Archive for the ‘European History’ Category

How Theodosius The Great’s Fanaticism Collapsed The Roman Empire

May 9, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

Theodosius I; Very Roman In Appearance, Very Rotten Inside

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

***

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Christian Terror Expanded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Kill Them All, So Christ Can Be: 

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

As Prudentius put it:

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

***

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme 

***

***

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

 

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

 

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

April 8, 2020

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

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

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

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

Henry II Plantagenet With His Daughter In Law Marguerite de France

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

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

***

Frankly Cool About Religion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

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

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

November 10, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

The short of it: no.

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

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

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

 

NAPOLEON: DIRTY & Only Memorable That Way

November 2, 2019

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

Napoleon was no Caesar:

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Hegel Justified Hitler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

***

Napoleone di Buonaparte, from artillery officer to genius general: 

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

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

***

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

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

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

 

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

***

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

What?

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, now, for the case of Russia… 

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

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

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

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

***

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

 

 

 

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

March 29, 2019

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

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

Opinion

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

By Bret Stephens,  Opinion Columnist

“Maybe we’ve had this all wrong.

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

November 13, 2018

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

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

Refusing history is refusing wisdom.

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

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

Los Angeles is ridiculous. Not just ridiculous, criminal.

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

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

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

Refusing reality is refusing wisdom.

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

More details:

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

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

“We have all inherited this complex, difficult history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PA

 

Illegal Immigration: The New African Slave Trade. Luxembourg Thieving Plutocracy Kills Italy!

September 17, 2018

LUXEMBOURG’S Admits Having An EXCREMENT PROBLEM. Solution: KICK LUXEMBOURG OUT OF THE EU! (For thievery, genocide!)

“I heard some colleagues say that one needs immigration because the European population is aging. Salvini, Italy’s Interior Minister declared. He then explained that he has a vision of the matter which is “completely different”, a vision according to which one must first help Italians “to have children as a few years ago”. Salvini then evoked an African youth which “replaces” European youth… before zeroing onto the case of Luxembourg:

“Perhaps in Luxembourg there is this need to replace European youth by African youth, but we in Italy, we feel the need to help our children to make other children”, he declared.

And Salvini then broke the camel of giant European hypocrisy, by going one truth too far: And not to have new slaves to replace the children we don’t make anymore. I prefer to help Italians found families.

The Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn (Luxembourg has a foreign minister, whereas Catalogne, which is 15 times greater in population, doesn’t) then exploded, in French, cutting into Salvini’s speech time. Asselborn claimed that Luxembourg had helped Italy, more than half a century ago, by allowing Italians to work there (and send money back to Italy). Actually, many Italians of two generations ago, helped building up modern Luxembourg, and their ephemeral presence was legal.

Ignoring those basic facts, which made his interruption grotesque, the irate Luxembourg potentate concluded:THEREFORE SHIT! (He used the words ”Alors merde”; I made an exact translation). Like a furious chimp, he pursued by throwing a few objects around, the way chimps do when they are furious. Salvini calmly commented on the lack of “good education” of the Luxembourg chimp, and, undeterred, proceeded to describe all sorts of trafficking the EU tolerates.

According to the Luxembourg foreign minister’s moral imperative, if Harvey Weinstein thought his grandparents “helped” somebody, 50 years ago, by employing them, he has now the right not just to rape them, but also to kill their next generation, by making a healthy life impossible. The very rage of Luxembourg shows the master exploiters of Europe are perfectly aware they are losing ground. This is serious stuff: they are traitors, they should be tried, and send to the slammer. One can see they are starting to guess they are in deep trouble…

The fertility rate has been high in the UK, because of the massive immigration (much of it, illegal). The original English population is stuck at 40 millions… since the 1930s! Spain’s population has been growing tremendously, in spite of a catastrophic lack of fertility, thanks, once again, to ultra massive (legal) immigration. Nordic countries have boosted their population by importing Muslim immigrants, on the order of 10% of the population. Indications are that the Nordic Natives are getting fed-up (see last Sunday’s elections in Sweden). Germany has imported millions of Muslims, to foster population growth. Italy has officially 700,000 known and documented illegal immigrants (more than 1% of the population). Italy’s fertility rate is just as catastrophic as Germany’s. France was OK, but recent governments of traitors have taken anti-natality measures… After the 2008 crisis, Portugal lost more than 10% of its population…

Illegal immigrants to Italy get 37 Euros a day. In France, they get even more. But millions of French and Italian citizens live on a small fraction of this, even after government “help”. One can see the illegals getting fancy haircuts (yes, Africans getting fancy haircuts), speaking on large brand new smartphones (which many millions of French and Italians can’t afford!)… As they amble around, having to work not.      

Thus we are talking ethnocide there: make the life of a population, in this case the Italian Native population, so impossible, it can’t reproduce anymore (a problem zoos have learned to correct, by making their animals happy; the European animals are so unhappy, however, they can’t have children anymore…)

Nothing plutocrats don’t love there. Genocide was always the ultimate weapon of plutocracy in mature form. Plutocrats love ethnocides, especially of the population they rose from, because that population knows where they came from, and how. Thus Roman plutocrats did all they could to weaken Italy (hence preventing a return to the Republic… That only started to squeak back in as Charlemagne endowed Venice with freedom… Four centuries later, several republics followed in italy…)

Salvini wondered if Luxembourg couldn’t find a “more normal person”:

Matteo Salvini

@matteosalvinimi

Paragona i nostri nonni emigrati ai clandestini che sbarcano oggi, vuole più immigrati in Europa e conclude urlando: “Merda”.

Ma in Lussemburgo, paradiso fiscale che non può dare lezioni all’Italia, non hanno nessuno di più normale che faccia il Ministro???

