain, and also directly). Instead, Russia should remember it started as a European colony too. One of the reason of the spectacular ascendency of the USA has been enormous injection of financial capital, in the nineteenth century, and human capital, in the last two centuries, straight from Europe.

So Russia, should it want to develop must open to European immigration, technological, human and financial and to open to Europe in general: that could actually alleviate the migrant problem Europe is facing (a mild problem so far; but that could change).

The world cup is an open hand, and Trump, a practical man, is coming with another. Let the occasion be seized… And remember to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, this should be the top priority: an accident could happen so fast… The nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA are oversized. The French Republic, with its 600 (300 only announced, in a slight of hands) thermonuclear “oceanic” warheads has enough to decapitate all the major powers, together. So why do the US and Russia need ten times that?

Russia can, and should make friends with the West: with 70% more land area than the next continental sized countries (Canada, USA, China), and a warming climate, there is a lot to develop… With 1.5 billion Chinese ready to help, otherwise, as Stalin suddenly noticed to his own horror, when he finally understood what Mao was up to…

Patrice Ayme

Advertisements

Order Of The Day: Elated Or Discouraged? (Pondering Éric Vuillard’s L’Ordre Du Jour)

April 28, 2018

Abstract: a small French book got the French top literary prize for exposing partly, and on a very small, (carefully?) biased, amputated scale, what yours truly has blared about in a much larger, all-encompassing, exuberant manner: Nazism was not just about, and born of, Germany, but a much more global and sinister phenomenon… Still at work today, arguably, more than ever! The idea that the few, intrinsically superior, should reign over the many. Thus not just a matter of plutocrats and corporations, but a way of thinking, or, rather, not thinking… Nazism’s fundamental principle was that the few has the right to do as they pleased with the many (the essence of the evil side of colonialism; justified, like the most vicious colonialism by a version of evolution, of Darwinism, dating back from Papal pronouncements in the Middle Ages!)

Hence Nazism was not a “populist” movement: that was what the three millions “SA” were led to believe, hiding the truth. 

Verily, it was the elite, and to a crucial enabling extent, the Anglo-Saxon elite (some straight from Wall Street) which propelled Nazism. Globalists want this fact to be hidden absolutely, lest an enlightening perspective throws a sinister light on the present rise of inequality. 

(Realizing that banks such as JP Morgan enabled Nazism would lead to reconsider the same banks, or banking in general, more severely today; This has to be kept in mind as popular movements everywhere are accused of fascism and “populism”; the fascism of the 1930s was actually energized by the elite, from Japan, to italy, to germany. In the latter two cases, US involvement was crucial.)

My point of view, that the elite engineered fascism, (not surprisingly, as it is intrinsically fascist!) is gaining ground! Should I be elated, to see my viewpoint progress, or discouraged, as others get famous prizes for saying only a fraction , however valuable, of what I say yet… as it, what the prize gatherers say, is carefully engineered to leave the elite ideology sustaining the present evil socio-economy in place?

Éric Vuillard wrote a historical narration about the shady deals, business, social or military, behind the Nazi annexation of Austria in 1938.

I have written plenty on the involvement of the powers, of the “elites”, that be, in the deadliest conflicts of the Twentieth Century. I claimed that those massacres, including various holocausts,  didn’t happen by accident, but by elitist conspiracies, in plain sight (whereas textbook versions prefer to claim that World War One was an accident, and WWII sprung out because of the Versailles Treaty, both egregious lies). It doesn’t mean that I believe the elites plotted the death camps… But very close to it: they conspired to make them possible: they breathed together to make something like that possible. And the best proof is that, when they knew about it, for sure, they did nothing about it (bombing, or simply speaking of the ongoing holocausts was not hard to do… they didn’t, because they were on to it!)  

Vuillard lifts up a tiny piece of the bloody veil. It will help the selling of his book in the USA, the world’s largest market, that no American was hurt or endangered in Vuillard’s exposition. (In truth one can allege that the main force behind WWI and WWII, besides German idiocy, was US manipulation, a manipulation by the world’s wealthiest and most manipulative men… And the “moral persons” they brought up… which still rule…)

Those massacres of the world war 1914-1945 happened mostly because the way we are, our ancestors were, trained to think and feel, or not to think and not to feel, by the elite brings us to injure ourselves, as intended. We are imprinted to desire to injure ourselves, even as we desire to read what we do. The so-called representative “democracies” we are subjected to, are part of the plot. Actually they are just a front for raw plutocracy.

Hitler and British Prime Minister Chamberlain in Hitler’s Munich apartment. Eva Braun giggled when she saw such pictures, saying that Chamberlain couldn’t imagine what happened on that sofa. The entanglement of British high society and hyper nationalistic and business circles in Germany, was only outclassed by the US financial, technological and economic entanglement. It resulted in the British-Nazi Treaty of 1935, and the US refusal to seriously oppose Nazism, until Hitler declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941, 4 days after Pearl Harbor… The British and US American elites, by hindering the French Republic, were arguably even more helpful to Hitler, than the German elite (an allusion to Churchill’s 1929 threats against France, pre-Nazism, when France discovered that Germany was secretly re-arming, violating the Versailles Treaty… or the 1935 Naval Treaty…)

Should I be discouraged, or encouraged that a tiny fellow birdie, singing a song reminiscent of mine, was rewarded for his little tweeting, while my thunderous orchestra against conventional thinking and deviant, plutocratic-serving history is ignored on the grandest scale?

Well, it took centuries for Confucius to be noticed out of the complete obscurity his work enjoyed (not that Confucius should have been noticed; he got noticed, precisely because he served a certain type of establishment, which didn’t serve China very well, as was noticed several times by Chinese leaders, in the last 24 centuries…).

Great thoughts, like great stars, take a long time to reach out and enlighten humans… It’s not that we didn’t die, we always do, it’s how we thought, which makes a long-term difference.

***

A novel look at history in novel form:

I rarely read so-called “novels”, those works which allow some people to make a lot of money, and others to forget reality, or, even learn to enjoy the worst it has to offer: the Harry Potter novelist in Britain made more than a billion pounds, dollars, or euros. Harry Potter (I am no specialist) seems to be a glorification of the British class structure (plutocracy), installing it upon the non-demystified science of witchcraft (British plutocracy used to rest strongly upon Christianism, but that’s full of cracks). Thus Harry Potter was very useful to the establishment, on both sides o the Atlantic, and was naturally promoted as indispensable to form well-balanced youth, ready to serve their better.

France has a prestigious book prize, the Goncourt. The Goncourt is a sort of internal to France Nobel of literature; it may be less corrupt than the Nobel Prize itself… although that’s not a tall order: prizes with the name “Nobel” attached have been immensely corrupt: the literature Nobel is shaken presently by a huge corruption scandal, et prizes such as the one in economy are devoted to the Neo-Liberal order of things, the exact same one ruling today… As the latest Goncourt itself concludes…

What, isn’t the Goncourt given to novels? The Goncourt 2017 was given to “L’Ordre du Jour” (The Order of the Day”). It is described on its first page not as a novel (French ‘roman”), but as a  “ récit” (a narration; the sense of “tale” for récit, as some dictionaries have it, is too restrictive). And a narration it is!

***

The Order of the Day:

February 20, 1933, under an icy sun during a harsh Berlin winter: a meeting of twenty-four German captains of industry, Krupp, Von Opel, and heads of Siemens, Allianz, Bayer, IG Farben, with senior Nazi officials is held secretly in the plush lounge of the German Parliament, the Reichstag. Nazi officials, at the invitation of the Reichstag president, the mesmerizing Hermann Goering, a famous WWI ace, want funds to help the National Socialist Party, already in power, to win more elections, increasing the power of its Chancellor, Hitler, even more. This opening scene sets a tone of respectful, dignified consent to the worst abuses of power, and thus to the worst possible repercussions, no questions asked. Plutocracy at its best: see no evil, hear no evil, talk no evil.

Krupp. Top prize, for a tiny piece of Nazi history, and a very limited analysis. Yet, Vuillard drives some important points across: the entanglement of the elites, and how easily it should have been to stop Nazism…

(As it is, the Marxists long considered that Nazism was the fruit of a conspiracy between “monopoly capitalist” and the Junker class (typically old Prussian aristocrats, often known as “Freiherr”).

The book describes the encouraging consent of German captains of industry to Nazism in 1938. It misses entirely the gigantic and crucial financing of the Nazis by Henry Ford and other US corporations and powerful financiers, as early as the early 1920s… Or even prior, the crucial influence of important Anglo-Saxon intellectuals (Keynes) or leaders (Wilson). (Tellingly, the Marxists missed that one too… because they also profited from US plutocracy in Moscow… It would not have looked good to let it be known that the Soviets were US plutocracy propelled… As the Yalta Treaty made it lain for all to see, and nobody to observe, but for De Gaulle and assorted French…)

The argument I made, as forcefully as I could, was that Nazism was not just about, and born of, Germany, but a much more global and sinister movement… Still at work today, more than ever. And not just a matter of plutocrats and corporations, but a way of thinking, or, rather, not thinking… A principle that the few has the right to exploit the many (the essence of the evil side of colonialism).

***

The vicious, arrogant and manipulative Joachim Von Ribbentrop, long a top social feature in London. Von Rib was hanged slowly at Nuremberg (good!) In the 1930s, UK Prime Minister Chamberlain rented his London residence, a sumptuous apartment at 27 Eaton Square, to Nazi Ambassador von Ribbentrop. This seems extraordinary, and exemplifies the connivence of the plutocrats Nazi or British (Von Ribbentrop and Chamberlain, who grew sisal in the Bahamas, both had extremely wealthy families.)

***

The Nazis were bottle-fed by Anglo-Saxons capitalists, politicians, and Lords:

Lord Keynes, pillar of the Neo-Liberal order, invented in 1919 the racist and Nazi thesis that the Versailles Treaty would be disastrous for the economy in general and the universe, in particular, considering the obvious subhuman status of Poles, and Czechs, relative to Germans. The Nazis, once born, thanks to Ford, gobbled that one up. US students are still running away with it, as the headless chickens they all too often are.

Famously, Bertrand Russell, the philosopher was detained for 18 months in World War One, and was otherwise restricted by authorities for insisting in writing that Europe would be better off, ruled by the Kaiser, and submitting to him. He considered democracy no better than “to uphold the inherent canine right of running on the pavement (democracy)”.… And considered wise and glorious to act just as the 24 captains of German industry did with Goering: bend to the will of the mighty (that was self-serving, as Bertrand Russell was one of the mightiest Lords in Britain).

Nazism was even procreated by a collective effort of many of the mightiest Anglo-Saxons: not only was Henry Ford a virulent anti-Jewish racist, but US president Wilson, a power on the side of the racist, imperial Second Reich, made possible a prolonged World War One (by feeding vital materials to the Kaiser’s fascist, war criminal military machine, for three long years, before taking possession of the Franco-British victory of 1918, with a timely betrayal of his fellow racists…). In the 1920s, Germany was thoroughly penetrated and managed by US agents (Dr. Schacht)  and their plans.

The Dawes and Young plans profited spectacularly to Germany, by injecting capital in the German industry, while hobbling the French one, by starving it of coal… many French coal mines had been destroyed by the Germans in WWI, so the US alleviated the compensations Germany should have paid; by 1926, thanks to the US Wall Street and government combined, German steel industry dominated Europe, and Germany was flushed with US capital… The half-brother of PM Chamberlain, also called Chamberlain, got the Nobel Peace Prize, with Dawes, for the plan which made Germany a super power as early as 1926, ready to crush France. One has to realize that Weimar was still called the “Second Reich” and was not really a Republic (whereas France was). 

***

The march of Nazism was anything but straightforward:  

March 12, 1938, a bitterly cold day, the annexation of Austria is on the menu, Hitler is shivering with excitement: A grotesque day intended to demonstrate the march of history to the entire planet. The thousand-year Reich: the newsreels capture a formidable motorized army on the move, a terrible, inexorable power. But hidden behind Goebbels’s splendid propaganda, an ersatz Blitzkrieg unfolds, the Panzers breaking down en masse on the roads into Austria, have to be pushed to the side to let the delayed motorcade of a contemptuous Hitler pass.

The “Ordre du Jour” looks behind the bland official scenes found in conventional, unreal, soporific books everybody knows… which are designed to further the propaganda that the Anglo-Saxon elites (Churchill!) saved the world (whereas it’s just the opposite, they betrayed civilization, and they were much higher in the hierarchy of power than Hitler…) Vuillard’s book shows (part of) the manipulation, hubris, and greed that together led to Nazi Germany’s mad drive to world war, and its rage to destroy all in the way.

(By the way, I have a wonderful explanation, so far published only in Quora, explaining the astounding Nazi mass criminal madness: the Nazis knew they had lost, as early as September 3, 1939 (!), when the democracy with the strongest army, the French Republic, and the one with the strongest Navy, the UK, declared war to Nazism. It meant death to Nazis, something they didn’t expect, they felt betrayed… In great part because of Von Ribbentrop’s assurances, that the British would not go to war (and thus France won’t dare, as in 1936, when the Nazis invaded Spain). The whole idea of British diplomacy in the 1930s was that the Nazis would be free to go enslave the Slavs, who, as their name indicates, are made for slavery. Keynes, the Neo-Liberal hero, a linchpin of the Anglo-Saxon elite, to this day, a lynch-pin, had written an anti-Versailles Treaty, anti-French pamphlet, prior to the creation of the Nazi Party, by several years, explaining that the racial inferiority of the Slavs would ruin Europe, if those Slavic slaves, in particular those base and messy Poles, were not ruled by Germany.

