Archive for the ‘American History’ Category

France Parented the USA: So Why Forget? Because The Child Played (And Plays) Vicious Games, Partly Reflected In How It Neglected Its Parent.

September 24, 2018

Tremendous efforts are vested by the elite to tweak the mentality of those they subjugate. No detail is spared. Details impact emotional logic, and can fabricate fake minds, apt at serving only the masters who set them up. And that starts by instilling a perverse, twisted sense of history.

Even the names of aircraft carriers can be tweaked, perverting the sense of history and even of democracy: once named after the major battles which made the USA (Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Belleau Woods), now they are named after unelected celebrities (Ford) or undistinguished president (there is a “Reagan” carrier, but no “Nixon”, or “Carter” carrier… The idea being Reagan is vastly superior to Carter or Nixon… although history will judge otherwise… and no carrier should be named after them. JFK, an authentic Navy war hero, who died a martyr, avoided nuclear war, send Earth to the Moon, is another matter, he deserved a carrier…)

Why do the French get downplayed in their importance in the American Revolutionary War?

One French army, commanded by Washington, plus two French armies, commanded by Lafayette and Rochambeau, and the French fleet, commanded by De Grasse, converged on Yorktown, and, after heavy bombardment by French siege guns commanded by De Barras, forced the surrender of the British army.

The irony is that the French themselves learned, and learn, history from the real supreme victors of 1945, the USA, or more precisely, what the USA mostly means, US plutocrats, their media, universities, businesses, with their CIA, Deep State and another 16 “intelligence” agencies in tow.

If one were a French intellectual in the 1950s, and one wanted a lucrative career, one had to sing the praises of the US, or the USSR, or both (Sartre and De Beauvoir did both, after earlier collaborating with the Nazi authorities). Significant details such as the French declaring war (and attacking) Hitler in 1939, while Hitler was allied to the USSR (which provided Hitler with all sorts of goodies, including crucial oil), had to be forgotten.

So had to be forgotten, the troubling double game of the USA at the inception of both WW1 and WW2. The machinations the USA and its moral persons and agents engaged in, favoring fascism and working against the French Republic, should have been seen as particularly outrageous, especially in light of how the USA came to be. Indeed, the French monarchy of Louis XVI was the main agent of creation of the US Republic, and deliberately so. Most probably, without France, the USA would never have come to be. Hence the USA is the baby France brought to this world, and the refusal of the USA to do anything in May-June 1940 to prevent the fall of France is ignominious. If the USA had given an ultimatum to Hitler, his generals would have made a coup.

German generals had asked precisely for such an aggressive attitude, on the part of the USA, as early as 1937, to get rid of the Nazis; after a clear declaration, on the part of the USA, that the USA would side with France against Nazism, the generals had all the excuse they needed for a coupinstead the plotting German generals got denounced by the USA and the UK… to Hitler himself; hence in 1940, German generals could only feel that the USA, or the powers which mattered in the USA, those which controlled public opinion, were in agreement with the Nazi invasion of France! They didn’t guess they were the victim of another bait and switch, just as in WW1…

Had the USA sent such an ultimatum, requiring the immediate German evacuation of France, German generals could have said the Nazis imperilled Germany, as it was obvious to all Germans they couldn’t win the grand coalition of France-Britain-USA. Thus a loud and clear US intervention in 1940 would have brought quick German surrender… Instead, when Hitler declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941, all of Germany, and, in particular the German army, was so deeply committed to Nazi racial and other criminality, that they couldn’t back out…

Even by late June 1940, France was far from defeated: the French air force was poised to gain air supremacy (after enormous Luftwaffe losses and exhaustion), and the French army and fleet could lock up the Mediterranean, and pursue the war from southern France, Corsica and especially North Africa (which the Germans demonstrated later they couldn’t cross seriously, just because of the small islands of Malta, which stayed unconquered).

The Canadians intervened: they landed in Brittany in June 1940, but their divisions were promptly beaten back. A US intervention, the US had aircraft carriers, would have persuaded the French Assembly to keep on firing on the Germans (who had already suffered enormous losses).

The US Deep State attitude during WW2, driven by the French hating plutocrat Roosevelt, anxious to gain control of all European empires, was to destroy as much of France as they could get away with. Hence the attempted grabbing of New Caledonia, the bombing and annihilation of French ports (the Germans had no more boats), and the plan to occupy France as if it were Nazi Germany (that failed because the USA depended upon the one million men French army in 1944, and most US generals were sympathetic to the French cause, and even admired some of their French colleagues, for example “Hannibal” Juin, victor of Monte Cassino, and who could have finished the war in weeks, had he been given free rein…)

However, after the war, the CIA is known to have had at least 50 top French influencers in the media on its payroll… And the real influence was probably much greater. Top French intellectuals did as they were paid for: they rewrote all of French history in a negative light, starting with Vercingetorix and Caesar. Grossly underestimating the French crucial role if the American Revolution was part of it.

The French and US Constitutions of 1789 were proclaimed only three weeks apart. That’s no coincidence: France and the USA actually had a common revolution, and probably its main character was not the American Founding Fathers as much as the tragic figure of Louis XVI, who did in America what he was afraid to do in France (although he feebly tried there, persistently, but all too weakly).

If enough US citizens had known the history of the USA and of the ideals they embraced, better, in 1939, they would have supported the French Republic against the Nazis, the USSR and Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy … As Great Britain (a monarchy!) reluctantly did, in the last few months. History would have turned out differently: no Auschwitz, etc. But US citizens didn’t know France gave birth to the USA, as much as she did (and twice, as France also gave birth to Britain in 1066 CE, complete with outlawing of slavery there…)

Those who don’t learn history are condemned to make it worse, today. more than ever

The greatest and final battle of the American war of independence was at Yorktown: one US army, two French armies, and the French fleet, cornered the British army, and forced its surrender. After inflicting grievous losses on the Japanese carriers, the US aircraft carrier Yorktown was sunk at the Midway battle, a tremendous US victory on attacking Japan.

There is no more US carrier named “Yorktown” in the present US fleet. But the most modern US nuclear carrier is named “Ford”. “Ford”, although US president, was never elected to that office, nor to the office of Vice-President, which he was honored with before. One would guess that democrats and republicans want to forget how one guy can get to the highest offices of the land… without election. But, no, now we have an aircraft carrier to celebrate this strange accession. Strange in a democratic republic, that is…. So, say the history people learn, forget how the USA came to be, through a revolution co-engineered with France, in a republican, democratic spirit, but instead, celebrate now an unelected US president: a telling difference between yesterday’s hopes and ideals, and today’s decadence into plutocracy!

The excellent movie “Gladiator” presents a nice alternative history of Rome. It could have happened that way, indeed. The Republic could have been re-established because of a courageous general. But it wasn’t. Why? The probability that the Republic would come back was low. We the People of Rome expected dictatorship. At some point all minds have become too perverted by fake history, inappropriate mentality! Mental inertia is in command, all the way down to the direst oblivion…

Indeed, Roman fascism and plutocracy soon fell into more of the same, adding hysterical militarism, then apocalyptic, beyond idiotic Christianism, followed by the weird alliance of the wealthiest, with the most religious and barbarian chieftains.

Should we want to avoid the new Dark Ages we often seem to be cruise towards, we need to see history as it really was, not according to manipulative agendas. Yes, France gave birth to the USA at the battle of Yorktown, and yes, the USA betrayed the French (and the Poles, and the Brits, and the Jews, and all the other victims of Nazism) in 1939-1940. That’s real history, not to be confused with fake hysteria.

Patrice Ayme

Colonization and All That: All Over, And Not the Worst!

August 25, 2018

The first indication that people are evil-minded is when they too readily, and too frantically, diabolize others… And diabolizing colonists, and their descendants, falls in that category. And that fall, as we will see, is particularly deep, and not self-conscious: indeed, most of the world population descends from colonists. And most the greatest successes of humanity, of its greatest civilizations, derived from colonizations. (When some scatterbrains encountered these remarks of mine, they rushed to call me a colonialist; that, of course, is one more error! Seeing the good side and the ubiquitousness of many colonizations doesn’t mean all colonizations were good: some were horrific abominations… Agricultural Europe itself was the bloom of a colonization from the Fertile Crescent…)

The human species is a colonizing species. Colonization has many potential dimensions. For example, it can be ideological: Indonesia was colonized that way from India (Buddhism), later from Arabia (Islam), and then from the Dutch. (Arguably since, by the CIA and its ilk.)

Yet, French president Macron, anxious to please North African dictatorships, recently called “colonization” a crime against humanity… a real barbarity“. Problem: over last 3,000 years most of Earth got mostly occupied by colonizers: all the Americas, Oceania, most of Africa, nearly of Europe, Japan, Indonesia, arguably most of China, etc.

