Posts Tagged ‘Celts’

France Taking Command After Breakshit

June 29, 2016

How The Empire Fell:

The Goths, refugees from the Huns, were attacked once on a sweltering 9 August 378 CE by decision of Roman emperor Valens. The Oriental Roman field army was hot, tired, thirsty, after a forced march in the morning. Some of the Roman commanders were arrogant. Rested, the Roman field army would have been invincible. Moreover, the Occidental Roman field army, itself also invincible, if rested, was marching in. But senior emperor Valens was in charge of the Oriental army and his nephew Gratian in charge of the Occidental army, full of Franks.

The Frank Richomeres, head of Gratian imperial guard, sent ahead, told Valens to wait for the second field army (Richomeres would later become Consul, and head of all the Oriental Part of the empire, militarily; as a Frank, and non-Christian, he was refused the purple of an Augustus, yet he had imperium). But Valens wanted a victory of his own (Gratian and other commanders had theirs in preceding months). Valens decided to attack (his mind perhaps afflicted not just by the heat, but also the desire to self-annihilation of old fashion Christianism). His decision was all about hubris. A few hours later, the Oriental Roman field army was mostly annihilated, and Valens was dead. 

The Roman state would never recover from this disaster. Twenty-two (22) years later, the Franks were put in charge of the Roman defense of Gallia and Germania (400 CE). Twenty-eight (28) years later, the legions would be withdrawn from Britain, to save money, and hordes of savage Germans would break through the Roman empire, all the way to Africa. The Goths would take Rome, 32 years after the defeat of Hadrianopolis (410 CE). Now Hadrianopolis is a city in Turkey. And Turkey is full of exploding Muslims (mass attack of ISIL/Daesh on Constantinople’s airport, today).

The Franks would exterminate the Goths, 129 years later, and impose the Imperium Francorum over Gallia, Germania, and, soon enough, other regions (Italy, Spain)…  

European Parliament: French President & Girlfriend Telling British Europhobes To Get Great Britain Out Of The European Union. October 2015

European Parliament: French President & Girlfriend Telling British Europhobes To Get Great Britain Out Of The European Union. October 2015

Contempt For France and the Latins:

I was talking Brexit with an American friend with very long blond hair. I told her that, initially the language of the European Community was French rather than English, and that now things would change a bit. She was amused to no end: don’t worry, French is never coming back. Ever. Again. Never.

Her arrogance made me think. Was it Hadrianopolis all over again? I mean, really, why would “Anglo-Saxons” and what I call the West Country Men” mentality, be in natural control of the world? Because they are naturally born killers?

West Country Men mentality, essence of lurid Anglo-Saxonia: Greed is the thinking reed which makes humanity wisely bend, as required by reality. Voltaire thought it was very philosophical to let such a mentality in charge of the World. Well, I don’t.

It’s true, in part, but just in part, that greed as the reed can be useful. Yet, there are many other, even more crucial, dimensions to the human existence.

***

France Is Different:

In the US, and much English imagination, the “Latins” are viewed as bit players. At most good lovers. Yet, in Europe, Spain, Italy, France and their satellites have 200 million people.

The situation of France is peculiar, because this is where the core of the mother civilization was, and rose. France is mother to Britain and the US, secularism, nationalization, mandatory education, and the anti-slavery movement, among others. All that was achieved way back in the past, and cannot be changed, even by Allah. (To finance war against the fanatics of Allah, in the early 700’s, the Franks confiscated all valuable Christian church property, and paid the army with it.) 

The English love to talk about the Magna Carta, forgetting that the rebellious barons were French. And when the French Revolution started, the “National Assembly” decided it was a “Constituent Assembly”. Where did that come from? Well what became known as the “National Assembly”, with 578 representatives, had been elected in 1788 CE (a year before the official start of the French Revolution).

The English say: ‘we have this, too, Parliament…” Actually the powers of Parliament were set-up by a Frenchman who wanted to be elected king, way back. The English have Parliament, but it’s not really a National Assembly, as it is entangled with the non-elected “Chamber of Lords”. In 1789 France, the “National Assembly” made a coalition with (most of the) the Catholic church, and ejected the “Chamber of Lords”, never to be seen again.