On September 3, 1939, the Nazis suddenly realized that they faced extermination: how could they resist France and Britain? That certainty that they were going to eliminated like insects drove the Nazis lethally mad, all they wanted thereafter was not to win a war they were sure to lose, but to cause as much damage as possible (whereas France and Britain fought the war with the intent to win it in the long run; as it turned out they were overconfident on May 10, 1940, and paid a heavy price: a long-term certain win turned into a disastrous defeat, in just 5 days…)

The “Order of the Day” is mostly centered on the last few hours before and during the annexation of Austria. It dismantles the myth of an effortless victory. Instead it accentuates the plutocratic conspiracy in control, which made it all possible… but barely.

And it’s not different now! The “Ordre du Jour” offers a dire warning for those indifferent to our current political crisis… said present crisis is driven not just by the same forces, but the exact same actors, the same “moral persons”, truly giant corporations with their own greedy minds (“moral person” is an ironical label, some would erroneously say). And worst of all, by the same ideology, the same ways of not thinking upon what is really important, and, instead, concentrating on stupid escapism (considers all the money and propaganda on media sports). Those “moral persons” drove the world then, as they do, now… Indeed at the end, the author points out a number of German corporations, more powerful than ever, all of which made Hitler possible. Then… for the same reason they have now.

But are these corporations just and only “German”, as Vuillard (implicitly) has it? Just German? (This Vuillard position is straight from the old position of the French Communists and their ilk, in the 1950s… At the time, few dared to vocalize US involvement in Nazism, it was definitively not PC, and the situation has not changed much: Vuillard charges the British, but not the US; when Austria was annexed, FDR had nominated pro-Nazi ambassadors… Especially in London and Berlin…)

The most significant truth about Hitler: Hitler was crucially made possible not by his connection to just Britain, but, more insidiously and importantly, to his connections with the USA, and they went both ways. This is so embarrassing, everybody wants not to know about it… However, one can’t understand today’s global plutocracy without understanding which evil order,between the US plutocracy and the Nazi plutocracy, was vassal to the other… Hint: size matters… (And Vuillard has become part of this obscurantist plot, whether he knows it, or not, by talking only of a few Brits connected to the Nazis… Much, if not most of the Nazi economy was US built… Certainly most of Franco’s fascist economy was US built…)

The careful readers of this site will scoff about ignoring the USA. What made World War Two possible, what made a number of Nazi victories possible, what made possible the occupation of most of Europe by the Nazis and their allied regimes were two things.

One of them the bad luck of the French army (bad commander with a foolhardy strategy as his second in command pointed out before the disaster, plus strokes of genius on the part of Hitler, and Nazi generals Von Manstein and Guderian, plus plain extreme bad luck). But extreme French bad luck during five days in May 1940 (May 10 to May 15) doesn’t  explain the occupation of Europe: France had lost a huge battle, all it best armies, but its Navy and Air Force were mostly intact, and the Nazis had suffered severe losses. French forces could have evacuated to North Africa, and fight from there indefinitely.

And the second thing which led the French to ask the Nazis for a cease-fire (just a cease-fire, a temporary, localized cessation of hostilities, not even an armistice; as it happened, hostilities between the Nazis and French forces restarted within two years, spectacularly, at Bir Hakeim, even before the first shot between US and Nazis…) was the attitude of the cowardly, calculating and amoral USA (the highest principle of which was to take care of its commanding plutocrats; the media, plutocratically owned, had made the US American people hostile to those who were hostile to Hitler… like the French). The way many leaders of France, for example Marshal Philippe Pétain probably saw it: why would France fight fascism to death again, suffering enormous losses, depressing French demographics, killing or wounding most Frenchmen, while the USA watched sanctimoniously, ready to steal victory again? (As it was, the total French losses in lives were much higher than the US were, especially as one considers, as one should, the entire French empire, not just Metropolitan France; total number killed, in the entire French empire, from Morocco to Indochina, Norway to Libya, was probably over 3 millions; the USA lost 418,500 lives, total, mostly soldiers as only 1,700 civilian were killed.)

Here is the fundamental question: Second World War: cui buono (for whom does that feel good)? It is the attitude of the USA which brought the French Republic to ask for a ceasefire. And the USA, far from being driven by a love for peace and quiet, as was alleged then, and is alleged in textbooks, was driven by the exact same actors or their ilk, who were driving Hitler, and whom  Éric Vuillard’s “L’Ordre du Jour” doesn’t mention. At all. Will to please the Hyper Power, the USA, or just plain ignorance? Or both? Would Vuillard have got the Goncourt if he had mentioned US plutocrats? Is that same greed and respect for order who drove the 24 supporters of Hitler, resurfacing?

Instead Vuillard charges British PM Chamberlain to the max. Chamberlain has become a safe villain of history. Chamber-villain? Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement with the Nazis was revealed in 2011 to have gone much further than textbooks had it (in 2011, secret service MI5 documents came out of secrecy, revealing some more of what had been hidden when Chamberlain worked up to 1938 with the Nazis to make said nazis more enticing to UK public opinion… BTW, the link contains minor factual secondary mistakes, such as Churchill always opposing appeasement: he didn’t… in the 1920s…)

***

Einstein Saw “No Hope” Coming From Appeasement:

Some will say insight is easy. But actually, the march to folly of the German Reichs was very clear to Nietzsche in the 1880s, and to many other intellectuals. In 1919, at the Versailles Peace Conference, the Second German Reich had understood so little, it mulled going back to war (as if it could wage it!). Clemenceau, the French PM said: mark my words, the Germans will attack us again within 20 years.

Albert Einstein wrote from Princeton, USA, on October 11 1938: “You have confidence in the British and even Chamberlain? ‘Oh holy innocence’… Hoping that Hitler might let off steam by attacking Russia, he sacrifices Eastern Europe. But we will come to see once more that shrewdness does not win in the long-term… In France, [British PM Neville Chamberlain] pushed the left into a corner and, in France as well, helped give power to those people whose motto is ‘better Hitler than the Reds’. Now he saved Hitler in the nick of time by crowning himself with the wreath of love of peace and inducing France to betray the Czechs. He did all this in such a clever way that he deceived most people, even you (unfortunately). I do not have any hope left for the future of Europe.”

Conventional Wisdom presents PM Chamberlain often as clueless. He was not. Chamberlain was deliberately following orders from the Anglo-Saxon elite. Chamberlain deliberately fostered the British and US elite, at the cost of all the rest. Similarly Churchill, who was half-US born, fostered US-UK rule with an extremely attitude hostile to the French Republic in the 1920s, when France saw Germany was re-arming, and pondered taking action to stop that nonsense. (Although the bilingual Churchill loved France, he threatened to bomb France in 1929 if France attacked Germany! In 1944, he would have his sadomasochistic wish, with giant, useless bombings of French cities, such as the annihilation of Le Havre, after Paris had been liberated. Annihilating Le Havre with 80,000 tons of bombs killed more than 5,000 civilians…)

Like his half-brother, PM Chamberlain was part of vast, entangled conspiracies the Anglo-Saxon elites engineered to instrumentalize Germany to serve their own rule…

Whether they all did it deliberately is another matter; let’s just observe that the British elite was racist and anti-Republican, and the US elite was racist and exploitative; none of these psychological auras mixed too well with the official credo of the French Republic, libertéégalitéfraternité. A meta-psychological Anglo-Saxon conspiracy of a form of meta-racism: the Nazis were much inspired and encouraged by the way US Americans had “treated” the American Natives, it was their plan to do the same. The Nazis were much encouraged by the 4,000 or so, official “lynchings” US racists directed to “colored people” and their supporters. What the Nazis, and proto-Nazis didn’t realize is that, doing so, they crossed themselves and became the ones targeted to exploitation, and a useful stage for world domination by smarter than them…

***

The true behind-the-scenes account of the Anschluss reveals a patchwork of minor flourishes of strength and fine words, fevered telephone calls, the most vulgar bullying and life threatening threats, propelled by the absurdly gigantic powers a few men have been endowed with, so they can abuse them.

Not just Hitler is endowed with giant powers, but the Austrian PM and President, but also British PM Chamberlain… And it should have been easy to stop: why didn’t the French Republic declare war and attack? (Well the answer is that France was afraid of the… USA, not Hitler! Displeasing the Nazis was nothing: they deserved to die… but the USA was France’s own child… At least, so I think, in my national psychoanalysis… If Macron and Trump had been leading France and the US in 1938, Hitler would have been finished in three weeks!)

The real picture presented by “The Order of the Day” is an abomination, mostly caused by these enormous powers a few individuals have been conferred with (Hitler started as an elected Chancellor, below an elected President, Hindenburg).  

Thus history reveal a starkly different picture. It is not strength of character, justice or the determination We The People that wins the day, but rather a combination of intimidation and bluff which impresses We the Sheeple so much, they go bleating wherever their leaders have decided they should go.

Vuillard points out the Nazi tanks are mechanically unworthy, tin cans with little armor, and all too small guns… What he doesn’t say is that they won in 1940, mostly because of sheer luck. And genius. Hitler’s evil genius, gambling the Reich on stabbing the French army from behind…

***

“L’Ordre Du Jour”, A Good Lesson Missing The Main Point! US!

With this small portion of a vivid, compelling history, Éric Vuillard wants to warn us against the peril of willful blind acquiescence, and offers a reminder that, ultimately, the worst is not inescapable (the Nazi machine could have been easily destroyed at this point; Vuillard touches on that when he describes the pathetic Nazi tanks; Vuillard doesn’t say, but it’s true, France had three times as many tanks as Hitler, and the French tanks were often incomparably better; only an extremely faulty strategy brought the French defeat during 5 days in May 1940…).

Yet, Vuillard misses the main point: the extent to which truly global plutocracy was involved in the ascent, and ephemeral triumph, of the Nazis. Yes, that means US!

Vuillard doesn’t mention, probably because he doesn’t know, US conspiracies, hidden behind prestigious titles, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute, which directly funded Nazi eugenics projects in the early ’30s?

That’s not excusable. By omitting the main Anglo-Saxon promoters of Nazism, Vuillard, and conventional historians omit some of the main causes of Nazism. Worse: he omits the causes which escaped discovery and destruction, and are running rampant today. Even Lenin himself let it be known that the capitalists were so greedy that they would sell the rope to hang them up with (although some contest that Lenin said it that prettily, words to this effect were found in his personal papers, evoking “suicide” rather than a rope).

***

US Plutocrats loved all fascists, red or black, color blind:

The early USSR was supported crucially by US capitalists such as Armand Hammer or the Harriman Brothers…. All of them from the Democratic plantation!  Such plutocrats indeed made up the Democratic Party (Hammer, a promoter of Nixon, promoted the Gore family, father and son, who became Senator and VP of the USA…)

The Harriman brothers’ banking business was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who was a financial backer of the Nazi party. The Thyssen group was all-powerful then, still is now. The Brown Brother Harriman banking business helped make the Nazis all they could be, and had 5 trillion dollars under management now (2018). The Roosevelt family was closest friends to all these characters, hence explaining President FDR singular ineffectiveness at opposing fascism, and his hatred of the French Republic.     

FDR loved Mussolini: “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'”FDR was not kidding: his advisers were gushing about Mussolini’s policies.  Implicit US support is exactly why the “admirable Italian gentleman” attacked the French Republic in June 1940, breaking his teeth on the Maginot Line, and why the admirable gentleman was hanged from an US gas station in Milan by the Italian Resistance. A plethora of the US largest corporations splurged through the fascist regimes of Europe, from the USSR, to Franco’s Spain, fascist italy, Nazi Germany. Franco, a general promoted by Hitler and Mussolini, superficially, was, actually the tool of US plutocrats, who enabled him to seize power. That was so true, that, after killing millions of Spaniards, Basques and Catalans, Franco knew his true sponsors would win, and played a sly double game in World War Two (enabling thousands of precious Allied pilots escape from France, by cooperating with the French resistance, rather than Hitler)  

Eric Vuillard touches barely a small aspect of Nazism, and restricts international considerations, or, more exactly, international conspiracies, to Chamberlain renting his flat to Von Ribbentrop. Actually Great Britain collaborated with the Nazis to a much greater scale than that, to such a scale that the British elite was an active accomplice, of Nazism, until it got the feeling it was on the wrong side of history, and got the courage to throw out the Nazi king in 1936 (but Hollywood movies turn the turn of Britain away from Nazism into a problem about stuttering and a divorcee, thus creating a new generation of imbeciles)

***

Six Months After Hitler Invaded Austria, UK PM Chamberlain Gave Czechoslovakia To Hitler, with implicit US Approval:

Hitler said he would only take the Sudentenland and if Czechoslovakia falls apart, then he would govern it. The other three agreed to this. Chamberlain went back to London with the piece of paper, securing “Peace in our Time”. Once again, France couldn’t go to war without even US, or British moral support. If France had declared war, alone, with the Czechs for allies, only, France would have lost moral supremacy. However, militarily, France + Czechoslovakia could have probably held back the Nazis: together they had four times the number of tanks of the Nazis, and much much better ones. Moreover, the French had shared their weaponry with the Czechs, so, after the Nazis took control of these weapons, not only did their armaments doubled, but they learned French military tricks and equipments…

***

Can one seduce evil? The collaborators of evil pretend it can be done, and so did Bertrand Russell:

In 1915, in the middle of a war planned and launched by German plutocrats and their chief, the grandson of Queen Victoria, Kaiser Wilhelm, and sustained by the USA’s crucial material support, Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, imagines a situation in which British people, having been thoroughly educated in the principles of passive resistance, opposed their civil and moral fortitude against the brutal force of German occupiers. There would be a few killings and many injustices, but far fewer than in the present conflict, the active resistance by democratic armies to the Kaiser’s aggressing dictatorship, since, Russell pretends with an obscene naivety: “there would be no glory to be won, not even enough to earn one iron cross. The Germans could not congratulate themselves upon their military prowess, or imagine that they were displaying the stern self-abnegation believed to be shown by willingness to die in the fight”.

