Archive for the ‘State’ Category

For A Republican Catalonia, For Some Small States, & Against Others

October 23, 2017

One has to consider history, in full, when one considers history: some European countries, such as present day France were already united more than 17 centuries ago (when the self-declared “Gallic Empire” was independent of Rome, while still in the Roman empire, sort of!).

The question of self-determination has been boiling hot, ever since Athens tried to impose her empire (which was a good thing), but did it wrong (which was a terrible thing).

US President Woodrow Wilson used self-determination to dismember the empires of old Europe and the French Republic did it, because it was viewed as an absolute good (French king Henri III had previously been elected king of Poland in the Sixteenth Century.

The French were perfectly aware that Poland was one of the oldest nations in Europe; arguably the same holds for Catalonia. And I have a map to prove it, showing how things were, 23 centuries ago: Catalonia is perfectly discernible:

Subdivisions of the Iberian peninsula, 23 centuries ago. If Carthage recognized Catalonia, how come the macaques at the head of Spain presently don’t? Because Carthage was, arguably, more of a democracy? (Carthage was ruled by “suffetes”, who were judges…)

Dismantling the horrendous rule of Germany over Eastern Europe was perfectly justified. However, there were Germans all over Eastern Europe, so German nationalists also had a good point! Yet, the German Second Reich, extending Prussian rule, was a racist fascist monstrosity (confirmed by Metternich who succeeded to make even Napoleon look good and enlightened!). It was not that justified in the case of Austria-Hungary (whose crimes were not as great, and it was a multiethnic place).

Vladimir Lenin promoted self-determination with the aim of destroying imperial “capitalism”. The United Nations wrote it into article 1 of its founding treaty. The right of peoples to self-determination has been a principle in international law since the Versailles Treaty and was confirmed as the basis for negotiations on a whole host of international negotiations as varied as Algeria, Kashmir in 1948, Vietnam in 1973 and the state borders of Eastern Europe in 1990.

However, the principle was often poorly applied, and became a way for some oligarchies to transmit power to other oligarchies/plutocracies, establishing the global plutocracy we now enjoy. The paradigm there is when “decolonizing” powers gave power to bad actors: much of Africa is an example, including Algeria (where de facto French dictator De Gaulle gave power to the FNL, which is not just still in place, but the present “president” was already a major actor in the… 1950s…). But there are even more devious examples…

The enslaved peoples of the former German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, such as Czechoslovakia, Finland, fought for self-determination. The French Republic and crafty US president Wilson (a US white supremacist) forced the principle into the founding documents of the League of Nations (infuriating some Brits, such as Lord Keynes). The Bolsheviks, having recognised the right of self-determination in theory, realised that struggles for national sovereignty had the power to tear apart the imperialist powers which were invading Russia (1920).  The Comintern ordered communist parties around the world to support “national revolutionary movements” even where they were from the “left”.

Now than Lenin is long forgotten, the self-described “left”, is philosophically unprepared for struggles for democracy and social justice where nation and ethnicity, not class, is the driver. The EU is even worse. It is trapped by its own founding treaty which didn’t include the right to self-determination of peoples – preferring instead to give that right only to nations already recognised as states. So Slovenia, Croatia and the like had to go to war, and become internationally recognized, before the EU recognized the validity of their existence.

One hundred years ago politicians had a strong theoretical understanding of nationhood. . This is less true today, because most politicians today, like the king of Spain, or his PM, Rajoy, are, first of all tools and part of the global plutocratic orders, which view We The Peoples as tax cows, when not cannon fodder. The first cry these global supremacists hear, is the cry of banks.

Lombardy and Veneto voted for autonomy this weekend (at up to 95%, even better than Catalonia, but for “autonomy” alone!) The European parliament’s president Antonio Tajani berated them. He fears “the proliferation of small nations”.

That Italian politician said Europe must “of course fear” the proliferation of small nations, “that’s why nobody in Europe intends to recognise Catalonia.”

“Even (British Prime Minister) Theresa May, in the full throes of Brexit, said the United Kingdom would never recognise Catalonia… Spain is by its history a unified state, with many autonomous regions, with diverse populations who also speak different languages but who are part of a unified state… It is not by degrading nationhood that we reinforce Europe.”

Lombardy sends 54 billion Euros more in taxes to Rome than it gets back in public spending from the Italian state. Veneto’s net contribution is 15.5 billion. These are huge numbers.

