Posts Tagged ‘Britain’

We Are Scared, Thus We Are British Versus We Are French, And Why We Are Revolutionaries

December 9, 2018

REVOLUTIONS AFTER REVOLUTIONS: THE HISTORY OF FRANCE. FAR FROM A CRAZY REVOLUTIONS ARE CIVILIZATION BUILDING!

And Why Islands Such As England, Are More Peaceful, Thus More Tyrannical:

Afraid of their own establishment, all too established, the British are. That made them obedient, sometimes even obsequiously, to their plutocratic masters (hence the polite goofing off below and around “Royals”). Hence the British world empire, now a world empire of the English language, a form of poorly pronounced French, and Anglo-Saxonia (understand plutocracy friendly, or more, precisely, the spirit of the West Country Men, see below, for this ignominy which has metastasized, worldwide). 

The right way to make Brexit: change the EU, tearing it out of the clutches of a corrupt establishment, using force . To riot or not to riot? French violence, over the last millennium was the icebreaker English trade and society meekly followed behind… To great profit. English tyranny, more stealthy and efficient, tended to use what worked best to exploit better. See the note about Philippe IV with Henry VIII as consequence…

This is exactly why the Revolution of Human Rights of 1789 happened in France, not Great Britain. In France, peasants owned their land (however small). In Britain plutocrats, the top ones elected to Parliament, owned all the land, and controlled the country so thoroughly, including the legal and justice system, revolution was impossible.

Thus plutocrats made the laws in Britain. In practice, it meant that landless, unemployed rural denizens flocking to cities could be arrested, and condemned to death for vagrancy… Except, of course, if they asked the judge to be deported as slave to North America (exact title was “endured servant”) Hence England was able to stuff North America with colonists, and make the colonies profitable (especially adding slaves and tobacco).

By the 18th century, a British admiral was famously hanged “to encourage the others” as Voltaire put it. He had been culprit of lacking enthusiasm in battle. Only a deeply inhuman, fascist system ruled by mighty Plutos could engage in such violence.

Revolutions in France: they started by the 12th century with the Cathars, and arguably even earlier by 1026 CE, when the Vatican used the first mass burning of revolutionaries to repress the nascent rebellion against Catholic fascism! When the French army got to England in 1066 CE, it outlawed slavery, as per Frankish law, seducing the 20% of the English population which was enslaved.

One may wonder why France was always that icebreaker, jumping from revolution to revolution… of all these revolutions, the only pacific one was that of “Amour Courtois”, in the middle of the Middle Ages, when influential ladies started, successfully, a “me too” movement for the times…

The answer is simple: England is an island. England suffered only one invasion since 1066 CE (and that one was pretty much an insider affair, the so-called “Glorious Revolution” when Orange took power… “Orange” itself being revealing of his true origin, Orange, in France…)

Whereas France, in the Middle Of Western Europe, was always a war country, exposed to invasions, and keen to engage in counterattacks… all the way to Algiers or Moscow… Being armed to the teeth, and culturally friendly to war, the French apply those principles inside. All the more as the military leadership of France had to depend upon We The People to engage in all these wars, so We The People of France is always more or less on a war footing.

So both the French leadership and the French people have always been bellicose, and being bellicose is a fundamental property of France which enables the existence of France as a polity. Thus bellicosity is perceived deep down inside in French mentality, as a positive.

War also had a huge scientific effect. The “100 year war” (part of the nearly 5 centuries war) between France and England finished when French engineers, the Bureau brothers, introduced field guns, a world first. At the battle of Castillon, French guns obliterated the English army (which suffered 4,000 killed, while the French had only one hundred dead).

Gallic military engineering supremacy dated all the way back to the Roman Republic, when the Celts provided superior metallic military equipment to… the Roman army.

An example is the Grenade GLI F4, an instantaneously explosive tear gas which makes an explosion of 170 decibels to render We The People deaf (Grenade lacrymogène instantanée) fabricated by SAE Alsetex (groupe Étienne Lacroix). The grenade contains a TNT charge, and explodes so violently, it has torn hands of French gilet jaune demonstrators, more than a meter away.

The World Financial Order explodes contradictors, because violence works, always had. Here a French demonstrator torn, one of many, in 2018, by explosive TNT grenade , made in France (not China!) Even Foreigners and Belgians get exploded.

While the plutocratic French monarchy is busy exploding and terrifying French contradictors of the established Rothschild order…

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/macron-bankster-executioner/

… the People Republic of China launched a rover to the Far Side of the Moon, a world first. (It required to put in orbit another satellite around the Moon, first, for communications.)

https://www.space.com/42665-china-launches-moon-far-side-lander-rover.html

Thus, thanks to Manu the First and Last of His Name, unpopular King of France, allied to the plutocratic globalocracy, and the most repugnant philosophy, French military technology against We The People of France, is progressing by leaps and bounds… While several other nations plan to further technology in more productive ways, by establishing bases on the Moon.

We don’t need solitary, arrogant clown brainwashed by Heideggerian (that is, Nazi) philosophers, programmed by the French Republic Inspectorate of Finance and its sponsor, Banque Rothschild, to lead us into oblivion, so as the present version of the “West Country Men” can profit so much, they will forget. their own ignominy. What we need is progress, that is, revolution. It starts with more equality.

There is no steady state. Never was, but now, less than ever. Civilization is an ongoing revolution. The Ship of Civilization is propelled by revolutions. And it better be right away, or the humanely sustainable biosphere will die.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

England, institutionally speaking, was mostly created by Frenchmen:

starting with the Franco-Norman colonization. According to Frankish law, slavery was immediately outlawed (so 20% of the population loved William). William then introduced the sort of oath and direct relationship between king and people characteristic of that between Roman imperator and soldier. Clovis had done the same, but only in the Frankish army, as it was, after all, a Roman army (this was enforced by the famous Soissons Vase incident, where Clovis executed a Frankish warrior, for disobedience, as if he were a vulgar Roman soldier… which he was… unbeknownst to him).

Frenchmen launched reforms kept on coming: the Magna Carta, the puffed-up role of Parliament (Duke of Lancastre/Lancaster).

***

French Revolt Against Papacy Led To The English One:

Around 1300 CE, Philippe IV Le Bel, “emperor in his own kingdom”, in concert with his English vassal, the King of England, waged war against the Pope. The Pope surrendered, agreeing to taxation. Still Philippe got him arrested, and dead.

After that, it was easy to do what Henry VIII did, 240 years later, creating a reformed church in England.

***     

Then came the “West Country Men”… Top English investors who terrorized Ireland, before establishing a highly profitable, slave driven colony in America… When evil works, nothing else can do as well:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/sometimes-all-you-need-is-war/

The Revolution in France is a revolt against the West Country Men spirit (which amusingly was best exploited by German Jews, the immigrants who adopted the name “Rothschild”…)

European Ultimatum to Sabotaging Britain

June 24, 2016

The European Union wants Britain out, ASAP. No panic, bear, grin, and carry on. Seventeen million losers and conspirators voted one way, to Trump’s and other racists’ applause. A vote organized by hallucinating losers for other hallucinating losers, has turned as expected. It was organized by Europhobes, supposedly against Europhobia and against other, greater Europhobes, while served red-hot by counterfactual hatred organized by tax evading plutocrats who own all of British media. Thirty years of big lies bore fruit.

Let’s be clear,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “a blow has been struck against European unification“. The European group of all right-wing parties in the European Parliament condemned the British vote.

Great Britain has been sabotaging the “ever closer European Union”, for 43 years. Good riddance. Good riddance? Not so fast said Boris Johnson, the greedy future British PM:”Nothing will change in the short-term,” Boris hammered away. The well-fed Boris came out of his mansion, and was very loudly booed by a throng of Europhiles, while an impressive police curtain protected him.

Meanwhile, as I expected, Cameron delayed his resignation into Fall.

A saboteur sabotages better from inside. A real saboteur, complaining it really hates it there, will want to stay in the bowels of the ship, to keep on sabotaging.

As long as Great Britain stays in, it can sabotage the EU. Out, it may have to beg, and end up like Norway, paying twice as much per capita to the EU government, as Great Britain presently pays. Without Norway having any right to debate the measures taken. I believe that Boris Johnson will strive towards another referendum (just ask the Irish about how that is done). 

Oopss. Brexit: Britain Cut In Two. Beware Of Unintended & Intended Consequences

Oopss. Brexit: Britain Cut In Two. Beware Of Unintended & Intended Consequences

Meanwhile Trump landed from a Trump helicopter in Scotland, and declared himself delighted by Brexit, in a way sure to irritate there (Scotland voted 62% to remain in the European Union).

The European Union’s top leaders declared that they want the United Kingdom to leave the union as soon as possible, however painful that process may be”. Moreover there will beno renegotiation.

The presidents of the European council, commission and parliament – Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz respectively – and Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, said any further delay to Britain’s exit would “unnecessarily prolong uncertainty”.

After talks in Brussels, the four said they regretted, but respected, Britain’s decision.

This is an unprecedented situation, but we are united in our response,” the European leaders said in a joint statement.

While the UK will remain a member until exit negotiations were concluded, the European leaders expect it to “give effect to this decision … as soon as possible” by triggering article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which is effectively Britain’s formal letter of resignation (and starts a 24 months count-down).

Everything indicates that the United Kingdom will wait until November to activate Article 50 (the divorce with the EU). Nothing has been decided. Some parts of Great Britain voted 70% to 30% to LEAVE the European Union. Other parts of Great Britain voted 70% to 30% to REMAIN in the European Union.