(All Russell shows here is that he finds most natural to be motivated by glory… thus Russell is unwittingly psychoprobing Russell, uncovering the fact that vainglory was his main motivation… that would explain his womanizing, among other things….) After some time, having realized that they couldn’t govern without the consent of the indigenous population (!), the invading Germans would have to leave and go home, said the elite, thoroughly deluded and deluding philosopher. Russell, self-hypnotizing, persuaded himself that, confronted to crushing British dignity, the dictator who launched a world war would have no choice but to turn back home…

Unfortunately for that idiotic flight of fancy, German occupation happened in many countries, and killed millions. Bertrand Russell was, on this subject, a dishonest creep, who should have been, and was put in jail: the attack and invasion of Belgium, in August 1914, killed under atrocious circumstances, thousands of Belgian citizens, deliberately, some as young as two years old. Russell, Mr. Philosopher, should have read the newspapers…

But, of course, the 24 plutocrats Vuillard talked of, believed in the dignified fortitude Russell advocated: it is a convenient excuse. So did the US government officials who turned back, to their death, thousands of Jewish refugees.  

***

We desire to see you tortured to death… Bear with us…

As Bertrand Russell put it in his Nobel acceptance speech:”All human activity is prompted by desire. There is a wholly fallacious theory advanced by some earnest moralists to the effect that it is possible to resist desire in the interests of duty and moral principle. I say this is fallacious, not because no man ever acts from a sense of duty, but because duty has no hold on him unless he desires to be dutiful. If you wish to know what men will do, you must know not only, or principally, their material circumstances, but rather the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.”

(Right, and this is exactly how I can know what motivated Lord Russell… By knowing his desires, we can backtrack his reasons).

All human activity is prompted by desire. Yet, desire can be taught. People prefer to read the made-up mysteries of novelists.

I gave the Vuillard “Order du Jour” book to my ailing mom in her clinic. She read it within hours, but didn’t comment. She knows how my writings on WWII. She knows all too well she saved more than 100 Jews then, and was pursued by the Gestapo. She knows of people who were arrested, tortured to death, and of others who were saved, and should have died instead. She knows of fortunes who were made, saved in part by her actions. She always refused to take any action to get herself and her family the  Juste parmi les nations” חסיד אומות העולם, Hasid Ummot Ha-‘Olam. She just wants to forget the horrors. It’s her ultimate desire. So she prefers to read Mary Higgins Clark.

***

Humans love to think of killings and killers, as long as it looks respectable, like Mary Higgins Clark:

As long as the world reads and fancies mystery murder novels instead of the real thing, reviewed and corrected as what really happened, we are in trouble. Wealthy author Mary Higgins Clark, 90 years old, is often asked why she’s still writing. The suspense murder novelist gives two answers: “One, I love to write. The second is I get very well paid to write.

Top thinkers never got paid to write. Not one cent. Their motives were much more sinister. It was, it is, to promote not just evolution, but re-evolution, revolution. Top thinkers communicate because they like to think about problems, solve them, and share the proposed solutions in the hope of getting more clues. Knowing full well they are promoting neurological mayhem. Top thinking is not peaceful, but, first, shattering (as Christ observed!)

Instead, money makes the world of fools turn. Ms. Clark is still writing two books a year. Her fast-moving mysteries often feature a sharp, intelligent heroine who helps to discover the killer after a few false starts. The killer? What’s so interesting about killers? I thought the SS were looked down upon! Precisely because they killed! Is the hoi polloi big time confused? Liking what it hates? Ms. Clark’s broad commercial appeal has generated more than 50 best sellers… Why is that so interesting, people? Why is it interesting to discover the “killer”?

Clark’s latest murder mystery out this month called “I’ve Got My Eyes on You,” opens with the murder of an 18-year-old girl sunk at the bottom of a swimming pool after a party at her parents’ house. Among the suspects: her boyfriend and a neighbor. Ms. Clark never includes overt sex or foul language in her books. Even though she writes about murder, she won’t describe the actual killing in graphic detail. “It is off camera, I like the impression of building up suspense so the reader does her own thinking.”

An ardent Catholic, Clark claims that her protagonists have a strong moral code. “The morality is always there,” she says. In “I’ve Got My Eyes on You,” her heroine, the mother of a boy with brain damage, often prays with a rosary. Count the beads, you will occupy your brains, because your brainless religion sure is not enough…

Ms. Clark finds murder thrilling, writes dozens of books about murders she invented, but she has a strong moral code? Only a Catholic worshipping torture as they are all supposed to do, praying at the bottom of a cross, looking up, watching blood of the innocent flow, with a deep sense of approbation, would hold such a thing…

***

Want murder mysteries? Seize history! You may even learn something deep, for a change!

Real history has plenty of murders: hundreds of millions of them actually. Each of them a riddle, but a riddle whose solution will save lives, looking forward. One should learn from the lethal accidents of history as one does from the lethal accidents of aviation.

Want a mystery? Consider the assassination of Julius Caesar, March 15, 44 BCE. At first and especially second or third sight, that murder makes absolutely no sense: Caesar was supposed to leave Rome, at the head of the most formidable army Rome ever had, four days later. The aim was to solve the two security problems civilization had: the Parthians over Alexander’s empire, and the Germans, over Eastern Europe. Caesar a popular (head of “Populares”) progressive (Caesar believed in technology, quite the opposite of the Roman emperors to come) stupendous general was out to save Rome (and had already brought Gaul and Egypt as gifts…) Still he was assassinated by the likes of Brutus (his real, or quasi-adoptive son… although not his heir, and therein perhaps the explanation…)

So you want a mystery? Dig there! You will have to dig deep in human souls and how supposedly ultra smart people (those who wanted to restore the Republic by killing its top magistrate) accomplished the exact opposite of what they claimed to want…

***

Reality, in all its horror, especially in all its genuine horror, is the harsh teacher, we, students of deep things, need:

Chaplin almost nixed his own movie, The Great Dictator, as the extent of Nazi atrocities in Europe became obvious. Chaplin didn’t find the Nazis funny anymore. President Franklin Roosevelt heard of Chaplin’s intention to scrap the film. The president sent an aide to tell Chaplin. “Make this film”. Roosevelt promised to use his influence, ensuring none of America’s allies banned the movie. (As usual FDR was playing his double game, trying to steer Nazism, and the war, the business, the business of war, it was brining, just right…)

Filming began in 1939, lasted more than a year, and the movie was released in October 1940, when the Nazis and their allies, occupied most of Western Europe. Hitler demanded a copy—and screened it in his private theater in the his gigantic, spectacular Alpine chalet, the Berghof, no less than thrice! In the middle of a world war!

Hitler once extolled publicly Chaplin as one of the greatest performers of all time. There were rumors that Hitler was heartbroken to see Chaplin’s cruel impersonation of him (Hitler was most sensitive, that’s why he cried so much about the Versailles Treaty and could not stand the sight of… meat anymore… And became a fanatical vegetarian, ruining his health…) In one key scene, Chaplin’s Adenoid Hynkel character bursts into tears after his balloon globe pops. According to a member of Hitler’s inner circle, Reinhard Spitzy, the Nazi leader found the film amusing. (Spitzy suggested that Chaplin had inspired Hitler’s toothbrush mustache!)

Hitler screened Chaplin’s films even though Germany had banned the actor’s works owing to his alleged Jewishness. (The origin of Chaplin was never solved, at least “racially” speaking, he could very well have been, like Hitler himself, a “Jew”) The Nazi propaganda book “The Jews Are Watching You” labelled Chaplin a “disgusting Jew acrobat.”

Morality of all that? Hitler had to be stopped by horror, the horror of reality, not jokes removed from reality. Ultimately heavy bombing over all German cities helped, as giving the Soviets crucial equipment and intelligence… Same story in Japan, or Italy. Only horror can stop horror (although imperial Japan may have killed 40 millions, its losses were only 6% of that… However the Japanese couldn’t stand even that relatively small horror… Finding horror, even much smaller horror, all too horrible…)

***

Forgetting Horror On A Geopolitical Scale Is Not The Best Desire To Cultivate, Should One Want To Prevent Its Return:

(Thus those who deny that Nazism is a worthy object of conversation and meditation passively accept its return, or the return of a similar abyss!; Massimo Pigliucci, a professional “stoic” philosopher has told me that any comment of mine on any sort of fascism would be censored; paradoxically, he talks a lot about Trump, whom he views as… fascist)

“L’Ordre du Jour” is an excellent book, and it’s also excellent to see a (fundamentally) non-fiction book be rewarded by a literary prize: because reality always beats fiction. To a pulp.

However, I knew all what was in the book, except for a few details (such as there was a famous tennis player called Tilden, who didn’t lose a match for 5 years; Von Ribbentrop at a reception with PM Chamberlain and future PM Churchill, used Tilden, and other never-ending conversation, as a way to delay PM Chamberlain response to the Anschluss, which was literally going on during dinner…)

Yes, I knew it all, except for a few small details like that, and I have written much deeper and incisive things, yet, they will be contained under the obscurity of the force of desire for escapism.

It’s also discouraging to see that a much broader deeper analysis of what went wrong, under the form of essays, will never endanger the established order… although it’s the only thing which could. Yes, people, why didn’t the USA confront Hitler in 1939, as Canada did, coming to the help of its creators, France and Britain?

That US Americans just thought what their capitalist owners told them to think and feel was not an excuse then, and shouldn’t be one now. Instead, it should be a lesson to meditate, a vaccine to inject… But that will not happen, if one doesn’t debate the subject.

They all go around, those people who want others to think good about themselves, saying: love, love, love… But what is love? Does love incorporates chastisement? And if it doesn’t, how does one implement error correction? And if there is no error correction, at all, or then error correction too late, as in World War Two, there will be death, mass death, and is that loving?

We do things we do, including think as we do, because we feel that way. And therein the paradox of reason: to find out where it comes from, one needs to examine emotion, and then adjudicate it, in the name of higher wisdom. Yet emotion is best explored by emotion itself!

America has been afflicted by an ideology that doesn’t work, says professor Joseph Stiglitz, one of the interesting Nobels in economics. This ideology has been acting up for more than a century now, mostly by forming minds. To dismantle it, one has to understand what it got away with, historically.

This is why it is so important to explore history emotionally. By getting to know how it was like, we can emotionally explore what no fiction would dare imagine. Informed what victims went through, be it death camps victims, slaves, Protestants under Louis XIV, Giordano Bruno (tortured to death by the Vatican for…. seven years… for imagining exoplanets), children under Republican Rome, Mesoamericans eradicated under the Conquistadores, etc. Or, for that matter, the torturers running high, such as Von Ribbentrop running circles around British high society… All have to be imagined, to serve as the foundations of, and motivations for, the correct logics we need.

Reading history is no fancy: it should be part of the correct foundation of the moral code. Learning history is not just memorizing what those on a stipend, or with a class agenda (Keynes, Russel, all old textbooks, most Nobels) said about history. Learning history means, first, learning to love and debate history, and even, and especially, to debate it passionately. Only by weighting history, not just logically, but emotionally, can one learn to profit from history, and, first of all, how not to repeat history, in the most fateful way.

Patrice Aymé  

Evil & its Good God, Versus Wisdom, Crown of Creation

February 6, 2018

More theology? Enough with that!!!… Except that Judeo-Christian values are all around, ever since our cultural ancestors, the Greeks, not to say the Egyptians, and Phoenicians, came in contact with the Jews around 33 centuries ago (that probably started with the enormous turmoil known by Pharaoh Ramses III as the “Peoples of the Sea” invasion; all old states succumbed to it… but for Egypt, which survived in extremis).

Thereafter, a hierarchy of values was proposed, which became part of the philosophical problems which brought down the Roman Republic, and, centuries later, the Roman empire itself (it’s pudically refered as the seduction of Rome by “Oriental values”…). In Judeo-Christianism, the top notions, the top values, are omnipotence and goodness. Even after the Judeo-Christian was lethally wounded by the Enlightenment and toasted to a crisp at Auschwitz, the hierarchy of values it carries is still around, orienting the psyche of most people. And those values imparted by Judeo-Christianism, omnipotence and 100% goodness, are, contrary to repute, deeply inhuman.