Afghanistan was colonized by Achaemenid Persians, Greeks, Buddhists, Hindus, Mongols, Islamists, Moghols, Persians again, etc. Can we say Brits, Soviets and US/UN colonized Afghanistan? Not really the correct semantics! A return to correct human ethology is no colonization!

***

Politics Is Practical Philosophy, Yet, Philosophy:

Long ago, the tyrant of Syracuse got the top literary prize in Athens. It is traditional for philosophers to despise politics. Yet, most worthy philosophers were deeply entangled with politics, when not with politicians themselves: I know of no exceptions. But I want to generalize that: I would claim that, shockingly enough, most worthy politicians were philosophers. Whether they claimed to be so or not, is besides the point. Most influential politicians implemented new philosophies, not to say religions (Muhammad). Sometimes the new philosophy was implemented most spectacularly: think of Czar Peter the Great not just torturing to death “Old Believers”, and forcefully modernizing Russia into the West European model… under the penalty of death.

Some have objected there is no philosophy in, say, Julius Caesar’s writings. Well, there was enough for him to be the leader of the “Populares”. Caesar, a “populist“! And so on. Out of the top 30 leaders of Rome, all of them led philosophically. Even when Agrippina, the mother of Nero, imposed herself as Rome’s leader, to a macho Senate, she was doing a philosophical work, and opening the way to Augusta Galla Placidia, and several Frankish queens, the most important of who would outlaw slavery in 658 CE.

Eliminating slavery was also an eminent philosophical work. Interestingly, Saint Bathilde’s order was not preceded by the establishment of an entire anti-slavery philosophy by some eminent philosopher. Christianism pretty much ignored slavery as a problem, and the then just established Islam, took it for granted. The first eminent philosopher to condemn slavery was Bathilde herself… Yes, Bathilde, herself the top politician, the top ruler of her time in Europe, the Merovingian queen and ex-slave herself!

All the Americas Are Colonial. So Is Europe, Invaded by the Celto-Germans (among others). So is China, which has been pretty much colonized by the Han…

Although the West of China was colonized by Indo-Europeans who brought a lot of technology, (and killed the men, keeping the women for breeding, as modern genetics reveal).

***

All Politicians, Including Macron, Trump, Are Philosophers, Whether They Know It, or Not:

It’s not just Voltaire, Adam Smith, Rousseau, De Sade, Goethe, Herder, Hegel, Ricardo, Marx, Proudhon, Nietzsche who can be viewed as having forged much of today’s contemporary debate. When Earl Grey delivered a let’s-declare-war-to-Germany discourse in Parliament, August 2, 1914, a certain idea of what civilization was and entailed was loudly defended. Philosopher Bertrand Russell disagreed so deeply he was thrown in prison for his pro-Kaiser, pro-German plutocracy stance. Earl Grey was philosophically right, Russell was wrong.

And of course, Kant, Hitler were “philosophers”, in the sense that hundreds of millions Europeans thought they would “guide” them towards better worlds. Thanks to idiotic, self-contradictory, most inferior, extremely lethal ideologies. But philosophy is relative, like time itself.

Indeed, both wisdom (sophia) and love (philo) are relative. The wisdom of a slug is not that of a sea otter (their time perceptions are not the same, to start with). Hitler’s idea of wisdom was mostly demented (it could only hurt what he claimed to defend), and his idea of love was akin to the self-love of a suicidal maniac (Hitler engaged in a war he was sure to lose, in spite of a miraculous victory in a battle against France… a victory which made it all the more certain that he would lose the war).

China is a linguistic patchwork which reveals a tormented colonial past. The imperialism of Mandarin is quickly burying all this.

Much of Africa was colonized, by Peuls, Arabs, Bantus. All of North Africa was invaded by the Arabs, and the Arabic language was imposed to the Latin, Berber and Coptic speaking populations. When the French invaded Algeria in 1830s (in part to fight piracy and Ottomans alike), they used as an argument that they, as heirs of Rome, were coming back, with a modern version of Latin, the old language of civilization there… It’s a fact that Arabic was imposed on non-genetically Arabic population: a successful colonization, linguistically, religiously, and socially…   

African colonization by Europeans in the late Nineteenth Century was driven by the subtle argument that, to stop slavery in Africa, Europe had to take control. That may sound outrageous, but it is a fact that European powers were successful in stopping slavery in Africa (with some exceptions, like Mauretania). Also the argument is so good, it has been reused by the European Union and the United Nations themselves since: the idea was that some parts of Africa needed to be put under tutelage. A few decades ago, it meant the full power of UN embargoes was used to destroy racist regime (in Rhodesia, South Africa). More recently aid to say the Republic of Congo was given, but only protected by accounting from UN, and, or EU. The chief of Sudan was accused of crimes against Humanity by the International Court of Justice (a UN agency based in La Hague). The lightning military interventions of France in CAR, Ivory Coast, and Mali were all approved by the UN.

My own dad, a senior geologist, was employed by the UN in Cameroon, and Kenya to check that UN financed geological prospecting was done correctly.

Much of this doesn’t have to do with “colonization”, but with correct administration, and what has long been called the “mission civilisatrice”… which Caesar himself indulged in Gaul, when, among other things, he forcefully replaced the Helvetii where they came from (Helvetia).

***

Horrendous Colonizations:

There are plenty of abominable “colonizations”. Except they are not really “colonizations”. Some are outright exterminations which the Mongols instrumentalized, to encourage awe and obedience, all over. Real colonizations should involve colonists, Roman style (the Romans gave both the word and the semantics). For example, the exploitation of Congo by king Leopold of Belgium hardly deserves the label of “colonization”. The invasion of Mesoamerica by the Spaniards was a colonization, and it incorporated abominable ways, and outright aggressions the aim of which was to destroy civilizational diversity.

An example is the colonization of the Tarascan state (west, and enemy of the Aztecs). This was gratuitous, and highly controversial in Spain. The main Spanish perpetrator lived a long life, and always refused to recognize his crime, which was deliberate (conquistador in chief Cortez had agreed with a modus vivendi with Tarascan). Basically he held that Christian/Spanish civilization couldn’t allow a competing model to survive.

Roman colonizations involved instead retired legionaries invited to exploit agriculturally some land distributed by the Roman state (such land was aplenty after war). That was somewhat more civilizing and pacific. There were bloody revolts against Roman colonists, but rarely (the most famous being that led by Boudicca in Britain).

***

Semantics Can Make No Prisoners:

The foremost reason to write against the wholesale condemnation of “colonialism” is that it’s deeply unintelligent, as it makes no distinction, and choses the easy way out of condemning all of humanity (as Buddha initially did, before he realized the gross errors of his early fanaticism). Condemning “colonialism” is also deeply hypocritical: it implicitly pretends that those who do the condemning aren’t at all like those they condemn. But of course they are: tribal chief at 39 years of age of armed forces capable of killing 50 million people in half an hour, Macron exists, but shouldn’t… While they pretend to be better than what they condemn, “colonialism”, Macron and his ilk are actually worse than anything humanity conceived before.

Right, it’s not exactly the fault of the top politicians: somebody needs to tell them, that their Politically Correct spewing is now viewed for what it is: not very smart. Somebody they will hear. More sophisticated ideologies need to spread (but they won’t come from official philosophers, salaried where they are, because they support the establishment). It’s not enough to go cackle around against “colonialism”.  It’s actually counter-indicated…

There is as much colonialism as they are colonialism, and colonies. An example is that the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, English and Russian colonies in the Americas differed deeply, in the philosophies which guided them. It is a fact that the English colonialism was the most exterminationist.

Patrice Ayme

 

REAL HISTORY: World War One Inception

November 10, 2015

The real history is, all too often, still the secret history.

This is so true that I am not the first to think of that. The main, most revealing, horrors, massacres, and all,  most interesting and educational document we have on the history of the Mongols is called the “Secret History of The Mongols”. It was really secret, and written only for the elite (so they will learn how Genghis Khan did it, and the way he did it is much revealing than, say, the Prince of Machiavelli, or the “Art of War” of Sun Tzu).

Learning history from one’s master is to condemn oneself to perpetuate one’s subjugation.

History conducive to one’s servitude can be subtle. Extremely subtle.

Take three lies about World War One which are viewed as obvious truths by historically minded, college educated commoners:

  1. The USA had nothing to do with World War One’s inception. The USA only got involved in the war, against Germany, in April 1917.
  2. European powers are responsible of the inception of World War One.
  3. Germany was neither fascist nor “Nazi” (that is prone to mass murdering atrocities akin to holocausts) in 1914.