Fearing small states” is not an argument in international law. Soviet foreign minister Molotov used that exact argument with Hitler (!) about “fearing” Finland. Even the Nazis found it laughable. As it is small tiny states such as corrupt Malta and Luxembourg, in collaboration with international plutocracy and other mafias, are financially terrorizing the rest of Europe, with the complicity of the present “leaders”. And if one talks too much about it, and death threats are not enough, one gets bombed to death, as a famous journalist found in Malta last week (she had time to think about it: a first bomb made her car airborne, rocket like; another, later, blew up her seat).

Scotland was famously independent for around 17 centuries, having greatly, and successfully, resisted the Romans themselves. Similarly Northern Italy, colonized by Gauls 24 centuries ago, was dominant and independent from Rome for 16 centuries (in 390 CE, the bishop of Milan, Saint Ambrose, was not taking orders from Rome; actually he subjected emperor Theodosius!). Northern Italy was under orders from Rome for less than 5 centuries out of the last 3,000 years.

Catalonia was initially part of France, having been wrestled from Muslim rule. Then Aragon, another French creation, and Catalonia got associated. Together they pushed French rule out of Sicily and Southern Italy (where Anjou and Normandy had thrown the Muslims out). However, newly created Spain turned to Inquisition and fascism under Isabella of Castille, pushed by her husband king Ferdinand, of Aragon. Philipp II faced a rebellion in the Netherlands, as part of a two centuries long war with France. He was an extremely vicious, genocidal bigot, quite different from his father. He lost the Netherlands in 1581, although he kept Belgium which was recovered by France in the following century when she finally won the war.

Worse was to come: the grandson of the notorious anti=Protestant bigot, Louis XIV of France, was made into king of Spain (bringing the massively lethal and impoverishing “War of the Succession of Spain”, which ravaged Europe). The Catalonia army fought back, was defeated, and Catalonia lost her autonomy. Said autonomy was re-established, by the Republic, but was lost again when general Franco won, thanks to Hitler, Mussolini and a galaxy of US plutocrats.

Catalonia is not a province of “Spain”, whatever “Spain” means. Just as Canada recognized Quebec is, Catalonia is a nation within Europe, and should be at the very least, an autonomous region. Long part of its own Roman province, Catalonia was already independent under Carthage itself. If Carthage could let Catalonia be free, why can’t the present descendant of France’s Louis XIV ruling Spain? Catalonia should be what it wants to be, a republic. Let the rest of Spain enjoy the power of one.

Why are cities, regions, states and peoples beginning to re-pose the question of national self-determination now? Because they need to get things done. London is polluted, it cost 12 Euros a day to drive in the center. Tariq Khan, mayor of London, Labor and of Pakistani descent, just added to this a 12 Euros “T Tax”. “T” for Toxicity. Well, it’s good that he is free to do that. If he were not, Londoners would have good reason to be angry. Also Mr. Khan was elected locally, not one of these torturers Madrid intents to send to Catalonia to rule it, as threatened by Rajoy and its regal accomplice in crime..

For Spain and Italy it is clear: the mixture of austerity, corruption and political sclerosis at the centre has limited the reality of regional democracy.

What about the rest of the world? The anti-French crowd will roll out New Caledonia (which is due to an independence referendum in 2018). Well, I am against independence of any French rules territory (however I am for maximal autonomy). Same holds for any US ruled territory. I still think the two republics are better than any alternative, including independence. All the old French colonies would have been better off with maximal independence and autonomy (although the situation was inadmissible in Algeria, it has become even more inadmissible since…)

New Caledonia is an Australian target, and Kanaks should remember that Australia is less than 5% Aborigines, whereas New Caledonia is more than 50% so.

There are a few subtle, but all-important points here underneath, magmas for apparently peaceful volcanoes. Those points are highly NON PC. Military questions matter. They are even primordial: a French military effort, a successful war against the Jihadists who ruled the Iberian peninsula then, created Catalonia. European Catalonia was created by the sword, in the Eight Century. And that ignorance of military might is a problem in Europe, as small states are not part of European defense, which depends mostly upon the French Republic (as it has been since Consul Clovis, elected king, differently from the present king of Spain). That’s a huge problem.

The French Republic failed militarily around May 15, 1940, greatly because Belgium and the Netherlands (long parts of France, aka Bourgogne) had been treacherous neutrals, which unbalanced the French militarily (something Hitler counted on, deliberately  and for the record). Without the direct or tacit, active or passive, help of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland,  the French Republic would have defeated Hitler with less damage than what happened.

So we can’t just have “neutral” Scotland and Catalonia hanging around, depending upon the defense system of the French Republic (and that of an undependable Britain).