There is a well-known trilemma, between “God”, omnipotence, and evil. The Cathars founded their religion on it. The fundamental idea of God, one and indivisible, is that He is omnipotent, like the savage of old, over his wife and children! Omnipotence is the definition of “God”: no omnipotence, no “God”.

However, if God is willing to prevent evil, but can’t do it, He is not omnipotent. Thus not God. Yet, if God is unwilling to prevent evil, “God” is evil, or, at least, no good. If God is both incapable of preventing evil, and unwilling to prevent evil, He is both incapable and evil, so why to call Him “God”, and debase oneself, kneeling to Him and his incapable, evil nature?

Of the Cathars, only castles are left. The obsession of Christians with “omnipotence” and “goodness” (of said omnipotence) brought this result. The Christians exterminated to the last, with an enthusiasm Hitler would try to direct toward the Jews, eight centuries later. Vatican, greed, and Paris (“French”) king Philip Augustus dispatched Catholic armies who killed most Cathars, at least 700,000, in France alone, and destroyed all their works (further eradication was pursued in Italy and the Balkans, killing hundreds of thousands more, if not millions). The Pope had decreed that Cathar properties and lands were there for the taking.

Confronted to the previous trilemma, the ancient Greco-Romans, Phoenicians, Hindus, Celts and Germans, who had plenty of half potent, half evil gods, would have scoffed: why should gods have to be good and omnipotent? Isn’t it enough to be gods? Can’t gods be free to do as they please, and be incapable and evil, as they pleased? As a Chinese emperor famously noticed, not taking action is itself an action.

The Judeo-Christians have a problem, though, because their “God” is omnipotent, omniscient, and supposedly “good”. The Islamists have less of a problem than their Judeo-Christian predecessors: God, in their Islamist version, although “merciful”, is horrendously cruel and torturous, to the point of sounding completely unhinged. However, Allah has lots of problems (as related by the Qur’an) with human contradictors, thus suggesting he is not omnipotent. To avoid this, the Qur’an claims that Allah laid traps to all these people He wants to “throw into the fire”. So people are not bad because Allah is weak, but bad because Allah is crafty, and misled them.

The Cathars read the Bible: clearly the Old Testament is a piece of evil trash (with God ordering holocausts, right and left, torturing David’s son, to death, over a week, just because David had refused to enact a gratuitous holocaust, etc. Thus the Cathars deduced that the Old Testament showed the Devil created the world (the Vatican was not amused, and fought the Cathars with Inquisition as early as 1022 CE; finally launching a crusade against them, in 1209 CE, two centuries later).

Christo-Islamism is the ideology of tyranny, made by dictators, for dictators. Thus it represents as ultimate goods the values which should be perceived as the characteristics of absolute dictatorship: omnipotence, and goodness as defined by said omnipotence

Why this obsession with power and goodness? Christo-Islamism was engineered mostly by Roman emperor Constantine and caravan raider Muhammad, both of whom were, if not the fiercest, bloodiest dictators ever, certainly the intellectual progenitors of many of the worst dictators. (Constantine assassinated wife, son and nephew.) So Christo-Islamism is the ideology of tyranny, made by dictators, for dictators. Thus it represents as ultimate goods the two values which should be perceived as the characteristics of absolute dictatorship: omnipotence, and goodness as defined by said omnipotence.   

Yet, pretend goodness and omnipotence are not the top values of the crown of creation, Homo Sapiens. Wisdom is more like it. Wisdom is the top value.

Wisdom is not indifferent to good and evil. Wisdom gives primacy to goodness over evil (as babies can’t do without goodness and altruism directed at them, thus wisdom couldn’t even exist without goodness!)

However wisdom. Once it exists, is first about growing ever more intelligence. Intelligence etymologically, that is, in the logic of its true sense, means: reading between the lines.

It doesn’t mean being good, 24/7. Fundamentally, goodness is needed, for babies, children and for fostering enough altruism for whatever society needs to function. Beyond that, in the realm of good and evil, anything goes.

In particular, hatred and fascism, both related to war making and keeping human numbers low enough to prevent mass extinction(s), have their uses.

We are not omnipotent, but ever more potent, because we can read ever more between the lines. That’s all the divine We The People need.

Omnipotent dictators playing pretend goodness are incompatible with advancing wisdom. How will we get rid of them? With good old, evolutionary honed anger, and combat. All these qualities Judeo-Christianism insist we shouldn’t have (they are reserved to the divinity). All these qualities the founders of Israel rejected… rightly so (the philosopher Isaiah Berlin complained that “they listened to Hitler, not us”).

A bit of hatred for evil makes a most worthy ethics good. This is the human way to go. Anything else invites collaboration with the enemy, the most despicable, and vicious ways (for a contemporary example, consider the situation in Burma, where an entire Muslim population is kicked out by otherwise resplendent, self-absorbed Buddhists…)

Patrice Aymé

Lessons From Sparta, Thebes, Athens, Macedonia, Rome, Greece, Franks, On How To Beat the Dark Side (In North Korea)

August 6, 2017

Countless intellectuals, for example Salman Rushdie, hold that the those Sanders supporters who didn’t vote for Clinton are contemptible idiots. But then he admits that, when Trump was elected, he realized he didn’t understand the USA. Verily, Rushdie didn’t understand the most important thing. He reminds me of a parallel universe with Jews advocating voting for Himmler instead of Hitler.

Rushdie claims the “left” is obsessed with purity. And he rightly points at Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, Maoists. Whatever: the same can be said of the extreme right, Nazis, Fascists, etc… Or even the center (that’s why there is no center in the United Kingdom).

In a French philosophical magazine, Rushdie claims that “we have entered the era of the impossible”. Little does he seem to know. The impossible made history countless times.

Part of the Famous Chigi Vase, Showing Hoplites In Formation. Complete With Musician. Upon Hoplites, Freedom Rested. Similarly, Constant War Made the Italian Renaissance, Starting With the Florence Republic Issuing Bonds To Pay for Its Army (killed centuries later by Medici plutocracy).

Actually, Rushdie understands nothing in exactly the same way as Trump, Macron, the Clintons and Obama didn’t understand anything most important: people have had enough of the inequality which is degrading civilization.

When asked why he didn’t reveal his work on (Gaussian) curvature, the tremendous mathematician Friedrich Gauss sneered in a letter to Bessel in 1829, that:”It may take very long before I make public my investigations on this issue: in fact, this may not happen in my lifetime for I fear the “clamor of the Boeotians.”

Boeotia was the city state, capital Thebes, north of Attica. Athenians viewed it as dull, insipid and brutish. They shouldn’t have. With crucial Athenian military help, Thebes destroyed Spartan supremacy forever by freeing the lands, and at least one city-state, that it had enslaved, for centuries. Sparta’s downfall was propelled by the same mood which had brought its war against Athens 80 years prior. Namely, obstinately taking itself for a superpower, and imposing that at all cost (a bit the same as Putin’s Russia nowadays; Sparta was also led by a charismatic king, Agesilaus II, who stayed popular in his eighties, although Sparta was clearly going downhill, big time).

Later, though, Alexander burned Thebes to the ground, while Athens watched (that led to the eradication of democracy). Demosthenes had warned against the Macedonians. Recently I read a history book, just written, which claims that Demosthenes was the bad guy, as Athens should have submitted to Macedonia, more readily.

This is to forget that Athens did submit to Alexander, but not really Macedonia. Antipater took the succession of Alexander after the latter’s death. The resulting war between Antipater and Athens brought Macedonian victory and the establishment, by Antipater, of a plutocracy in Athens (only the richest could vote: destitute citizens, most of them, got deprived of their citizens’ rights).

The Theban army, around 36,000 men was roughly the size of Alexander’s. The battle was long uncertain, as Thebes fought with the energy of despair, knowing it faced annihilation. If the Athenian army had joined Thebes, the Macedonians would have been annihilated.

The Macedonians were intrinsically fascist, because of their way of life: plutocrats owned vast domains where horses were brought up, gold mines, etc. The Greeks to the south lived in cities, from more intellectual tasks, where ideas hence democracy were more productive. The opposition was total, it couldn’t be remedied: either the Macedonian brutes would conquer intellectual Greece, or Intellectual Greece would defeat the brutes. Because the Greeks didn’t act when they could, with the Macedonians as they had with the Persians, democracy and intelligence got defeated by the rule of malevolence (which is what “plutocracy” means)

***

The lesson for today’s world?

The military side of things should not be neglected. One battle can decide the world. Nor should the endurance of plutocracy, and the mind control it can exert. After Antipater submitted Athens, the mental subjugation was such that, to this day, people have forgotten all what democracy consists of. They came to call countries “led” by Obama, Trump, Macron, let alone Putin and the Queen of England, “democracies” Whereas those countries are parodies of what the ancient Greeks called “democracy”.

Contradictors would point out that Athens had only 80,000 citizens at most, with plenty of slaves and subjugated women.  However, the subjugation of women was a phenomenon specific to Athens, not to all Greek city-states (Spartan women personally owned much of Sparta, as Aristotle whined).  The fact that, at the height of her power, during the Fifth Century BCE, Athens was attacked by the greatest powers, first Achaemenid Persia, then Sparta, then Sparta allied with Achaemenid Persia, has a lot to do with it, in my opinion.

In this world war, fascism against democracy situation, Athens was first a military empire fighting for survival. When Athens sent an expedition to Egypt to free her mother civilization (yes, Egypt) from Persian subjugation, it was no time to ponder who deserved to be citizens or not (in its final struggle against Alexander, Thebes made her slaves citizens). Ultimately the Egyptian expedition failed, but it was another fracture in Persian armor (later to be exploited by Alexander).

So what to say of today? The entire world is reminiscent of Greece plus Macedonia. The “West” consists in a number of nations (including Japan). That would be the equivalent of the Delian league, headed by Athens.

Except that, nowadays, the world is militarily led by the USA while intellectually led by Europe. That was exactly the Greco-Roman arrangement which lasted for 1600 years, until it was replaced by a Franko-Greek arrangement by 800 CE, to Constantinople’s fury; however, while Rome was a always mental subset of Greece, with a superior fascist republic, the Franks came to dominate Constantinople in all ways, precisely because Constantinople versed into fanaticism, for much too long and too deep.

Indeed, as everybody knows, Constantinople, Oriental Rome, went down. In no small measure because, by the Eighth Century, the Franks looked down on Constantinople’s Christian fanaticism. Whereas all what Constantinople could see what that the savage Muslims below its walls were successful because precisely they were fanatically religious savages, so they duplicated that global mood.

***

Conclusion: Debate and Think, in a Timely Manner. Change Moods:

Sparta’s failure to change its global mood in a timely manner led to its military and then demographic disappearance (the same fate threatens quite a few countries nowadays). Worse, Sparta nearly eradicated Athens, and certainly destroyed her remarkable mood of total inquiry, all azimuths. it would have been better to mimic Athens than try to destroy civilization.

Athens survived because, under Roman hegemony, Athens was the place of higher learning and higher wisdom. Centuries later, fanatical Christian emperors tried to shut down Athens by shutting down its schools. The result is that the Franks decided that the “translatio studii” had happened: Paris was the New Athens, a translation of studies had occurred, centred on Paris’ Cathedral (not the present Notre Dame, the one before; the change of cathedrals enabled the university to become physically independent).

Don’t forget that fascism and its version with a civilized veneer, plutocracy, are extremely sticky: we got overwhelmed by fascism and plutocracy, 24 centuries ago, and didn’t get out of it yet.

The “West”, whatever that is (is the People’s Republic of China in it, or not?) has to be broad and open-minded, yet military threats should be eliminated in a timely manner (that is, before they can become uncontrollable).

In the past, the mightiest empire (Rome, China, the Aztecs) fell to relatively small enemy forces (the Goths and Genghis Khan’s Mongols had no more than 200,000 warriors; subsequent German invasions were from much smaller numbers). Cortez conquered the Aztecs with less than 1500 men, and was repeatedly teased by the Aztecs that he could not make it, because of his tiny numbers. The Aztecs didn’t know that the Conquistadores were making shots with copper warheads for their crossbows, industrially, having recruited hundreds of thousands of natives to do so to their specifications.

Tiny enemies, like tiny rattlesnakes, are the more venomous, the smaller they are, precisely because their small size motivates them more. Thus, full severity with Muslim fanatics (Jihadists), is fully justified.  Same for North Korea, if it pursues its plans to nuclear blackmail the world (Athens didn’t wait for Persia to attack, doing nothing; first it armed itself to the teeth; thus, when Persia asked for submission, Athens had enough might to say no).   