***

The Mood Of European Unification Has Celto-German, Roman Republican and Frankish Roots:

Who were the Franks? The European Union! Indeed, the Franks were NOT a tribe. They were a “federation”. A number of people who had taken an oath. From foederare (league together) and foedus (covenant, league).

The Salic Law of the Franks was initially written in Latin by Roman lawyers. So not only the Franks were not a tribe, or nation, but they embraced the notion of being endowed by superior ideas, even if they came from others.  

When one talks about deep Europe, some go back to Charlemagne. I just showed one has to go five centuries earlier. But one should of course go even earlier. The Celts had a very advanced civilization, ocean trading and more advanced than anywhere else in the world in several technologies. They were hindered by a religion which the Romans destroyed and outlawed (as should be done to some contemporary religions!). Otherwise, the Celto-Germans were pretty much open: they had a secondary cult of Greco-Roman deity, particularly Mercury, the god of trade. Compare with present day Saudi Arabia, which will cut your head off, if you disagree with what they call Allah…

***    

Withdrawing England’s Privileges:

The French agreed to Great Britain entry in the European Community, 45 years ago. In retrospect, it may have been a mistake. But who could guess that Britain would be such a bad player? Refusing the free circulation of citizens of the Schengen Treaty, blackmailing for a rebate, organizing tax havens, grabbing most Euro trading, refusing the Euro, while staying inside the European Monetary System to sabotage it, fostering global plutocracy while spreading outrageous lies about the European Union’s alleged lack of democracy?

Britain was needed, because of its heft, and its military power. But the latter, and its connection with morality, has faded in recent years, witness the Assad debacle: the UK Parliament refused to attack plutocrat Assad, because the UK does not attack plutocrats. Great Britain loves plutocrats and especially their money, no questions asked. Due to budget cuts, and ethical cuts, Britain is much less than what it used to be militarily.

The French Republic then is the only significant military power in Europe, and can make Germany pay for it, by running deficits (that’s the implicit accord, obviously).

Europe is just a trading place, say Europhobes. However, it is more. It is a place of solidarity. Solidarity is a better way for interacting harmoniously than hatred and alienation. So, in a spirit of solidarity, and to bring up its abysmal economy, London was enabled to get away with much, enriching itself, impoverishing the others.

***

After Ejecting UK PM Cameron,

the City of London should no longer be able to clear euro-denominated trades, the French president said on Tuesday, June 29.

François Hollande said at the end of a summit in Brussels where EU elected leaders started trying to consider the wreckage of David Cameron’s referendum catastrophe, that it would be unacceptable for the trading of Euro derivatives and Euro equities to take place in the UK.

“The City, which thanks to the EU, was able to handle clearing operations for the Eurozone, will not be able to do them.  It can serve as an example for those who seek the end of Europe . . . It can serve as a lesson.”

High time. Amen. Let’s do it. Move London over to Paris and Frankfurt.

Patrice Ayme’

Demonic Empire & Bliss

June 27, 2014

Traditionally, there are those who are for empire, and those who are against it. Also there are those who distinguish good empires (the Athenian empire, the French “mission civilisatrice”; English Commonwealth) from the disgusting ones (say UK’s anti-Boer South Africa), to the very bad ones (plutocrat Leopold II’s Heart of Darkness Congo), or the outright demonic ones (the Kaiser’s holocaustic Namibia).

However, Manicheism goes only that far. I am going to suggest a completely different form of analysis, and approach, to the concept of empire.

An empire has subjects, just as a predator has preys. This is the conventional view. And, yet, it contains its own overcoming. Indeed, just as there is a mathematical entanglement between predator and prey, there is a philosophical entanglement between an empire and its subjects.

Good Empires Rest On Holy Wisdom; Ἁγία Σοφία, Constantinopolis

Good Empires Rest On Holy Wisdom; Ἁγία Σοφία, Constantinopolis

“Imperium” depicted initially the absolute, life-and-death ordering capability from top Roman generals. (Roman “emperors” inherited that capability, as they were always the commanders in chief, at least on paper.)