Another huge problem is the question of “civilization”, for want of a better word. Barcelona is not less civilized than Madrid, quite the opposite (whereas, as Peter the Great would, and did, agree, London is still a bit more civilized than Moscow… ) “Less civilized” regions have interest to associate themselves with more civilized regions, it’s better for everybody, including in keeping in check the hubris of the more civilized (however NON PC the notion of “less civilized” is, it is, and that’s it). But Catalonia is not less civilized than Spain with its long litany of horrendously bloody dictators and inquisitors, all the way down to those who put the present regime in place. The “austerity” program was itself a subjugation to the very spirit, if not actual descendants, of those who put the Nazis and fascists in place.

Catalonian Republic, yes (within Spain, why not?). Much more Europe is necessary, though…

Patrice Ayme’

 

Advertisements

Socrates A Poisonous, Unexamined Fascist?

September 22, 2016

The Pathos Of Truth Seeked & Violated. Unexamined Fascist, Unexamined Prostitute? Both. Why Was That Covered Up, So Long? For The Same Exact Cause Which Made Socrates Famous!

The death of Socrates keeps haunting philosophy. And that, per se, is a sad, yet very revealing tale. The old common wisdom was that Socrates died, as a martyr to truth (as Hypatia, Boetius, Giordano Bruno, and many others certainly were). You want a hero for philosophy? Celebrate Jean Cavaillès. In the presence of Cavaillès, Sartre nearly wetted his pants. We will see that the mood behind Socrates’ actions is significantly different. Socrates was rather on the side of those who killed Cavaillès.

Indeed, a casual look at the basic setup of Socrates’ trial contradicts the theme that Socrates was mostly a martyr for truth. Socrates was simply accused to be the mastermind of the young dictators who ruled Athens after her tremendous defeat, and half annihilation at the hands of Sparta, the tool of Persia. Socrates was also mentor, friend and lover (!) of the young Alcibiades who, deprived of a generalship by Athens, then betrayed her for her lethal enemy, fascist, ultra-racist, Persian financed Sparta.

Agreed, philosophy needs heroes, and has plenty. Here is one:

Jean Cavaillès. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

Jean Cavaillès, Anti-Fascist Martyr. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

[Jean Cavaillès was tortured and assassinated by the Gestapo in 1943-1944. He is buried in the crypt of the Sorbonne.]

Thus Socrates was a sort of Charlie Manson of serial traitors and killers, whose mental actions led, or accompanied, Athens’ near-death experience in losing a devastating war, and the resulting dictatorship by Socrates’ students. Temples of democracy such as Britain, France, and the USA have gaily executed traitors, or incompetents, for much less than that.

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Stanford political science and classics professor, Josiah Ober opines in “The Civic Drama Of Socrates’ Trial” that:  “Conventional wisdom sees Socrates as a martyr for free speech, but he accepted his death sentence for a different cause… In his influential interpretation The Trial of Socrates (1988), the US journalist-turned-classicist I F Stone saw this trial as an embattled democracy defending itself. In Stone’s view, Socrates had helped to justify the junta’s savage programme of oligarchic misrule and was a traitor. More commonly, Socrates is seen as a victim of an opportunistic prosecutor and a wilfully ignorant citizenry. In truth, politics is indispensable to understanding the trial of Socrates, but in a slightly more sophisticated way.”

I love sophistication, philosophy is all about increased sophistication (so is science). Sophistication, translated, is wisdomization: sticking to reality ever better by ever more subtle, complex logic.

The point was not so much that Socrates justified the savage programme, but that he formed the minds who organized said programme, “corrupting the youth”. And he was at it again, even after being amnestied. Professor Ober describes the problem well (although he fails to fathom the enormity of what he describes).

Stanford’s Josiah: For what people today call ‘the wisdom of crowds’, Socrates had nothing but scorn. Athenian democrats who argued that the many, the group, were collectively more likely to get important matters right than any individual expert earned his antipathy. Whether or not anyone actually was expert in the art of politics, Socrates certainly supposed that there could be such an expert, and that the Athenians were deluded in thinking themselves collectively wise.”

The “experts” would have been naturally his rich, best (“aristos”) boyfriends. Professor Ober is led to the obvious question, but fail to recognize that he does not answer it:

“How did Socrates both scorn the idea of collective wisdom and yet maintain obedience to Athens’ laws, even when he disagreed with how they were interpreted? The rudimentary answer lay in the foundation that Athens (as opposed to, for example, Sparta) provided in its laws and political culture. Athens mandated liberty of public speech and tolerance for a wide range of private behaviour.”