***

Kill Infamy While You Can:

Says The Economist, all too mildly in “How To Avoid Nuclear War With North Korea”:

“There are no good options to curb Kim Jong Un. But blundering into war would be the worst

IT IS odd that North Korea causes so much trouble. It is not exactly a superpower. Its economy is only a fiftieth as big as that of its democratic capitalist cousin, South Korea. Americans spend twice its total GDP on their pets. Yet Kim Jong Un’s backward little dictatorship has grabbed the attention of the whole world, and even of America’s president, with its nuclear brinkmanship. On July 28th it tested an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit Los Angeles. Before long, it will be able to mount nuclear warheads on such missiles, as it already can on missiles aimed at South Korea and Japan. In charge of this terrifying arsenal is a man who was brought up as a demigod and cares nothing for human life—witness the innocents beaten to death with hammers in his gigantic gulag. Last week his foreign ministry vowed that if the regime’s “supreme dignity” is threatened, it will “pre-emptively annihilate” the countries that threaten it, with all means “including the nuclear ones”. Only a fool could fail to be alarmed.”

Odd? Why odd? China uses North Korea as a form of sophisticated blackmail, why Mr. Xi tries to push the other way, namely in the South China Sea (while all these tensions stoke nationalism, hence his rule). The Economist to weakly recommend to “contain” North Korea. Just as is already done. Hitler, too, was contained. Until it became clear to Britain and France that the best choice was to declare war. Next recommendation from The Economist: breathe deep and carry on.

And why does The Economist pretend that “blundering into war” is the worst. No. The “worst” would be nuclear blackmail as far as the eye can see. Within a few decades, the young Mr. Kim could have the ability to annihilate the “West” in its entirety. The obvious remark is that a war with North Korea, a cannibalistic mafia state, now, would probably not go nuclear. Wait, and it will. Nuclear War has a high probability NOT to be contained (a strike, or attempted strike, on a US city would probably mean annihilation of North Korea and all its allies, real or imagined).

***

IMPOSSIBLE IS ALL TOO OFTEN, NOT REAL:

The impossible made history countless times. One has to be ready for the impossible, that’s how to contain it. 

History beats fiction, anytime. Want to learn something drastic? Learn real history.  It’s never weak.

Patrice Ayme’

Arranging History To Suit Plutocracy: French, Jews, Nazis, Bir Hakeim & Vel D’Hiv

July 17, 2017

Consider this: French president Macron declared that: “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. A friend of mine asked me what I thought of that idea. I said the obvious. First “antisemitism” is a lie:”antisemitism” as Macron uses it means “antijudaism”. Palestinians are semite, still they tend to be anti-Israel, which, according to Macron, would make them “antisemite”, thus being one thing and its opposite.

Sheer madness. But no accident: an aim of the present world leadership is MAD, not just in the sense of Mutually Assured Destruction, but in the sense that, once we are mad, we won’t make sense, thus they will keep on overwhelming us, because they, and the masters they serve, know very well where they are heading: towards inflicting ever more abuse. Abuse is its own deliriously satisfying power satisfaction.  (A little secret official humanists do not reveal as most of those with power partake in it!)

In green the parts of Europe and Africa under direct German military and government command. What The Vicious (?) Idiots (??) Who Claim France Ordered The Vel D’Hiv Deportation Pretend NOT to understand: Paris was under direct German Third Reich Administration, Subjugation, Enslavement, etc… It was NOT under Vichy putsch regime command (that’s in blue, early in 1942; later the Nazis overtook the entire metropolitan France).

Consider this: the preceding friend, a very educated, multilingual, upper class US citizen, told by me that the USA waited for Hitler to declare war, even after Pearl Harbor, reflectively replied:”Yes, but France had this Vichy government side with the Nazis against the Jews first.”

That is 100% false in several dimensions, each. Yet that several ways grievously erroneous opinion is pretty much ubiquitous in much of the world, inverting the basic facts of France and Nazism. The result being that the country which promulgated Human Rights the most, especially after 1789, is widely perceived as racist and vicious. Guess who profits from this? Global plutocracy, the global enemy of human rights. And who are the paymasters of our global leadership? Global plutocrats.

How did one get there? By myths promulgated by the French authorities themselves, in recent years. And why did those think it was so smart? Because all politicians, worldwide follow the smell of money, just as a viper follows the smell of the mice it just stung.

This would bring us to the touchy subject of who gave Macron the money to buy a one million Euro apartment when he was 25 years old (hint: not his parents, but some very wealthy people). It’s so touchy, I will leave it alone. As my mom said: ”Macron is president, and that’s it.”

Macron just tweeted: Emmanuel Macron‏Verified account: “Je crois à la logique de la confiance…” “I believe in the logic of trust”. Yes, how can one trust France which, according to its president “organized… the death of 13,152 [Jewish] persons”?

Let me reassure you right away: “France” did NOT organize said death of 13,152 persons. Under direct, nearly explicitly lethal, if disobeyed, Nazi orders, French police organized the arrest of (more or less then) illegal foreigners and refugees on Nazi occupied French soil. Not glorious, but the alternative was death at Nazis’ hands for disobedient police (of which there were plenty; ultimately Parisian police would rise in armed rebellion against the Nazis, two years later, when said rebellion was not just suicide). Our great leaders tend to take so many short circuits with truth that their logics blow up, in the maw of reality. This enable them to zap us. Inurement to blowing up of the logics we are submitted and accustomed to, enables our leaders to zap us further.

Thus reality is neither what our great “chiefs” sell, or buy. Madness is more like it.

(An example is the vaunted “Two States solution” in Israel-Palestine which is neither a state, nor a solution.)

***

Mythomania, or how to manipulate We the Peoples:

A head of state is at the head of myths. A head of state speaks with acts. The head of state speaks, even with silence. A head of state can speak with courage. Or cowardice. Or reason, or, even, to future history with future conspiracies, to be unveiled some day.

Except when they are raw truth, those myths are made to manipulate people. The more distant from truth the myth are, the more manipulative. I am a partisan of raw truth. I have found it the best fuel for human destiny.

Hitler described and used what he called the Big Lie technique. There are other methods, though, more akin to the “esprit de finesse” extolled by Macron, the French President. Basic dynamics help to understand what is going on. One Big Lie is the equivalent of a high acceleration: after it, one goes far, fast. But a succession of little lies equivalent to a sum of little accelerations will get you even further, because little lies are harder to detect, and one may be left with dozens of them in just one system of thought, after neutralizing a few. Instead, Nazism rested on less than half a dozen Big Lies.

***

I will illustrate in a further essay how approximations and liberties taken with history can sum up as giant lies, with the case of macron and the Vel d’Hiv. Such lies deserve it, the planet shares them all, and they are used as an excuse to ditch the Enlightenment.

Meanwhile one can read: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/vel-dhiv-roundup-ordered-by-the-german-nazis-not-france/

The enemies  of France love to confuse the French and the (German!) Nazis. That the latest self-described “chief” of France deems important to promote that identification is an indication of how rotten the head of civilization has become.

Tell me Macron, why is it so crucially important to tell the world that France went “Heil Hitler!” in 1942? As if it were true? After they got hundreds of French people killed by the Nazis, the French embraced them? Really? Blaming the victim should really be a foremost consideration?

***

BIR HAKEIM, Or When A French Army saved Israel, and prevented the Nazis to get to Iraqi oil:

On the evolution of the Second World War, the Vel’ d’Hiv had no impact. Besides, if Jewish refugees were caught in France, and the Vel d’Hiv happened, it was the fault of the USA, not France. And the defeat of France in the Battle of France of May-June 1940 could only happen because of the USA collaboration with Nazi Germany.

Just a month after Bir Hakeim, when a small French army removed the last hope the Nazis had to win the Second World War?

At Bir Hakeim, the French army of general Marie-Pierre Kœnig delayed by several weeks one of these sickle move of general Edwin Rommel was expert at. Rommel was going to encircle the defeated and retreating British Eighth Army, the only anti-Nazi significant military force between  England and India (with 110,000 soldiers, 850 tanks). Rommel knew that, as he put it “the fate of my army was at stake“. Actually Rommel knew all too well that the fate of the Reich was at stake. 

The Nazi plan was to seize Egypt, then kill all the Jews of Israel, and capture Iraqi oil, desperately needed by the Nazi war machine. In the aftermath of the Nazi defeat at Bir Hakeim, Hitler declared to his cabinet that the French were indeed the world’s best soldiers with his own Nazi soldiers. He added that, thus that’s why exactly Nazi-occupied France had to be completely destroyed, so she couldn’t never rise again.

Bir Hakeim should be as, or more famous than Thermopylae. There 300 Spartans delayed the Persian juggernaut invading Greece by three days. They all died in combat, refusing to surrender. At Bir Hakeim, the French army delayed the Nazi-Italian fascist juggernaut by three weeks. Officially, the French had 141 killed in combat at Bir Hakeim. However, out of 3,700 French soldiers fighting, more than 1,500 disappeared one way or another (many died in the desert during confused night action; the French would burrow in the day, counterattack at night).  

Bir Hakeim forced the Nazis to make an all-out assault towards the Caucasus, to get its oil, which they desperately needed, and, to protect their flank they had to seize the military-industrial city of Stalingrad (although they faced enormous Soviet forces on the way there). That was extremely risky, and the Nazi army was encircled many times in its desperate assault towards Stalingrad (where it would be, unsurprisingly, annihilated).

The highest Nazis (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich…) had to make the other top Nazi leaders understand, at the Wannsee conference on January 20, 1942, in Berlin, 6 months before the Vel d’Hiv, that they should not stand in the way of the “final solution”.  

But all Macron wants children of the world to learn from history is that:  “France organized… the death of 13,152 [Jewish] persons”? With “chiefs” like that, who needs suicide?

Patrice Ayme’

Why The Crusades Were Lost: Saint Louis’ Racism Against The Mongols!

July 9, 2017

Islam came to near annihilation in the Thirteenth Century as Franks and Mongols unified and took the Islamist capitals, Baghdad and Damascus. A little known episode. At the time, the overall Mongol Khan was a woman (another little known episode!) But she didn’t cause the problem. Instead Saint Louis’ jealous racism, and unbounded hatred of “infidels” made the difference.

Richard the Lionheart lived in France, where he was supposedly vassal to the king of France, Philip II Augustus his companion in arms (who left the so-called “Holy land” after a while, leaving his soul mate Richard, in charge). Richard may not have lost major battles. But, a century later, Saint Louis, Louis IX of France, did, and ruined France in the process.

It became clear nothing good was achieved by all this crusading. On top of that, the climate started to wobble. Instead, the French switched to the trading model with Islam (rendered possible by treaties consecutive to the Crusades). Immense fortunes were made (Jacques Coeur, born a commoner, became the richest man in France by trading with the Levant in the fifteenth century, and soon, master of the mint, and a most important European diplomat).

Arab chroniclers used the correct term, “Franki” (Franks) to qualify the Europeans trying to (re)conquer the Middle East from the religion of Islam, which had smothered it.

By the time the Crusades were launched, direct Muslim aggression against Europe has been continuous since 715 CE, a full four centuries (the word “Europe” was used first by the Franks in the context of the Muslim invasions). This continual Muslim attack was viewed, correctly, by all concerned, as the continuation of the war of Islam against Rome. (Naturally so, as the Franks so themselves as “Rome”. By 800 CE, the Franks had officially “renovated”, as they put it, the Roman empire…)

Painted in 1337 CE. Notice that the Franks are covered in armor, and the Muslims are not. Obvious technological superiority. The Romans already bought light steel helmets in Gaul! Muslim tech superiority is a lie. In plain view.

There is plenty of evidence that the Franks were more advanced than the Muslims in crucial military technology, as early as 715 CE. How could they not be? The Muslims were just coming out of savage Arabia, all the technology they had, was stolen, or, let’s say, adopted from others.

Four terracotta hand grenades, with “Greek Fire” inside, used by the defenders of Constantinople against the Turks. Greek Fire had many variants, some secret to this day. The Chinese developed dry versions, with salpeter, which turned into black powder later.

The Franks, who had been the crack troops of the Roman empire, as early as 311 CE, had better steel, better armor, better steel weapons, and giant war horses capable of wearing armor themselves. That’s why the Franks were able to defeat the Muslims, overall, in the first phase of the war with Islam, which was in Europe (711 CE, attack on Spain, until the counterattack on Jerusalem, 1099 CE).

This European technological superiority was obvious during the Spanish reconquista. An armored Spanish horse was like an intelligent, indomitable battle tank, which would charge again and again, rarely seriously wounded. By contrast, Muslim cavaliers wore little armor, their relatively small Arab horses were excellent but all too little (I used to ride my own very combative Arab stallion in Africa, which nobody else would, or could, ride… Its name, appropriately chosen, was Napoleon…).

Horse archers were not effective against heavily armored cavalry. They could bother it, but not defeat it. This is why the Mongols decided wisely not to attack the Franks again, after invading, suffering huge losses, Hungary, and Croatia. The Mongols debated what had happened to their ancestors the Huns, eight centuries earlier, in France (annihilation spared only political decision). The Mongols used rocket artillery.

Noah Smith wroteWhy Did Europe Lose the Crusades?“. Said he: “A little while ago, I started to wonder about a historical question: Why did Europe lose the Crusades? The conventional wisdom, at least as I’ve always understood it, is that Europe was simply weaker and less advanced than the Islamic Middle Eastern powers defending the Holy Land. Movies about the Crusades tend to feature the Islamic armies deploying fearsome weapons – titanic trebuchets, or even gunpowder. This is consistent with the broad historical narrative of a civilizational “reversal of fortunes” – the notion that Islamic civilization was much more highly advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages. Also, there’s the obvious fact that the Middle East is pretty far from France, Germany, and England, leading to the obvious suspicion that the Middle East was just too far away for medieval power projection.

