Archive for the ‘European History’ Category

Is Islam Destroying the European Union?

February 27, 2017

Is Islam Already Deconstructing Europe? Yes: consider Brexit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit was, fundamentally, an anti-immigration vote.

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

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

So what gives?

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

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

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

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

***

NEXIT is the Netherlands EXIT from the European Union:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A reminder perhaps?

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

The Catastrophe Of Fontenoy, 841 CE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angibert myself I witnessed, fighting with the other men,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

Catastrophes happen.

Brexit is a catastrophe.

One catastrophe can lead to another.

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

Down the drain we go.

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

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

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

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

Right. Time to fight. For the right ideas.

Patrice Ayme’

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

February 8, 2017

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

Please consider, for Carter’s villainous attack:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Trump: I do respect him but —

O’Reilly: Do you? Why?

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

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

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

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

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

O’Reilly: But mistakes are different than —

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

***

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

This is an important step. Forward. Progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

CONQUEST Of England, 950 Years Ago: End of Slavery, Birth of Modern Democracy

October 16, 2016

The BATTLE OF HASTINGS, WON By The FRANKS 950 YEARS AGO: Outlawing Slavery, Jump Starting Democracy

How did British democracy arise? With the exact opposite maneuver from Brexit. What is the opposite of Brit-exit? Frank-in. And when William the Conqueror, came in, conquered-in, he did not just bring, but enforced a more advanced civilization, and much more, a process to self-feed democracy.

The ascent of Britain, blossoming into the edge of world civilization is a long story which started well before Caesar’s two landings in England. The mighty, yet disorganized Celtic civilization had been divided into a diversity of a bewildering obfuscation (fostered by the Druids) of countless small units: Gaul had 60 nations, with 60 central banks, senates and three languages. Roman organization put an end to that non-sense, and Gaul came out much stronger, wealthier and more intelligent (the Druids cultivated stupidity, by outlawing written expression, except among themselves).

The collapse of the Roman state brought an even greater mess to Britain, while the continent got reorganized under the Franks’ Lex Salica (see chapter inside the essay on Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood). The reconquest of England by the Franks under the command of a Roman duke of Normandy added a whole new layer of complexity in the subtilty of government. It is William’s Conquest, a conquest by a plurality, and the most advanced principles, which instigated the rise of the world’s most advanced democracy, protected, as it was thereafter, by the insular nature of Britain (whereas the rest of the Roman empire, on the other side of the Channel, fell in ever worse divisions sheared from ever mightier armies).

After its conquest under Claudius, a Roman emperor born in Lyon (Lugdunum), Britannia was unified and pacified for more than four centuries. However budget cuts by the theologically minded plutocrats who ruled Rome around 400 CE, led to the withdrawal of the legions (which constituted the core of the crack field armies of the empire). Local Roman militia was unable to repel waves of invasion of determined Angles and Saxons in the next two centuries. Finally British forces retreated towards Wales or took refuge in what came to be known as Brittany (formerly Armorica, the large western peninsula of France advancing in the Atlantic). Then the Viking came, overrunning much of England, and all of Ireland.

By the Eleventh Century, the king ruling England, Edward the Confessor, had no direct descendant. (His earlier life had been astoundingly full of battles and unlikely events; suffices to say he was the seventh son of his father, from his second wife, Emma of Normandy who ended up marrying a Viking invader, Cnut, who conveniently executed some of Edward’s half brothers. Edward spent many years in exile in Normandy (and acted accordingly: Edward could see that Frankish civilization was superior). 

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of Some Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue (Poitou, Anjou, Flanders) or Green (Bretagne)

The Reconquista Of Britannia By A Dux Of The Roman Empire:

The reconquest of Britannia by a Roman Dux was no accident: five centuries after being overrun by the Angles and Saxons, the British Isles were more of a wasteland than ever, as waves of Viking sloshed all over. It was high time for re-establishing civilization. Only force can re-establish civilization (a theme of mine). William would apply overwhelming force, in the service of the most advanced civilization anywhere. And it worked splendidly: the progress he launched became self-feeding, and promoted peace. Indeed, after William’s conquest, except for a victorious Dutch invasion in 1688 CE (with the objective of defeating France’s dictator, Louis XIV), England would never be conquered again. 

The closest relative of king Edward the Confessor was the Norman Dux (“Dux”, Duc, Duke, was a Roman military title of the Late Empire: a Dux was the superior military officer of a large province, only subject to command from the Emperor himself). More exactly, Edward was the grandson of the maternal uncle of William the Conqueror. The accession of William to the ducal throne had been difficult because his father had died in Nicea (Anatolia), when William was seven years old. William’s mother was his father’s mistress, an independent business woman who then married somebody else. However, Dukes of Normandy were often “illegitimate”, and there is no doubt that his father intended William to be Duke (he made his vassals take an oath of obedience to his son, before leaving for the crusade, over his family’s objections).

By the age of 23, the battle tested William was the uncontested Duke of Normandy, and Edward was back, overlording an English realm streaked by Viking raids. Thus, in 1051 CE, Edward selected William as heir (no doubt feeling that Britain needed to be reintegrated in the Roman ensemble, for its own good as it indeed turned out). In 1064 CE, a top officer of Edward, Harold, showed up in Normandy, helped William wage war in Brittany, and told him that he, Harold, would support his claim to the throne (at least that is what Normand discrediting propaganda claimed at the time).

On January 5, 1066, Edward died and Harold, treacherously, took power as king of England. Many other claimants and grandees were not happy, and a complicated war started, with four parties involved.

