Posts Tagged ‘Anti-France’

Why The Anglo-Saxon Rage Against France

June 21, 2017


Another day, another explosion of a luggage full of high explosive in a public space, courtesy of Islamist terrorist, Oussama Z., a primitive Moroccan screaming “God is great” in Arabic. He tried to terrorize Brussels’ train station, but law enforcement spotted him before he could organize properly his devilish terror weapons. The fanatical barbarian was promptly shot and killed by officers. The Islamists have good reason to be enraged against France, and anything French-like, such as Belgium, ever since they attacked France in 715 CE… And got whipped. Before they invaded again, in 721 CE, to be whipped again. And again, in 732 CE. Some are gluttons for punishment. Islamist feel that the more punished they get, the closer to God. Which is great, probably because He is a homosexual in denial, who detest women. Different people, different nations, different mentalities.


France Alleged To Be “Liberticide”, Latest example of Anti-French rage and Hypocrisy:

Recently various major Anglo-Saxon media, including the crooked New York Times, preventively trashed new proposed anti-terrorist French laws as dictatorial. This is more than hypocritical. Those proposed French laws are nothing of the sort. Whereas US practice is beyond dictatorial, they are more police-state like (8 millions are under “Judicial Supervision” in the US!) 

For example a proposed French law says that the police could ask drivers of vehicles to have those inspected when they want to enter a security perimeter around major events (such as the “Tour de France”). This is a measure against car bombs. However, if the driver refuses an inspection of his or her car, to see if it carries a huge bomb, the driver can leave, no question asked. Try that in the US: you will be shot at, and everybody knows it (so nobody tries!) Everybody in the US knows that when the police gives an order, either you obey, or you get shot.

How “liberticide” is that? According to the crooked New York Times, enormously so (New York Times is crooked because it has banned me during the 2003 Iraq war, and for the last 6 years, although it denies it does, a further lie!)

By the way I have driven cars in the USA which way inspected for car bombs. Turning around was not an option, as I was dealing with the ladies and gentlemen of the US Secret Service, and that was nine years ago already. Major US media didn’t write editorials about it. I also found this to be no problem at all (because my car was not equipped with a car bomb!) I didn’t feel my right to carry a car bomb was trampled underfoot.


Conflicts between nations and versions of civilization arise from different mentalities:

These different mentalities do not just arise haphazardly. They often originate for a number of incontrovertible reasons. For example Fernand Braudel found that the desiccation of the Middle East brought increasingly dictatorial regimes, necessary to organize the enormous, increasingly complex hydraulic systems necessary for the survival of civilization. Thus the Pharaoh became “shepherd of his flock” (as official Egyptian propaganda put it, copied by the Bible a millennium later). Not surprisingly, Egypt, long at the forefront of civilization faded away as an engine of mental creation.


Why The French Are Like The Franks Who Became Like The Gauls:

It’s a curious thing that the same mentality inhabits France now as it did even before the Romans showed up. The population changed significantly in the meantime from massacres, immigration, emigration, etc. Centuries before the Roman empire, though, the 60 states of France each had their own treasury (and currency). And, in many technologies they were best in the world. Much of the Roman military equipment was purchased in Celtic Spain and Gaul (light metal helmets, swords). Five centuries later, the 37 arsenal of the Roman empire made their own weapons, right. But that was five centuries later, and by then Gallia was arguably the strongest piece of the Roman empire, and with a mind of its own (there was even a “Gallic empire” within the Roman empire, for a while).

France: trade routes from Med to Atlantic, and from Med to North Sea, and from Med to Germany! Melting Pot Max!

So why the same? Precisely because France was the original melting pot, the three main trade routes between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe being there. A crossroad of trade and especially mental trade. The Gauls actually used Hermes, also known as Mercury, as their main imported deity. That was the god of commerce, and communications


Why The Clashing Mentalities Between France and the Anglo-Saxons?

England has been in conflict with France since, paradoxically enough, the highly successful invasion and colonization of England by a French army led by the Duke of Normandy. As the latter and his barons took control on the other side of the channel, the new king of England, namely aforesaid Duke, became a vassal of the king of France. The king of Francia was not any king out there. After the de facto secession of the Western Franks from the rest of the “Renovated” Roman empire, the king of France was officially “Roman emperor in his own kingdom”.