Anyway, I decided to answer this question by…reading stuff about the Crusades. I read all the Wikipedia pages for the various crusades, and then read a book – Thomas Asbridge’s “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land“. Given that even these basic histories contain tons of uncertainty, we’ll never really know why the Crusades turned out the way they did. But after reading up a bit, here are my takes on the main candidate explanations for why Europe ultimately lost.”

He pursue by fingering “lack of motivation” as the main cause of the loss of the Crusades. That is true, in part: Europe opened to the ocean. However, the Crusades won in important ways (opening up trade). But the Europeans also really lost, when it would have been easy to win.

Noah Smith’s analysis focuses only on the English (so to speak) aspect of the Crusades. He does not quite say that a rogue frankish army seized Constantinople in 1204 CE. And then he omits completely what happened in the Thirteenth Century (because Richard Lionhearted was then dead, and history is all about the Anglois?).

For politically correct reasons, some of them ten centuries old, some more voguish, allegations have been made of the superiority of Islam (or China, for that matter). These (often self-serving from racist self-declared anti-racists) assertions are not grounded in fact.

By 1000 CE, the Franks had the highest GDP per capita in the world, and its history. European technology was, overall, the most advanced. Europeans were stunned by how little the Chinese used machines and animals.  

The Arabic numbers were Greek numbers perfected in India, where the full zero was invented, and were reintroduced through central Asia. Out of the 160 major work of Antiquity we have, 150 survived in European monasteries, the universities of the time (and the ten remaining were saved by the Persians, initially).

The Middle East, long the cradle of most invention, has been clearly a shadow of its former self, ever since Islam established its dictator, intolerance and war friendly terrorizing culture of god obsession.

Crusades in the Middle east until 1204; The image Noah Smith uses, which misinforms the reality of what happened…

Europe didn’t “lose the Crusades”. Saint Louis did. Europe didn’t just decide the Middle East was hopeless, in all sorts of ways. Europe had got reopening of the Silk Roads from Saladin. Meanwhile in 1244, the Khwarezmians, recently pushed out by the advance of the Mongols, took Jerusalem on their way to ally with the Egyptian Mamluks. Europe shrugged (by then “Roman” emperors such as Frederick I Barbarossa had used a Muslim company of bodyguards… So there was strictly no anti-Muslim hatred and racism… contrarily to what happened with the Mongols, see below…) 

It is also true that Saint Louis, a weird mix of a dangerous religious fanatic of the worst type, and a modern, enlightened king, lost its entire army (to a woman, the only female leader Islam ever had!) in Egypt. Saint Louis was taken captive at the Battle of Fariskur where his army was annihilated. He nearly died, was saved from dysentery by an Arab physician (impressed Arabs offered for him to rule them). A huge ransom had to be paid, comparable to the French budget. Then Saint Louis died in front of Tunis, in another ridiculous crusade (1270 CE).  Louis fell ill with dysentery, and was cured by an Arab physician

The Seventh and Eight Crusades were disastrous military defeats

Saint Louis, a racist, was the direct cause of the survival of Islam. The Mongols, allied to local Franks had destroyed Baghdad (siege of the Abbasid Caliphate) and Damascus (siege of the Umayyad). The Mongols asked respectfully to make an official alliance with Christianity, and eradicate Islam.

Instead the Pope called Nestorian Christian Mongols heathens, and him and Saint Louis promised excommunication to all and any Frank joining the Mongols in war. Thus the Mongols attacked Egypt without Frankish help, and were defeated by the Mamluks Turks.

Dejected, the Mongols decided that they were Muslims (Islam has no pope, and the Caliphate had been destroyed by the Franco-Mongol alliance ) Under Timor Lame, they would carve a giant Mongol-Muslim empire all the way into India.

This is just a fraction of the common operations of the Franks and Mongols, when they were allied against the Muslims, destroying Baghdad, seizing Damascus. Saint Louis and his pet the Pope saved Islam by calling a halt to the cooperation. Mongols and Franks actually took Damascus together, and the commanders entered the conquered city, side by side…

The Spanish were more serious. They, Isabella, Ferdinand and their advisers, planned to pursue the reconquista by extirpating Islam from North Africa and the Middle East.

The extremely well-trained, battle hardened army was prepared, but then the Americas had just been discovered, and war with France for the control of the world in general and Italy in particular, became everything. Spain engaged in a war with France it took nearly two centuries to lose. The conquest of the Americas changed the world, though. The reconquest of the Christian empire from the Muslims was given up…

It could have been done: the Spanish occupied many cities of North Africa, including Algiers and Oran. Power was divided between Ottoman pirates (“Barbarossas”) and the kingdom of Tlemcen. In any case, in 1525 CE, while Cortez was conquering Central America, defeating among others, the Aztecs, pirates retook Algiers in the name of the Turk Selim 1. At the same time, Selim defeated the Egyptian Mamluks, taking control of the Levant, Mecca, and Egypt.

Islam, a pretty deleterious religion in its literal, Salafist form, survived. North Africa and the Middle East, previously long the world’s wealthiest place, is now the poorest and most war-ridden…

And the war goes on, the ideology of Salafist, literal Islam, being fundamentally antagonistic to civilization.

For the USA, the Iraq war has been an enormous victory: it boosted the price of oil for a decade, enabling the massive deployment of US fracking. Now the USA is again the world’s number one fossil fuel producer. Also French and US military forces are fighting from Mali to Afghanistan, maintaining economic and military control over an area still crucial for energy production (although it will soon become economically irrelevant, from renewable energy).  

All the regimes from Mali to Afghanistan, are, officially, friendly to civilization. So why does the war goes on? Because the ideology is islam is centered on Jihad, no holds barred. Thus Islam gives a ready ideology to those who want to make no holds barred. This is why the Turks converted to islam. Within a generation, they had invaded a huge swathe of Central Asia, and overran very old civilization: Georgia, Armenia, and the Oriental Romans (“Constantinople”).

Then Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem were massacred (up to 10,000 at one time) by various Muslim potentates. Constantinople, having lost half of its territory, to the recently converted, ferociously invading Turks, asked the “Occidental” Roman empire to come to the rescue.   

In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military intervention for the so-called Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed desperately to stop the westward invasion of the migrating Turks colonising Anatolia.

Morality of all this? What people think they know about history has little to do with what really happened. The forces presently in conflict have been in conflict ever since Islam exists, as Muhammad wanted it. The Quraish, in Mecca, the dominant tribe Muhammad belonged to, didn’t trust Muhammad: he was an analphabet and an epileptic. To boot, Muhammad succeeded in life by marrying a wealthy business woman, and then switching from caravan trading, to caravan raiding.

Just before he died, Muhammad led the first attack against the Romans (who had not attacked him, and refused combat). War is the great arbiter of human destiny. The enormous Roman field army, horrendously led erroneously, was annihilated on its third day of battle at Yarmouk against the Arab Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius, a great general had not been present, he was in Alexandria.

War is a great arbiter, but it is also extremely fickle. Crucial battles are won, and lost, which should never have been won, or lost. Sometimes by sheer happenstance, sometimes from hubris, sometimes by having top generals with top armies not considering the worst imaginable case (as happened to the Romans when fighting the Arabs at Yarmouk, or with Yamamoto at Midway, or the French mid May 1940…).

To learn from history, it has to be learned in full. Civilization missed a chance to eliminate the Islamist war ideology when it aborted the natural alliance with the Mongols. But it’s not very surprising: the overall leader of Europe, then, was Saint Louis. Saint Louis invented the modern justice system, and put his mother, Blanche de castille, in charge of France for many years. So he could be viewed as non-sexist and all for justice. He is represented to this day, rendering justice below an oak. However, Saint Louis was also a savage. He really believed that unbelievers should be killed painfully. Interestingly, Saint Louis came to believe that the Muslims were believers: his fanatical rage was oriented towards Jews and those who, in Christendom, did not believe. So it’s entirely natural that, by considering the Mongols heathens, and forbidding a further alliance with them, he would, in the end, save Islam!

It’s not just that Saint Louis burned 12,000 Jewish manuscripts in Paris, in 1243 CE (5 years before he led the disastrous Seventh Crusade). Saint Louis wrote abominable descriptions of the atrocious ways in which he would kill infidels (I read it in the original texts long ago; however, I was unable to find a source today…)

We have Jihadists around, ready to kill the innocent nowadays, because Saint Louis was actually one of them!

Patrice Ayme’

Islam – Religion of Peace or Totalitarian Ideology?

July 1, 2017

PRESENT DAY ISLAM IS A LIE, SAID AISHA:
I lived my childhood in Muslim countries, from the age of two weeks. Islam was then never a problem, it was a very tolerant and tolerable part of the landscape. I never had a problem with the call to prayer, anymore than I had with church bells. Both of them could be heard, as the places I grew up in enjoyed diverse version of “Sufi” Islam. “Sufism” is actually immensely varied. In West Africa it meant not only women didn’t wear a veil, but were going bare chested.

Now things have completely degenerated: Saudi and emirates’ wealth, discreetly propped by divisive Western plutocracy, have imposed a variant of Islam which was basically unknown when not outright outlawed eight centuries ago in the places of higher civilization (Sultanate of egypt, Abbasid Caliphate, Persia).

This unamusing version comes straight out of the Qur’an written by Uthman, Third Caliph, which Aisha, the child-bride wife of the Prophet, condemned and went to war about because, she said, it was a pack of lies and fake representations of what Muhammad thought. Interestingly, Aisha fought Ali at the Battle of the Camel, so she is hated by the Shia, too. Thus Aisha condemned both Sunni and Shia Islams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Picard, named after the Star Trek character, for his humanitarian logic, is a frequent commenter on this site and the author of the site “Defense Issues” has produced his own critical essay on Salafist Islam. (We are all severely criticizing, following Aisha’s notoriously free spirit!). This breath of fresh air is reproduced below.

Defense Issues

“Truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

  • Gloria Steinem

During times of universal deceit; telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

  • George Orwell

Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

  • Potter Stewart

The worst form of inequality is to try make unequal things equal.

  • Aristotle

Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights – only occupation. Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region.

  • Arthur Kemp

There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.

  • Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi, Libyan Leader, March 2007

Western liberals (including the current Pope)…

View original post 39,601 more words

Flawed Philosophy Is WHY CARTHAGE FAILED

April 12, 2017

Remember Carthage!

Superficialists will tell you Carthage failed, because a Roman army destroyed Carthage in 8 days of door to door fighting. The real philosophical question is how did it come to that, all the more as the Roman imperator (general) commanding said army, devastated by the horror unfolding under the orders he got from the Roman Senate, was crying as his own troops engaged in the carnage. The answer is philosophical, yet of extreme importance, looking forward in the present situation of civilization.

Some Traits of Carthage’s Extreme Plutocratic Philosophy Were So Wrong, That Carthage Failed. A lesson to meditate!

Carthage was one of the most striking civilizations, ever. Differently from Sparta, which did not contribute much to civilization (even considering the 300 stand at Thermopylae, which was later thoroughly eradicated with extensive collaboration with fascist imperialist Persian juggernaut).

Carthage made present-day Tunisia bloom. It was never again so agriculturally productive. In 300 BCE, the part of North Africa Carthage cultivated was as great as the private farms, and the Ager Publicus of Rome, and all the area of Italy cultivated by Rome’s allies. In other words, Carthage’s resources were enormous.  

But not just that. Differently from a land power such as the richest of them all, Egypt, Carthage mostly lived of maritime trade. She controlled the Western Mediterranean, all the way to tropical Black Africa, except for Phocian Marseilles’ own little Greek empire, and Magna Grecia (Great Greece) in southern Italy. 

Partial view of Carthage’s famous Cothon: the commercial harbor is rectangular, the circular inner harbor is military, and could hold 188 trireme warships, each in its own shelter. Cap Bon at the horizon. Contemporary Tunis, population, one million, is to the right.

Carthage established far-out trading posts in Africa, starting the idea of the direct collaboration of Europe, and the Middle Earth collaboration with Black Africa (something idiots call “colonization”… All the more dumb as it went both ways, see the Almoravids.)

Carthaginian agricultural science was so advanced that it gave Rome the only book the latter preserved when insane, mass murdering Roman plutocracy annihilated the North African metropolis. if the West could colonize so well, thereafter, and even the Arabs, or Persians, it’s in no small measure thanks to Carthaginian agricultural science.

Carthage was much admired by Aristotle, for its “mixed constitution” (monarchy + aristocracy + democracy). That was viewed as an ideal balance bringing stability. Except for Sparta, Greek City-States were notoriously unstable.  Sparta, like Rome, and Carthage, also had a “mixed” constitution (and was much admired by all too many of the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle-Macedonia clique… which ended democracy in Greece).