However William was an official Duke of the Roman empire, had been named future king 15 years prior, and thus William was the only one with real legitimacy, and enormous clout (but making William king meant that Britain was reintegrating the Roman empire! And thus who thrived from the mess were going to suffer). Indeed, consent of Pope Alexander II for the invasion was obtained, and a Papal banner was flown by William. The Roman emperor also gave consent. On top of this, William was an extremely experienced military leader, used to command in the Roman imperator tradition (namely ready to execute miscreants as needed). William had been at war since age 8. And he was now 38 years old.

An enormous fleet was built, 3,000 ships it has been said. It sailed from the Somme river, once intelligence informed William that Harold’s army had been removed from the Channel and was battling in the north.

William led an army greatly composed of contingents under the direct command of many French barons who were not his vassals. In particular William’s forces comprised Breton, Anjou, Poitou armies (which made the left wing at the Hastings battle, commanded by Alan the Red, a relative of the Comte de Bretagne) and a French, Picardy, Flanders army (which made the right wing at Hastings, and was commanded by the Count of Boulogne, who was severely wounded in the pursuit of the Anglo-Saxon forces).

***

That two-third of William’s army was made of Frankish allies not his vassals was of great consequence: his non-vassal allies would shortly enforce upon the king the MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM, the Great Charter of Liberty.

During the battle, William’s left wing, the Breton army at some point cracked and fled, and was pursued by Harold’s forces, led by two of his brothers. That stretching of the enemy in the open enabled William’s cavalry to surprise and destroy them. The Normans feigned retreat twice more, to expose Harold’s army to cavalry (Harold had no cavalry, and no archers, William had both). William engineered attacks after attacks, changing strategy repeatedly, and had several horses killed under him. In the end, Harold was killed, some say by William himself (that Harold was killed by an arrow is apparently a later legend which arose when the Bayeux tapestry was misinterpreted).

The war was not finished.  English clergy and aristocrat nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king to replace Howard (whose body William had ordered thrown in the sea). To win the war, William instigated reforms right away.

William changed England in many ways. For example he was partly financed by Jewish financiers and brought rich Jews from Rouen to foster lending in England (an activity forbidden to Christians with Christians, but allowed from Jews to Christians). Thus William introduced Judaism to England (so Jews were not always victimized by it did not exist prior to that there).

William had made church reforms in Normandy. He extended them to England, and replaced English clergy by Normand clergy. William also enforced all the laws passed by Edward the Confessor (the preceding English king, who had spent most of his formative years in Normandy, thanks to William’s family, and much of his life, and had made his relative William his heir). Some laws protected especially the “Frenchmen who had come with William to England”, as one would expect after a conquest. But William went much further.

***

William The Conqueror’s Laws Created A New Polity And New Civilization:

William introduced ten major new laws. The first made Christianism the official religion (exit the pagan gods).

William’s second law made all Englishmen take a direct, personal oath of loyalty to the king, as if they were soldiers in the Roman army. Those who did not take the oath would not be considered to be freemen. The oath had to be witnessed by many. That was a very significant advance: prior to this, citizens did not have to take an oath of loyalty (only the Roman soldiers had to, except for a few years under Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius around 308 CE).

All problems have to be solved in court, ordered William. Non-attendees were heavily fined, up to the amount of the charge against them.

The final two laws passed by William were stunning:

No man is allowed to sell another man. Anyone breaking this law will pay a fine to the king.” This law outlawed slavery in England. 20% of the population had been enslaved under Harold. William, as a Roman Dux, had to implement the Lex Salica’s most prominent feature, the one that distinguished it more saillantly from Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman Law, was the interdiction of slavery. It is also on that law that the prosperity of the “Renovated Roman Empire” rested. Britain had been reunited with the empire (although, it was implicitly intimated that it never left).

No one shall be executed for crimes they have committed; but if they are guilty of a crime, they will be blinded and castrated. This law is not to be challenged.” Outlawing the death penalty was very much a world first. (Although the EU has outlawed the death penalty, the USA still uses it, 950 years later.)

***

Outlawing Slavery Was Not Just Frankish Law, But An Essential Part of William’s Power Grab

As a Dux of the Roman empire, William had to implement (Franco-)Roman law. Slavery had been made unlawful by the (English-born) Queen Bathilde of the Franks in 650 CE. Later the Franks conquered most of Western Europe, including the British isles and the part of Iberian and Italian peninsulas still held by the Muslims. The outlawing of slavery by the Franks was extended to these liberated territories where Roman rule was re-imposed.

In turn, the outlawing of slavery no doubt facilitated this Roman reconquest. For example, the 20% of Englishmen who found themselves to be “freemen” as long as they took a loyalty oath to William were no doubt enthusiastic supporters of William.

***

Frenchmen, and French

In the following centuries, many powerful French characters and adventurers in England, would try to preserve their power, or try to seize power, and would push for various democratic reforms limiting the power of the king. Out of that came the Magna Carta Libertatum (the descendants of the allies of William wanted to keep the powers William had conferred to them, that of allies, not vassals), the power of Parliament (Lancastre hoped to be elected king through Parliament, so he boosted its power; Lancastre was killed on the battlefield, but his reforms stayed). And so on.

Ever since William’s conquest, France and England have been entangled (although intellectual life on both sides of the Channel had been entangled for two millennia already: Druids would study in Wales, Saint Patrick was educated in Cannes, Anti-slavery queen of the Franks Bathide was from Kent, Alcuin, Charlemagne’s main PM and philosopher was English).