The three notions above are subtle lies. OK, not so subtle, it turns out, and certainly catastrophic. Catastrophic, gigantic lies whose consequences are alive and well as we try to think nowadays. Perpetuating these lies by repeating them like educated parrots, makes one incapable of understanding what is perhaps the main cause of evil in the world.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

For the third lie, one has just to look at what the Kaiser’s Germany did in Namibia: a deliberate holocaust aiming at exterminating the Natives and replacing them with Aryans. After French civilization was thrown out of Germany in 1815, Jews lost the equal rights they had acquired. The Hep-Hep riots took place throughout Germany, killing Jews, destroying their properties. Many German states stripped Jews of their civil rights. Nazism was a repetition, not an innovation (except in the sense that it got help from IBM; see the book: “IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation for further edification).

Some still insist that the Kaiser’s Germany, a dictatorship, was on a level field with those it attacked, including the French and British democracies. The Kaiser’s Germany deliberately launched a world war in early August 1914, knowing full well it would be a world war, but hoping to take out militarily, in quick succession a whole number of powers, including the French Republic, and later Russia, to force an advantageous peace on Great Britain. Five men took the decision to attack: the Kaiser, and His four top generals. The two admirals present were highly reluctant, but they gained only a delay. Five men: not a democracy in any sense.

If one does not realize the three points above are lies, one cannot understand the causal system which brought World War One. Still historians have written thousands of books on the subject, which more or less treat the three lies above as if they were not the lies they are, but self-evident truths. How come those noble, much honored doctors of history missed the truth so much? Is it because they are called “doctors” and thus doctor history? Is it because they were paid to sell books, and to entertain the ruling paradigm: pro-”American”, anti-European, anti-democratic. In a variant, Germans were crazy militarists (true, but irrelevant for understanding what sparked the German government into action).

Something similar happened with World War Two. One cannot understand the causal system which brought World War Two, if one does not known a number of facts which are completely ignored by (most) “official” history, and, certainly, all plutocratic universities.

Instead the usual causal system used is just to announce that the Nazis were, well, Nazis, stupid criminals who did not know what they were doing.

The much more frightening truth is the following. Against plutocracy, the Nazis themselves contend in vain. The Nazis were bent to lethal self-destruction, in part because they got carefully manipulated into insanity. Manipulated? The historian Dodd was the ambassador of the USA and his grim assessment of the nature of Nazism was shared by his colleague, the French ambassador. To avoid from the omnipresent Nazi microphones, the two ambassadors used to take walks in the “garden of the beasts” (Tiergarten” in Deutsch). Now there is an American book by that title.

Roosevelt replaced the anti-Nazi ambassador by a pro-Nazi one, and did the same in London, or Paris (where Roosevelt went as far as recognizing immediately the unconstitutional Vichy regime established under the Nazi guns; Churchill and the Commonwealth never recognized the Vichy puppets as the legitimate French state or government: it was not)

To come back to the three lies above they create the following moods advantageous to the present rulers (and it helps define who said rulers are!):

  1. The USA is innocent in all matters pertaining to European insanity.
  2. Europeans are crazy, lethal nuts, much inferior to the wise and balanced American sort.
  3. European democracies are not different from fascist, war criminally insane regimes such as the 1914 German dictatorship. It’s all a level playing field. Only the USA stands loftily above that mess.

The historical truth is completely different.

But, to find it, one has to look for those who had interest to launch a war. Clearly the Second Reich plutocracy (top capitalists, profiteers and generals) was aware, and declared, that the French Republic and democratizing Russia were overtaking Germany’s economic might. To the point the evil men who ruled Germany soon would not be sure to win a war against them. War was planned “within 18 months of December 11, 1912.

Moreover the German socialists were getting increasingly agitated, as they wonder aloud why Germany could not democratize too, or, even, become a Republic.

So German plutocracy was culprit. However, by June 1, 1914, no special preparation had been engaged. Three days earlier the Archiduke of Austro-Hungary had been assassinated.

That day, June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the envoy of the president of the USA, the world’s greatest economic power, met with the German dictator, the Kaiser. House did entertain the Kaiser ‘s racial folly and did promise military and civilian aid, which was delivered for the first three years of the war of fascist Germany against democratic France and Britain.

Colonel House did even more: he proposed to the Kaiser a world government of Britain, the USA and Germany, as long as Germany renounced its project to build the world’s premier military fleet, as it already had the world’s most powerful army.

In the law of the USA, if one drives the get-away car, while a murderous hold-up is conducted, one is viewed as a murderer too (at least by the prosecutors).

In this case the USA’s leadership presented the plan to the Kaiser. The plan of the mass murder hold-up of, not just Europe, but the entire world. With the help of the USA, the Kaiser and his murderous accomplices had a chance. Otherwise they would fall prey to the (German) Socialists. Assuredly.

Hitler and his top Nazis would make the same computation in the 1930s. They had every reason to believe the USA was playing a double game. A bit more thinking would have led them to realize that, as in the First World War, the leadership of the USA (those who pull the strings of presidents) was playing not a double, but a triple game.

Together the French and British high sea fleets had a crushing superiority on the Kaiser’s fleet. They could have blockaded Germany. The embargo would have starved fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany out of the war in JUST ONE YEAR.

However, that was without counting the USA. Using the “neutral” Netherlands, the USA fed fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany as if it were a newborn baby. Including with materials Germany absolutely needed to make AMMUNITIONS.

Ammunition  making materials were provided deliberately to the Kaiser, in spite of French and British protests to Washington. So were the USA and the Netherlands neutral in World War One? No. If a country helps massively and crucially a mass murdering enterprise as the Kaiser’s Reich, it is an accomplice of said mass murdering enterprise.

One could argue that the Netherlands was afraid to be invaded, as courageous neutral Belgium was. That’s a mitigating circumstance, indeed. However, it does not apply to the mighty USA.

I view the USA as the Deus Ex Machina of World War One. Or, more exactly, the USA’s corrupt plutocracy.

It would repeat the performance in the 1930s with Nazism (which it more or less American plutocracy instigated, financed, created, inspired, and even fed one-liners to, let alone Harvard songs)

So here we are.

And we are here, with a rising plutocracy (so-called “wealth inequality”), which has transformed the world in a sort of Kabuki theater, complete with elaborate make-up.

We are here because few perceive how manipulated not just the interpretation, but the very nature of the historical universe have been distorted.

Indeed the ambivalent role of the USA’s leadership, having not been suspected, detected, let alone analyzed, went on with its self-promoting ways, still unsuspected, undetected, let alone unanalyzed.

Over-simplistic conventional “anti-Americanism” or “anti-capitalism” is a friend of this cover-up, because it eschews serious, informed, in-depth revelation, and exposition of the profiteer class (now well hidden inside the Dark Pools of faceless money, more than half of the world’s money).

All deep questions ponder what was the logic precedingly involved. Thus the deepest questions are always historical in nature to some extent.

Therefore, the inability, or lack of inclination, to be as critical of history feeds the inability and lack of inclination to tackle the deepest questions… Such as the survival of humanity, presently at play.

Ah, and what of the main cause of evil in the world? It’s not, as the trite truth has it, that good human beings did nothing. It’s rather that, deciding to know nothing, they refuse to check out the details. As everybody knows, this is akin to leaving the Devil alone, free to go on with His machinations and His not-so subtle lies.

Patrice Ayme’

WHOSE WATERLOO WAS IT?

June 19, 2015

WATERLOO WAS A VICTORY FOR RACISM, BANKSTERISM, And Other Unsung Horrors

This is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. History is our teacher, it’s more instructive, and surprising, than fiction.

Napoleon, at some point, turned into a tyrant, and, just as Roman emperor Augustus, buried the Republic. Or, at least, just as Augustus, much of it. Thus many celebrate Napoleon’s defeat.

However, who won that war? Arguably, Europe’s worst plutocrats, racists, and their banksters. At Waterloo, plutocracy, racism, and banksterism (let alone anti-French sentiment) won. We are living with the consequences. Yet, ultimately, how Napoleon started his career, the Revolution, is winning over civilization. As it has to.

Revolutionary General Napoleon On His Way To Free Italy From Outrageous Plutocracy & Occupation

Revolutionary General Napoleon On His Way To Free Italy From Outrageous Plutocracy & Occupation

Not so coincidentally, a white blonde supremacist youth went to a church in the USA , sat quietly for an hour, and then killed nine people there, just because he did not like their color. He probably did not know his own white skin was a recently acquired trait of darker skin ancestors.

What does racism have to do with Waterloo? Everything. The French Revolution had “black” generals, and so did Napoleon (an excellent example being Alexandre Dumas Senior, a top general). French anti-racism was also defeated at Waterloo.

In 1815, after Napoleon’s defeat, Prussian racist laws were extended to all of Germany. If one were of the wrong race, one could not be a lawyer, a doctor, etc. Karl Marx’s father, who was a doctor, was prevented to exercise as a consequence of anti-racism’s defeat at Waterloo.