***

If Carthage was so great, why did it fail? Too much oligarchy, not enough citizenship:

Carthage’s plutocratic oligarchy was avaricious with citizenship (so were the Romans, but not as much, by a very long shot; however, Roman avarice in the way of citizenship is why there was the “Social War” of the First Century BCE). Thus, although Carthage controlled a greater productive domain than Rome, Carthage had much fewer real citizens. Moreover the latter were city-dwellers, poorly trained in war.

Thus Carthaginian armies had not much in common with Roman armies, which were full of healthy Roman farmers. By 400 BCE, Roman farmers serving in the Roman army were paid a stipend; the end result is that Rome was able to field the largest national armies in the Ancient Mediterranean World; Persia could field larger armies, but, like the Carthaginian armies, they were multinational armies of mercenaries.

The all too small full citizenry of Carthage meant that much of the “Libyan” population Carthage administered did not have a full stake in the fate of the metropolis. Carthage drafted them during wars, but also paid mercenaries, many of them from Spain or Gaul.

After the First abominable “Punic” war with Rome (which started in 265 BCE), Carthage suffered a striking revolt of an army of its own mercenaries. By contrast, Rome’s core legions were made of full citizens, superbly trained and equipped. (Even when the Roman legions rebelled, centuries later, they rebelled against each other, to seize power, never the City of Rome herself.)

***

It was cruel to deny citizenship to stakeholder, so Carthage became ever more cruel:

Carthaginian cruelty was legendary. Crucifying generals, to encourage the others, was common (whereas Rome, in 22 centuries of Roman history, never crucified a single general).

3,000 years ago, human sacrifice of children was still practiced: consider the Bible and the famous would-be child killer Abraham. 2,800 years ago, queen Dido founded the Phoenician colony of Carthage. Phoenicia, the cities of the present-day Lebanese litoral (Tyr, Sidon, Byblos, etc.) was most advanced: it created the alphabet (and books, bibles, from the word “Byblos”). Phoenicia practiced child sacrifices. Thus, so did Carthage.

However killing children became uncool in the Middle Earth: it was a big civilization there, and some of the national civilizations, such as Egypt, had never practiced child sacrifice. Those nation-civilizations were in competition and trade with each other, and child killing was no advantage. In the end, Phoenicia dropped that monstrous religion.  

But Carthage kept it.

Why? Because Carthage ruled North Africa, and had no competitors (Numidian kingdoms were clients and supplicants, and allies against Rome). Carthage’s absurdly obsolete cruelty would have been a lethal disadvantage further east. But, in North Africa, overlording the savage Numids and Libyans, it was rather a way to awe them some more, and thus to rule them, sort of.

And Carthage kept killing more and more children.

Why? Because denying citizenship to stakeholders was cruel, and needed cruelty to keep on going. And the more it went, the more cruel Carthage got.

Thus the more wrong it was about citizenship, the more cruel Carthage got (to impose that inequality ever more). Doing so it weakened itself in two ways: too small a citizenry (especially with all those dead kids), and Carthage put herself in the moral crosshairs of Rome (which was notoriously antagonistic to human sacrifice religions).

In the end, Carthage became much more democratic, infuriating and alarming Roman plutocracy ever more. Out of this fury, Roman plutocracy got ever more mileage. Indeed, the annihilation of Carthage by an unhinged Roman Senatorial class was an unmitigated disaster. It’s not just that the greatest Semitic civilization which ever was disappeared. It’s also that Carthage gave an excuse for the Roman plutocracy to get completely mad, insane, unhinged, and thus able to vaporize Roman total democracy (which had been growing, prior to the Punic wars).

***

Many are the lessons’ from Carthage:    

We saw above that the growth in inequality is justified, and accompanied by a growth in cruelty. This was true both on the Carthaginian and Roman sides. After 146 BCE, when Rome destroyed with extreme cruelty free city states in Spain and Greece, and annihilated Carthage, Roman cruelty turned against the Roman population itself.

This was of course insane, and the more insane it got, the more cruelty itself was used as an excuse and occasion for further madness. In the end, Rome found itself ruled by a plutocratic clique among which emperors were selected. This concentration of power among few hands and brains made Rome increasingly stupid (just as Carthage had become increasingly stupid). The result was a degeneracy of the state in a theocracy symbolically led by a crucified, and thus crucifying, messiah, Jesus his name.

Republics such as the USA and France also have a mixed constitution (the presidents have the powers of elected kings, the politicians, in combination with the plutocrats who feed them, make oligarchies, etc.) The US and France are the paradigms of today’s “republics”.

Still the same psychological laws which led Carthage and Rome down the abyss, are in place. Thus history can teach us how to avoid the pitfalls.

***

What Should Carthage Have Done?

The Punic wars started as a three-way struggle for Sicily, between Carthage, Greek tyrants, and the rising Roman power. Retrospectively, after a Greek tyrant landed in North Africa on the prominent cape next to Carthage (Carthage got rid of him with difficulty), Carthage should have extended her citizenship to Libyans, and grow to cover North Africa, imitating the Roman Republic, which was closer to a total democracy, then, than to a plutocratic oligarchy as Carthage was.

Thus Carthage could have grown organically, as a civilization (as Rome did). In particular, child killing would have disappeared, because Numidians and Libyans would not have acquired with enthusiasm Carthaginian citizenship, if they thought it meant their kids may have had to be thrown in the fire.

Carthage: it is alarming to see that a civilization so splendid, so smart and so advanced could be so wrong, and so retarded. But cruelty has a beauty that the herd often indulges in.

Patrice Ayme’

Is Islam Destroying the European Union?

February 27, 2017

Is Islam Already Deconstructing Europe? Yes: consider Brexit.

I would not have thought this, that Fundamentalist Islam was already devouring Europe, a year ago, or any time before: I would have laughed derisively. Now I am not laughing anymore. Meanwhile there was Brexit.

Brexit was a first blatant revolt against the established order. The next blatant revolt was the colossal sweep of Donald Trump’s electoral victory: Trump controls the presidency, the Senate, the Congress, and most states (and the army, by putting the key generals in his government, and soon Trump will control the Supreme Court). Trump does not like the European Union (at least not as an alter ego of the USA; an independent Scotland may well suit his golf courses…)  Trump is a rebellious Pluto threatening the plutocracy, the ultimate horror, haunting plutocracy, ever there is plutocracy, and it plots.

Meanwhile the so-called judges, all over Europe, full, without knowing it, of hatred for the civilization that they are supposed to defend, have pursued their program of provocation of the survival instinct of the European population they terrorize with their obvious bias against any national instinct (I am going to explain those grave accusations). 

So what is the precise reason for my sudden pessimism? NEXIT! NEXIT originated from cancers affecting the soul of the elite: Postmodernism and Multiculturalism. 

841 CE, Fonetnoy, Next to Auxerre, France. 40,000 Killed. Catastrophe Happens: the War of Brothers, the Bruederkrieg, Brought 11 Centuries of European Strife, And Ten Centuries of Rampaging Islamists

841 CE, Fontenoy, Next to Auxerre, France. 40,000 Killed. Catastrophe Happens: the War of Brothers, the Bruederkrieg, Brought 11 Centuries of European Strife, And Ten Centuries of Rampaging Islamists. Now the same divisive spirit is back, and so are the Islamists

***

“Postmodernist” and “Multiculturalist” thinking has been the greedy ideological pretext of the venal European elite.

That vicious elite was well rewarded for it. “Postmodernism” and “Multiculturalism” basically say that the Enlightenment is not any more worthy than the primitive desert, pre-literate cult, Islam. The Enlightenment and Islam are both cultures, all cultures are the same, thus they are equivalent, say the “Postmodernists”, “Multiculturalists” and “anti-colonialists”.  Hence Islamists islamizing are fully right to kneel by the hundreds in the middle of French streets.

It does stop there: by hating “colonialism”, which tragically, put an end to cannibalism and slavery in Africa, European “intellectuals” and those they formed (the so-called judges, the so-called politicians and the so-called teachers, etc.) ended hating the very foundation of European, civilization.

The motivation of the higher spheres of this European elite was sheer corruption by the global plutocracy. Plutocracy hates civilization, always has, always will: ruling by evil ways is its exact definition. By destroying the foundations of European culture, European civilization got undermined, hence the resistance to plutocratization. Thus “Postmodernism” and “Multiculturalism” have been used as Trojan horses to demolish civilization.

In practice, some Europeans noticed the preceding, and started to vote for politicians who protested against it. This is why Brexit passed: the British were exasperated by massive immigration. The Brits were exasperated by the million Muslims lunatic Frau Merkel let in, knowing full well that, once in the EU, they could end in Britain, where “Multiculturalism”, not to say “Islamization” has long been not just desired theory, but a long-standing practice.

Brexit was, fundamentally, an anti-immigration vote.

Europeans, bless them, are finally understanding the venom, the poison of so-called “POSTMODERNISM” and “MULTICULTURALISM”.

Let me hasten to point out that I know of nobody as “Postmodernist” and “Multiculturalist” as myself: I speak several languages (and I have studied even more, including Japanese and Mandarin), I have lived on several continents, and spent 90% of my infanthood and childhood in Africa, half of my family was from, among (very nice, very advanced) Muslims.

So what gives?

My “Postmodernism” and “Multiculturalism” is counterbalanced by a hierarchy of all values, anchored in human ethology in full, and an appreciation of superior culture, not just from the inside, but also from the outside.

However, so-called judges, politicians and teachers of Europe are lower dimensional creatures who know very little, and, in particular ignore entire dimensions. And they revel in it. “Postmodernism” and the “Multiculturalism” enabled them to crow about their cultural and moral superiority. The more simple, the more superior, those European elites have this in common with the Islamists.

(In France it surface recently that some individuals so close to ex-justice minister Taubira

(Posatmodernism and Multiculturalism were actually Faustian bargains: the elite sold their souls to ingratiate themselves with the same US plutocrats who had helped to bring them Nazism and Fascism earlier, from the Kaiser to Mussolini, to the Greek Colonels, passing through Lenin and Stalin, as Lenin himself recognized jokingly… This theory of history is very much mine will not be mentioned in the rest of this essay, but has been detailed in many of my works before…).

***

NEXIT is the Netherlands EXIT from the European Union:

If someone had told me, two years ago, that the Netherlands could vote to leave Europe, I would have laughed derisively. But, as with Brexit, facts on the ground changed spectacularly. How could that happen?

Geert Wilders is the leader of the anti-Islam Party for Freedom (PVV). For years, he was hounded by so-called judges in the Netherlands. The last case was on December 6, 2016.  Wilders led a party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands”.

The crowd’s response of “fewer, fewer”, was clearly organised, said a judge at the secure court at Schiphol Judicial Complex, near Amsterdam, ruling that Wilders had breached the boundaries of even a politician’s freedom of speech.

We wonder how the so-called judge knew this. What do judges know? Did they study hiastory, real history? 

“It doesn’t matter that Wilders gave another message afterwards [saying he was referring only to criminal Moroccans and benefits claimants],” said the so-called judge. “The message that evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work… The group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”

Wilders said, in a statement in English posted on his YouTube channel, “I still cannot believe it, but I have been convicted because I asked a question about Moroccans. The Netherlands has become a sick country. The judge who convicted me [has] restricted the freedom of speech for millions of Dutch. I will never be silent. I am not a racist and neither are my voters.”

Wilders, the increasing popular politician, who did not attend the judgment or most of the process, apart from to give his “last word” at the end of hearings, also called it a “kangaroo court” in tweets about the judges and hearings earlier this year.

In France, facing elections in seven weeks, so-called judges have multiplied “judicial” attacks against right-wing and nationalistic politicians. The two leading candidates for the Presidency are the object of judicial harassment. So-called judges would prefer the 30 something Emmanuel Macron, a golden boy who made many millions from working for the Rothschild bank, an early start in life reminiscent of Krugman and Summers (pillars of the US Democratic Party who got launched as employee of the plutophile Ronald Reagan).

Macron just declared that France was culprit of crime against humanity for its “colonialism”.

Well, there is hope. Just before his ill-informed anti-European civilization blast, Macron, the candidate of ultra-”liberalism” was likely to become French president. His anti-French blast made him dip in the polls. 

The recently condemned Wilders, gloriously “anti-Islam” leader of the Dutch far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) is on course to win the most seats at the general election in March. His election would be the latest, potentially lethal, blow for Europe’s so-called “liberal” order in the tumultuous wake of Donald Trump’s victory and the Brexit vote.

Mr Wilders has pledged to close the Netherlands’ borders, shut down mosques, leave the euro and EU if he gets into power. To implement this, he will propose a NEXIT referendum.

The European Union as it is, will not survive NEXIT. The Netherlands is where the Franks came from: it would be tearing the heart.

A reminder perhaps?

Let’s talk about Lotharxit, when Lothar decided to go his own way, and impose it.

***

No Legitimate Imperial Power: The Old Roman-European Problem.

In 800 CE, Charlemagne was proclaimed one and only Roman emperor. Even the Regency in Constantinople agreed. The Renovated Roman Empire was united and strong. The (English-born) philosopher Alcuin, Prime Minister of Charlemagne, pushed education throughout the empire, which covered most of Europe.

However, the Franks had not improved much on the non-existent Roman imperial succession system. The results were catastrophic.