This status of vassal went on for centuries. The situation became worse when the “Louve de France”, the She-Wolf of france, daughter of Philippe IV Le Bel of France, became absolute monarch of England. She was succeeded by her son Edward III, grandson of Le Bel, legitimate king of England and France. At that point, the leadership of England could claim that Paris was vassal to London, and the 475 years war (so-called “100 years war”) was on.

Another problem is that the Duke of Normandy had to persuade the English that it was in their best interest to be ruled by him. First, of course, the french outlawed slavery in England, something that the 20% of the population who were slaves, loved. But William had to make We the People stakeholders in their nation: England had been crisscrossed by civil wars and invasions, with all sorts of Angles, and Saxons, and (“Fair”) Viking from Norway, and Dark Vikings from Denmark, for 5 centuries… Thus William of Normandy installed a sort of more direct democracy which was frowned on by the more traditional Franco-Roman plutocracy on the other side of the Channel. That “English” trick was increased in following centuries, for example when other (French) aristocrats tried to be elected king by the (English) Parliament, and hoped to do that, by first increasing the powers of said Parliament.

In any case, as France was much more powerful than England then, with several times the population and riches, and a closer connection to Roman inheritance, the leadership in England could survive only through more devious and militarily efficient means than those used by the French from France.

In the end, England became basically a more efficient version of France, and that included a mentality that the French could see as more pragmatic, less principled, more perfidious and hypocritical.

As French supremacy lasted until 1815, the English had to try much harder until then, with a more underhanded mentality. In 1815, the English monarch renounced his claim to the throne of France (a claim started by Isabelle and her son Edward III, and later reconfirmed in an accord to end the “100 Year War” which Joan of Arc and her operators would violate, relaunching the war for another 375 years).

After that, France was clearly the junior partner in the way of world empire… But not as a land power, where the French military stayed the most powerful in the West, most of the time, until May 1940.

The German empire was the world’s most powerful military in the period 1871-1914. However, in September 1914, it was nearly annihilated by a French counterattack at the First Battle of the Marne, shattering the conspiracy to take control of the world. The reason for french military might can be tracked all the way back to the Third Century, when the Confederation of the Salian Franks was created, and Franks went up Roman rivers in what would become the Viking style, five centuries later. The alliance between Romans and Franks arose from these earlier conflicts, when the Romans, and in particular Caesar Constantine, realized that Frankish military might was best co-opted, rather than fought.

The ascent of the Franks was defined by them militarily defeating all and any enemies who tried to encroach on present day France. The list is nearly never ending, and includes the Huns, the Goths, and the Berber and Arab armies of the three invasions of Francia by the Umayyad Caliphate (715-748 CE), which brought its demise in 750 CE (as the bones of its armies laid in France). The switch from “Franks” to “French” happened in the Twelfth Century, and the first unelected French king was Jean I, an infant who ruled 5 days, before being probably poisoned (by Countess Mahaut of Artois; now a region of pseudo-independent Belgium).

Thus the French are frank and aggressive. On this civilization grew and multiplied. Frank, to know and transmit the truth, which is the core strength of war. Aggressive, to impose the truth. Why so much war? Because France is at core of Europe, where the easiest main three trade routes pass (going across the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Carpathians, the Balkan Mountains or the Caucasus, all East-West ranges, mostly, is best done through… France!)

More details of European topography, showing better that the easiest trade routes indeed go through France… South of Massif Central (the volcanic range in the middle of France), going west, and up the Rhones valley.

The French state is the direct descendant of the Roman state. There is actually no discontinuity whatsoever, militarily, legal or otherwise. The first well-known elected French king, Clovis, was also Roman Consul and Imperator of the Roman army. Clovis succeeded to do what the Roman state couldn’t succeed to do in the preceding 150 years: Clovis crushed and evacuated the Visigoths (Battle of Vouillé, in 507 CE). Thus Francia and Constantinople, all the way to the Tenth and Eleventh Century, viewed themselves as part of the same Romanitas (resulting in common military campaigns, as when the Eastern Roman fleet operated on the French Riviera in the Tenth Century, in cooperation with Frankish armies in the interior, to extricate the Muslims who had been terrorizing Western Europe, in still another invasion; the First Crusade, 150 years later was the reciprocal courtesy…)

The philosophical method William the Conqueror used is exactly the same which Clovis used. And that’s not happenstance. Notice that, in both cases, those methods were quite opposite to the cool massacres, and thorough holocausts enacted by Julius Caesar when he conquered Gallia (Gaul).