To this day, an empire is supposed to be all about a few ordering the many (thus, intrinsically “fascist”). Yet, even this Roman military root is endowed with subtlety: imperium does not reduce to fascism.

Why? The semiotics of fascism is, fundamentally, not just about the many being strong by tying up together. It’s about the law, and the law is absolute: Dura Lex, Sed Lex (Law Hard, But Law).  So the many are tied by an absolute.

Roman generals were obeyed absolutely, only when they inspired an aura of absolutism, that only vertiginous respect could confer them.

A professional special force killer was sent to assassinate Marius (seven times Consul, who triumphed in Africa over Jugurtha, and Gaul, Piedmont over invading Germans). He found the elder Marius in a room. Marius, unafraid, addressed the would be-assassin with his stentorian voice: ”Soldier, are you going to kill your general?”. Trembling, excusing himself, the assassin fled, and Marius’ enemies gave up on the notion of killing their all too respected foe.

In other words, imperium worked best when the soldiers loved their generals. After all, soldiers were armed to the teeth, trained to kill, and not to fear death. Generals need to be loved, the law does not. So imperium is an intrinsically milder notion than fascism.

Thus it’s not enough to say there are good empires, and bad ones. More generally, there are good empire-subject entanglements, and bad, unjust ones. It’s not all about just about the empire, it’s also about the subjects, and it’s also about the interactions of the one, with the others. Moreover those entanglements can be asymmetric.

Let me give an example. The Roman empire was the ultimate empire. Arguably, it’s going on, stronger than ever, 27 centuries after its founding (long story). For at least a millennium, the Romans interacted with the Celts, Jews, Egyptians, Greeks and Mesopotamians.

It was the same Roman empire, however, the outcomes were very different, and drastic differences are reflected to this day: the West became Rome, and Mesopotamia is still wrecked by war without end. By far the most complex interaction was with the Celto-Germans. It was pretty much antipodal to what happened with the Jews and the Mesopotamians, and, one can even claim, with the Greeks.

In Mesopotamia, and against the Iranians, Rome and its successor regime (“Constantinople”) struggled in vain for seven centuries. Nothing came out of it, except so much morbidity that, in the end, the Arabs overwhelmed both Persia and most of Rome.

The Jews, or rather, domineering Jewish fanatics, who made no sense whatsoever, in two formidably suicidal wars, rejected Rome. The first of these killed a million Jews, much of the population of Israel, then. It started by the cold blooded killing, inside Jerusalem, of 600 legionnaires of the Roman garrison. The strategic objective was unclear, and soon at least three Jewish factions were fighting each other, to death besides engaging the Romans.

The Romans had a sense of humor, and catapulted thousands of pig heads inside Jerusalem (I presume that they let them rot carefully first). On the less amusing side, the legions devastated forests throughout the region to build gigantic works for the siege of the holy city.

Egypt did not care about Rome one way or another. That mood of pragmatic indifference was contagious: while the titanic struggle of the Judaic War unfolded, just over the horizon, the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Alexandria did not raise the smallest protest.

Greece had been severely mistreated by the plutocratic Roman Senate, by 146 CE: Corinth was destroyed as a warning that republican independence of Greek City-States will not be tolerated. That was mass terrorism, and it marked Greece for centuries to come, as intended. Greek democracy did not recover, until the EU chased out the pro-Washington dictatorship, 21 centuries later.

And then there were the Celts and the Germans.  Those were not united, they relished their complicated world. They had adopted many traits of Greek civilization, even before the Romans showed up. Their metallurgy was second to none, and a major export to Rome. Ultimately, after 16 centuries of tragi-comedy, and all sorts of happenstance, the Celto-Germans became Rome (officially, in 800 CE).

It’s actually a curious thing: after a terrible war when Caesar intervened (Caesar was accused by some in the Senate and some historians, to have caused much of the problem), nothing anti-Roman ever happened again in Gallia. Even when the so called Gallic Empire ruled, later, it was not to reject Rome, but to improve it.