The reason for thinking otherwise, that England and France have serious differences (instead of being family), was the dictatorial drift under the fanatical Jihadist tyrant Louis XIV, while England went the other way, towards more democracy. Democracy brings power, dictatorship, weakness. The result was that France became weaker and England blossomed into a superpower. In the (world) wars of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Year War, and the Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars, a haggard France was defeated and more subtly plutocratic England became a world empire.  

It is the mess of more distributed power which rendered England ever more democratic. Whereas in France, the emperor-in-his-own-kingdom (that was the official expression!) Philippe-Auguste (literally: the lover of horses who augments!) colluded with the Pope to destroy the (quasi-republican) giant County of Toulouse (which was ruled under a Count, but mostly by Parliament).

However, moods perdure. Lancastre, one of those who exploited Toulouse got there the idea of using Parliament as a weapon against the king, and implemented the idea in England.

Intelligence is greater, the greater the ability to detect, distinguish, identify & imagine (knowledge, distinctions, equations & allusions).

Contemplating history shows that reason is not linear, but a web. And guess what? Quantum Theory says the same, and it has a name, entanglement. This is an entangled world, and to reveal it, one has to reveal its implicit order. It arises from occurrences. By building one’s neurology while missing the most important occurrences in the world pertaining to it, one risks becoming stupid. 

Patrice Ayme’.   

 

Trump A Demagogue? So What?

March 27, 2016

“We empowered a demagogue” laments the New York Times ostensibly bleeding heart liberal, the kind Mr. Kristof, in his false “Mea Culpa” editorial, “My Shared Shame: How The Media Made Trump”. By this, Mr. Kristof means that Mr. Trump is a bad person. However, Mr. Kristof’s choice of the word “demagogue” is revealing. (Actually it’s not really his choice: “demagogue” is not Mr. Kristof’s invention: he just repeats like a parrot the most prominent slogan of the worldwide campaign of insults against Trump).

Trump a demagogue? Is Mr. Sanders a “demagogue”, too? (As much of the financial and right-wing press has it: for The Economist and the Financial Times, Trump and Sanders are both “demagogues” and that’s their main flaw.)

To understand fully the word “demagogue” one has to understand a bit of Greek, and a bigger bit of Greek history.

The Hellenistic Kingdom Mood, And Aristotle, Had A Devastating Influence On Rome, Thus On Western Civilization, Thus Us, Ever Since

The Hellenistic Kingdom Mood, And Aristotle, Had A Devastating Influence On Rome, Thus On Western Civilization, Thus Us, Ever Since

What does demos mean? And what does agogos mean? Both words are Greek. Agogos means “leader”, Demos means “people”. In ancient Greek “demagogos” meant “leader of the People”. A demagogue was viewed as bad in the Hellenistic Kingdoms period, because kinship was good, and We The People was bad. We inherited 2,000 years of dictatorship from the Hellenistic Kingdoms’ mood.

The latter point is the key: thanks to Aristotle’s devastating influence, monarchies and tyrannies became the ideal political regimes (for the next 2,000 years). I explained the whole thing in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy”. Aristotle was the senior, most respected figure, of an impressive number of mass criminals who were his personal friends, students and followers: Alexander the Great, Antipater, Craterus, etc.

The practical result was that the entire Greek world became subjected to monarchies and tyrannies. With the sole exception of Massilia (modern Marseilles) whose small empire stayed democratic and independent (in spite of being at war with no less than Carthage based in Barcelona!) Marseilles would fall only after Julius Caesar besieged it (in one of Julius’ particularly ridiculous exploits). But the fact only Massilia stayed democratic tells volumes (OK, when Greece, attempted to go back to democracy, plutocratizing Rome crushed it, culminating with the devastation of Corinth in 146 BCE).

So the deeper question is this: since when has “leader of the People” become a crime in the US? Was president FDR a “demagogue”? What is the president of the USA supposed to be? What is the problem? Is the president supposed NOT to be a “leader”? Or to NOT be a leader of the “People”?

Is the President of the US supposed to be a follower? Of whom? The plutocrats? Is the president of the USA supposed to take Air Force One every few weeks, to get money from the Silicon Valley plutocrats, and ask them for instructions?

The ascent of Trump is precisely tied to the opinion that the office of the President of the USA is not anymore that of the leader of the people. Instead the president has become the leader of the 1%, exclusively. Thus, the more one complains that Trump is a “demagogue”, the more one presents him as precisely what the country, and maybe even the world, needs: somebody who wants to lead We The People, not just the 1%.

[Mr. Kristof allowed a shortened version of this comment to be published… After sitting on it for 12 hours. Delayed publication is akin to censorship, as the comment was published in 777th position instead of being among the first. So Mr. Kristof is not as kind and open as he wants to depict himself.]

A hard day may be coming for global plutocrats ruling as they do thanks to their globalization tricks. And I am not exactly naive. Andy Grove, founder of Intel, shared the general opinion that much of globalization was just theft & destitution fostering an ominous future (the Hungarian immigrant to the USA who was one of the founders of Intel). He pointed out, an essay he wrote in 2010 that Silicon Valley was squandering its competitive edge in innovation by neglecting strong job growth in the United States.

Mr. Grove observed that: …”it was cheaper and thus more profitable for companies to hire workers and build factories in Asia than in the United States. But… lower Asian costs masked the high price of offshoring as measured by lost jobs and lost expertise. Silicon Valley misjudged the severity of those losses, he wrote, because of a “misplaced faith in the power of start-ups to create U.S. jobs.”