Moreover, two-third of British Members of Parliament are for staying in the EU.

Verdict? New elections in Great Britain could be coming. However, it was mostly Labor voters voting with UKIP who caused the loss of “Remain”. That will cause the Tories pause.

In the 2000s Ireland, France and the Netherlands voted against the European Union.

What happened?

They voted again. Until Europe got the right answer.

An example is ongoing with Switzerland. In a referendum in 2014, Switzerland voted to reject the “free circulation of European citizens” which Switzerland had signed on, in exchange for 666 “bilaterals” (the treaties with Europe; OK, maybe not exactly 666 of them, but something like that). Bioth Norway and Switzerland belong to Schengen. Great Britain does not. Britain was always half out of the door, sabotaging, thanks in great part to its membership of the European MONETARY Union (EMU). Yes, unbelievably, Europhobic, British Pound clutching Britain, is a member of the EMU. Today.

The European Union started to take retorsion measures against Switzerland the next day (with cancellation of Erasmus effective immediately) and then gave an ultimatum expiring in 2017. Meanwhile the Swiss government did not apply the referendum. Guess what? A new “free circulation” referendum is coming, to abrogate the preceding one. At this point all and any political party in Switzerland will do anything to appease the European Union and turn around the February 9, 2014, referendum. It seems to me likely that this what Boris Johnson will try to do. But he will have a lot of hatred and delusion in the way.

The European leaders declared that the special settlement negotiated by David Cameron earlier this year was void and cannot be renegotiated. Various European leaders talked about the “EU 27”. Cameron will go to an emergency summit in Brussels on Tuesday, one day after France, Italy and Germany meet in Berlin. Merkel and Hollande talked right away.

The xenophobic, Islamophobic, hypernationalistic, Europhobic racist parties all over Europe are rejoicing, and clamoring for referenda. They want power, at the cost of disunion, war, economic or whatnot. Like Boris Johnson, they will do whatever it takes to “lead” us all to oblivion. At least self-described “liberal” American Europhobes (Krugman, etc.) can bathe in self-serving delight. So how come they claim not to love Trump? Don’t ask them, they will get angry. They want to have it all ways. Nothing makes people more angry than forcing their faces in their own contradictions (as Socrates already noticed, and exploited… Until they made him drink poison).

Patrice Ayme’  

How Brexit Would Destroy World

May 12, 2016

Cameron goes on with his “Corruption Summit” in London. As if nobody knew already that London was a summit of corruption. The Nigerian president, sitting on Cameron’s left, calmly asked for the return of the billions of stolen Nigerian assets which Great Britain has stolen.

Is that Nigerian, to quote PM Cameron, “fantastically corrupt”? Does not he understand, with his tiny African mind, that Great Britain is very great, and rich, thanks to trillions and trillions and trillions of stolen property from savage countries not worthy of the Great British civilization? Watch “The Economist”, the great Great British economic magazine, always giving economy lessons to the whole world, while shipping all its profits to tax haven Luxembourg, to start with. This reminds me of when Britain was importing food from India, while India starved.

Another of Cameron’s effrontery is his “Brexit” referendum, or whether Great Britain should leave the European Union. “Brexit” is the exit of Britain from the EU. For the second time, Britain is voting in a referendum about whether it should be in the European Union. Why not to hold one whether Great Britain should be a member of the United Nations? As I will show, the question is not in jest. Brexit is a referendum about whether Great Britain should exist.

The Idiot Can Jump Out, To Be Torn Apart, The EU Will Fly Better Than Ever

The Idiot Can Jump Out, To Be Torn Apart, The EU Will Fly Better Than Ever

The first British referendum about whether Britain was in Europe, or in America, did not matter. The French government had consented to let Britain in, after blocking it for decades: that was the only thing which mattered. This time the stakes are completely different.

Specious liars will point out that the expression “European Community” (EC) was then used, instead of “European Union” (EU). This is a distinction without a difference; the concept of “ever closer union” was the fundamental concept of the European Community. The whole idea was to make a European war impossible in the future, something to which the Germans and the French felt, and feel, very strongly about. And it’s not just them: there is another one hundred million people living in the area in between or immediately around Franco-Germania.

Charlemagne’s empire covered France (including Belgium and the Netherlands), Germany, Italy, liberated Spain, and their satellites (Chechia, Austria, Switzerland, much of Poland, etc.). Some, ignorant of real history, may scoff, and say this was just Charlemagne. Not so: the Franks controlled most of Germany from the Sixth Century. The Franks played a strange game with the Pope, using the hated Lombards for leverage, until the Pope thoroughly surrendered (after Charles Martel nationalized the Church, and was NOT excommunicated for it). Then they conquered Italy (before Charlemagne). Finally it’s officially the Franks who extirpated slavery from liberated Britannia in 1066 CE (as the Anglo-Saxon realms in Britain were fundamentally unlawful invasions of Britannia).

The problem with Brexit is not what it will do to the European Union: the EU will do better without a obfuscating, obstructing, fiscally cheating, plutocratically plotting “Great” Britain playing Trojan Horse for global corruptocracy.

Brexit Is A Mental Illness Of Old Idiots Affected Gravely By Encroaching Senility

Brexit Is A Mental Illness Of Old Idiots Affected Gravely By Encroaching Senility

Once the British brats and obsequious servants of global corruptocrats are safely out of the European conference rooms, the grown-ups (Franco-Germania and its satellites) will be able to take the right decisions which are urgently needed.

(Right now, the French are letting Merkel run the European show: according to French socialist president Hollande, there are no disagreements with the conservative German chancellor. A 36 year old punk with red hair and horse teeth, the very cute Lea Salame’, called Hollande a liar about that, to his face, but that’s what happen when one runs a celebrity society. Cute Lea is a star, so she does not need a brain, and can say whatever looks good in the instant.)

A sobering Great Britain will stand outside, all conference rooms. It will take orders, from the EU, just as Switzerland does (through more than 600 bilateral treaties). A difference is that Switzerland is loved by France, Germany and Italy. Switzerland is not just 10% of Germany’s size: its French part is more French than it is attached to its own “German” part. I understand German, but not really Switzerdeutsch. The French spoken by the Swiss is standard French.

So Great Britain, should it Brexit, would be struck by at least ten years of lawsuits. One sixth of British law is pure European law. London is one of the largest French cities (4% of London is French).

Scotland and Wales will immediately vote to keep European law and exit Britain. The argument used by Brussels that Scotland as an independent nation would have to apply to the EU would become vacuous.

Scotland would probably not leave the EU, avoiding an awkward situation such as Albania getting into the EU, while Edinburgh and Glasgow are outside (Albania, a “francophone” country is pushing hard to get in the EU, in part thanks to its president, a perfect francophone; I approve this motion, and not just because it will make president Donald Trump laugh).

The problem with Brexit is mostly what it will do to world peace (no, I am not trying to be funny!)

Indeed, Scotland has made very clear it did not want the “British” nuclear fleet, the only deterrent Britain has. Emergency plans call on sheltering the nuclear fleet in… France (England has no appropriate deep ports).

Moreover, Britain would lose one third of its territory, once Scotland decides to stay inside the EU.

So what of the British permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)?

It would go. And so would the United Nations’ fundamental organization. Once “Britain”, having disappeared, is out of the UNSC, a pandemonium may ensue.

Notice that Obama, at the last moment, told the French he was not attacking Assad, because he had got cold feet from the British refusal to strike (Assad’s family is a  major plutocratic organization, thus a British sacred cow). Obama himself said it. Cold feet. The French pilots were already in their seats.

Britain’s surrender to plutocracy is indeed a major threat to world peace. Cameron talks corruption, but it starts with the minds. Voting about whether Britain is in Europe, is a complete idiocy, the intoxicating fruit of minds corrupted by a corrupt system.

Patrice Ayme’

Historical Mumbo Jumbo Dissected

March 19, 2016

Too much of the interpretation of history is propaganda. Much of that propaganda is so deep that it lurks inside the emotional and linguistic semantics (From Greek semantikos: signify or indicate by a sign).

By uttering the traditional word(s) one present as factual the time honored bias.

For example the word “colonial” is often used to describe the French League of Nations/SDN Mandate in Syria, completely misrepresenting both the history of Syria and the role France played there (it’s not of academic interest only, because, under the French, the Alawites were liberated, and now those (mostly ex-) victims make sure that what happened to them won’t happen again). Hence, that simple adjective convey semantics which are unfair to the French, the Alawites, the Syrians, History, and civilization itself, while standing in the way of a sustainable just solution in Syria. Now to answer some comments I received:

Chris Snuggs: “The French Revolution? Well, it didn’t remain a revolution for long did it? We ended up fighting yet another continental dictator. What is it with you lot? Something in the water.”

Actually, the French Revolution won the global interdiction of the slave trade, the American Civil War, crushed Anglo-Prussian institutionalized enslaving racism, and is now itself institutionalized by the United Nations Charter, (formally) accepted by all nations, even North Korea.  So the French Revolution rules the globe. 

If Russia is the way it is right now, with a pseudo, yet duly elected Czar, and a Parliament, and a state of quasi-law, it’s thanks to the French Revolution. This is why, for decades, French anthems were used as national anthems in Russia (the Marseillaise and the Internationale).