(Translation: He [Luxembourg’s Minister] compares our emigrated grandparents to the (clandestine) illegals who disembark today, he wants more immigrants in Europe and concludes by howlering: “Shit”.
But how come in Luxembourg, a tax haven that cannot give lessons to Italy, they have nobody more normal which could be Minister??? #Asselborn)

Salvini underestimates how difficult it is to find someone not satanic in charge in a plutocracy like Luxembourg. The ex-PM of Luxembourg, now head of the EU Commission, is a notorious drunkard. The powers that be in Europe, love that (because his drunkenness will prevent him to become dangerous to them!)

Both Mr Salvini (from the “League” supposedly right-wing) and Luigi Di Maio, his partner in the government (from the Movement Five Stars, supposedly left-wing), on Thursday rebuked a petulant European commissioner for likening populist leaders in Europe to “little Mussolinis”.

Pierre Moscovici, the EU’s economics affairs commissioner, an ex-Economy and Finance (“Socialist“) minister for France, compared the current economic climate with the rise of Fascism and Nazism in the 1930s and said that while Europe was not menaced by a new Hitler, there were plenty of “little Mussolinis”.

The remark drew a furious response from Mr Salvini, who has always insisted the League has nothing to do with fascism or anti-Semitism, accused the French politician of insulting Italy and said he should “wash his mouth out”.

My take on it? Luxembourg is a filthy tax haven, destroying the European all classes which are not hyper wealthy: tax avoidance is Luxembourg one and only industry, and its main clients are the biggest tax avoiders in the world (GAFA and the likes of whom owns The Economist, and other media).

What to do? Italy is a large country. However the four large European countries are undermined by tax thieves, and plutocratic friendly policies… to the point that their population is collapsing (except for those which cheat with massive immigration, like Great Britain, hence Brexit, a reaction to that massive illegal immigration from a furious UK population). The tax thieves should be kicked out of the EU, now that their ring leader, the EU has committed apoptosis (=suicide). I personally know small European Plutos who avoid taxes, using the Isle of Man to do so (I am thrilled to see what they will invent after Brexit…)

Luxembourg should be kicked out of the European Union (with Ireland and the Netherlands, all for making their economies around tax evasion from the rest of the EU).

And Salvini is right, and I have said so myself in the past: to let young, illegal Africans come to Europe, through traders, is a new form of slave importation (and it is deliberate, as it is meant to replace lack of European babies!) Enough is enough. Time to dismantle plutocratic Europe, let’s start with Luxembourg: a little warm-up.

Some will suggest I am over-aggressive. Filippo Grandi, the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees, on Friday warned populist politicians across Europe not to “create space” for racism by using aggressive language. “The language of politicians must not create space for racist attitudes,” Mr Grandi told a press conference in Rome. In July the French Constitutional Court decided there was a “principle of fraternity“: illegals had to be helped (except to actually cross the border). But racists accusing others of racism is probably older than civilization. Adolf Hitler started his career defending (“German”) minorities, while stridently accusing others of racism. One attacks best when one is felt to be morally superior. Actual physical aggression is preceded by acquiring the perception of high moral ground.

Europe, as it is, is not sustainable (actually its population is supposed to collapse, according to the EU itself… among other problems). So it has to change drastically… the alternative being death, and that, indeed is ultimately extreme. Holding back descriptions of what actually is happening in Europe is forcing countries such as Italy, to disappear (fertility rate: less than 1.4 child per woman, who can’t have children from lack of jobs, while illegal migrants swim in money). Disappearing a country surely is the most extreme form of racism!

Compassion is great. However, it can be lethally misleading if fed with erroneous data.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: I talked to professional immigrant smuggler for an hour. A loquacious Italian citizen, black as charcoal, originally from Ivory Coast, she told me in superb French that the illegal immigrants actually don’t see the 37 Euros per day “given” to them. Instead the money goes to “humanitarian” organizations, which confiscate the money. She viewed those “humanitarians” as crooks. We had an excellent, friendly conversation (no doubt in part from my African culture, in which I am at home… Contrarily to what some may too easily feel, I am not anti-immigration (having being an immigrant myself all my life!)… And I am not anti-African. I am against treating European Natives so badly they have more reproduction problems than pandas in zoos… By the way she was actually in the process of smuggling several African Natives (from several African nations, all young men), leading them across the towering mountains of the French border…

***

Note 2: French version of the gist of this essay: Le Luxembourg est un sale paradis fiscal détruisant l’Europe avec ses pourris ultra-riches évitant les impôts: la est sa seule “industrie”. On devrait éjecter le Luxembourg tout de suite de l’Union Européenne. L’immigration de jeunes Africains est en effet une nouvelle traite des esclaves. Il est temps de démolir l’Europe des ploutocrates.

Here is the French version of Salvini: “J’ai entendu certains collègues dire qu’on a besoin de l’immigration parce que la population européenne est en train de vieillir.”Il explique ensuite qu’il a une vision des choses “complètement différente” dans laquelle il faut d’abord aider les Italiens à “faire des enfants comme il y a quelques années”. Il  évoque ensuite une jeunesse africaine qui “remplace” la jeunesse européenne, avant de citer le cas luxembourgeois. “Peut-être qu’au Luxembourg il y a ce besoin, mais nous en Italie, nous ressentons le besoin d’aider nos enfants à faire d’autres enfants” déclare-t-il ainsi. Et d’ajouter la goutte qui fait déborder le vase: “Et non pas d’avoir de nouveaux esclaves pour remplacer les enfants que nous ne faisons plus.”

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

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’


Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

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

ianmillerblog

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן

Thoughts about Global Economy and Existence

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

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

ianmillerblog

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן

Thoughts about Global Economy and Existence

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

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

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

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

ianmillerblog

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן

Thoughts about Global Economy and Existence