Silicon Valley makes its money from start-ups. However, that phase of a business is different from the scale-up phase, when technology goes from prototypes to mass production. Both phases are important. Only scale-up is an engine for mass job growth — and scale-up is vanishing in the United States (especially with jobs connected to Silicon Valley). “Without scaling,” Mr. Grove wrote, “we don’t just lose jobs — we lose our hold on new technologies” and “ultimately damage our capacity to innovate…

The underlying problem isn’t simply lower Asian costs. It’s our own misplaced faith in the power of startups to create U.S. jobs. Americans love the idea of the guys in the garage inventing something that changes the world. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman recently encapsulated this view in a piece called “Start-Ups, Not Bailouts.” His argument: Let tired old companies that do commodity manufacturing die if they have to. If Washington really wants to create jobs, he wrote, it should back startups.

Friedman is wrong. Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment.”

However, American-based manufacturing is not on the agenda of Silicon Valley or the political agenda of the United States. Venture capitalists actually told me it was obsolete (before stepping in their private jets). That omission, according to Mr. Grove, is a result of anotherunquestioned truism”: “that the free market is the best of all economic systems — the freer the better.” To Mr. Grove, or Mr. Trump, or yours truly, that belief is flawed.

Andy Grove: “Scaling used to work well in Silicon Valley. Entrepreneurs came up with an invention. Investors gave them money to build their business. If the founders and their investors were lucky, the company grew and had an initial public offering, which brought in money that financed further growth.” 

The triumph of free-market principles over planned economies in the 20th century, Mr. Grove said, did not make those principles infallible or immutable. There was room for improvement, he argued, for what he called “job-centric” economics and politics. In a job-centric system, job creation would be the nation’s No. 1 objective, with the government setting priorities and arraying the forces necessary to achieve the goal, and with businesses operating not only in their immediate profit interest but also in the interests of “employees, and employees yet to be hired.”

As even the New York Times now admits, the situation has degenerated since 2010. Although the employment rate halved, in a slave state, everybody is employed. But neither the economy, nor the society, let alone progress and civilization are doing better.

“Insecure, low-paying, part-time and dead-end jobs are prevalent. On the campaign trail, large groups of Americans are motivated and manipulated on the basis of real and perceived social and economic inequities.

Conditions have worsened in other ways. In 2010, one of the arguments against Mr. Grove’s critique was that exporting jobs did not matter as long as much of the corporate profits stayed in the United States. But just as American companies have bolstered their profits by exporting jobs, many now do so by shifting profits overseas through tax-avoidance maneuvers.

The result is a high-profit, low-prosperity nation. “All of us in business,” Mr. Grove wrote, “have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability — and stability — we may have taken for granted.” Silicon Valley and much of corporate America have yet to live up to that principle.”

So the argument counter-Grove was that plutocracy was OK, as long as it was all American (an argument Trump long disagreed with, BTW). But, clearly, it’s not the case anymore. Instead the US government has become the back-up to global plutocratic corporations (watch Obama flying to Argentina to encourage the new US pawn there, just elected… after making economic war against left leaning Argentinian governments ever since Argentina refused to take orders: the first beneficiary are New York vulture funds).

Sanders, the other “demagogue” just defeated Clinton (the establishment insider plutocrat) in three states out of the US mainstream: Washington State, Hawai’i and Alaska (with 3/4 of the votes). Interestingly, and differently from all the other past or present primary contenders, Clinton is implicated in several inquiries from the FBI, Department of Justice, etc. At least she is not terrorized like Maria Carey, who cancelled her concerts in Belgium (other singers did not).

Mr. Grove: “… the imperative for change is real and the choice is simple. If we want to remain a leading economy, we change on our own, or change will continue to be forced upon us.” Trump and Sanders say nothing else.

Yesterday, a dove penetrated inside my house, flew around, collided a bit with something, and then exited the window with precision, before perching on a eucalyptus branch, looking at me dazzlingly. I have seen it many times before, but generally it stays outside. Last night, I dreamed of seeing a pigeon fly at an angle into a wall. I asked it why it did that, so deliberately. It replied: “Did you see the state of the biosphere?” I suggested a more constructive actions. And it’s how it is going to happen: at some point, all the biosphere we depend upon will revolt (and after Zika, we have now Lassa fever, which is very close to Ebola).

Our corruption is not just an economic and social problem, a political problem, and a civilizational problem, as it was under Aristotle.  It is a problem for the entire planet.

We empowered a demagogue“, laments Mr. Kristof. His true calling, and that of the Main Stream Media, was to empower plutocrats, and their obsequious servants. How sad they are.

Patrice Ayme’

Love Without Wisdom: Ruin of Humanity.

November 20, 2015

Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity? Lying, too, is the ruin of humanity, which is truth, if nothing else.

Lying about Islam will not seduce youth. Just the opposite.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love.

Attack of the day, this time Al Qaeda on Bamako’s most prestigious hotel. Ten Muslim Fundamentalists versus 200 guests and 30 employees. What could go wrong? “God is great!” screamed the gun totting Radicals. Therein were airline crews from Air France, Turkish Airways, and many Members of Parliament from many countries, including France (of course), Senegal, Quebec, etc.

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Well what could go wrong is that there were 40 French gendarmes from GIGN (Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale) plus French and U.S. Special Forces in the immediate area. The siege got resolved very quickly with only two dozens killed.