Empire Means Force: Berkeley, California, Temple of American “Liberalism” & Its Municipal Police In Full Military Gear (March 2016). Yes It has Armored Vehicles & Helicopters

Empire Means Force: Berkeley, California, Temple of American “Liberalism” & Its Municipal Police In Full Military Gear (March 2016). Yes It has Armored Vehicles & Helicopters

One dictator? It was more like a trinity: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Hitler, Mussolini? (And I forgot Franz-Joseph of Austro-Hungary.)

Historically, Britain, under Pitt, used Prussia as a war machine against France, and did it again 1792 (against the French Revolution led by that great rebel, Louis XVI, King of France) and of course after 1812. Prussia instituted a proto-Nazi regime in 1815 (racist oppression and abuse against Jews, Poles; as the advances brought by the French revolution were rolled back).

In 1914, after encouragement by the White House (not so white and innocent after all), the Kaiser, grandson of Queen Victoria, moved swiftly his entire army by surprise against France, to subjugate the part of France which he did not occupy yet.

Imperial German occupation of Alsace and Lorraine  was not bad in all respects: the universal health care system was great, and some good investments and restauration in occupied Alsace happened. However the attack of 1914 was conceived as a world war, which fascist Germany could win, by being swift enough: it was known that Russian mobilization would be very slow, taking weeks, and Britain had “no army” (as its commander and British minister of defense put it). In other words, the Anglo-Saxon role in inciting the Kaiser and his goons to attack in 1914, although well hidden, was considerable.

A proof is that the USA then broke the Franco-British high seas embargo against Imperial Germany. (The USA, having baited Germany, switched brutally in 1917, as, by then, it seemed clear who the victors were going to be.)

Even worse, starting in 1919, the USA did its best to ensure that German fascism could try an encore against France. The French were not blind to this, and did not like it, while the government in Washington, to justify its anti-French policy, depicted France under the worst ways.

The aim of the government USA was to completely destroy the French empire, and French influence, worldwide, and replace it by the American empire and influence. We have explicit orders of Franklin D. Roosevelt to his subordinates in this matter. FDR, a plutocrat more than a bit similar to Trump, had the interest of the American empire foremost in his thoughts.

FDR did not understand how the Roman Republic went down, although it is black on white in Sallust’s work. Interestingly, I long deduced that the aggression wars of 146 BCE destroyed the Roman Republic, without knowing of Sallust’s thinking. Thus, it should be obvious to anybody familiar with Roman history. In 146 BCE, Rome deliberately attacked and destroyed Carthage (in Africa) and Corinth (in Greece).

The monster attacks were promoted by Roman plutocracy, and, in turn, amplified it enormously. The amplification was not just military and economic, but moral and psychological. The success of the destruction visited on others, and the resulting grab of immense riches in minerals and agricultural lands, told the Roman population that evil worked. The system may have been wrong, some Romans may have felt, but the system worked, observed most Romans, and it was not as if they had a choice.

In the case of the USA, the propaganda has been so profound, university professors of history may not even know the facts above, let alone give them the importance they deserve.

Hence psychological angles come to dominate the knowledge of history.

In the case of contemporary Britain, people were told for years, that all what ailed them originated with the European construction. This hid the erection of monstrous plutocratic contraptions which made England, or London and a few satellites, more exactly, the headquarters of the global elite of inequality.

So, while London and satellites became extremely rich, the 99% got ever poorer… And the more enraged they got, the more that rage was artfully diverted towards the European Union.

***

Anglo-Saxons, or Franco-Saxons?

Chris Snuggs: “As for we much maligned Anglo-Saxons, we specialise in defeating dictators…

Kevin Berger also wonder how can I call the USA and the UK, “sister republics”. Following is an answer to both:

The very concept of “Anglo-Saxon” is a piece of propaganda.

First, way back, the Celtic world extended from Ireland to central Anatolia (yes 4,000 miles to the east). The Celts were savages in some ways, but world experts in others (they had, not just cheese, beer, and barrels, but the best ocean going ships, but the best metallurgy: the Gauls sold weapons to the Romans, from swords to helmets).

(Then demographically) smaller England was Franco-Romanized several times: first Julius Caesar landed, then the subordinates of Nero conquered it thoroughly, and a state of three million Romans, Britannia lived for centuries, until well after the legions were evacuated in 406 CE for austerity reasons.

At some point in the Sixth or Seventh Century, harassed by the Angles and the Saxons, British troops evacuated towards French Brittany. This were confusing times, as the Franks were also found in England (Queen Bathilde the victor of slavery circa 650 CE, and Alcuin, Charlemagne philosopher and Prime Minister, were from England).

In any case, a French army invaded and occupied irreversibly England in 1066-1067 CE, re-establishing Franco-Roman rule… But the “Renovated Roman Empire” of the Franks and Charlemagne had the same problem as the Roman empire, namely no stable way to anchor legally the state (this came in part from admiration for Aristotle, a fasco-monarchist).

For centuries, the part of Europe conquered by Romans and Franks was aquiver with various attempts to organize elections, Christian republics (including the Christian Republic of 400 CE, which collapsed immediately under invasions), re-establishing the Roman Senate (this was tried in the Eleventh Century). This lack of constitution explains the on-going existence of Republics (Venice, Florence, Genoa), or quasi Republics (in the Alps, or Toulouse)…

In the case of Britain, continual conflict between the ruling French, or them and Paris led to increasingly democratic ways (although violence was extensive between the War of the Roses, which was finished when Tudor got help from a French army, and the Glorious Revolution, two centuries later).

After the Glorious Invasion of William of Orange, a parliamentary plutocracy was established in the UK whose official target was France (France, under the tyrant Louis XIV had become a place of Catholic Fundamentalism, hostile to Protestants: that was the excuse; the full truth is that British-Dutch plutocracy dreamed of becoming bigger than the French one, and soon succeeded, from high leveraging and the use of slavery and the invasion of North America by unsavory, but efficient means).

In the end, the Angles had very little influence on the Celtic, Roman, and Frankish origin of Britain. The adjective “Anglo-Saxon” itself is a propaganda notion, when used as full descriptive  (at most the “Anglo-Saxons” controlled no more than half of Britain for much less than five centuries, whereas the Celto-Roman-Franco influence lasted millennia, over the full extent).

***

So Why The Differences In Mentality Between Recent France & UK/USA?

First Britain is very often much closer to France than to the USA: French municipal police, up to 2015, was not armed, and the British bobbies are not. American police is super-armed, and even looks, in “liberal” places such as Berkeley California, as an occupation army, with a willingness, and even tradition, to shoot first and ask questions later.

Gentlemen such as Chris Snuggs, who lived in France for more than a decade, could not stand living in the USA. In the USA’s richest regions, most people are immigrants (a paradox which has very rational, entangled explanations).

Secondly, Britain and the USA are islands (OK, a very big island is called a continent). France does not have this mental handicap: France has been at the crossroads, millennia before taking its present name. So France has evolved more inclusive and tolerant philosophies which were in turn impelled on her political descendants, Britain and the USA. (Straying from tolerance under Saint Louis, who threw the Jews out, and repulsed alliance with the Mongols, or under Louis XIV fasco-Catholicism, did not help.)

Thirdly, as I have explained many times, the “evil” mentality which presided over the British, and then American conquest of America proved capable to kick out the French’s softer approach. Then one had the same problem as with plutocratic Rome: nothing succeeds better than success.

Just ask Donald Trump.

Patrice Ayme’

Britain’s Mafia State

September 16, 2015

It’s good to see a famous journalist confirm what I have been saying for many years: the West is turning into an organized crime state of affairs. The world’s greatest Mafia, ever.

In Britain’s Mafia State, George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 9th September 2015, ponders:

Where does legitimate business end and organised crime begin?

Be reasonable in response to the unreasonable… Accommodate, moderate, triangulate, for the alternative is to isolate yourself from reality. You might be inclined to agree. If so, please take a look at the reality to which you must submit.”

Accommodate, moderate, triangulate, and especially “NAVIGATE” (the word he explicitly uses) is the essence of Barack Obama’s philosophy of life (at least so he claims in his memoirs). Too much navigation by those hungry to lord over others is toxic to civilization, though. By the 1930s, throughout the West, the notion of “plutocracy” was familiar, and in wide use. This is how President Roosevelt was able to change the USA for the best.

From Germany to the USA’s Wild West, All Knew Who Plutocrats Were, In The 1930s

From Germany to the USA’s Wild West, All Knew Who Plutocrats Were, In The 1930s

This does not just go all the way back to Reagan, an ex-democrat who learned to thrive under McCarthyism and his consequences: become a secret FBI informant, big on “Unamerican” activities. Thanks to his Dark Side, Reagan ended up as president. So did Nixon, Clinton, the Bushes… Collaboration with infamy (Crusades, Nazism, Stalinism, etc.) always starts as navigation (even Saint Bernard, who made a show of destitution, was actually from a plutocratic family, thus Saint Bernard’s Dark Side started well before he became the real pope, and main force behind the Second Crusade… And the cause of the death of millions)..

Here is Monbiot describing Britain:

“It’s not just that the very rich no longer fall while the very poor no longer rise. It’s that the system itself is protected from risk. Through bail-outs, quantitative easing and delays in interest rate rises, speculative investment has been so well cushioned that, as Larry Elliott puts it, financial markets are “one of the last bastions of socialism left on earth.””