However, the gigantic French empire was the object of US greed by 1914, and the envoy of hyper racist US President Wilson (a democrat, ex-president of Princeton University, a famous plutocratic university) conspired, encouraged, abetted and talked the German Kaiser into launching a world war, which he couldn’t win, with the result that, in 1945, the US was in perfect position to grab both the British and French empires, in the guise of decolonization.

This crowned the “American Century”, this worldwide empire, in the glory of which we are all presently basking.

So why the “Anglo-Saxon” anti-French rage?

This anti-French rage is a preventive measure, lest all the preceding be found out.

And should we be Zen-like, satisfied with this cognitive cover-up, organized in great part by the glorious US plutocratic universities? No. Why? Because we are getting through what promises to be maybe the greatest extinction of the biosphere ever since Snowball Earth. The simple US greed mentality is completely insufficient to deal with this crisis. Americans emit 16 tons of CO2 per capita, per year, in no small reason because they are such glorious, sensitive people, having attended their glorious super smart universities of greed, and they need to drive big truck as soon as they are 16 years old. By comparison, the French emit 6 (six) tons of CO2 per capita, per year. Because they are such losers. But, precisely, we need to learn to lose gracefully the battle of mental comfort and venal stupidity, to win the next war.  The ultimate war. The war of biosphere survival. A war against all of yesteryear’s mentalities.

Patrice Ayme’


Why France Is Bad: Profits Define Goodness.

September 11, 2009


September 11, eight years after the strategy of the American secret services regarding Muslim fundamentalism started to backfire spectacularly, for all to see. Connoisseurs already knew that the Shiite regime in Iran was launched by the CIA in 1953, or that Roosevelt made a fundamentalist Muslim pact with the Ibn Saud, self made owner of Saudi Arabia. There were several other conspiracies of the same type. Most Americans are unaware of, unwilling to, or incapable of facing the fact that Osama bin Laden was a long standing CIA employee, or associate, complete with code name. In Afghanistan, and Pakistan, NATO is fighting America’s past allies. Ultimately, it all has to do with energy.

In late June 2009 President Obama praised the energy bill passed by the House as an “extraordinary first step” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution.

Why would Obama do such a thing? Why not impose penalties on those who are killing the planet? Is pollution good?

Some hold that Obama is already partial to bankers and plutocrats, considering his reluctance to discontinue their way of life and the sources of their supremacy, such as bonuses and tax heavens. Obama, in the interpretation of some, pursues this plutocratic theme with his desire to impose private health insurance to all, by law (a charge Obama now denies, by brandishing his public option insurance plan). But why would Obama be partial to pollution too? In the plutocratic scheme of things, it’s very simple to understand.

American plutocracy has delocalized a lot of its production overseas, to escape anti-pollution laws in the developed world. If we add this globalization maneuver to the CO2 production of the USA itself (mostly caused by the plutocrats controlling fossil fuels), American plutocracy is revealed as the world’s greatest CO2 producer (to claim it is China is silly because a lot of China is delocalized USA). No wonder the American plutocrats, the controllers of most media and American thinking, do not like the carbon tax.

This did not escape the attention of French leaders. Says Sarkozy, in a speech to factory workers in September 2009: “I will not accept a system … that imports products from countries that don’t respect the rules [on carbon emission reductions] … We need to impose a carbon tax at [Europe’s] borders. I will lead that battle.”

Paul Krugman finds that this makes a lot of sense, and that those who object to this (and that includes Obama, who Krugman has pointed at several times), are practicing "Fetishizing free trade”.

Krugman does not want to cause pain to those he has dinner with. It is not just a question of fetishism. When looking at the fetish, search for the festive, the one who profits from the fetish.

The carbon tax can crush those who have made globalization into a money machine at their personal service, those delocalized plutocrats. Striking them with a carbon tax will allow France to stay a great industrial nation. So it should be possible, using just that argument, to persuade Germany, and then the rest of the EU, to impose a carbon tax too. Recently, even Britain has understood that it would be nicer if the American plutocratic sirens had been better resisted, and Britain had stayed the industrial equivalent of France and Germany, as it used to be, before it was seized by the financial craze.