The deepest problem we are facing is philosophical. There is the Islam we have, and then there is the Islam we wish to have. The Islam we have, is the one in the Qur’an. Nobody reads the Qur’an, everybody talks about it, as if they had. Well, nobody reads it, except for the Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists, or “Radicals”

The West says:”The Islamist State is not Islam, it’s terrorism”. The Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists reply:”Just read the Qur’an”. Young, dissatisfied people (rightly dissatisfied from austerity, discrimination, inequities, etc.) then decide to make a little experience for themselves: who is right? They read the Qur’an and discover that the Muslim Fundamentalists told the truth: the Islamist State is the Qur’an, unadultarated. As long as the leadership of the West (political and intellectual) lies in a blatant way, and is easily caught lying, it will have no credit, and will only enrage youth ever more. (Maybe that’s what they want? As war serves plutocracy well?)

Islamism Is Terrorism, Wisdom Is Love

It’s as simple as that. Don’t agree? Well read the Qur’an oh you silly ones who talk about books you never read and were mostly told lies about. Before reading comprehension, one needs reading. Right, normal people prefer reading novels than reality.

In the Qur’an it is famously said that who kills someone, kills all of humanity. Never mind that Muhammad himself killed more than 1,000, including an entire tribe of Yathrib (now Medina). Yet, the Qur’an says this. However that verse is ABROGATED by tens of later verses which order all sorts of people (remember that later verses take precedence over earlier ones):

Imams bemoan “Radicalism”. But “radical” means about roots, and in the case of Islam, it means the Qur’an. Radical is the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself is a fabrication of Uthman, not Muhammad, as Aisha pointed out. Entire pieces of it were removed (notably the famous “Satanic Verses”).

So why not rewrite the Qur’an in a new version, the “Real Message of God According to Muhammad, Which Uthman And Others Hid From You”?

That will allow to remove the verses in the Qur’an which are in conflict with civilization.

Meanwhile the comedy of stupidity unchained, keeps on unfolding. I showed an educated lady from California hyper-threatening verses from the Qur’an, which should be unlawful, just because they are hate crimes. She quietly told me: ”Oh, there is the same in the Bible.” She has been a professional woman earning her keep as an engineer for decades.

So the pan is hot?’ Say who pass nowadays for smart, well-balanced people. ‘No problem, the fire is hot too.” Surely, the argument that we should be happy with the Qur’an, because it is similar to the rule book of the Inquisition belongs to those who hope keenly to bring back the Inquisition.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. It’s not enough to love God. You have to check first it’s not the Devil, as the Cathars pointed out.

The Vatican had the King of Paris (also known as “France”) annihilate the Cathars, using a Bible Fundamentalist army. One million dead. And all the Cathars’ writings.

But not, as you can see, all their ideas.

Meanwhile in Algeria, the local dictator, Bouteflika, had cartoonist Tahar Djehiche imprisoned 6 months in jail for cartoons ‘insulting the president’ -https://t.co/nJ9tF5xafX”. When the mood is around that insulting the Prophet deserves death, surely insulting the president deserves 6 months. Islam is the bed of gory dictatorship.

Who is Bouteflika?  A terrorist who became a general. He is one of the original principals from the FNL, a terrorist group to whom the French dictator (the one who dictated), De Gaulle, gave power in… 1962. De Gaulle, a famous racist, thought that Bouteflika was perfect for Algeria. De Gaulle thought he could keep “Muslims” or North Africans at bay, and away, by giving them to the wolves. That mood persisted, although its racism had to morph a bit. So the children of the North Africans who fled to France, or Europe, were mistreated by austerity (no schools for you, Muslims, the Qur’an is good enough, and selling drugs, too). So here we are. (Fully describing the relationship between France and North Africa deserves 1,000 pages, I am myself a byproduct; this was just an appetizer…)

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. People are born from love, and thus have a capacity, and a need to love whatever, including evil. Love is not enough. Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity.

Patrice Ayme’

REAL HISTORY: World War One Inception

November 10, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The historical truth is completely different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here we are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Only Philosophy Can Reverse Civilization Collapse

August 12, 2015

World population is presently exploding. How many human beings were there before dogs became in wide use? In 35,000 BCE, it is estimated that Earth had three million human beings. Before the rise of cities, in 10,000 BCE, world population had reached 15 million. The rise of civilization was enabled by a technological explosion, the discovery, invention and intense use intense use of science, technology, writing, genetic engineering (dogs, cattle, goats, chicken, cats, wheat, rye, millet, rice, beans, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, etc.), irrigation, fuel, etc.

Civilizations rise when they find new technological tricks to dominate and exploit their environments, be it the human, and, or, natural, environments. Those tricks exhaust resources after a while, bringing stress, thus war (against people, and, or, nature). War activates the fascist instinct, bringing the rise of plutocracy (as observed nowadays), and complete cretinism (also known as theocracy). This makes the collapse worse. Civilization can be destroyed by fate. The most famous case is a civilization we owe so much to: Crete. It was devastated by one of the worst volcanic explosion in 25,000 years (as it tried to recover, it was hit by a “plague”, according to Greek historians). 

Cretan Girls Leaped Over Bulls In The Nude

Cretan Girls Leaped Over Bulls In The Nude

Crete is part of our cultural inheritance. Today, the status of women depends upon the breakthrough ancient paintings (from the Knossos Palace, above), some 40 centuries old, depict. The status of women was high in Crete. Women could be in authority, for 2,000 years. Women were then to be subjugated in Greece, for 3,500 years (yes, time flies, these are big numbers: civilizational setbacks can last millennia).