Poles, in particular, were the object of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism from the Prussian (that is, “German”) empire. Poland was occupied, dismembered, treated worse than most African nations would be treated later under colonialism.

Napoleon went to military school under king Louis XVI, at age nine. He and his elder brother, did not see Corsica again, nor their family, for six years. After it was checked that the Buonaparte family belonged to the Corsican nobility, Napoleon and Joseph attended for free. Napoleon came out as an artillery officer. He stayed in the army as the Revolution happened.

In April 1792, all the plutocrats of Europe attacked France, although France was still, nominally, a Constitutional Monarchy headed by Louis XVI. In that period, Napoleon found himself in Corsica, trying to control Pasquale Paoli, the “dictator” of Corsica, who had led the ephemeral Republic there, before it had been expelled by Louis XVI’s army. Paoli had gone to live in England, handsomely paid by the British government. Twenty years later, the Revolution allowed Paoli to come back. Napoleon, an active Jacobin, organized elections which Paoli president. However, soon enough, Paoli was heading a weird “British Corsican” kingdom.

In July 1792, unbelievably the Duke of Brunswick, who led the plutocratic coalition against Revolutionary France, threatened to “execute” and submit to horrible “supplices” the entire population of Paris.

This is why Auschwitz was not an accident. Nor was the attack on Paris of Kaiser Wilhelm II in August 1914. Threatening publicly to torture to death Europe’s largest city, just because it enjoyed a revolution, was clearly the official launch of the Prussian Will to Genocide. (This did not come out of the blue: the initial invasion of Pagan Prussia by the Christian Teutonic Knights, the Prussian Crusade, was an extremely bloody affair, capped by a genocide of the natives.)

In Fall 1793, British and Spanish forces had seized Toulon. Napoleon, then a 24 year old captain, insisted that the two preceding generals be fired. His battle plan was finally implemented. It worked superbly. The British commanding general was captured, the British and Spanish fleets had to flee under the fire of red hot cannon balls (balls were heated in special ovens so that, when they landed inside a ship, they would set it on fire; many British boats exploded during the attack, some scuttled so that the French could not seize the munitions; the Brits had brought enough explosives to destroy everything on their way to Paris).

Napoleon was severely wounded during the assault by a British bayonet which went through his thigh. He kept on fighting.

After the victory and healing, Napoleon was convoked by the top generals. Wines, and a great meal were served. Laughing, the high command told the Corsican youth to change first to his brand new general’s uniform.

Often the Brits gloat that they saved the world against tyranny, by defeating Napoleon. Well, on the face of what happened in the following 130 years, not so. Prussia, Britain’s pet monster, came back to bite everybody. But not just that. The truth? British armed forces were on the side, of racism, fascism, plutocracy, imperialism, banksterism and exploitation. And this is what launched Napoleon.

Another lie, by the way, is that the Netherlands and Belgium were freed of France… by defeating the French.

Indeed, the Belgiae were always part of Gallia, Gaul, and the Franks were Dutch. Not just this, but, in an eighty year war, France around 1600, freed the Netherlands from Spain (before that the most powerful land army). If France had not been around to intervene each time the Spanish army attacked the Netherlands, the Dutch would be speaking Spanish.

As a telling aside, Edward III of England (grandson of Philippe IV Le Bel of France) launched the so-called 100 year war, at the urging of the count of Artois, who used to fight in a bright red costume and armor, just to make sure his combative nature was fully in evidence. He had been deprived of his land by the King of France. Artois’ land were fully in present day Belgium. Belgium was created, after Napoleon’s defeat, just to weaken France. The obvious truth, in the fullness of history, considering the jurisdiction given to the Francks in 400 CE by the Roman government, the entire west bank of the Rhine is clearly French.

The creation of the Netherlands and Belgium, to a great extent correspond to the attempt of creating a British controlled Provence in 1793.

The inheritance of Napoleon is mixed. Napoleon’s own younger brother Lucien, when he was 17, wrote prescient words about the danger his brother could become. However flawed, his unification of Europe worked in more ways than one. Germany found itself united, and liked it. Poland found itself sort of free, and certainly not grievously racially discriminated against, and loved it. Italy was united, and loved it too (Napoleon III would throw the Austrian plutocrats out at the battles of Magenta and Solferino, in 1856, making, Italy free and whole again).

The invasion of Russia was made necessary by Alexander III’s behavior, and on-going British interference. It failed for similar reason as Athens’ war with Sparta failed: a plague (of unknown nature for Athens, typhus for the Grande Armee). Napoleon’s greatest mistake, was to bend over backwards to integrate the old European nobility plutocracy inside his supranational state. He may as well have tried to cohabit with snakes in his bed.

“It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.” the Duke of Wellington, speaking of the battle of Waterloo (which was lost because Marshall Grouchy and his 30,000 man army got lost, and the Prussian Blucher 50,000 men intervened instead).

“Waterloo is not a battle; it is the changing face of the universe.” Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables.

And the universe did not change for the best. The idea of European supranational state was defeated at Waterloo, and replaced by racism, plutocracy, banksterism, etc. It made both Great Britain and the USA superpowers, while greatly dismantling France, as the War of the Spanish Succession finishing in 1713 already had .

Guess what? The supranational European state is back. Prussia and its racism were been annihilated in 1945. Instead, the German Republic became exactly what the French revolutionaries of 1792 wanted to see next door. And Napoleon was one of these French Revolutionaries. What Napoleon and Grouchy did not succeed to do in 1815, was done by other as Allies and extensions of the French Republic, in 1945.

Now, having saved the ruling banksters, we are being told by the dictators who govern us, that the Greeks need to be punished some more.  And the Republic of South Africa let the war criminal heading Sudan escape (in violation of the International Criminal Court, something undermined by the refusal of the USA to participate, an apparent admission that the policy of the USA is firmly committed to war criminality, looking forward…).

Napoleon started his career fighting for independence, freedom, and against plutocracy. But one does not fight hell with flowers. Napoleon vastly overshot on the Dark Side. In 1815, human rights were defeated, and the way to Auschwitz, cleared. However, the tide has turned in 1945 (after much French sacrifice, and more than 100 million killed in the 1914-45 war).

It’s time for the right side to win more Waterloos. Not only do we need a European Supranational state, but we need a World Supranational state. And it needs to be led by the best ideals of Revolutionary France. The rest is hopeless babble heading irresistibly to humanity’s Waterloo.

Patrice Ayme’

Nota Bene: .17% of the Chinese (PRC) population is incarcerated. 3% of the population of the USA is either incarcerated, or on probation. The world’s highest rate. Plutocracy financed by banksters, also translates as incarceration violence.

Pantheon Pathos

May 27, 2015

CHOOSE ALL YOUR GODS WELL.

Today, the French government inducted another four resistance fighters to the Pantheon. Good point: they could keep on doing this for a million years. Bad point: Why should most resistance fighters and their descendants would have to wait thousands of years to be recognized as equally worthy?

Worse: this shows that the French republic is (mis)guided, to this day, by (what I call) celebritism and arbitrariness (what makes those four resistance fighters more valuable than others? That they were connected to a general, De Gaulle, one of them by genes)? And even worse: but I better reserve this for the punch line.

Diminishing French President Dwarfed By Pantheon

Diminishing French President Dwarfed By Pantheon

Pan-Theon: All Gods. Choose your gods well, don’t just pick up a few, and make others angry.  Yes, silly and erroneous decisions diminish civilization. Be it indirectly giving weapons to the so-called Islamist State (as Obama worried he would, and then did!), or just pointing at a few, as they were Muhammad, worthy of a discriminatory cult.

Why to worry so much about France, some will sneer? One of my USA friends recently, slightly infuriated as she was (thanks, in no small measure to my finely tuned devilish ways), told me “Nobody cares about France anymore, the place has become so irrelevant. Look at me, I learned French, and my children are learning Spanish.”

Most people do not know why France is so important, but a hint is that France gave birth to both England as we know it, and gave enough of a shove to England in America, to give birth to the USA (something finalized at Yorktown, when the three French commanders, La Fayette, Rochambeau, De Grasse, and the American commander, Washington brought the rendition of the British Army and its German troops). The USA itself, at this point, is just an addendum to Frankish history. That’s not just a slight, but a heavy duty.

The truth, and the French are the first to forget it, is that the Imperium Francorum (“Empire of the Franks”) was the successor state of the Roman Empire, SPQR, the Senātus PopulusQue Rōmānus, or more directly, of the Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire). After four centuries of Frankish recovery (including stopping and reversing the Islamist invasion), the Roman Empire was officially re-launched at Christmas 800 CE, when Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope one and only Roman Emperor in Rome (to Constantinople’s rage).

So all of Western Europe is actually the set of Frankish successor states.