It is nice to see a mainstream, left wingish journalist

Public services, infrastructure, the very fabric of the nation: these too are being converted into risk-free investments. Social cleansing is transforming inner London into an exclusive economic zone for property speculation. From a dozen directions, government policy converges on this objective. The benefits cap and the bedroom tax drive the poor out of their homes. The forced sale of high-value council houses creates a new asset pool. An uncapped and scarcely regulated private rental market turns these assets into gold. The freeze on council tax banding since 1991, the lifting of the inheritance tax threshold and £14 billion a year in breaks for private landlords all help to guarantee stupendous returns….Agricultural land has proved an even better punt for City money: with the help of capital gains, inheritance and income tax exemptions, as well as farm subsidies, its price has quadrupled in 12 years.

But it gets better than that. As related here for many years, and confirmed even by the New York Times in the case of New York, both the USA and the UK are the top organized crimes destinations of the world. Organized crime money gets a refugee status in these two countries (France and Switzerland are bit player and has been, respectively). Says Mr. Monbiot:

“Property in this country is a haven for the proceeds of international crime. The head of the National Crime Agency, Donald Toon, notes that “the London property market has been skewed by laundered money. Prices are being artificially driven up by overseas criminals who want to sequester their assets here in the UK.””

Why? Because in Great Britain, organized crime is well received and well protected. The monarchy is its very symbol.

Not only is this a system, but it is a very old system. Now, it’s just becoming the only system, and, flush with hubris, it’s running amok. Monbiot:

“It’s hardly surprising, given the degree of oversight. Private Eye has produced a map of British land owned by companies registered in offshore tax havens. The holdings amount to 1.2 million acres, including much of our prime real estate. Among those it names as beneficiaries are a cast of Russian oligarchs, oil sheikhs, British aristocrats and newspaper proprietors. These are the people for whom government policy works, and the less regulated the system that enriches them, the happier they are.

The speculative property market is just one current in the great flow of cash that sluices through Britain while scarcely touching the sides. The financial sector exploits an astonishing political privilege: the City of London is the only jurisdiction in the UK not fully subject to the authority of parliament.”

The status of the City of London is actually astounding: very officially, it is a plutocracy. Monbiot:

“In fact, the relationship seems to work the other way. Behind the Speaker’s chair in the House of Commons sits the Remembrancer, whose job is to ensure that the interests of the City of London are recognised by the elected members. (A campaign to rescind this privilege – Don’t Forget the Remembrancer – will be launched very soon). The City has one foot in the water: it is a semi-offshore state, a bit like the UK’s Crown dependencies and overseas territories, tax havens legitimised by the Privy Council. Britain’s financial secrecy undermines the tax base while providing a conduit into the legal economy for gangsters, kleptocrats and drug barons.”

What is happening is that the UK is now parroting what the USA long did. Monbiot again:

“Even the more orthodox financial institutions deploy a long succession of scandalous practices: pension mis-selling, endowment mortgage fraud, the payment protection insurance con, Libor rigging. A former minister in the last government, Lord Green, ran HSBC while it engaged in money laundering for drugs gangs, systematic tax evasion and the provision of services to Saudi and Bangladeshi banks linked to the financing of terrorists. Sometimes the UK looks to me like an ever-so-civilised mafia state.

At next month’s Conservative party conference, corporate executives will pay £2,500 to sit with a minister.”

Well, in the USA, during the reign of Barack Obama, one can pay $37,500 to be in the presence of the president. That makes Obama’s presence roughly ten times more valuable than a minister of Cameron. I have yet to come across an opinion maker in the USA which finds this habit of Obama regrettable, and a sort of selling of democracy to the immensely wealthy. Monbiot tries sarcasm:

“Doubtless, because we are assured that there is no link between funding and policy, they will spend the day discussing the weather and the films they have seen. If we noticed such arrangements overseas, we might be inclined to regard them as corruption. But that can’t be the case here, not least because the invitation explains that “fees associated with business day & dinner are considered a commercial transaction and therefore do not constitute a political donation.”

“The government also insists that there is no link between political donations and seats in the House of Lords. But a study by researchers at Oxford University found that the probability of so many major donors arriving there by chance is 1.36 x 10^38: [ a ten followed by 38 zeroes: one chance out of one hundred trillion trillion trillion] roughly “equivalent to entering the National Lottery and winning the jackpot 5 times in a row”. Why does the Lords remain unreformed? Because it permits plutocratic power to override democracy. Both rich and poor are kept in their place.

Most members of Cameron’s government are very wealthy. Cameron himself is a plutocrat with inherited wealth. Such a government is busy re-engineering society to make it a haven for plutocrats. Such a metamorphosis happened before, say when Directly Democratic Athens was turned into a plutocracy, thanks to Aristotle and his Macedonian goons, or when Republican Rome turned into Plutocratic Rome, or the more or less egalitarian politics of the Franks turned into the Feudal Order. Says Monbiot:

“Governed either by or on behalf of the people who fleece us, we cannot be surprised to discover that all public services are being re-engineered for the benefit of private capital. Nor should we be surprised when governments help to negotiate, without public consent, treaties such as TTIP and CETA (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement), which undermine the sovereignty of both parliament and the law. Aesop’s observation that “we hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office” remains true in spirit, though hanging has been replaced by community payback.

Wherever you sniff in British public life, something stinks: I could fill this newspaper with examples. But, while every pore oozes corruption, our task, we are told, is merely to trim the nails of the body politic.

To fail to confront this system is to collaborate with it. Who on the left would wish to stand on the sidelines as this carve-up continues? Who would vote for anything but sweeping change?

http://www.monbiot.com”

Much of the preceding is known. Even in Great Britain. Still, nothing is done. And plutocracy keeps on metastasizing throughout the political establishment. Why? Because the mood has not revolved back to dignity enough to push us to action. The exactions of the super-rich, from their very existence, have not become glaring enough, in a way that is revolting enough.

Is it reasonable to be reasonable in face of the unreasonable? Sure.

But the reasonable way to answer the unreasonable is with what the unreasonable will call unreasonable, if it is directed to their unreason.

When things go too far, revolution is not just the most reasonable solution, but the most economical one.

That time has come. Let’s not wait until it’s gone. Plutocrats want us to learn to live with inherited princes and princesses. Let it be known we are not five years old, yet.

Patrice Ayme’

Hope At Last?

September 14, 2015

The 99% were told that they were culprit of the ways of high finance. The 99% were told that, they profited from the financial crisis, and had to be restrained with “austerity” (now that all the money had to go to the bankers and other richest people in the world, to save those towering pillars of society from ruin under which we would otherwise be crushed).

That the 99% were culprit of the high leverage of the financial system, thanks to heavy “investing” in financial derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps, was an absurdity: most people had no idea, and still have no idea, that much money creation by bankers, head that way, towards planet finance, instead of planet Earth.

Men Of Wealth, Taste, Power & "Three Minutes" Women

Men Of Wealth, Taste, Power & “Three Minutes” Women

Austerity, the claim that the 99% were too rich, and that this caused the crisis, after thirty years of “Trickle Down”, was, of course, insane. And therefore well received. The appropriate punishment was to insure that the richest would have the means to stay rich, and massive transfers of wealth to the richest people were implemented (even in Greece, where, last I checked, ship magnates were still not taxed!)

With the bleakest sense of humor, this Transfer of Assets to the Richest People TARP), was called… “TARP”, because it was the ultimate cover-up.

However, the economy has not recovered. So insane the gap between sacrifice and result, propaganda and observation, that even average voters are becoming suspicious.

In Spite Of Gigantic Sacrifices & Unemployment, "Austerity", Spain GDP Not Recovering

In Spite Of Gigantic Sacrifices & Unemployment, “Austerity”, Spain GDP Not Recovering

[I exhibited Spain’s GDP, but it’s typical. Lest some hysterical Germanophile comes up screaming that Germany is doing well, let me point out that Germany grew not at all in the last decade, averaging… one third of one percent yearly, which is only compatible with a population decrease, as observed… Thus Europe is literally dying from austerity.]

To accuse the 99% of the violations plutocrats engaged in, and only them can, is becoming so egregious, that even political leaders on the pseudo-left, like the followers of Blair in British Labor, find difficult to hold that discourse nowadays, with a straight face.

So here we are. The pyramid of lies on how the economy works, by self serving politicians in bed with the richest people in the world, is starting to collapse. Worldwide, voters are starting to have their own opinions, and feel that they were lied to, at a nearly inconceivable scale. Voters don’t just repeat anymore what the media owned by the richest people in the world have told them to think. Maybe there is hope after all.

Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time leftist dissident, just won a stunning victory for leadership of Britain’s Labour Party. In an excellent editorial, Paul Krugman  Labour’s Dead Center observes that:

…”one crucial piece of background to the Corbyn surge: the implosion of Labour’s moderates. On economic policy, in particular, the striking thing about the leadership contest was that every candidate other than Mr. Corbyn essentially supported the Conservative government’s austerity policies.

Worse, they all implicitly accepted the bogus justification for those policies, in effect pleading guilty to policy crimes that Labour did not, in fact, commit. If you want a U.S. analogy, it’s as if all the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2004 had gone around declaring, “We were weak on national security, and 9/11 was our fault.” Would we have been surprised if Democratic primary voters had turned to a candidate who rejected that canard, whatever other views he or she held?

In the British case, the false accusations against Labour involve fiscal policy, specifically claims that the Labour governments that ruled Britain from 1997 to 2010 spent far beyond their means, creating a deficit and debt crisis that caused the broader economic crisis. The fiscal crisis, in turn, supposedly left no alternative to severe cuts in spending, especially spending that helps the poor.