Europe is named after Crete, an acknowledgment. The goddess Europa was from Crete (and one of her sons was the famous king Minos, after whom Minoan Civilization is named).

An example of self-imploding collapse is the Maya. The Maya were, for millennia, an extremely advanced civilization which seemed to be on its way to accomplish on its own something similar to the ascending superiority of Middle Earth (my term for the Mediterranean plus Egypt-Middle East-Arabia plus India area).

However, a terrible century long drought starting in the Seventh Century struck the Maya who proved unable to manage the crisis, to which they added terrible wars (the worst involving a queen, in the leading role, not just the usual demonic males). All Maya cities were destroyed. When the Spaniards landed, eight centuries later, the Maya were just shadows of their former selves (yet, they proved to be tough customers).

As Jared Diamond (2005, in his book “Collapse”) wrote, one can only be struck by “the disappearance of between 90 and 99% of the Maya population after A.D. 800 …and the disappearance of kings, Long Count calendars, and other complex political and cultural institutions.” Not just that, but much more importantly, the giant irrigation system of the Maya, with its dams and canals, was one of the world’s largest, ever: it can still be seen from space. When that centuries old irrigation system was left in disrepair, civilization became history.

In the close-by very extensive highlands of central Mexico, many powerful states also rose to high levels of power and prosperity, only to rapidly collapse. Teotihuacan (the sixth largest city in the world in the Seventh Century) and Monte Alban among those to experience dramatic collapse, with populations decline of at least 20–25% from their peak within a couple of generations (Tainter, 1988).

Civilization collapses come in many guises. Egypt cycled through more than two dozen dynasties, and a couple of century long occupations, tweaking itself every time. However, in the end it was unable to stay an independent, original civilization, undergoing thereafter 2,000 years of subjugation. 

The present civilization was born from a near-collapse. And was born thanks to a philosophical reset.

Indeed, in the case of the Greco-Roman empire, full collapse was avoided. The Franks rebooted Greco-Roman civilization, with their own Germano-Christian sauce, by the early Fifth Century (defeat of Goths who were ejected from Gaul, 507 CE, thanks to the battle of Vouille’). This is completely clear, when one inspects known facts, battles, laws, and the Storia Francorum of bishop Gregory of Tours.

The truth of what happened was masked by severe setbacks which were endured in the Sixth Century, under (Constantinople based) Roman emperor Justinian: Christian madness made Greco-Roman intellectuals flee to Persia (!), while a terrible plague (“Justinian Plague”), and a mysterious cataclysm (asteroid, volcano?) struck Earth’s climate. (The reality of what happned under the Franks was also masked by French Revolutionary propaganda, which was anxious to put all and any “ancient regime” in a bad light, and the usual Anglo-Saxon propaganda, anxious to disparage its absurdly French origins in all and any way.)

Differently from the Maya, the Franks centered in, or around Paris, and the Romans in Constantinople, were able to adapt to the catastrophes of the Fourth (Christianization, Gothic invasion), Fifth (Germanic invasions of 406 CE; then, the Huns), Sixth (as related above), and Seventh Centuries (dramatic war with Persia, followed by the surprise attack of the god crazed Arabs).

Both then defeated in the Eight Century those fanatics of war who had attacked like carnivorous locusts.   

The official “Renovatio Imperii”, the Renovation of Rome, was made formal when Carlus Magnus (Charlemagne) was endowed with the sole “Imperator Romanorum” (Imperator of the Romans) title in 800 CE, an imperial tradition which went on with say Otton II in 962 CE, and for more than a millennium (formally, Napoleon I, as leader of Francia was entitled, the Roman way, to grab back the title for himself).

Greco-Roman civilization incorporated the Cretan, Egyptian-Sumerian, Phoenician civilizations (with more than a touch of Etruscan). Then other Middle Eastern elements were included (Mythra, Great Mother Cult, Judaism, etc.) Western civilization incorporated even more: the fierce love of freedom, and women, of the Germans, and the generalized tolerance and open mindedness of the Franks (by 600 CE all citizens were Franks, and, within a generation the slave trade was outlawed by the Imperium; that latter fact was a world’s first). Interestingly the Franco-Roman synthesis incorporated traits which Crete had, but that the Hellenes had lost (for example maximum sexual equality, in at least some respects: there were female Cretan matadors, playing with ferocious giant bulls).

Conclusion? Even in an horrendous situation (the decline of the Roman empire, under fascism, theocracy, barbarity, invasions, ecological collapse, plague, unfathomable impact of a giant explosion somewhere), fresh new ideas, arising from shock philosophy can turn things around. The Franks demonstrated this thoroughly. The Chinese also did, on a more modest scale… Until Mao came, and unleashed the Dark Side onto fossilized Chinese thought, habits, and a philosophy, Confucianism, which had ruled for 26 centuries, as the symbol of ultimate wisdom (which it was not).

To repeat slowly: the Franks introduced the following reforms, in rough chronological order:

  1. The rule of warriors bound to common sense and religious tolerance (in complete contradiction with the Catholic terror, just prior). This was illustrated by Clovis’ quip that, had his Franks been there, Christ would never have been crucified. On the surface, it’s as if Clovis had understood nothing of Christianity. Indeed it looks as if Clovis had not understood that God wanted to be crucified, just to visit a guilt complex on his followers, same as with the story of the snake and the apple. Most probably, Clovis understood all too well< and made a show that he was firmly intend to violate God’s law. In any case, under the Franks, Judaism, Paganism, etc were freely practiced. Christianism with a human, even Frankish face (to the Vatican’s rage).
  2. The implementation of a modern, much less sexist, non-discriminatory legal system, applying to all by 600 CE, the Lex Salica, on top of Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman law. By 600 CE, all citizens of the Imperium Francorum were Franks (in a dramatic contrast with the situation in Spain, where the Visigoths applied Visigothic law just to themselves; same in italy where the Lombards, another type of Germans, were above Roman law)
  3. The outlawing of slavery (starting around 650 CE).
  4. Nationalization  of the Catholic Church, constitution of the largest professional army since Republican Rome, to face the humongous Islamist invasions of 721-745 CE. Destruction of the army of the Arab Caliphate (which thus collapsed in 750 CE, crushing Bin Laden and other Islamists forever thereafter).    