Notice in passing that this means centralized imperial power was not legitimate. The European Union has basically the same problem now: its power is viewed as neither legitimate, nor imperial.

The power struggle among the Franks resulted in the Battle of Fontenoy in 841 CE (there was another battle at Fontenoy, more famous but much less important, 900 years later…).

The three-year Carolingian Civil War culminated in the decisive Battle of Fontenoy-en-Puisaye, fought at Fontenoy, near Auxerre, on the 25 June 841. The war was over the territorial inheritances —the division of the Charlemagne’s Carolingian Empire between his grandsons, the three surviving sons of “Roman” Frankish emperor Louis the Pious (Louis Le Debonnaire in French, meaning Louis the Do-gooder and easy-Going: he kept on forgiving his wayward sons, instead of punishing them severely, even after they deposed him!).

Emperor Louis was obligated by the Salic Law to divide “his” empire equally among his sons (at the same time, the leaders of the Franks were supposedly elected; thus basically the richest was elected…)

***

The Catastrophe Of Fontenoy, 841 CE:

The battle was between the emperor Lothar, grandson of Charlemagne, allied to his cousin, leader of Aquitaine, against the coalition of Lothar’ brother Louis the German and his half-brother Charles the Bald (Charles was 17 years younger than Louis). The war was precipitated by Lothar’s proclamation, in July 840, that he was global effective emperor  of the whole Renovatio Imperium Romanorum (Lothar was already long king of Italy, thus Rome). Lothar said it was not just about the imperial title.  

Around noon a cavalry charge from Charles-Louis side broke Lothar’s lines, and the latter was put to flight. That day of butchery brought 40,000 DEAD (and much more wounded; in the worst day of World War One, the French army suffered 27,000 dead, around 21 August 1914…).

Angibert fought on the side of Lothar at the battle. He wrote a poem, which is as follows, in English:

Fontenoy they call its fountain, manor to the peasant known,

“There the slaughter, there the ruin, of the blood of Frankish race;

Plains and forest shiver, shudder; horror wakes the silent marsh.

Neither dew nor shower nor rainfall yields its freshness to that field,

Where they fell, the strong men fighting, shrewdest in the battle’s skill,

Father, mother, sister, brother, friends, the dead with tears have wept.

 And this deed of crime accomplished, which I here in verse have told,

Angibert myself I witnessed, fighting with the other men,

I alone of all remaining, in the battle’s foremost line.

 On the side alike of Louis, on the side of Charles alike,

Lies the field in white enshrouded, in the vestments of the dead,

As it lies when birds in autumn settle white off the shore.

 Woe unto that day of mourning! Never in the round of years

Be it numbered in men’s annals! Be it banished from all mind,

Never gleam of sun shine on it, never dawn its dusk awake.

Night it was, a night most bitter, harder than we could endure,

When they fell, the brave men fighting, shrewdest in the battle’s skill,

Father, mother, sister, brother, friends, the dead with tears have wept.

 Now the wailing, the lamenting, now no longer will I tell;

Each, so far as in him lieth, let him stay his weeping now;

On their souls may He have mercy, let us pray the Lord of all

Lothar later resorted to methods akin to terrorism, with a new army he had raised: the stronger Charles and Louis pushed him into the woods, out of his capital Aachen.

***

Following this huge civil war among the Franks, the Magyars, Vikings and Saracens (Islamists) swooped in, shredding Europe:

And the Islamists and their friends did this in an industrial fashion (the first Islamist attacks had been against Spain in 711 CE, Francia in 715 CE). In the Ninth Century (and again in the Tenth Century), Islamists camped by Swiss passes, capturing even a cleric grandson of Charlemagne at the Saint Bernard pass (the grandson was ransomed for a colossal amount). Vikings roamed nearly all over France. Magyars did pretty much the same in the East (until they were defeated much later by Frankish “Roman” emperor Otto 1 next to Ausburg, Austria. The Magyars came from the Urals…

The general problem is that the Franks did not have a common, admitted system for succession of the ultimate authority (same problem as Rome). The last common emperor was Charles the Fat (expired in January 888, after a coup; he had been very sick for years, and was even trepanned: surgical hole in the skull…). Charles had been elected by the “Magnates” (a hefty dosage of plutocrats therein).

***

Catastrophes happen.

Brexit is a catastrophe.

One catastrophe can lead to another.

The underlying catastrophe here is the proclaimed equality of all cultures, and the accompanying implicit detestation of European culture. This will to destroy and insult civilization, by so-called judges, corrupt politicians and the like, is actually an implementation of the submission to global plutocracy.

The election of Trump is a reaction against the detestation of all what made Europe (and thus its American colonies!) superior. Similarly, Brexit is a reaction against that detestation. Yet, Brexit is clearly self-defeating (the jury of history is out for Trump, somewhere in the future). Brexit is an alienation, and we saw what the alienation of the grandsons of Charlemagne led to (Fontenoy, see above).

The Frankish empire, mangled in many parts survived because it was, and as, a global Latin speaking entity (at the elite level of intellectuals, monks, leaders, war mongers, etc; common people talked Germanoid in the East, and degenerated Latin elsewhere). Ultimately rather centralized western Francia, an empire and a kingdom and the more decentralized  rest of the “Roman Empire” found a mission fighting off the invading Islamists for centuries, as the latter roamed over half of Europe. This led to the counterattack of the Crusades, which bred some sense in the Islamists (Saladin and Al. made treaties with Richard the Lionheart, representing Europe; while re-opening the trade routes to the Orient; the Crusades were not all mayhem, no gain, at least, some of them…)

The history of the Franks shows catastrophe can occur, and that its dreadful consequences can last 1,105 years (840 Ce to 1945 CE; the time it took for the French and German to settle their differences). Ultimately, creating a European imperial government which can carry war where the refugees come from, and extinguish their cause is a necessity.

***

Another pitfall of history is devolution of understanding. Consider Tasmania. Or, more exactly, the Tasmanian Devolution:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/tasmanian-effect/

Tasmanians, for whichever reasons hard to understand, lost the technology they had. Practically it means that the English farmers could exterminate them to the last (whereas the Technology advanced, war like Maoris fought back efficiently and survived in New Zealand).i

Fanatical “Postmodernism”, fanatical “Multiculturalism”, under the pretense of universalization serve the globalist plutocracy and hate civilization. They have no better symbol and reward than Islamization.

Down the drain we go.

At some point, one loses control of events: a snowflake is cute, innocuous, light. Too many snowflakes, and one gets a lethal avalanche. There are worse fates than war. Even global war.

Time to progress in understanding. It is a question of survival.

For Europe, understanding means to move to a Federal Union as fast as possible. The leaders of the french, german and Italian assemblies just signed an open letter demanding just this:

Now is the moment to move towards closer political integration — the Federal Union of States with broad powers. We know that the prospect stirs up strong resistance, but the inaction of some cannot be the paralysis of all. Those who believe in European ideals, should be able to give them a new life instead of helplessly observing its slow sunset.”

Right. Time to fight. For the right ideas.

Patrice Ayme’

Trump: US “Not innocent…Got A Lot Of Killers”

February 8, 2017

Ask pseudo-democrats and pseudo-leftists, so noisy nowadays, and they will speak as if the history of the USA in the Middle East started on 9/11. They will generally not know that 9/11 was engineered by an Islamist conspiracy initially instigated by the USA. (Actually several Islamist conspiracies were instigated and entangled by the US Deep State; the main engineers were “Democratic” presidents Roosevelt and Carter.)

Please consider, for Carter’s villainous attack:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/usa-attack-against-afghanistan/

Yes, Carter killed millions, in the end. The war he and his goons directly engineered killed at least two million Afghans, five million refugees, and turned the country into an Islamist nightmare. And that was just the beginning. Millions more would die, in further consequences of great humanist Carter’s exploits. Carter can go, build houses with his bare hands to look good helping the poor: hopefully, history will nail him and his ilk.

Using Islam as a modern weapon of mass destruction, was, partly, an US idea (expanding on the genius of the Saudi family, associated with Wahhabism, Literal Islam, since the 1700s…) President Roosevelt was that engineer, in his last strategy, before he croaked, and after giving half of Europe to Stalin (divide and conquer!)

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/great-bitter-lake/

After Destroying the Democratic Republic in Afghanistan, the US turned it into an Islamist State, Similar to Saudi Arabia. After 9/11, the USS recreated an Islamist Republic in Afghanistan, as it Had In Pakistan Next Door.

Jews! The French! In Afghanistan! What of the US? After Destroying the Democratic Republic in Afghanistan, the US turned it into an Islamist State, Similar to Saudi Arabia. After 9/11, the USS recreated an Islamist Republic in Afghanistan, as it Had In Pakistan Next Door.

Young US citizens are imprinted to believe that “conspiracy theorists” are deranged, and to stay away from them. Thus US youth stay away from any representation of a conspiracy. Their appreciation of history is reduced to screaming USA USA USA USA. Or if of the pseudo-democratic indoctrination, nowadays, to call everybody they don’t understand a “racist” (just as the Nazis did!)

When someone set to move the world, that someone is never alone, though. And, especially when they are up to no good, their mindset is not for the whole world to know. Instead they together-breathe (con-spirare) with a small group.

Example: the US government secretly decided to attack the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1970s. Afghanistan had been previously peaceful, open, safe. However the potential development of its mineral riches by French and Russian interests threatened US hegemony. Notice that this was not about Afghanistan itself. It was about the US fighting France and Russia.

So the US unleashed the Islamist Republic of Pakistan’s ISI. When that was not enough, Carter ordered the CIA to attack the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (July 3, 1979) and then Saudi Arabia, and, finally Ben Laden.

The “official” reason given to the French by the Carter National Security Adviser, was that Islamism would destroy the USSR. Knowing there was a defense treaty between the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan made the Carted White House confident that the USSR would be drawn in. From the point of view of the Carter and then Reagan White Houses, attacking elementary schools for girls was a sure method to draw the Russians in (yes, Afghani elementary schools for girls were recommended even as a target for Bin Laden’s goons).

Before the full-scale US attack on the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the country was definitively not Islamist. Consider the “Old Jew” of Picasso, in French, as an Afghan national stamp (above). 

Notice the US used Islamism as a weapon. First through Pakistan, then through the CIA, then through Saudi Arabia, then through Ben Laden.

This is why the US Deep State was careful not to punish the Saudis for 9/11: the Saudis were acting as tools for the US. Some mercenaries (GIA, Bin Laden) went rogue. So what? It always happens with mercenaries: consider Carthage (and what happened to Carthage when its mercenaries rebelled during the Second Punic War). Consider the European Middle Ages, when rogues mercenaries constituted entire armies. (Moreover, the GIA inflicted damage to Algeria and France, which is always a good thing for part of the mentality of the US Deep State inherited from Roosevelt!)

US support for Islamism has consequences. Just to consider the case of Algeria, the so-called war of independence killed a million, and the second war, in the 1990s, against the GIA (Groupe Islamist Arme’) killed 200,000. The GIA guys trained in Afghanistan. The Franco-Algerian civil war was the long born fruit of Roosevelt’s hatred for the French empire. Roosevelt wished to replace it by the US empire; and overall make the European influence world into a US dependency (FDR was very explicit on this to his baffled aides, who did not get the plutocratic picture; differently from FDR, who was a top plutocrat, from a dynasty of plutocrats)

We have to face what we want to change. Here is an interview of the US insurgent president, two weeks in his presidency:

O’Reilly (FOX News): Do you respect Putin?

President Trump: I do respect him but —

O’Reilly: Do you? Why?

Trump: Well, I respect a lot of people but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get along with him. He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world — that’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea.

O’Reilly: But he’s a killer though. Putin’s a killer.

Trump: There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent. You think our country’s so innocent?

O’Reilly: I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers.

Trump: Well — take a look at what we’ve done too. We made a lot of mistakes. I’ve been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

O’Reilly: But mistakes are different than —

Trump: A lot of mistakes, but a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me.

***

What you can’t face, you can’t change. Trump is facing US governmental criminality.

This is an important step. Forward. Progress.

What you can’t face, you can’t change.

Pseudo-leftists on plutocratic payroll, reaching new heights of dishonesty, already construed the preceding as Trump’s support for Putin! How unreal can one get?

Real leftists can only approve president Trump’s admission about the culpability of the US. Above I explained how Carter engineered the war in Afghanistan (not just for hegemony, but also as a continuation of the Pakistan policy of the US, itself meant to handicap India). In many essays, I have exposed the abysmal machinations of the US Deep State, ever since June 1914. Those machinations helped make the US (white) population the richest in the world. To function properly, they had to kill millions of people, as James Baldwin also said.

Actually, the number of people killed was rather in the dozens of millions; see the wealth of details I rolled out to explain how the US plutocracy turned World War One and World War Two into cash cows… After crucially instigating them, just so.

Many cans of worms the ruling plutocracy wants the rabble never to visit: they explain too much, otherwise mysterious and crazy, history. Trump’s revisiting of history, from a more realistic angle, is something plutocracy, cannot live with. Literally. For realists who want progress out of today’s morass, it’s the exact opposite.

So, indeed, Trump is fessing up. What is there, for true progressives, not to like?

Patrice Ayme’