These claims have, one must admit, been picked up and echoed by almost all British news media. It’s not just that the media have failed to subject Conservative claims to hard scrutiny, they have reported them as facts. It has been an amazing thing to watch — because every piece of this conventional narrative is completely false.

Was the last Labour government fiscally irresponsible? Britain had a modest budget deficit on the eve of the economic crisis of 2008, but as a share of G.D.P. it wasn’t very high – about the same, as it turns out, as the U.S. budget deficit at the same time. British government debt was lower, as a share of G.D.P., than it had been when Labour took office a decade earlier, and was lower than in any other major advanced economy except Canada.”

The question boils down on why do people think what they do. Well, they think what they have been told to think. Krugman:

“…the supposed fiscal crisis never created any actual economic problem… there was never any need for a sharp turn to austerity.

In short, the whole narrative about Labour’s culpability for the economic crisis and the urgency of austerity is nonsense. But it is nonsense that was consistently reported by British media as fact. And all of Mr. Corbyn’s rivals for Labour leadership bought fully into that conventional nonsense, in effect accepting the Conservative case that their party did a terrible job of managing the economy, which simply isn’t true.”

Why do people do what they do? Well, most people basically try to survive honorably. However those with political aspirations are different. After all, they want to make a job of ruling us. Thirst for power is therefore, one may suspect, a prime motivation of theirs. And then the question is what do they believe they can get away with, on their royal road to domination? And what will be their justification for domination, which they will cover-up their thirst for power with?

Enter plutocratization, the general mood that the few, urged by the most basic instincts of domination, doing better than the many, is the best social organization for everybody. This “trickle down” theory has led the middle class down the road of increasing pauperization, even while global GDP was rising. Plutocratic media monopoly has insured that this mood became a modern religion.

Thatcher and Reagan were the modern instigators of plutocratization. Ex-British PM Tony Blair is a spectacular success of official corruption. Corruption by officials, of officials.  Blair helped to demolish Iraq to please oil barons (and American plutocrats). Blair sells his services to whoever it is most advantageous to sell them to. Piling up income from the likes of the dictator of Kazakhstan, he gathered in excess of 100 million dollars.

By now the middle class is starting to feel they were had by plutocratization. Methods of massive exploitation had to be changed. Enter the 2008 financial crisis. The “rescue” consisted in sending giant amount of money to banks and their managers. “Trickle Down” theory changed its face to “austerity”. The 99% were told that they were culprit of the 2008 crisis, they had to be punished. Completely brainwashed as they were, they welcomed their punishment.

Krugman: “Beyond that, however, Labour’s political establishment seems to lack all conviction, for reasons I don’t fully understand. And this means that the Corbyn upset isn’t about a sudden left turn on the part of Labour supporters. It’s mainly about the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates.”

In much of Western  society, in the last 35 years, political leaders got to power by undermining civilization, and Western democracy. They have been well paid for that: watch the fortunes past leaders have made, such as Major, Blair, Clinton, Gore, Chirac, and, of course, their families: Chelsea Clinton is very rich, but so are the brothers of past French presidents, although Chirac is worth only $10 million, roughly a tenth (Blair, Clintons) or a hundredth (Feinstein, Pelosi, Gore) of Anglo-Saxon politicians worth. Still remarkable, for someone such as Chirac, who was only an elected official all his life (in the USA, Reid of Nevada, head of democrats in the Senate, has a similar fortune and history; that brought charges of corruption, quickly silenced).

The British press is held by plutocrats, some Australian heirs (Murdoch, son and father of Murdochs), some even Russian “oligarchs”. This is where thinking has been coming from. And the charade will go on, until We The People think on their own. How soon? Can one think freely in a Mafia State? Certainly not in Russia. What about Britain? George Monbiot argues that Britain is also a Mafia State. Considering my personal experiences, I can only agree. Dawn is the coldest hour.

Patrice Ayme’

Is Britain A Democracy?

May 7, 2015

The Swiss vote every three months, and take all sorts of decisions. The French People, although not as directly sovereign as the Swiss, vote for all sorts of representatives, frequently (France has as many mayors as the rest of Europe combined, or so. 35,000).

In four years, the USA vote for the president twice (sort of, including the primaries), and the legislative, twice.

Every five years, the French have two presidential elections (the two turns, the first functioning as a national, open primary; many other countries have adopted this system; there has been even vague talk that the USA ought to do the same, as the present system gives too much importance to tiny states!) The French have also two legislative elections.

The Sun Is Setting On The (Extreme) Right Flag. Edinburgh Castle Below.

The Sun Is Setting On The (Extreme) Right Flag. Edinburgh Castle Below.

How many times do the Brits vote in five years? Just once. That day, today, is like a combined legislative and presidential election. And that’s it.

So the French, or the Americans, vote at least four times more than the Brits.

Of course, the Brits do not vote for their head of state. Their future head of state just made a point to deny the Armenian Holocaust, by saluting briskly the (elected) Turkish Caliph, Erdogan, the very day of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Holocaust. For years, Prince Charles got a multi-million Euros yearly subsidy, from the European Union (supposedly for his organic farming, but obviously, in the greater scheme of things, an unabashed bribe!)

The upper chamber of the legislature in the UK, the equivalent of the Sumerian, Roman, American, and French Senat,e is not democratically elected: it’s the “Chamber of Lords”. There unabashed hereditary coal plutocrats such as Lord Ridley, seat, legislate, and rule. And, more importantly, nefariously influence the world.

Some will say: ’That’s Britain, it does not affect Europe, the USA, the world.’ Unfortunately, it does. Lord Ridley, for example has a whole page of the Wall Street Journal to himself every six months, or so, to explain that, the more CO2, the better (he gets five million dollars or so of income from a coal mine of his English land). The influence of the wealthiest people in Britain (who generally are exempt from taxation) on the USA has amplified into considerable world impact. Reaganism, “trickle-down” economics, was invented in Britain, imposed by Thatcher, and Reagan followed.

British aristocracy, the ultimate form of honorable plutocracy, is a world problem.

The grip of plutocracy in Britain is so strong, that only a few weeks ago did “Labor” propose to tax the wealthiest Brits living in Britain while claiming, very legally, to be overseas. “Labor” also proposed a property tax on multi-million dollars homes (those worth more than three millions). Even then, that tax would be just a tiny fraction of the one paid in New York.

London has become a big financial capital, because financial manipulators are allowed to do there tricks that are unlawful anywhere else (including New York).

I am not the only one to have noticed this.

The Scots did. They want to “Free Scotland From Thieves.”

Want to get rid of plutocracy? Instituting democracy in the British monarchy would be a good first step. Scotland will help that way. Meanwhile “first by the post” “democracy” will keep on advantaging “conservatives”, as it did, for centuries, from sheer fear, and lack of choice. (The reason that Britain did not join France in revolution in the late Eighteenth Century was, paradoxically, because the British “aristocracy”, also known as plutocracy, had a much better grip on Britain than the French aristocracy and church had on the French society.)

A “democracy” where one rarely votes, is no democracy, just a parody.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Senegal Cleaner. Britain, Rest Of West, Clueless

March 23, 2015

The son of the previous president of Senegal, Karim Wade, was condemned to six years in jail. Reason? A special Senegalese “Anti-Corruption Court” found that, thanks to complex financial conspiracies, Karim stole 178 million dollars.

He was also condemned to a 230 million dollar fine. Wade, Karim, does not have (yet) to regurgitate most of his 1.4 billion dollar fortune.

President Wade was (officially) a socialist, and ruled for 12 years.

Now Senegal, a country where I grew more, as a child, than any other, has a long democratic tradition.

There Are Better Things To Do In Senegal Than Hypocritically Whine About Slavery

There Are Better Things To Do In Senegal Than Hypocritically Whine About Slavery

Judge Henri Gregoire Diop said Wade had hidden away funds in offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands and Panama: “The facts before us constitute illicit enrichment by Karim Wade“.

Notice that plutocracy is global. Many of the richest people in Britain escape taxation by claiming to reside in just those places, where Karim hid (some) of his corruption money. But, there in the UK, supposedly a democracy, that sort of corruption is perfectly legal. Maybe Karim should have become British in a timely manner?

***

Corruption In West; Example Of Britain:

I have been saying this sort of things for years. George Monbiot, in The Guardian, just noticed it in “Let’s not fool ourselves. We may not bribe, but corruption is rife in Britain”

[Thanks to Paul Handover for calling my attention to Monbiot’s article.]

Says Mr. Monbiot:Common practices in the rich nations that could reasonably be labelled corrupt are excluded [from consideration when evaluating countries’ corruption]; common practices in the poor nations are emphasized [to claim that they are the ones which are corrupted, whereas corruption in poor nations is mickey-mouse stuff relative to the industrial strength, astronomical corruption in the richest nations].

This week a ground-changing book called How Corrupt is Britain?, edited by David Whyte, is published. It should be read…

Would there still be commercial banking sector in this country if it weren’t for corruption? Think of the list of scandals: pensions mis-selling, endowment mortgage fraud, the payment protection insurance scam, Libor rigging, insider trading and all the rest. Then ask yourself whether fleecing the public is an aberration – or the business model.