All these reforms were of a philosophical nature: the Vatican discussed excommunicating Charles Martel, for expropriating the Church, but concluded it was safer not to debate with a Hammer. When the Franks formed, named, and made a bishop, within three weeks, from an illiterate Frankish warrior, they were sending a message to the Vatican about who was the boss: secularism, not superstition.

Civilization survived from smarts, not just swords.

Patrice Ayme’

 

On The Myth Of German Innocence

July 14, 2015

When I was six years old, a dear cousin of mine, told me that Germany had been taken over by a criminal, and that’s why the Germans were innocent of all the bad things they did. That sounded insane to me. If they did it, why were they innocent?

At that point, I had mostly lived in Africa, but in seral places: Algiers, Ghardhaia (Sahara, in semi-insurrection nowadays), Senegal, Ivory Coast. So I had been around. But I never had witnessed people doing bad things because they had been told to. It sounded to me that people who did bad things because they had been told to, were a higher form of evil. So my cousin excused evil, with a higher form of evil.

Silly isn’t?

There was a solution to all this. Subjugation through the powers of reason:

The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire Strikes Back

Tough isn’t it?

Latest defeat of the plutocratic mood: July 13, 2015.

By divine happenstance, it was celebrated with a humongous 45 minutes fireworks display which made fun of all and any austerity. Some will say Berlin paid for it, because the Germans have to send another 16 billion Euros to Greece. Whatever. The French are supposed to send 14 billions. The grand total being 85 billion Euros. Should this be the USA, the central bank or the Treasury could write a check exactly compensating. But this is Europe, and there is no Treasury.

That the USA can write checks to itself is viewed there, and everywhere, as a strength. But if done by the Europeans, it’s viewed as a weakness. Is it because European leaders and pundits are truly there to defend only the interests of the USA?

Yet not all is lost. To build a European Union was a solution. Yet, it has been perverted by plutocracy to a great, if not Greek extent. But all is not lost: July 13, 2015, the French presidency, for once in the right fought until some money would be injected in the Union, spiting the most obdurate plutocrats. (Of course, this just a battle, not the war. Ultimately, as I pointed long ago, “If You Want To Save the World, Please Default“)

As the Athenians would point out, moods which lead to lose wars one fought for the most abominable reasons, need to perish. The nasty Austerians lost, July 13, 2015. Europe needs to be built for the better angels of out nature, not for pernicious creditors. Just for one day, the servants of the greatest capital had to admit this. But it’s going to take a little while more, even with the best efforts, before it gets admitted that the servants of the greatest private capital indulge in an updated form of slavery.

Slavery is not essentially about the color of the skin, it’s about the color of the mind.

Patrice Ayme’

 

German Aggression: Atavism Straight From Teutons?

July 12, 2015

A coalition led by Germany persists in trying to prevent Greece from having enough money to operate its economy or, even, health care. Yes, I know, there are many reasons to be teutonically furious against Jews, or Greeks. Yet, inhuman behavior is inhuman behavior. And stupid is stupid. I think it’s timely to give Germans a heads-up, about themselves, that mood they still harbors: the Greek crisis is a good occasion to reject it.

The German State did not pay either the debts it incurred in World War One, or World War Two. Germany paid only for a fraction of the damage it deliberately inflicted in World War One, and finished doing so only a few years ago. Germany did not pay any reparations for the humongous damage it caused in World War Two. Does this make Germans debt specialists?

German Aggression Is Not New: Teutons’ Attack On World, 120 BCE

German Aggression Is Not New: Teutons’ Attack On World, 120 BCE

In 1900 CE, Germany had the highest literacy rate in the world, ever. Still, for all to see, it was falling into barbarity, organizing the holocaust of the Natives in Namibia, under governor Goering, father of WWI’s war hero (who was condemned to hang at Nuremberg).

Thus encouraged by general tolerance, for this special mood, literate German barbarity, Germanofascism went further: a deliberate conspiracy of the top Germans for a surprise world war. A world war conceived to happen so fast, that it would enable a succession of quick victories.

France was to be crushed in weeks, by invading neutral Belgium. Before the vast Russian army could make a serious dent in Prussia. Then Russia was to be destroyed.

What was supposed to happen rather clear: Britain’s Royal Navy could not be defeated (as the Battle of Jutland would demonstrate). Moreover Britain enjoyed a huge empire, let alone a “special relationship” with giant USA. At best, it looked like indefinite war for Germany. And no victory.

Or am I overlooking something? Much of the British elite was pro-German, and pro-Kaiser Kaiser Wilhelm II, Victoria’s grandson, may have imagined that it could come to some agreement: the philosopher Bertrand Russell, heading a herd of cowards and traitors, advocated surrender to the Kaiser so stridently, he was put in jail for 18 months.