Thus it matters what France is doing today. It was good that the Frankish Franco-German leaders, Hollande (because, as the Franks, is ancestors came from there) and Merkel proposed greater unification for the Eurozone. (Ahead, and because of, Cameron hair brained des-unifying proposals.)

So today, the French government decided to install four resistance fighters to the Pantheon.

Coffins representing the two women and two men — Genevieve de Gaulle-Anthonioz, Germaine Tillion, Pierre Brossolette and Jean Zay — were escorted through Paris streets to be interred Thursday after a sound-and-light show Wednesday night.

The women’s coffins contain only soil from their gravesites: their families didn’t want the bodies exhumed. Maybe they knew, deep down inside, that the ceremony is unfair, and that it is just political exploitation.

Indeed, why not to honor all resistance fighters? And these two women did not die under torture, actually, they did not die at all. Others died under torture from the Gestapo and its minions. At the very least, those who died under torture ought to get to the Pantheon too. The point is that, although these two women resisted, they did not resist to such a degree that they would have been worth of the torture chambers, right away.

Many others were; including British female agents, parachuted in France to conduct sabotage; many were tortured to death by the Nazis. We know this, for example from SS Commander Barbie’s Memoirs. Those girls who parachuted over France knew the risk: to be caught, and tortured to death. But why are they not parachuted, as they deserve, in the Pantheon? And don’t try to tell me they were not French: the moment they parachuted into Nazi occupied France with weapons, they became French, as far as I am concerned.

Hollande apologists will point at rising anti-Judaism (euphemistically, and grotesquely called “anti-Semitism”), and that celebrating resistance to Nazism helps to fight it. Yes, agreed, but my objection stands: why those four, and only those four. Because they were favored? De Gaulle’s niece was carefully not killed, because Heinrich Himmler thought she could be exchanged. She was also from some small French nobility.

So what’s truly celebrated here? Celebritism? At least, in part, and, as far as I am concerned, too much. Celebritism ought to be condemned, it’s something for civilization to leave behind. Celebritism is exactly why we have to choose between Clinton and Bush, as usual. And why Bush’s grandfather was one of Hitler’s most precious collaborators. Celebritism is also why income and wealth inequality has reached much higher level than during the Late Imperium Romanum (which did die, fundamentally, from said inequality… Or, at least, so I claim).

Celebritism supports oligarchy, which supports plutocracy, which supports intellectual fascism, which supports stupidity. Turtles all the way down to hell. Kill celebritism, and, ultimately, you will kill the cult of stupidity. It should not require much brains to realize that being obsessed by those who are famous for being famous is rather hare brained.

The French Republic has a duty to do better, because, historically, it guided civilization. The clowns presently in charge ought to be reminded of their shortcomings. (But, naturally, if too stupid, they can’t understand any of the preceding.)

Patrice Ayme’

Note 1: So far there were only 71 persons in the French Pantheon, including one woman (Ms. Curie; why her Nobel Laureate, and discoverer of nuclear energy, daughter, Irene, is not there is another mystery to me). All the “just”, those who harbored Jews at the risk of their lives, as my grandparents did, are there. So there is a precedent for admitting a CLASS, at the Pantheon.

Note 2: The original Pantheon still stands in Rome. To this day, it’s the tallest free standing (purely) concrete structure in the world. (That’s probably why the Christians did not destroy it: too tough, and no stone to steal to build their Vatican and what not…)

8 May 1945 Versus 8 May 2015

May 8, 2015

That was the second day when the Nazis surrendered. The true capitulation, without conditions, had been made May 7, in Reims, France. (The Soviets insisted to conduct another ceremony in Berlin, the next day… and they celebrate it the 9th…)

As the French Republic had declared the Second World War, the surrender in Reims was appropriate. At the time when France declared war to Nazism, the USSR was allied to Hitler (and it as also, de facto allied to the USA, as the president and congress of the USA took sanctions against France and its belated ally, Great Britain… on the ground that those two parents, direct genitors of the USA were “belligerents“).

The rendition of Nazism was celebrated with extreme seriousness, and the same spirit, in France and Germany, on May 8, 2015.

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

[Republican Guards Horsemen.]

May 8, 1945, is also the same exact day the Franco-Algerian war started, with a wound that was pretty much fatal. Both facts are related. French civilization (and lack thereof) was central to both facts. While racial fascism was smashed in Germany, for all to see, it exploded on French soil (in an atrocious contradiction).

Let’s recapitulate.

1) The leaders of the French Republic knew, as early as 1919, that there would be another war with Germany. That was mostly caused by the hyper-nationalism, racism and fascism mindset which reigned in Germany. Also Germany had been immensely successful industrially, technologically, economically, leaving both Britain and France behind.

That very successes of German fascism (under Bismarck and then the Kaiser Wilhelm II) seemed to prove that fascism was a system superior to the degenerating democracies of Britain and France.

2) France, all along, prepared for the third round with German racist fascism. However, Great Britain and the USA had opted for the opposite approach. It is of course insufferable for contemporary citizens of the UK and the USA to read that their countries aided and abetted the Nazis (some come to scream about that periodically on this site).

However there is a deep lesson there, a warning for tomorrow: British and American plutocrats drove the collaboration of the UK and the USA with the racist and fascist mindset. So doing, they set-up the conditions for the violent death of more than 70 million people, among other inconveniences. Indeed, if the USA and the UK had made a block with the French Republic, in the 1920s, and especially in the 1930s, the fascists in Italy, Japan and Germany would not have had the possibility to dream that they had a chance in the land grabs they envisioned.

Actually the plutocrats which helped the fascists so much were nearly as culprit as the crazy, murderous tribal nuts they encouraged.

Lessons? Plutocracy can manipulate not just the minds, but history itself.

When democracy stand divided, tanks can roll all over it. Something to remember with Putin. Those who cannot stand firmly for democracy, encourage fascism.

3) War can turn badly, unexpectedly. The Nazis use insane, desperate, strategies which turned around the mightier French army and its slow poke little British bulldog. This military disaster of May 1940 is nearly impossible to reproduce in war games.

Lesson? Don’t underestimate the ability of fate, incredible stupidity, really very bad luck, to surprise even those who felt the best prepared.

This is valid now more than ever. A few nuclear bombs could bring losses comparable to all of World War Two, within hours. North Korea is arming itself to the hilt, and threatened to use its nuclear devices, even against the USA. This should not be taken lightly.

The Franco-Algerian Massacre in Setif:

As in places all over France, there was a massive demonstration of joy in Setif, Algeria. A young demonstrator carried an Algerian flag. He was killed by a gendarme. A first wave of retaliation led to the death of a few dozen colons (or more). The later, in further retaliation, supported by the French army, tanks, even planes, killed in turn tens of thousands of Algerians.

Philosophically, this was a tribal reaction not substantially different from Nazism and the like.

This event is not commemorated enough (neither the French state, nor the FNL, which became the Algerian state, but got started in a different mindset in 1954 are anxious to remember it).

It exhibits a lot of warnings about human nature. It needs to be analyzed more. How could the French forget 15 centuries of tribal tolerance? Because they just finally defeated the Nazis, they could act like them? Inhibitions were lifted for a day? Well, whereas France and Germany are now (re)united, and now share a common fraternity, much work remains to be done in the case of France and Algeria.

A work of truth. Thorough truth.

And that’s not just about Europe and Africa, and the USA. Establishing, and imposing the methods to elucidate, uncover, and make everybody admire truth, is the general first order strategy to deal with the world’s ills.

Patrice Ayme’

Quake In Nepal, Or Why Exploitation Does Not Help Natives

April 26, 2015

It is not very surprising that a 7.9 Richter quake hit Nepal, half way between Pokhara and Kathmandu. It was expected, and overdue (they come every 75 years, latest big one, 8.1 Richter, was in 1934). More worrisome: a “Megathrust” quake could happen throughout the region, a continuation of the one which happened to the east of the Indian plate in 2004. Plates move, that’s what they do, as the Earth’s innards swallow all this carbon, which, otherwise, would turn Earth into Venus.

Many of the quakes, including of the horizontal slip type, are upper crust readjustments from motion that occurred lower down already.

In California, the faults creep roughly twice faster in depth than on the surface. 5 centimeters a year down below, only half that, on the surface (with luck; in many places, the surface is stuck).

The means exist, in developed regions, to build constructions that are impervious to earthquakes, as Japan and Chile have demonstrated. However, steel is expensive.

Everest Looks Strikingly Like A Giant Wave. It’s A Wave Of Rock Breaking Onto Tibet.

Everest Looks Strikingly Like A Giant Wave. It’s A Wave Of Rock Breaking Onto Tibet.