No senior figure has been held criminally liable or has even been disqualified for the practices that helped to trigger the financial crisis, partly because the laws that should have restrained them were slashed by successive governments. A former minister in this government ran [the huge, immensely criminally corrupt, politicians, drug lords and Al Qaeda financing, bank] HSBC while it engaged in systematic tax evasion, money laundering for drugs gangs and the provision of services to Saudi and Bangladeshi banks linked to the financing of terrorists. Instead of prosecuting the bank, the head of the UK’s tax office went to work for it when he retired.

***

Britain As Tax Heaven: Second Best

Monbiot is obviously unfamiliar with the reality of plutocratic rule in the USA. If he were, he would realize that Britain is the World’s Second Tax Haven. But, otherwise, all he says is correct:

The City of London, operating with the help of British overseas territories and crown dependencies, is the world’s leading tax haven, controlling 24% of all offshore financial services. It offers global capital an elaborate secrecy regime, assisting not just tax evaders but also smugglers, sanctions- busters and money-launderers.

As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly has complained, the City “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. The UK, Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg and Germany are all ranked by Transparency International as among the least corrupt nations in the world. They are also listed by the Tax Justice Network as among the worst secrecy regimes and tax havens. For some reason, though, that doesn’t count.

The Private Finance Initiative has been used by our governments to deceive us about the extent of their borrowing while channelling public money into the hands of corporations. Shrouded in secrecy, stuffed with hidden sweeteners, it has landed hospitals and schools with unpayable debts, while hiding public services from public scrutiny.

Relying on the World Bank to assess corruption is like asking Vlad the Impaler for an audit of human rights.”

Except that Vlad could make a human right argument (freeing his country from impaling Islamists). Our present plutocrats and their greedy servants can make no such argument.

I will write more about the problems in Britain in the future.

Here is George Monbiot’s conclusion, which is pertinent to the problems less developed countries encounter, as they are dominated by Western plutocracy:

“For organisations such as the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, there is little difference between the public interest and the interests of global corporations. What might look like corruption from any other perspective looks to them like sound economics. The power of global finance and the immense wealth of the global elite are founded on corruption, and the beneficiaries have an interest in framing the question to excuse themselves.

[And they do, with the help of economics departments and pundits, all over the globe.]

Yes, many poor nations are plagued by the kind of corruption that involves paying bribes to officials. But the problems plaguing us run deeper. When the system already belongs to the elite, bribes are superfluous.”

Indeed.

In the West, it is not just politicians who are corrupt. It is the law itself. It was written, for plutocrats, by their servants. This is, of course, the way plutocracy has always operated. They even have done better in the USA: they made the USA into a so-called “Christian nation”, a place where the befuddled worries more about some guy who never existed, than in bothering to perceived that they are exploited in a system increasingly reminiscent of serfdom.

***

Why Is Senegal So Civilized?

Wade was a senior minister in his father’s government, and was in charge of major infrastructure and energy projects. It was a time when Korean factory ships were allowed to hug the Senegalese coast line, making a fortune for themselves, and starving the Senegalese (who depend heavily upon fish for proteins).

The Senegalese dubbed the soon immensely wealthy Karim “minister of the earth and the sky“.

How did Senegal become so wise?

Three millennia of trading ideas from all over.

Senegal was mostly freed from the past when a handful of French officers under Paris’ command, pacified and unified the country in the nineteenth century. The dozen or so officers commanded an army of 5,000 natives (who did all the work).

Contacts between Senegal and the West are much older than that: under Louis XIV, Senegalese had French nationality. Much earlier Senegal had a salted fish trade going on with Carthage (showing that the human impact on the Mediterranean is not new).

***

Inverted Gorée Racism, PC Style:

Nowadays, when supposedly knowledgeable Westerners only talk about the tiny island of Gorée when evoking Senegal, sort of like talking only about the guillotine when evoking France, or the electric chair, when evoking the USA.

It is a subtle, unconscious, anti-French, anti-Senegalese racism (the so-called “House of Slaves” in Gorée was built by a Franco-Senegalese family).

In truth, as the French controlled Gorée for nearly three centuries, except for 4 years under British control, few slaves passed through it. The French frowned on the slave trade, but certainly could not outlaw it completely until they ruled Senegal!

What counts in a civilizations is what has been institutionalized. In advanced parts of Senegal, for centuries, the part the French controlled, slavery was not institutionalized (differently from the USA, and other forsaken places).

***

Worst In The Rest:

The rest of the West (Senegal is part of the West, civilizationally speaking), is also corrupt, but the corrupt politicians there do not get judged, just admired.

Worse: the systems of thought, moods, and institutions connected to them, are corrupt… to the point few believe they are.

Here is an on-going example.

Right now the central banks of the West keep interest rates roughly around zero percent. The reason that is officially proclaimed is that, thus, the banks can extend very low interest loans to economic actors.

However, that is a lie.

80% of the money presently created goes to High Financial sector. Only 20% goes to the real economy.

This is corruption. Why are judges not rising? Because they have been brain-washed, long ago. Also the corruption is more spread-out, in the leading countries, than it was in Senegal. Millions feed off the excesses of the banking or health-industrial complex.

What Karim Wade was doing has been philosophically determined, long ago, as corrupt. Not so for the present banking, or even, political system.

***

Meanwhile Among Blown-Away Microbes…

95% of the capital of the Republic of Vanuatu, a long but tiny archipelago in the next ridge north of New Caledonia, has been destroyed by a greenhouse force 5 cyclone.

A few decades ago, Vanuatu was called the “New Hebrides” and was part of Britain and France. If it still was such a part and portion, no doubt the French and British government would use their considerable means to help (the French are helping, but not as much as if Vanuatu was still part of France).

So called “decolonization” has passed by, and Vanuatuans are now free to independently fend for themselves.

(As above with Karim Wade, so-called “decolonization” is all about global plutocrats making irresistible deals with local potentates. By the way, Karim does not have to regurgitate most of his ill-gotten fortune. I am ready to bet much is in French banks, cozy and cuddly with stolen Greek fortunes…)

Good luck to Vanuatu in its hut rebuilding project. GDP per capita in Vanuatu in 2014 was $3,200. In next door French New Caledonia, per capita GDP is $39,000 (about 12 times more).

Empire has its advantages. But less so, and even just the opposite, when under the orders of plutocrats.

Patrice Ayme’

Live Within Our Means, Say Mean Plutocrats

December 5, 2014

Austerity Is A Conspiracy By Those Who, Having All The Money, Want Us To Have None:

What do plutocrats want? In the common, all too restrictive sense of plutocracy as the “rule of money”, “plutocracy” is supposed to mean that plutocrats want their money to rule.

Yet, plutocracy is not just about money. Even if one starts with “money”, one ends up with much more. Indeed, money is power onto others. By establishing charities, foundations, political financing, and other networks of influence, plutocrats extent invisibly their power beyond the horizon, and below the ground.

However Homo Sapiens Sapiens not being made to be submitted to others “power”, we have there, in this will to quasi-infinite plutocratic power, a form of cruelty, not to say, mayhem. Power struggles kill, among chimpanzees.

Britain Won Its Place In The World Through Ultra Massive Borrowing & Money Creation

Britain Won Its Place In The World Through Ultra Massive Borrowing & Money Creation

Notice that, with chimpanzees, even the alpha male has very little power: as soon as three of his subordinates gang up against him, he is toast. The same holds with wolves, or lions.

But civilization is all about power. When only a few have its reins, they become like gods. At least in their minds, habits, ways, and means. That’s why plutocrats, their obsequious servants, and those they have hypnotized, worry so much about “us living within our means”.

 

A Few Guys Have ALL The Power, What Could Go Wrong?

Whereas a modern bureaucrat, like Eichmann, can send millions to death. Some will say the analogy is in poor taste. But not so. People such as Obama, Hollande, Putin, can literally launch actions that, in the worst possible case, could lead quickly to the death of billions (it takes just one 300 kiloton thermonuclear bomb to destroy most of any city on Earth).

I do believe that so much power, in so few hands, in so few brains, is not just immoral, but unwise. This makes civilization highly unstable.

However, a meta-discourse has been held, not just logically, but emotionally: it is OK to have so much power in so few hands.

Let’s put aside the main problem aside. The main problem being that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that Czar Putin, for example, has more power than all the Czars who existed before him, put together: it’s not just that Stalin, had no H bombs. Both him, and Brezhnev, were worried by the Politburo (their top communist colleagues). Putin, by comparison reigns on a coterie of obsequious plutocrats, anxious about Polonium in their tea, or homicide by heart attack.

Not that Putin needs to give a direct order. For someone who can roughly kill half of Chechnya, and then get away with offering luxury homes there to his gregarious friend the “star”, not to say czar, Depardieu (not prosecuted for war profiteering, whereas the French government prosecutes commoners for basically nothing, commonly), letting it known to its secret services subordinates that he would love it if contradictors could just vanish, is elementary.

An aside here: when top official of the Nazi administration asked Adolf Hitler directly whether there was a systematic policy in place for killing Jews, Adolf Hitler firmly denied there was. At the Wannsee Holocaust conference, top Nazis confronted SS General Heydrich, and told him that Hitler had personally told them that it was not the policy of the Reich to kill the Jews. And they felt sure that, should they ask Hitler that same question again Hitler would give the same answer.

To that Heydrich icily replied, with a thin smile: ”Of course, he will!”