Similar insanity nowadays: crushing Greece will bring no victory. Throwing Greece out the Eurozone will make the situation, and the spending, only worse: Greece, like Britain, is in Europe, and won’t go away to Mars, or the South Pacific.

Still a few top Prussians ordered 121 million German speaking people, to war (against France, which had only 38 million citizens). Instead of rebelling against those revolting orders, the Germanoid robots goose stepped, in full order (even the SPD, the “socialist” party)…

Five weeks after the surprise, abominable, war-criminal attack on the world, and invasion of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Prussian violence met a greater violence. A well planned French counter-attack at the Marne demolished the German dream of taking over the world by force. Quick retreats prevented annihilation of the German armies. The armies stayed entrenched for the next 4 years (when massive French artillery, French and British tanks, and the incoming Yanks, chewed up the German lines).

How did Germany get so crazy? It’s a long story, and a complicated one. Even the Enlightenment, Rousseau, Napoleon and the French Revolution played a role (and not a simple, nor the expected one!)

In the end, one has to go all the way back more than 21 centuries, when the Ambrones, Teutoni and Cimbri decided to attack.

At the last minute, with the last Roman army, brought back from Africa, Consul Marius, ably seconded by Sylla, annihilated the three northern German tribes. To this day, the memory of these formidable battles lives around Aix en Provence, in the names of a formidable mountain, and villages.

Modern Germans claim to be obsessed by order. And it is indeed because of order, also known as fascism, that they could fancy to attack and destroy the world, in 1914, or 1939. However, all what the German obsessive fascination with order as a meta-principle, no other country in the world has caused as much of a mess since 1853 (when Prussia attacked Denmark).

It’s high time to quit the habit. Not enough money fabricated by the European Central Bank, is creating misery and a mess. It may please increasingly senile old Germans that they are the only ones with money. But they will not win that war, so they better surrender now.

Give Greece the money it needs. Don’t forget “aid to Greece” was actually mostly aid to French and German banks. You can read it in IMF documents published already 3 years ago. What’s your problem? Literate, but maybe you can’t read what disturbs your New Order?

Thus, please, stop, hysterical, plutophile austerians, lying like ignorant, malevolent beasts. Think, if you can, about the little Greek children.

Patrice Ayme’  

One God, One Thought, All Submitted

June 24, 2015

God As A Conspiracy Of Plutocracy:

You want guidance, oh souls who are lost? Then it’s best to stay away from stupidity.

It’s rather daft to believe that not believing in gods, which are human inventions, somehow misses upon some of the human condition by not taking fairy tales as real. Make no mistakes: fairy tales are useful. It’s good to believe a little bit in them.

To act, to proceed into any action, we have, somehow to believe, that engaging in it will make a difference. Beliefs are good, indispensable. It’s not just those who believe in superstition(s), who believe in something. We all do.

But when potentates try to sell a particular brand of belief as the end-all, be-all, they are deluded. Or, worse, they want us to be deluded. What for? Once we are made stupid, we can be exploited. (A live example of incredible exploitation is the situation in Greece, where an enormous conspiracy makes an entire people pay for financial plots they did not engage in.)

That Son, Crispus, Was Really Killed By His Christian Father, Constantine

That Son, Crispus, Was Really Killed By His Christian Father, Constantine

[Solidus representing Caesar Crispus, Constantine’s first son, assassinated by his father in 326 CE. Constantine is a “Saint” of Orthodox Christianity: if you believe in Constantine’s sainthood, you are ready to die for banksters, and, or, monks.]

Most of the 10,000 or so religions we know of had, each, many “gods”. However not so the religion of Abraham. Who imposed that? Generals. Constantine was a general, he took over the Roman empire in his twenties. Later he steamed his wife alive, killed his nephew, and his gifted son (who did not like his father’s “Catholicism”).

The other great general was Muhammad himself (and his successors, aka Caliphs).

The one and only god was imposed, because he was an excellent role model for the one and only fascist in power: fascist on the throne, fascist in the sky. It just fit. The religion founded by one general is naturally one with a general on the top.

That does not mean one should not look positively to the present pope: he makes a nice Father Christmas. (And has many excellent ideas, such as cap and trade of carbon perm its being a sin… As I long believed.)

India has a million gods. But the fascist military structure implicit in Christianism helped Europeans to conquer the world. With Biblical efficiency.

How? India, under polytheism, had zero religious wars (as Partha a commenter to this site, pointed out). Why? Polytheism accommodates many feelings, ideas, dispositions, characters, and divinize them all. This insures tolerance where it is the most important to have it, in the heart.

However, under the fascist god, any slip of interpretation of proper worship may result in divine annihilation, thus it’s of the essence to kill unbelievers. That’s why religious wars and holocausts (as happened to the Samaritans) started in the Roman empire after Constantine imposed Christianism. Before that there had been none since the Romans had done away with human sacrifice religions (Gaul, Carthage), four centuries prior.

The essence of monotheistic theology is, if you will forgive the neologism, fascitology. It’s military pathology in disguise, and how to make intolerance divine. Killing god is a must for those who want to be free.

And that’s exactly why the SS adopted in 1933 “Gott Mit Uns!” (God With US) and the Congress of the USA goose-stepped behind in 1954 with “In God We Trust”.

Making We The People stupid with god enables masters to manipulate it down into complete impotence and destitution. As observed.

And this is precisely while the malignant cult of god grew in the USA, as plutocracy came to rule ever more (the initial establishment of the American Republic, was all about “Nature’s God”, not about the Christian fascist superstition).

To goose step behind banksters, all you need is god.

Patrice Ayme’