Differently from what had happened in Greece, the Romans did not rule Gaul through terror (although the war with Caesar had killed and enslaved millions, it had been a very complicated, messy affair, nothing like the cold blooded holocaust at Corinth) . Far from it. Even Latin was not imposed. In the Fifth Century the bishop of Lugdunum (= Lyon) preached in Celtic. Latin replaced Celtic completely, well after the legions were gone (that happened in 400 CE, a decision of Rome, taken when, for budgetary reasons, Rome put the Franks in charge of defending the two Germania and Gallia). Phasing out the three Celtic languages happened when the Franks, who came to rule Gaul completely in the early Sixth Century, completely gave up their own Low Countries German for Latin.

The Celto-Germano-Greco-Roman civilization became a symbiosis ruled by the Franks. Why a community of minds there, and not with Israel, or Mesopotamia? It’s obviously an explanation that involves many factors. The Celto-Germans and the Greco-Romans had a very long story, with fair intellectual trade, in both directions: by the time Caesar showed up, that intense trade was at least a millennium old. The Roman army was equipped with Celtic metal works for centuries.

Celts and Romans had important principles in common, like a quasi-religious dislike for kings, and, certainly, hatred of tyranny. This dislike was so strong that Armanius (Hermann) a once-Roman officer who treacherously annihilated Roman general Varus and his three legions (plus supporting troops, and fellow travellers), was later killed by fellow rebels for behaving, it was alleged, like a king.

Yet, as Rome became a fascist dictatorship, the Germans became more sympathetic to fascism, and kingship. Clovis, elected king of the Franks, his father, Roman imperator Childeric I, and his grandfather Merovius. Thus, Western Europe (or, at least, the elements if Western Europe which came to re-establish an empire) was pretty much evolving as one mental unit.

Such bliss of a common spirituality was not shared in the Middle East. The Jewish God symbolized tyranny made divine. Persians and Mesopotamians needed to kneel abjectly to all the plutocrats they could find. Lack of water had led the civilization of the Middle East to dictatorship. The hydraulic dictatorship (Fernand Braudel) implied “Oriental Despotism” (Karl Marx).  Fascism, cruel and demented, the “Right of Sword”.

Darius, who fought from Ethiopia to Ukraine, exhibited a clear case of the “Right of the Sword”. That existing mood was embraced 11 centuries later in the Qur’an. Unbelievably, the Sword is still festering today: arguing for the Right Of The Sword, Arab plutocrats are agitating, in 2014, to have Justinian’s Cathedral, Ἁγία Σοφία, “Holy Wisdom“,now a museum, been converted again to a mosque, so that the depiction of the real world represented therein be covered up again, as reality offends Islam.

This is an example of the persistence of moods and systems of ideas. Cynics will also point out that their genesis, namely the desert, only got worse.

Well, whatever: if we understand the situation, we can probably fix it. No empire, no law. Thus it remains to make the empire good.

Today the European Empire’s 28 heads of state approved Jean-Claude Junkers as head of the European Commission (the EU’s executive branch). The European Parliament is widely expected to elect Junkers next week. The 28 elected chiefs used the occasion to sign on the Free Trade and Association Treaty with Ukraine and Moldavia. Justly unsatisfied by this slap to Putin, they also sent Vlad the Impaler, back in Moscow, an ultimatum. Yes, an ultimatum. Electing the head of the EC is a furthering of democracy in the European empire. But democracy is naught, if it can’t bite.

The 28 EU leaders demanded that separatists return border checkpoints, release hostages and start talks to implement a peace plan drawn up by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko by June 30. Failure to do so will result in “further significant restrictive measures” against Russia.

Vlad The Invader has three days to obey. It may be time for him to remember what happened when his preceding supporter of minorities through annexations, Adolf Hitler, refused to obey. Unbelievably, France persuaded Britain to declare war.

Wisdom without doom is only gloom.

Patrice Aymé