The fundamental problem with the top Nazis was not that they had some very bad ideas, it was that they had too much power. That enormous power (greatly enabled by the dog-like submissivity of the average German at the time), led them in a quick succession of choices, ever more abysmal, starting in January 1933. (To this, as soon as 1933, the French and American Republics reacted by engaging in giant military spending to equip themselves for a world war; Poland and Britain, instead, reacted by becoming Hitler’s best friends… They would realize their mistake in 1939)

 

If A Few Guys Can Fry Us All, Why Can’t They Own Us?

If it’s OK to risk thermonuclear Armageddon with a few morons in control (for vicious moron, consider Putin), why is it not OK to risk an economic apocalypse, let alone a climate apocalypse, with even more morons in control?

Is it not more… democratic? If Obama has too much power, does not giving ever more power to the Koch Brother, Bill Gates, and the Z guy from Facebook counterbalance that?

In any case, bleat the sheep, if plutocrats have all the power, they take all the decisions, and we can rest.

So, indeed, we have to ask again, what do plutocrats want? What train of evolutionary thought do they come from?

Well, simply the cruel streak which leads to extermination. The main problem of man has been man. For millions of years, being the top predator.

 

Insane Austerity Is Plutocracy Under Another Name:

One of the appreciated commenters on this site, Chris Snuggs, made the observation that:

It is not “austerity for austerity’s sake”, Patrice. It is simply the principle of “living within one’s means”. NO COUNTRY IN EUROPE IS DOING THIS. The idea that “ending austerity” is the solution is risible leftist claptrap. It is the failure to live within our means that has led to this as politicians at all levels either bribe voters with the latters’ own money, or in the case especially of Italy and Greece simply steal it.

If it were just Italy and Greece, we would be safe. Stealing from politicians is a worldwide phenomenon.

The son of the preceding (“socialist”) president of Senegal, found himself with a fortune of more than a billion dollars. After a change of president, judges put him in jail, in the hope of finding out where the money came from. Senegal is one of the world’s poorest countries (having no resources of any sort, but for fish devoured by Korean factory ships, which, I am sure, paid very well; the fish came back after the new president asked the Koreans to pay, and the French empire lent a military jet which takes pictures).

Living within our means” sounds good, but a sovereign country is not a family (contrarily to what Obama said).

The money within a country is not a store of value (only gold reserves are; most countries got rid of them). Instead, money enables the population to do a number of things. If there is not enough of money around, these things cannot be done.

Moreover, money, like blood, has to circulate.

However, it’s not doing that anymore, as the wealthiest store it, and have less use for it than the lower classes.

 

How Not To Live Within The Means Of the Wealthiest:

Take the case of France.

Suppose France borrowed a trillion Euros on the free market, at the present rate of less than 1%. Investors, in their despair, are ready to lend to France at that rate, on the ten year bond.

Such a borrowing would allow the government to augment enormously its spending: it could pay for the best universities in the world (as China is presently trying to do), it could finance all sorts of fundamental research, it could even fabricate large Thorium reactors, with the whole economy to go with them (mines in Brittany, U 233 breeders, etc.). Presto, no more energy and CO2 crisis, and reactors which could be sold worldwide.

The pessimist would bemoan that we cannot afford it.

Of course we can: it would cost, nothing.

How so?

Hopefully, inflation, over the next ten years, will be 1% per year, entirely cancelling the interest payments. Higher inflation, though, would devour the principal.

Is this all fancy? Today the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Britain’s finance and economy minister), G. Osborne, announced that Great Britain will, finally, reimburse its First World War debt. How? By borrowing at 4%, the lowest interest in Britain for a very long time.

Says Osborne: “This is a moment for Britain to be proud of. We can, at last, pay off the debts Britain incurred to fight the first world war. It is a sign of our fiscal credibility and it’s a good deal for this generation of taxpayers. It’s also another fitting way to remember that extraordinary sacrifice of the past.”

Actually it’s even better than that: some of the debt to be repaid comes from the Crimean War, the wars against revolutionary France, and even the South Sea Bubble (three centuries ago).

 

Borrowing Can Buy You The World:

As Dominique Deux, another esteemed commenter on this site, reminded me: “Britain did not get to be the world’s first industrial power by “living within her means” but by extensive long-term borrowing.”

Right.

It is even better than that: The Bank of England, the world’s first central bank, was created to support the Royal Navy. Basically, if the Navy needed money, the Bank would print it.

That was put to good use a century later. France was much larger economically, economically, not to say intellectually, than Britain, so fighting the French superpower seemed ridiculous. However, as France was in the way, this is exactly what Britain did in 1756-1815. Paying Prussia as an attack dog, creating a huge Navy, etc.

How?

By borrowing extravagantly. So much borrowing that Britain won, but for the little problem of the French engineered creation of the American Republic (a foundation which proved the undoing of both France and Britain…)

 

To Make Money, Government Can Just Grab It From The Filthy Rich:

Famously, confronted to the invasion of Francia by the Arab, Syrian, Berber, and generally hysterically Muslim armies, and navies, in 721 CE, the Merovingian government of Prime Minister (and effective head of state) Charles Martel, just nationalized the Catholic Church, selling its precious metals, and stones.

That was a stroke of genius, as it defeated both Christianism and (what the Franks viewed as) its Islamist sect. (OK, it took a full generation of total war.)

That method is more available, the more plutocrats there are.

Osborne (out hero of the day, the conservative plutophile who heads things financial in the UK), spoke yesterday of introducing a “Google Tax” of 25%. Says the Guardian: “Responding to outrage about the minimal contributions big corporations make to European governments, the Treasury is targeting Silicon Valley companies such as Google, Amazon and Apple, but the measures will reach beyond technology to high street chains such as Starbucks.

“We will make sure that big multinational businesses pay their fair share,” assured Osborne. That will not be easy: one is talking here about what some view as the richest criminal enterprises in the world.

Facebook made something like 100 million dollars of profit in Britain, and paid not even five thousand dollars of tax. The Guardian: “Google paid just £20m tax in the UK last year. But its actual British revenues were £5.6bn. The group as a whole has a profit margin of 20%, suggesting the company’s real profits in the UK could have been as high as £1.2bn. Taxed at the proposed 25% rate, this would deliver £280m a year in revenues for the Treasury from just one company.”

Having plenty enough of money to accomplish important work, is pretty much how the West went through the 30 glorious years of strong economic expansion after World War Two.

In practice, though, debt can be reduced by taxing the wealthy. Why to borrow from the rich, when one can tax them? Well it all depends if one lives in plutocracy (borrow), or in democracy (tax).

Under general-president Eisenhower, the wealthiest were made to contribute (Ike used his 93% upper margin tax rate; it was of course the same in Europe).

That’s how to live within the better means we could create for ourselves.

This means, first, defanging what, and those who, have too much power, be it thermonuclear, political, economic, or even ideological.

Democracy is not just a way of life, but the way to survival… Just what the cruelest, and fiercest instincts do not want.

Patrice Ayme’

1938?

March 16, 2014

No, it’s not 1938, because in 1938, Britain and France confronted the fascist dictators, without their, then, ingrate progeny, the USA.

Yes, it’s 1938 in all other ways: Russian dictator Putin has instigated a combination of vicious alarm, demented propaganda, false justifications, brutal invasions, referenda with transparent boxes, and annexations, seasoned with total contempt for international law, that is very similar to what German dictator Hitler pursued in 1938.

In 1938, the (so called) democracies did not act perfectly: the Nazis could have been terminated without the carnage of 3% of the world population killed by the war that followed. Indeed the top German generals had asked Britain and the USA to help by declaring that they would adopt the same tough line as France.

Not only the Anglo-Americans leaders declined to do so, but, instead, they betrayed the trust the German generals had put in them, by denouncing them, his subordinates, to Hitler. (Don’t be surprised if standard historians, well fed by their plutocratic universities, are careful to never mention this fact; I should make a list of the 100 most inconvenient and never mentioned facts of WWII.)

Just as in 1938, the democracies do not know what to do, in 2014, because they are still in a placid state in which they fear war more than anything else, and the invading dictator knows this. That makes the corrective action that the democracies need to take, obvious.

The aim of this essay is to show how to avoid more of a parallel between 2014 and 1938 than we have already achieved.  This is not easy, because the exact same psychological dynamics are in place in 2014, as in 1938. Placidity encouraging ferocity, ever more.

The fascist instinct has taken over a great power, once again.

I did not acquire this opinion in the last 5 weeks: my From Russia With Hate, nearly 6 years old, saw the present Russian war hysteria coming.

March 1938: The Nazis want to annex Austria. Austrians don’t really want this. Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg calls a vote March 13. Nazis are angry: what if Austrians voted against the Anschluss?  March 10, Schuschnigg is forced to resign, and is replaced by a Nazi, while Hitler’s divisions enter the country “at its invitation”. The Austrian army surrenders.

April 10: the Nazis organize referenda in Austria and Germany to approve the annexation. They win by 99.7% and 99.08%, respectively. (Notice the resemblance with Crimea’s 97%.)

That’s what Goebbels, laughing, called “Total Democracy”.

Correctly, the Western powers have declared that Putin’s referendum in Crimea, organized in similar circumstances, after a military occupation, to be null.

At this point, in April 1938, having got away with something enormous (the invasion of a country), without having fired a shot, Hitler underwent a neurohormonal change, and started to feel that he could get away with anything. He had to show that he could bend the world to his will (lest his generals assassinate him, which they tried to do repeatedly, for years, with remarkable bad luck.)

Similarly, Putin has to show his generals and plutocrats, that he, and he alone, can get away with anything.