A Rasmussen poll came out, showing that Americans feel more negative about France, than about Japan, and Germany. The pollsters commented that "Ironically, France, America’s ally in World II against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan, doesn’t fare quite as well now. Forty-five percent (45%) say U.S. military assistance should go to France if it is attacked, putting it at seventh, but 37% oppose that idea and 18% are not sure whether to help or not. Still, in March 2006, only 18% of Americans believed France was an ally in the war on terror, while nearly as many viewed it as an enemy."

By contrast 59% of Americans would military assist the self declared racial and religiously discriminative state of Israel. At first sight, this is counterintuitive: France is a secular republic, her constitution was written within weeks of the American one, and was more universal, and the country is the ultimate melting pot. In other words, but for size, France is very similar, why would Americans dislike her so much, relatively speaking? Or is the very discrimination of Israel that appeals to the American soul?

France of course was not just an ally in WWII, or WWI, or created the USA in its Independence war. Going back 1,000 years, the entire civilization the USA is so proud of, comes from France.

Better: while the government of the USA was sitting on its hands, contemplating Hitler, France outright attacked the Nazis. Now, of course, the Nazis were upset, and they hated the French for having forced them into a world war that they were bound to lose. With a lot of luck, crazy methods, drugged out soldiers high on ecstasy, not sleeping for a week, strategic genius, French high command idiocy, American plutocratic help, Stalinist fuel, and enormous losses, the Nazis won the battle of France. However, having lost 50,000 elite soldiers with a high proportion of officers, plus 3,000 planes, and many pilots, the Nazis were never that strong again.

But the fact that France attacked Hitler leads to the nagging question: what is it that Americans are supposed to not like about France? Are Americans just supposed to not like France because the Nazis found the French insufferable? Just asking.

Oh, yes, the government of the USA obstinately refused to help the French republic at war against Nazism in 1939-1940, and American plutocrats (IBM, Ford, Standard Oil, etc.) were busy helping Hitler in his war as much as they could. The Ethyl Corporation of America shipped supplies the Nazis desperately needed to keep their murderous air force in the air, as early as September 1939, as 40 French divisions were attacking the Siegfried line, and the Poles were fighting for dear life (one sixth of the Polish population would be deliberately exterminated, and the USA rewarded the courageous Poles by giving Poland to Stalin at Yalta).

But I am digressing, the American empire was not built without breaking a few countries, of course. The betrayal of Yalta, after that of the betrayal of the "Neutrality Acts" (France = Hitler, a Washington equation), and the betrayal of 1939-40 was noticed in France, and was a mainstay of French politics for more than half a century.

In the end, Britain, saddled by debts to the USA, survived, and the measly 64 divisions the USA had in Europe in 1945 could not prevent the French to recover their destiny. The chastised Nazis decided that, after all, and all along, the French were right, and a democratic republic UNITING with France was the way to go.

So here we are 65 years later, and the European Union is a reality. To the consternation of hard core American plutocrats, no doubt, the European Union is an extension of the old French republic, bigger, better. It’s 1789 all over. As Chou En Lai put it, it may still be too early to discuss the consequences of the Revolution of 1789, the one of the Universal Rights of Man. But let’s notice that China is importing Western European philosophy (and technology) massively.

At this point the world is organizing itself according to the French constitution of 1789, not the American one, written a few weeks earlier. This is happening because of the question of those pesky human rights, so prominent in the American health care debate.

The American constitution parrots Aristotle, and his "pursuit of happiness". If you “pursue happiness”, as Aristotle had it, you will pursue slaves, if it makes you happy. This why the USA loved Aristotle, and why the French Revolution of 1789 threw down Aristotle and imposed the freedom, equality and brotherhood of all. True, slavery in France had been unlawful since 660 CE, a full millennium before some savage colonists in the deep woods of the Americas reestablished it, far from the arm of European law.

So Obama has the opportunity to whine about the death panels in the American health insurance industry, killing people by the thousands, and to do nothing about it. Would Obama be the French president, he could not do so. By opposition to the “pursuit of happiness”, an intrinsically subjective, selfish thing, the imposition of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity is completely objective, and is imposed, in France, by the legislation that not helping someone in danger is unlawful. This is a direct consequence of the Revolution in Human Rights of 1789.