Yes, but public incompetence could lead to trial (as happened to Pericles and many strategoi, generals and admirals). Anyway, that is not an answer. I will give a better answer: Socrates himself had no answer to his drastic self-contradictions, so hise self-delusion fatally committed him to self-destruction. Yet political science professor Ober sees the problem:

“By 399 BCE, however, four years after the end of the tyranny, and with Socrates doing the same things in public that had seemingly inspired the junta’s leaders, the Athenians regarded his speech very differently. In the eyes of the majority of his fellow citizens, Socrates was no longer an eccentric with potential for contributing to public life. He was now either a malevolent public enemy, or deluded and dangerously unable to recognise that his speech predictably produced seriously bad outcomes. And so the way was left open for Meletus to launch his prosecution.”

Right. What professor Ober fails to mention is that only the intervention of mighty Sparta prevented Athens’ annihilation after she surrendered, having lost already half of her population (other cities wanted to do to Athens what Athens did to Melos). Try to imagine this: the city-state half annihilated, democracy destroyed by Socrates’ students, and then? The strongest mood that Socrates had been instilling was to oppose democracy. And he was again at it, after the amnesty he had profited from. What could motivate such a rage?

Unsurprisingly, Socrates was put on trial for “corrupting the youth and impiety”. (The City was to some extent divinized, with Athena as her protecting goddess.)

“With unsettling metaphors and logical demonstrations, he made it clear that he [Socrates] opposed democracy… Xenophon implies that Socrates chose that sort of speech as a method of jury-assisted suicide: he was… tired of life and allowed the Athenians to end it for him.”

This is what I believe. And I go further than Xenophon, by explaining the cause of Socrates’ depression. Socrates may have been tired of his own contradictions.And may have been ravaged by regret. (Regret, I reckon, is a powerful human instinct.)

The Socrates’ worship interpretation is due to Plato. It poses Socrates as martyr to civic duty. But, as it turns out, “civic duty”, for Socrates, seems to be mostly blind obedience to “the Laws”, while viciously criticizing the Direct Democracy which gave birth to them.

That Socrates respected the laws of Athens while despising the Direct Democracy which had passed them is illogical in the extreme. Yes, I know Socrates said he respected “the Laws”, as if they were disembodied gods with a life of their own. But We The People passed said laws, and they lived only because We The People had created them, and We thge People could extinguish them just the same.

The “Laws” were nothing. We The People was everything. Socrates behaved as if he could not understand that.

Insisting that the Laws were everything reveals that the concept of blind obedience was more important to Socrates than arguing about the nature of what one should be obeying to, and why. Blind obedience is also the traditional ultimate value of standard fascism: law and order as supreme.

Blind obedience had been what the junta’s rule was all about. What the rule of Socrates’ young students and lovers had been all about. That’s also what fascism is all about. However, arguing, debating, fighting is how to get to the thorough examination necessary for the “examined life”.   

The contradiction was, and is, blatant. Socrates’ mental system was shorting out. Socrates had been shorting out for half a decade or more: he ambitiously wanted to “examine life”, but he could not even examine the minds of his followers, let alone his own, or why he was hanging around them. Why was he hanging around them? They were rich, he was not, but he lived off their backs and crumbs. And the feeling of power they provided with (after Obama got to power I saw some in his entourage becoming drunk with power).  

Arguably, Socrates was a martyr to fascism, a Jihadist without god. There is nothing remarkable about that. The very instinct of fascism is to give one’s life, just because fanatical combat is the ultimate value, when one gets in the fascist mood. In this case, the fanatical combat was against We The People.

Posing Socrates as a martyr for intellectual freedom is farfetched: fascism, blind obedience, passion for oligarchs are all opposed to the broad mind searching for wisdom requires.

Some will sneer: you accuse Socrates to be a fascist, why not a racist? Well, I will do this too. The golden youth Socrates loved so much and drank with were hereditary so. Socrates believed knowledge was innate (so an ignorant shepherd boy knew all of math: this is the example he rolled out!) If knowledge was innate, one can guess that the “aristos”, the best, were also innately superior. That is the essence of racism.

Logically enough, Socrates disliked science: nothing was truly new under the sun (as all knowledge was innate). So much for examining life.

It is more probable that Socrates was indeed, just a stinging insect buzzing around, stinging the idea of Direct Democracy. In exchange, his rich, young, plutocratic boyfriends would fete and feed him. Such was Socrates’ life, a rather sad state of affair, something that needed to be examined, indeed, by the head doctor.