Unsurprisingly, then, Hitler declared that the Sudeten Germans inside Czechoslovakia were also an oppressed minority and needed to be protected inside Greater Germany. Czechoslovakia, a Slavic nation with its own language, just delivered from a long German oppressive occupation by the Versailles Treaty of 1919, was determined to fight. Its protector was mighty France.

However, France had three problems, in this order: Washington, London, and Berlin. (See note)

The first error of democracy in 1938: the USA was collaborating with Hitler rather than with France and Britain. (See note on USA duplicity) OK, with its racial oppression of people of color, the USA was not a fully representative democracy, and many of its racist leaders could only be sympathetic to the racist Nazis (in particular, the U.S. Army was segregated and “inter-racial” marriages outlawed in many states).

In any case, in 1938, officially in the interest of peace, the British Kingdom and the French Republic persuaded the Czechs NOT to defend themselves against Hitler. Big mistake. When France was invaded in May 1940, half of the Wehrmacht’s tanks were Czech (they had been seized by the Nazis, or produced meanwhile, in Czechoslovakia).

First lesson: A successful invasion makes the invader stronger. Hitler became ever stronger by invading ever more. In such a case, the earlier the war, the better. At this point some in Russia still doubt Putin’s wisdom. The more Putin invades without firing a shot, the more devotees he will have.

Let’s not tell the Ukrainians NOT to defend themselves violently from the Kremlin’s maniacal dwarf.

Maniacal? Putin’s main idea is that the disappearance of “the USSR was the Twentieth Century greatest tragedy”.  (Even Hitler did not dare say something that stupid, such as the disappearance of the Second Reich was the Twentieth Century greatest tragedy.)

Hitler’s argument for the annexation of the Sudeten was that there were three million Sudeten German in Czechoslovakia, and they wanted to live in Fatherland Germany (OK, he used “Vaterland”). Never mind that there was no free media in Germany to present another discourse.

His true reason was that Hitler wanted to invade all of Czechoslovakia, and re-establish Germany as the master of Eastern Europe.

Putin’s argument is that there are two millions in Crimea, and they want to live within Mother Russia. Never mind that there is no free media in Russia, or that this will-to-Russia is actually fundamentally racist.

Putin’s true reason is that Putin wants to invade all of Ukraine (the detailed preparations for the annexation are known).

Second Lesson: When a dictator’s has tipped into the Dark Side, expect the worst. That’s the wise thing to do. Putting one’s head in the sand to protect one’s neck is naïve.

Hitler was superficially correct, about the Sudeten: the Germans there were really German, they happened to be living where the natural, mountainous border of Czechoslovakia was.

Putin is obviously wrong: 40% of Crimea is made of people who fear Putin and his kind. 12% of Crimea is made of Tatars who sneaked back, as survivors of Stalin’s genocide on 1944. They do not have tender memories of their assassins.

The Czechs had excellent fortifications. They could have defended themselves at a cost higher than the Nazis could have paid.  (See Note on fortifications.)

The Czechs fortifications were nearly as good as the French Maginot line. That was breached nowhere (and caused huge losses to the Mussolini’s fascists army in the Alps.)

The British were understandably afraid to confront Hitler in 1938: they had only a few divisions, and no modern air force. In appearance, the French were ready militarily, but did not look forward another world war, after getting several millions killed or mutilated in the First World War. (See military and strategic notes).

There was a military problem: what was the French army exactly supposed to do if Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia? The French army faced the “West Wall” (= Siegfried Line). Thanks to their enemies in Washington and London, the French had been prevented to establish their military frontier on the Rhine in 1919.

In 1944-45, the Allies, with a combat-experienced, five million men army, facing no more than 50 small German divisions, would take 6 months to break through the Siegfried line, although the democracies had air supremacy, and much more of everything than the Nazis (who were reduced to diluting their explosives, and make their mines to wound rather than kill).

So the 45 French divisions that squeezed in a very small front in September 1939 could not make a decisive attack.

Similarly, it has been said that it would be folly to oppose Putin militarily. The same was said when Hitler invaded the Rhineland, or Spain, in 1936.

The French Prime Minister had no illusion in 1938. As he stepped from his plane, he was applauded for having preserved peace at the Munich Conference. He muttered: ”Les pauvres, s’ils savaient.” (“Poor little ones, if they only knew.”)

What the French PM knew was that Hitler had crossed a psychological Rubicon, a tipping point signaling the collapse into the Dark Side. Hitler had changed to a different neurohormonal regime, where dominance is exerted in a lethal way. Hitler had decided that the Franco-British could not do a thing, and were unwilling to impose their will. (Hitler knew also that his allies in the USA would insure on-going collaboration with the corporations of the USA.)

Similarly, Putin has decided that Obama is weak. Certainly someone who needs a teleprompter to speak is no strong in his head. It is as if he advertises that he is a puppet, reading what his masters wrote

Certainly Putin noticed this. And who are Obama’s masters? Plutocrats, the very people Putin barks orders to. Thus, in this dog eats dog hierarchy, Putin is top dog, Putin noticed.

Hitler went through the same exact logic… Except he failed to notice that the power of the American plutocrats who had made him, and enticed him, rested on a nation-continent, the USA, the power and nastiness of which he grotesquely underestimated.

Similarly, Putin even more grotesquely underestimate the power of the USA and the European Union, combined.

On March 22, 1939, Hitler annexed much of Lithuania. The Germanoid mobs were hysterical with nationalistic bigotry. The West was tolerant of this madness… Not realizing for a moment that it meant the minorities therein would be hated with as much folly.  True, German speaking people were in a majority, but they had clearly sunk into the deepest evil.

On February 22, 1938, PM Chamberlain had admitted to the British Parliament: ”We must not give false hopes to small states by promising them the protection of Society of Nations (SDN, ancestor to the UN undermined by the USA) because we know nothing of the sort can be done.”

After annexing part of Lithuania, 1939, Hitler crossed a new step in his neurocognitive degeneracy. He said in a discourse, on March 23: “We don’t want to hurt anybody, but it was necessary to put an end to the suffering that the world imposed on the Germans in the last twenty years… From now on the Germans from Memel are part of the Reich… Even if the rest of the world does not like it.”

The glory and might of Hitler was at its apogee. The world trembled in front of Nazi Germany. All of Hitler’s annexations had happened without a shot fired. Was not Hitler a genius? A liberator? Who could deny his love of the Vaterland?

Six years later to the day, one German out of ten was already dead. Millions more would die. Entire German cities had been wiped out. Territories that had been German for 7 centuries were lost forever. Nazi Germany had become synonymous to infamy.

Same story, potentially, now.

A difference, though: we know history, and are keen not to repeat the same mass neurohormonal disaster in the same way. The time to stop the vengeful Russian mind-set is now.

Hyper nationalistic Russians are explaining the degeneracy of their homeland (a place with no free press) by twenty years of Russian suffering imposed by the world, invented just the same as the twenty years of German suffering that Hitler had invented by 1938.

Retrospectively, the Franco-British plea to the Czechs to accede to Hitler’s demand has been seen as an enormous mistake. “Munich” for years was the butt of jokes. It is time to remember this.

What could have stopped Hitler? His generals told us: only the knowledge, among his most serious supporters, that a catastrophic war was in Germany’s future, if Germany kept the same leadership.

What is the solution that this allows us to draw with Putin? Putin heads a coterie of plutocrats, many of whom will pay a heavy price if the West goes to war.

Those who support Putin have to understand that the West will go to war if Putin stays in power. And the time is now. Not in a month or two, after Putin has annexed more territory.

Let’s not forget that the hyper nationalistic drive in Crimea, just as in annexed German majority areas in the 1930s is oriented against minorities. Then non-German, now non-Russian. Basically Russians want to kill Tatars, same as in 1944.

Human rights, and civilization need a credible military threat. A threat that the people who support Putin believe. A threat that their world will die. As simple as that.

That should start with sanctions that hurt… the West. The USA ought to immediately lift their embargo on gas and oil to the Europe Union, and the Europeans should turn off all the trade to Putin. For starters. Also discrete but efficient military equipment ought to be sent to the Ukrainian army.

As it is obvious that, if undeterred, Putin will invade the rest of Ukraine just as his mentors Stalin and Hitler used to annex, invade and deport. Putin, just like Hitler, will lose when shooting starts.

Patrice Aymé

***

1)      USA duplicity note: in 1938, France and Britain alone confronted Hitler, Japan, Italy, and Stalin knowing full well that, as in World War One, in 1914-1917, the USA were keener to exploit the situation for its own profit, to start with. A proof of duplicity: Roosevelt replaced the anti-Nazi ambassador, Dodd, by a pro-Nazi.

2)      Note on fortifications: In 1940, the Nazi army, going through Luxembourg, hit the French fortifications at their thinnest, thanks to intelligence provided by the Prince of Wales; however, the Nazis suffered huge losses crossing the Meuse, had to use suicidal charges, and nearly gave up.

3)      Military Note-unpreparedness of Britain: Britain had no army, and no air force; it was rushing flat out to build itself a modern air force, but it won’t be ready for another two years; same for some armor.

4)      Strategic note: The enormous sacrifice of 1914-1918 had saved France and the French Republic. However France had not recovered the natural borders of France on the Rhine, which had grievous military consequences, both in 1914 and 1940. Even worse: Anglo-American interference had lined up on the side of re-nascent German fascism after 1918, entangled with Wall Street and USA corporations. Hence the lack of enthusiasm of the French to die for the same racket.