In the latest quake, the whole city of Katmandu slipped to the south 3 meters. Severe quakes are expected in notoriously unprepared places such as Tehran and Lima. In general, wherever there are (non totally senile) mountains, quakes are to be expected. In Eurasia, the Indian plate is pressing north at a steady 5 centimeters per year. One does not know exactly if it exactly mashes, compresses, or pass below the Eurasian plate, or a mix of these. Although globally India slips below Eurasia, the world’s largest continental plate.

The point of the following graph is that the quake which just happened was fully expected. A Republican Empire, considering this, would have mandated by law the reinforcement of old buildings (many of which just collapsed). This is actually what the Turkish Republic has done (not really democratic, all too Islamizing, but definitively imperial). To help Nepal, really, it would have been good to insist that it does the same.

As the editor of the Nepali Times put it after the quake: “Nepal’s politicians have been too busy battling one another, most recently over constitutional reform, to treat disaster preparedness as a priority.”

The Segment Just West Of The 1934 Quake Slipped

The Segment Just West Of The 1934 Quake Slipped

Within hours, it was known that a Google executive had been killed on Everest, from one of the many avalanches caused by the quake (there were avalanches all over, especially as it is the best season for avalanches). This ‘important’ news attracted a lot of attention in the USA media. The San Francisco Chronicle made it its cover story, dwarfing any news from Nepal itself. The 33 year old “tech executive” was famous for being famous. He had dated “stars” and attended “red carpet events”. It was his third time on Everest. Please fasten your seat belt for my own view.

Google had apparently planned to “street view” Everest (the mountain-executed executive headed (the notorious lack of) privacy at Google X, a part of Google into experimental projects).

My sarcastic tone may hurt. I share the pain. However, so many people die in the mountains, and the mountains are such a symbol, an experience, of the good graces, and awe, of nature, that I feel mountains should be approached with reverence, not advertising and an exploitative, self-glorifying mood, masquerading as clownish behavior.

Why reverence? Because reverence is an important emotion. People used to encourage it in temples, mosques and churches. But that was then. And we cannot have reverence, be it only by principle, for our many (more or less self-declared) leaders out there. OK, I pay my respect to the Pope when he commemorates, deplores, condemns and draw the necessary lesson from the Armenian Genocide.

Whereas I can only despise Obama for breaking his promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide, as president, seven year in a row. Here, despising Obama has become a moral duty. Here is a quote:

“The Armenian Genocide is not , an allegation, a personal opinion, a point of view, but rather a widely documented FACT, supported by an overwhelming body of HISTORICAL EVIDENCE” [Obama much reiterated personal opinion, 2007… when I was campaigning for him…]

However, as AMERICAN president, Obama has turned into a mouse with Turkey. So how come the FRENCH president is like a roaring lion, and accuse Turkey of genocide, every day, on all TV, radio, media? And gets away with it totally.

Turkey is just forgetting to growl at the French, while threatening tiny Austria with various horrors; notice the deafening also Turkish silence since Germany recognized the genocide, too…

The truth is that Turkey respects German seriousness and French craziness, whereas it knows all to well that Obama just smells the money, ready to follow the scent, as a rat the cheese.

This is why despising Obama about Turkey is a duty (Obama may do something behind the scene, but, since we don’t know, let’s despise.

And that brings us back to commercialization, or, as I call it more generally, the EXPLOITATIVE MENTALITY. So Google wants to “Street View” Everest. Why? Because it’s all about “Beaucoup Bucks”, just as making nice with Turkey is about Beaucoup Bucks. when the American presidency is all about “Beaucoup Bucks” for all to see, Google “Don’t YOU be Evil” can only parrot the attitude. Obama was supposed to lift the morality, instead, he raises money.

When money is the only light that enlightens, one ends down into the abyss, profiting from holocausts and genocides, as if there were no tomorrows.

American presidents do not feel that holocausts are the end-all, be-all. After all, serial genocide is how the USA was built, grew, and prospered.

(Europe has a completely different mentality, because history there has amply shown that what goes around comes around, and holocausts are no way to treat resentful neighbors; Nazis forgot this, and thus Nazis got decimated, and Germany got severely amputated, accordingly, in territory and population.)

That the Exploitative mentality is strong among the Anglos, the Yanks, cannot be questioned. Compare with Spanish and Mexicans (who do not have a particular reputation for gentleness; even the man-eating Aztecs were horrified, as intended, by Spanish tortures!)

Under the Spanish and Mexicans, for centuries, there were around 250,00o Native Americans in California. The Natives lived in reasonably good intelligence with the Spaniards, their “Missions”, and even with the Mexicans. Spaniards and Mexicans protected Indians and wilderness with extensive parks. In the Bay Area, the Oakland-Berkeley Hills were a park, complete with California grizzlies (the largest grizzly subspecies, a bear which did not hibernate). And with, by far, the tallest trees in the world (they were used as beacons for navigation in the San Francisco Bay. To the east of the park were Spanish ranches.

The Spaniards amused themselves by organizing fights between innovative grizzlies and ferocious bulls. (So Spaniards had a vested interest in grizzly survival, as the species was a source of entertainment.)

When the Anglos and their Exploitative Mentality got to California, all of this strange Eden was gone in a few years. Indians and grizzlies were exterminated with relish, as they did not generate Beaucoup Bucks.

So now Everest is the very symbol of exploitation gone mad. Mad, because people who have never climbed anything can get to the top of Everest, pushed, pulled, dragged, oxygenated, attached, ferried, by exploited sherpas. Most tellingly, those freaks of human nature perverted get to show part of their facebooked face and their oxygen mask all over the Internet, to satisfy their pathetic Will to Gossip, and Self-Glorification. While celebrating the power of money over basic human decency.

Frankly, most people who are Chomolungma should not be there. Mountains ought not to be climbed that much artificially, especially the highest.

The first French rescue plane, coming from Abu Dhabi with doctors and medical supplies, circled the airport, but could not land, as the Kathmandu Control Tower did not answer. The obvious method, in future disasters is to send first military transports. Military transports can land on short pieces of runways.

This is one world, and it’s good that it is not one mentality. However, good mentalities ought not to hesitate to stab the bad ones to death.

That there was a quake in Nepal is not surprising. They happened before, there will be (much) worse in the future, maybe even next week (megathrust quakes have often enormous foreshocks). What is surprising is that so little preparedness is in evidence (this being said, even in the city of San Francisco, 50,000 houses are considered ready to collapse, by City Hall, and nothing much is done about it).

Seems like, for most people, the best way to avoid a disaster, is not to think about it.

Nepal is a beautiful place. Visit, appreciate, calmly enjoy, help. Just don’t climb all over it, to turn it into a “street view”. Or face the wrath of fate. That ought to be lesson number one.

Patrice Ayme’

WORLD WAR ONE: REAL CAUSE, One Chap 1

June 23, 2014

When one writes essays on a site, one tends to repeat oneself a lot. So I am going to change strategy a bit, and write books on my pet subjects (I will just create specific sites for each subject). The essay below ought to be a version of chapter one of:

WORLD WAR ONE

World War One (WWI) is still with us. Not just by dismantling some old powers, and creating new ones, from pigmies to superpowers. WWI also created new systems of ideas, new moods, new politics, new philosophies. In particular, new versions of history, some of them carefully missing the main points and imagining others.

The typical history of World War One pulls the conflict like a rabbit out of a hat at a show for little children. Here is a typical description:

A hundred years ago, in the Balkan city of Sarajevo, Serbian nationalists murdered the dour, pacifist heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary and his beloved wife.

Populations, throughout the world, were shocked but not worried. Why should they be? Under the influence of a powerful anarchist philosophy, there had been many political assassinations in previous years—the king of Italy, two Spanish prime ministers, the Russian czar, the President of the USA William McKinley. None of these leaders’ demise had led to a major crisis. Yet just as a snowball can start an avalanche, this assassination set off a series of events that, in five weeks, led Europe into a general war.

Really? A snowball? That butterfly flapped its wings, and about 3% of the planet died? Yes, 3%, more than 50 million dead, once one has incorporated the so called “Spanish Flu”, which was tied to military deployments, just as the “plague” that had decimated Athens under Pericles, and the Black Plague of 1948, tied in to the “100 year war”, and total war in Eastern Europe  (where the Black Plague was used as a weapon, by catapulting infected corpses over the walls).

So why was there a major crisis in 1914?

Because some bad actors were laying in an ambush they had set.

And by this I do not mean the Black Hand of Serbia, a secret terrorist organization tied in to the secret services of Serbia, both of them hell bent to recover Bosnia-Hercegovina, a state Austro-Hungary had just annexed. The Serbs had come out of wars that had allowed them to recover some of their national territory. That territory had been constitutionally granted to them by the Roman emperor Heraclius in the Seventh Century.