Socrates may have been clever enough to feel that he was an ethical wreck. His suicidal submission may have been an attempt to redeem himself, or whatever was left of his honor (which he also tried to regain with his insolence to the jury).

Plato would pursue the fight for fascism (“kingship”). Aristotle, by teaching, mentoring, educating, befriending, advising a number of extremely close, family-like friends, the abominable Alexander, Craterus and Antipater, finally fulfilled Socrates’ wet dream: Athenian Direct Democracy was destroyed and replaced by an official plutocracy overlorded by Antipater (supremo dictator, and executor of Aristotle’s will, in more ways than one).

This trio of philosophical malefactors became the heroes 22 centuries of dictatorship (“monarchy”) needed as a justification. A justification where “civic duty” was defined as blind obedience to the “Laws” (whatever they were, even unjust “Laws”). This amplified Socrates’ hatred of Direct Democracy. So the works of the trio were preciously preserved, and elevated to the rank of the admirable.

It is rather a basket of deplorables. We owe them the destruction of Direct Democracy for 23 centuries, and counting.

And what Of Socrates’ regret for being so deplorable? (Which I alleged he had to experience.) A dying Socrates lying on a couch, uncovered his face and uttered— “Crito, I owe the sacrifice of a rooster to Asklepios; will you pay that debt and not neglect to do so?”  Asklepios cured disease, and provided with rebirth, symbolized by the singing of the rooster calling the new day. This has been traditionally interpreted (by Nietzsche) as meaning that (Socrates’?) death was a cure for (his?) life. Nietzsche accused Socrates to be culprit of the subsequent degeneracy of civilization (and I do agree with that thesis). Certainly, Socrates, a self-described “gadfly” was deprived of gravitas.

Wisdom needs to dance, but cannot be altogether deprived of gravitas, as it is, after all, the gravest thing.. Maybe Socrates felt this confusedly, besides having regrets for his status of thinking insect. Socrates could have easily escaped, and Crito had an evasion ready. By killing himself Socrates behaved like a serious Japanese Lord opening his belly to show his insides were clean, and its intent good. Well, many a scoundrel has committed seppuku, and hemlock is nothing like cutting the belly.

Human beings are endowed with the instinct of regret, because we are the thinking species. It is crucial that we find the truth, and when we have lived a lie, indulged in error, the best of use are haunted by the past, and revisit it to find what the truth really was. Regrets has many stages, like cancer. The most correct philosophical form of regret is to re-established the truth. The cheap way out is to flee from reality, as Socrates did.

How to explain Socrates’ insolence to the jury? There again, it was a desperate attempt at reaching the sensation of self-righteousness and trying to impart it to the jury (this is often seen  on the Internet, with the glib one-liners and vacuous logic which pass for depth nowadays).

The inexperienced democracy in Athens did not always behave well. Athens behaved terribly with Melos (see link above). But the case of Socrates is different. Ultimately, the train of thoughts and moods promoted by Socrates weakened those who wanted to defend the free republics of Greece against the fascist, exterminationist Macedonian plutocracy. Demosthenes and Athenian Direct Democracy was mortally poisoned by Socrates.

Thus, Socrates execution was not just tit for tat. It was not enough of tit for tat. It was a preventive measure, in defense of Direct Democracy, which failed, because it was too meek.

Democracy does not mean to turn the other cheek, to have the golden beast eat that one too. In ultimate circumstances, democracy has an ultimate weapon too, and that is fascism. This is why the Roman, French and American republics prominently brandish the fasces. Fascism is the ultimate war weapon. But fascism is not the ultimate society. Far from it: political fascism, just a few individuals leading entails intellectual fascism, namely just a few moods and ideas leading. Before one knows it, one is in plutocracy, where not only wealth rules, but so does the cortege of the worst ideas and moods which characterize it.

Socrates often talk the talk, contradicting completely the way he lived (for example he said one should never return an injury, but, as a hoplite, he killed at least four men in combat!)

Socrates spoke so well sometimes, that he can stay a symbol of truth persecuted. But, because it is a lie, replacing him by Hypatia, Boetius, Bruno and, or Cavaillès, and, or, others, is urgent. Indeed, the reality is that Socrates was not just inimical to democracy. The current of thought he floated by was inimical to science, mental progress, and the truth he claimed to be pining for.  And even him may have been so overwhelmed by these astounding contradictions, that, in the end, assisted suicide for his pathetic mental writhing was, indeed, the optimal outcome.

Patrice Ayme’