The French center-right president, Sarkozy, does not want to be viewed as a "liberal": in France "liberal" is an insult, reserved to the extreme right. In the USA, Obama, the “bipartisan” president, does not want to be considered "liberal" either: being viewed as a "liberal" is just as politically deadly in the USA as in France, but for the exact opposite reason. In the USA, a "liberal" is way too much to the left.

So here we have it. Americans are on their knees, shoe shining their plutocratic masters, and take great pride in that, and get enraged when it is pointed out that this is actually what they are doing, being obsequious servants to their hubristic ravenous exploiters. In France, when a boss strays, he is in danger of being sequestered by his employees, and made to answer the relevant questions. And the French police will sit on its hands, trying to calm everybody down. And French justice will scoff. France did not sit on her hands for Hitler, but is not indifferent to social injustice. In the USA, it’s the other way around.

Obama himself talks as if he were a creature of the profit-as-ultimate-good morality.

As Obama puts it: "Insurance executives don’t do this ["treat their customers badly"] because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable."

(Speech to joint Congress, September 2009; at this point, all rose and applauded: apparently everybody was high on themselves, given the number of times, and extent, this self applauding society gave itself standing ovations; never mind that 27 centuries of Western civilization had just been thrown down by the profit motive).

OK, let’s replace two words in the preceding quote of the “brainy president”. According to examples Obama himself gives, “insurance executives”, through their actions, lead to the death of people. Let’s replace “insurance executives” by “slave traders”. Whereas insurance executives make money when their victims die without treatment (because they paid, and got nothing in return), slave traders lost money when their victims died. So, on the face of it, slave traders are nicer people. And indeed says the nineteenth century version of Obama:

“Slave traders don’t treat their customers badly because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable." 

Now, of course, slaves were not "customers". Nor should "patients" be called "customers" by Obama. Obama’s semantics speaks for itself. It’s the semantics of greed. If he wants to keep on playing civilized on TV when addressing the health of Americans, he should switch to the semantics of compassion. Get better speech writers, since it’s the way it’s done in the USA: the president pays handlers to provide him with thoughts.

So Obama says that, if it’s profitable, moral criterions do not apply. If you do make profits, you are never bad, however bad your actions may be. Obama is a new sort of moralist. According to Obama, bad is never bad, if it is profitable.

In this case "Insurance executives" kill people, American people, by the thousands. Obama himself admits it, since he seems to have an endless supply of anecdotes of Americans who were refused life saving health care by their greedy insurers.

If American lawyers at the Nazi Nuremberg trial had been at the same school as Obama, all the Nazis would have walked off. Bear with me a moment here.

The Nazis would have produced their young Obama-like lawyer, and Obama-like would have said:"Your honors, the defendants were not bad people, they were just making profits". Obama-like, the lawyer defending the Nazis , would have been right: modern scholarship has shown that the Nazis stole from the Jews to finance their supporters, and make themselves popular, by redistributing the Jews’ riches. Steal property, sell hair, clothes and gold crowns in the mouths of people executed in extermination camps, as the Nazis did, and, as long as you make a profit, says a morally clueless Obama, you are not a bad person. If I did not understand something there, please drop me a line, in an act of charity to extract me from my lack of subtlety.

It’s clear that the masters of the USA, as Michael Moore points out in “Sicko”, have every interest to teach American citizens the detestation of France. Otherwise, Americans would realize the French are very much like them, but have solved some of the problems brought by plutocracy in a way more suitable to the People in the street. Instead of just pleasing to the people on Wall Street.

Let’s wrap it up. Sarkozy, the French right wing president, seen from the USA, is an extreme left wing leader. So is Merkel, so is Brown. While Sarkozy is putting in place a carbon tax, and wants to free the world from financial manipulation, by cracking down on bonuses, and tax heavens, Obama is playing the prolongation of Bush’s reign of astronomical stupidity and selfishness of the few. I guess the USA is not on its knees yet, just wobbling about, so go for it!

On one side the logic of freedom, on the other the logic of those who shine shoes. French students study history several hours a week, starting at age 6, and go on like that for a decade, or more. History shows that freedom wins, slaves lose, and civilization means something. French students have plenty of time to meditate those lessons.

Patrice Ayme