The Black Hand had at least partly organized the assassination in Sarajevo. Thus the request of the Austro-Hungarian government to make a thorough enquiry was certainly justified.  However, many in Austro-Hungary hated Serbia. Paradoxically, the assassinated heir had been a strong pacifying influence (and he was best friend with the conflicted Kaiser, who was, no doubt, sincerely aggrieved). So Austro-Hungary uttered an outrageous ultimatum to Serbia (perhaps some thought Serbia was exhausted from the war just concluded, and thus an easy prey).

Serbian ferocity was the consequences of centuries of horrors at the hands of the invading Turks, and the evil necessities such a thorough war of liberation leads to (yes, Russia suffers from the same syndrome, after centuries of Mongol horrendous exploitation).

Nevertheless, Serbia was a tiny country. It was not a major actor. The major actor in Europe was “Germany”. Historians will little feeling for philosophy always called that country “Germany”.

No doubt the habit came from the Romans, or, more exactly, Caesar. Caesar raided Germania twice, and was launching an incredibly bold  the plan to conquer the whole of Germania… from behind. Instead, it was left to his grand-nephew  Augustus, to try a hare brained frontal assault, followed by an ignominious retreat that left him half mad (Augustus used to call through the night in the corridors of his palace for the general who had led, and died with his annihilated legions).

But “Germany” did not really exist. Over a period of three centuries (500 CE-800 CE), the Franks, who were themselves Romanized Celto-Germans, had conquered Germania, establishing the gigantic Western European empire Caesar dreamed of.

The Franks’ craving for empire was less important to them than equal inheritance, an important anti-plutocratic character in a society with a high birth rate. Thus the “Renovated Roman Empire” they set-up officially in 800 CE, was soon a complicated patchwork of states in theory all vassals to the King of Francia (“emperor in his own kingdom”), and the emperor of the rest. Both were, theoretically, elected.

The patchwork of states soon enjoyed wars as states came and went. States come and go through wars (transfers through inheritance or calm annexations are rare). In a millennium, Western Europe would know more than 50 major wars. (This little detail is was that the Europhobes are not aware of, in their stupidity.)

In the Eighteenth Century, Prussia, heir to the very ferocious military  tradition of the Teutonic Knights (who had been annihilated by a coalition of Poland and Lithuania, but not their spirit!), under the leadership of the homosexual Frederic The Great (paradoxically Hitler’s hero), with considerable help from conniving Britain, and the stupid Madame de Pompadour (Louis XV’s de facto PM), became a military super power. Of the racist, anti-Judaic type. After Napoleon ‘s defeat, in 1815 CE, the dictatorial, anti-Judaic (thus racist), anti-Polish (thus anti-“Slavs”) ways of Prussia got spread about all of Germany.

Don’t ask how Nazism appeared. Ask how it could not have blossomed.

In any case, after defeating France in 1871 CE, Prussia proclaimed the “Kaiserreich”. Calling it “Germany”, is an abuse of language. The Kaiserreich was neither a republic, like France, or a democracy, like France or England. Even Russia aspired to become a constitutional monarchy, and grow its democracy (helped by French and British investments). Not so for the Kaiserreich.

Instead, the men leading that outgrowth of the Prussian State, decided to gamble all in one world war, believing they could defeat France before Russia, and certainly Britain, could muster enough force to become threats.

They had planned war, a world war, within 18 months, on December 11, 1912. They had to manipulate the media. They hesitated. Then in quick succession, US President Wilson’s right arm, Colonel House, showed up in the Kaiser’s office, proposing a world government and an alliance against the “Racially inferior French”. That was June 1, 1914. US support was crucial, as it would allow the Kaiser, thanks to the Netherlands, to break the Franco-British maritime blockade. That was the meat of the matter. Then came Sarajevo: that was the pretext.

The racist, fascist plutocrats at the head of Germany gambled, and they failed.

Patrice Aymé

Chomsky: MIT Bimbo?

June 16, 2014

Some praise Chomsky as the “Socrates For Our Times“. Before unleashing a deep and scathing critique to the heart of Chomsky’s mind, let me hasten to point out that I do agree with a lot of Chomsky’s remarks. Let me quote him in an interview posted June 16, 2014:

“This war hysteria has never ceased, moving seamlessly from a fear of the German Hun to a fear of communists to a fear of Islamic jihadists and terrorists.

“The public is frightened into believing we have to defend ourselves,” Chomsky said. “This is not entirely false. The military system generates forces that will be harmful to us. Take Obama’s terrorist drone campaign, the biggest terrorist campaign in history. This program generates potential terrorists faster than it destroys suspects. You can see it now in Iraq. Go back to the Nuremberg judgments. Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime. It differed from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows. The U.S. and British invasion of Iraq is a textbook case of aggression. By the standards of Nuremberg they [the British and U.S. leaders] would all be hanged. And one of the crimes they committed was to ignite the Sunni and Shiite conflict.”

The conflict, which is now enflaming the region, is “a U.S. crime if we believe the validity of the judgments against the Nazis. Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the [Nuremberg] tribunal, addressed the tribunal. He pointed out that we were giving these defendants a poisoned chalice. He said that if we ever sipped from it we had to be treated the same way or else the whole thing is a farce.” 

Today’s elite schools and universities inculcate into their students the worldview endorsed by the power elite. They train students to be deferential to authority. Chomsky calls education at most of these schools, including Harvard, a few blocks away from MIT, “a deep indoctrination system.””

What is there not to like for someone such as me? Did I not just said the same over and over again, even yesterday (before the Chomsky interview was published)?

[I agree, with all the preceding, especially what I emboldened. Actually, I have said these things vociferously, for years. I am happy Chomsky has joined the show. He should add MIT, and… himself, to the parade. Let me explain.]

My objection to Chomsky is that we need a Death Star to destroy the plutocracy, and that Chomsky is a deeply malfunctioning Death Star.

Proof?

Chomsky’s analysis of World War One. What happened then bears and informs completely upon what is going on today: a few manipulating plutocrats, in one of the deadliest and deepest conspiracies ever, ganged up together, and achieved their objectives.

(There was actually a hierarchy in the manipulative order, conspiracies within conspiracies: the half dozen Prussians, and the grandson of Queen Victoria who, technically launched WWI all by themselves, were manipulated by a number of higher level creatures… from the other side of the Atlantic! The very failure of Chomsky to know of the existence and nature of this meta-conspiracy mindset is his greatest failure. That makes him bark all day along, at the foot of the wrong tree.)

Chomsky as Socrates? Some will see in that an innocent way of expressing oneself. Instead I view in this not just the pursuit of false prophets, but of a false analysis of humanity.

Having a false evaluation of humanity makes oneself into a lambs ready to be devoured by plutocrats. The basic approach of Chomsky is the same as the one of Russell. It’s a variant of the one inaugurated by Kant, no less. Kant (following Confucius) said the state defined morality, so should be obeyed.

Russell and Chomsky say:”All states are the same, so let’s just do away with them.”

OK, they say: let’s do away with the military mindset; however, a state worth of its name, is, first of all, an army. Thus an anti-military posture is pure anarchism, and, thus pure impotence, hence the greatest help a fascist, plutocratic, oligarchic state can have. That makes Russell and Chomsky more like vaccinations rather than aggressions.

In the end, they leave the state perhaps even stronger, and more unscathed, than Kant did.

Chomsky and MIT mean well. Perhaps. But I doubt it.

Indeed, Chomsky did not get the history of World War One (or Two) right yet. He makes the exact same mistake as the major plutocrat, pseudo-philosopher, Lord Russell. It’s the same grotesque call to turning the other cheek, after the first one has been torn out, and made into a gory mess, with some brains showing (maybe that’s why they lost their minds?)

The Kaiserreich that made a surprise attack on August First 1914, deliberately launching a world war (that’s the way they had planned it since December 1912) was a regime that had long engaged in holocausts and Nazi style war crimes, and proceeded to do this exactly in Belgium and France in the following days.

Weirdly, Chomsky, who recognizes that “Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime. It differed from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows,seems astonishingly unawares of the elementary fact that it is the Reich of the Kaiser which deliberately attacked in August 1914 (even Austria took several more days to declare war, despite Berlin’s frantic urging!)

Yet, the bare facts are obvious: the envoy of the USA president told the Kaiser, June 1, that the USA would support him and proposed an alliance against France. Next the Kaiser attacked, and the USA became immensely rich, feeding the Kaiser, with, among other things, ammunitions, through the “neutral” Netherlands.

When the USA saw that France and Britain were going to win, it came to the rescue of victory, and grabbed the spoils.

Then the USA, by a somber public-private pirouette, transferred much German property into private American plutocratic hands… who then, basically, organized Nazism, as an occasion to indulge in business far removed from Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly laws!

By forgetting, ignoring, or simply not knowing those basic facts, Chomsky makes himself a major ally of Wall Street plutocracy (the prime profiteer of the preceding; headed by JP Morgan).

To claim, as Chomsky does, that the racist, mass murdering, war crime indulging, anti-Judaic dictatorship of the Kaiser was just the same as the French republic it attacked to destroy, out of sheer computation, to pursue its reign of terror and exploitation, is sheer madness.

And it’s nothing new: that was the line of that major plutocrat, Lord Russell. And, implicitly, dear at heart of many British plutocrats (before their sons, over-represented in the officer class of the British Expeditionary Force, died by the thousands on the battlefields of Belgium and France; the sons were idealistic, the fathers, cynical… But, after they had to bury their progeny, they started to sincerely hate the Huns.)

By attacking on August 1, 1914, the Kaiser actually broke the unity of plutocracy. It’s only being reconstituted now… And in danger of being broken again, not by Thomas Picketty’s rather bland remarks, but by that other major war minded plutocrat, Vladimir Putin.

Chomsky is a false prophet, an objective accomplice of un-truth.

Un-truth has never helped revolution. Moreover, the un-truth of Chomsky (war is bad, we are manipulated into it), is exactly the opposite of what we need in the realm of emotion.

Plutocrats can easily brandish wars that have to be fought. Say World War One, or World War Two. Yes democracies had to fight them, just as the Secession War had to be fought, or the defense war of the French Republic in 1792, fighting for survival against all the plutocrats of Europe united, had to be fought.

The mistake, in World War One, or in World War Two, was not to see that the plutocrats themselves had craftily organized it (just as they organized the plutocratization of the ex-USSR, and, Chomsky could notice, that oligarchization of the ex-Soviet Union was indeed directed from Harvard!)

By saying war is the problem, and refusing to engage in an intricate causality debate Chomsky is enjoining us to enjoy the furious bleating of sheep against the wolves. That won’t do. Except for the wolves. Not only do wolves enjoy eating sheep, but they love killing them, with wild abandon, just because it’s fun. Something about bleating invites the humiliation of being torn open, and being unable to do anything about it.

Our plutocrats are not any different. Bleating to their faces, thus, won’t do.

Oh, by the way, Socrates was executed for his troubling role during Athens 30 year  desperate fight for survival. The dictators that came to rule Athens, and collaborate with her enemies (Sparta, etc.), were all Socrates’ students. Socrates, the pseudo-great philosopher, spent most of his career bitterly criticizing Athens total democracy, while dining, feasting, getting drunk, and having sex with Athens’ Golden Youth (such as the Syracuse tyrant friendly Plato).

Half of Athens’ population died during the war. A general amnesty was proclaimed when (under victorious Sparta’s supervision), democracy was re-established. The amnesty was scrupulously respected, but for one exception: Socrates.

So to be called a “Socrates” is not necessarily a compliment. Or rather, if one is on the side of the plutocrats, it is. And that’s no compliment.

Posing to look pretty, as bimbos do, does not bring the Cave Bear down. Any Neanderthal could have told you that. If MIT differs in this evaluation, MIT ought to go back to study the jungle.

Against plutocracy, action without violent violation nor subtler comprehension, contends in vain.

Patrice Aymé

Those Who Know History Don’t Need To Repeat It

May 28, 2014

CHANGE OF MOOD: WHY HAS THE USA’S WHITE HOUSE BECOME PRO-EUROPEAN?

Moods are everything. They are the epigenetics of ideas. They don’t just color them all sorts of ways, they originate them. Homo is not just about mental capabilities, but also the hormonal system motivating to develop them

Putin was stopped in the Ukraine, because he was handled by the USA in a completely different mood than the mood the USA applied to previous European tyrants, such as the Kaiser and Hitler.

In the Twentieth Century, formidable European tyrants, such as the Kaiser, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were approached as business, and even imperial opportunities, by the USA. Those tyrants became the tools the USA needed to break the European hegemony on the planet.

There is an exhibit number one here: the abominable attitude of the USA in September 1939. Instead of flying to the rescue of the French Republic, which had declared war to the mass homicidal dictator Hitler, who had already killed hundreds of thousands of Germans, the USA applied sanctions to France and Britain (which, with the Commonwealth had joined France in declaring war to Hitler, to its honor, overruling the despicable bleating of Gandhi, Hitler’s self-declared”friend“).

Not only that, but the industry of the USA allowed Hitler’s Luftwaffe to keep on flying while it crushed Poland, and kept France at bay.

I said: exhibit number one in 1939. The paradigm of the USA’s bait and switch was the USA’s conspiracy with the Kaiser, from June 1, 1914 (bait and trade), to sometimes in 1917 (switch!)

Forget about the genius of free enterprise. This bait and switch of the USA was about raw empire, comprised of countless conspiracies of major plutocrats, and details nobody even knows about.

Details of enormous consequence, though, such as the decision by Roosevelt, in 1933, to build 24 fleet aircraft carriers. That was not just as an enormous economic stimulus… And puts a lie to the commonly entertained fantasy that the USA was not ready to fight a world war in 1939.

The day fascist Japan attacked treacherously, the USA had seven carriers, and five were in advanced construction. Only one survived the war, the Enterprise (and it was holed by Jap bombs more than once, including off Okinawa).

Embracing European dictators, while getting ready to stab them in the back, worked beyond the wildest dreams of the American nationalists.

The way the strategy worked was always the same: under the guise of “isolationism”, and loving to know nothing about everything, the USA would let its top business men established profitable trade with the worst.

A massive war would ensue, and the USA would fly noisily to the rescue of victory, preventing the victors to enjoy victory without Uncle Sam splurging, and dictating.

A recent example of this has been the Coltan war in Congo. The USA long supported Kagame and company (the “liberators” in the Rwandan holocaust… Or maybe perpetrators and instigators, too).  Electronic businesses wanted the Coltan without paying taxes. Result: Rwandan supported warriors caused a mess in Congo, bringing five million dead, and lots of tax free Coltan. (Susan Rice was involved in this circus.)

Yet, in Europe, the USA has changed strategy.

How come?

Simple: the European Union. The EU’s democratization paradigm changed everything. The European Union forced the de-fascization of Portugal, Greece, and Spain. These dictatorships had been established with the help of the USA, direct or not. The EU’s might deconstructed the American empire.

Direct French (and then British) intervention in Bosnia (under UN mandate) forced back pseudo-nationalist Serbian racial fascism.

Confronted to all this, Bill Clinton joined the Franco-British effort (well after the French had used lethal artillery and air force violence in Bosnia). At this point the USA changed paradigm: instead of doing its usual switch and bait, it just collaborated with the EU, or France and Britain, right from the start.

Why?

Simple. The switch and bait tactic used with the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin, while still unobserved so far,  has come very close to being revealed to all. One more blatant case, and even well paid pseudo-intellectuals from the pseudo-left, would be forced to admit that they noticed it.

When the European Union enforced the de-fascization of much of southern Europe, the USA could not really oppose that frontally.

Then of course, there were the eight year of plutocrat Bush. Bush decided to better embrace Europe to lead it into military-imperial adventurism.  However France got in the way.

Obama had decided that the Iraq war was a stupid war, and, thus, proved himself an authentic ally of France. (He could not advertise that, as Wall Street induced Francophobia runs rampant in the USA; if anything, he did not want to antagonize his sponsors.)

Obama, Clinton, and, of course, Kerry-the-French, seem to have perfectly understood that the old bait and switch strategy is unbecoming the USA. And that’s right. The USA is now so mighty that it can get a better mileage from a higher morality.

This is why Obama has become the best friend the European Union ever had since president Kennedy.

Why Kennedy? Kennedy was no peasant. He was the scion of a top plutocrat. Yet he was also someone who had travelled in Europe, and, even more important, was an authentic war hero (so was his elder brother, who died piloting a sort of giant early version of a drone in a quasi-suicidal mission).

Obama has an extremely variegated experience as a child, not just in Hawai’i, but also in Indonesia, confronted with people  with very different attitude and religion, and even suffering the occasional brunt of their hostility, just because he was different.

Enough to appreciate the transnational splendor of the European project. And that is why Obama found the wisdom and power to stop Putin in a timely manner (instead of the bait and switch FDR played with Hitler; Obama could have very well done this; instead, sanctions that bit were applied, and even the Swiss got motivated enough to entertain Putin with the vision of the bank accounts he and his friends have in Western Europe).

Those who know history don’t need to repeat it.  

American plutocrats are too mighty to be opposed directly. After all, they made Clinton and Obama. The best those chaps could do was to short their main overseas strategy, planetary bait and switch. It’s much more than it looks.

Now what we need is a real left in the West. And it should, it has to start, with intellectuals (it’s no accident that Elizabeth Warren is an ex-Harvard professor).

As Obama has long said , he can’t do the entire job by himself.

Patrice Aymé