Posts Tagged ‘Charlemagne’

The Franks, Mohammed, Charlemagne, Pirenne & Moi & Moi & Moi

July 16, 2016

As a part and parcel of the devious scheme for admiring the system of thought of hard core Islam, a superstition which buried the Middle East alive, we are supposed to admire the alleged secular achievements of this obscurantist cult. This baffles the mind: since when did a superstition make great secular achievements? It is roughly as clever as celebrating the Catholic Church for its contributions in biology, physics and astronomy (Catholicism roasted astronomers alive, censored physics for three centuries, and forbade the teaching of evolution theory in England until Darwin).

Actually, if anything, the historical record shows that the Islamist religion was even more effective than Catholicism at killing intellectuals. And the reason is obvious: whereas Islam had the Sharia, a superstitious jurisdiction over the gigantic Islamist empire, and then various Caliphates it split into, the Catholic Church had superstitious jurisdiction only in the Papal territories, a small part of Italy that Charlemagne had offered to the Pope (now thankfully reduced to the Vatican). Elsewhere in Western Europe, secular law ruled (“Le Bras Seculier”. The secular arm, as the French used to say). At least, most of the time.  

There is a vast gap between reality, and the widespread propaganda perception that Islam was a superior civilization, in the Middle Ages:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/shocking-arabophilia/

This feeds on another confusion, that of civilization and superstition. Thus, one speaks commonly of “Christian civilization”. When, actually, a close inspection shows that the Occidental civilization owes nearly nothing to Christianism, besides threatening people with a cross.

Picard 578, a much appreciated writer in this vast effort to understand ever more, replied: indeed. BTW, have you read of Henri Pirenne? Yes. Pirenne, a Belgian university professor of history died in 1936. His famous book got published afterwards, and then his “thesis” became famous.

There Is A Lot Of Truth In Pirenne's Thesis. But the Full Truth Is Much More General, Reducing Islam To An Irritating, Enfeebleing Sideshow Which Handicapped Europe, To This Day, But No More Than That. Or So I say.

There Is A Lot Of Truth In Pirenne’s Thesis. But the Full Truth Is Much More General, Reducing Islam To An Irritating, Enfeebling Sideshow Which Handicapped Europe, To This Day, But No More Than That. Or So I say.

I own Pirenne’s book. “Charlemagne and Mahomet”.

And I know (some of) his thesis: Islam created Charlemagne.

Much of Pirenne’s thesis is mostly right, and archaeology confirms it… And it seems to be a very attractive thesis, as long as one realizes the Franks sent spies to Arabia, 150 years before Charlemagne…Actually we know, and I can demonstrate (future essay!) that the breakdown of the Oriental trade happened then. And the reasoning is elementary: when the Arab army annihilated the Roman army, the Arabs were in total war with the Romans, thus the Franks.

Indeed, the Franks were Roman power in the Pars Occidentalis. Formally, practically, de facto, etc. There was no other. At that point economic war was total, and the Franks had to learn to write on animal skin, rather than papyrus (they became pretty good at it). And then forget Chinese silk.  

Thus, Pirenne’s thesis is not the whole story. By a long shot. Actually, Pirenne twists and collapses together many generations. Pirenne has a point: the total war with Islam impoverished enormously the Occident. One would have to wait Richard the Lion Heart and the Treaty he made with Saladin, to reopen the trade routes. By then, advancing European technology had made much of what Islam had to offer not that important.

I am a sort of meta-Pirenne. I explain what happened, the rise of Islam. It was mostly an accident, as Muhammad himself pointed out. An accident Muhammad saw, and made sure it happened some more.

Roman plutocracy and theocratic fascism came first in this civilizational smash-up. That degeneracy caused a mental weakening of the entire Roman state. It started with Constantine steaming his wife, assassinating his glorious son (that son, Caesar Crispus, thought Christianism was going to destroy the empire, so Constantine got him killed… Ok, maybe he slept with the empress, his mother-in-law…). Constantine also killed his nephew, all great feats which make him a Christian orthodox saint…

Roman stupidity became so intense that it brought the disaster of Valens, at Hadrianopolis in 376 CE, when the Oriental Roman field army was annihilated…

But Roman stupidity could only increase ever more, thanks to a combination of political, intellectual and theocratic fascism. All the way to an idiotic, lethal war with Persia (in defense of Roman intellectuals, and their books!)….

That war, won by Rome in the end, not without great upsets, as Persia got to the Mediterranean before Roman counterattacks, exhausted both Persia and Rome. Something which Muhammad pounced on.

This makes all the easier to hate Islam as a system of thought. Indeed, what the preceding shows is that a very similar system of thought, Christo-fascism, actually the system of thought which contributed most to Islam, caused, and was the proximal cause, of the collapse of the Roman State.

In the end, only the Frankish piece survived, barely so, during the ferocious counter-attacks by the Franks against the Islamists, inside France (first in the period 715 CE to 748 CE).

Pirenne talks about Charlemagne a lot. However, Charlemagne was the crown jewel. He did not invent the big stuff he was the crown jewel of His father and grandfather were more innovative civilizationally.

And, even before that, the Merovingians conquered most of Germany. But the Merovingians did much more. They were very innovative civilizationally: after all, they domesticated the Church, forcing it to teach… secularly. Then the Merovingians outlawed slavery. The latter was done, 12 (twelve) centuries before president Lincoln did the same in the USA…

Patrice Ayme’

 

“My Name Is Death To Traitors, Freedom For Britain”

June 19, 2016

Abstract: FRANXIT, the deliberate, willful and amicable division of the Frankish Roman Empire in the Tenth Century did not turn out as expected. Franxit brought ten centuries of war for Europe. Division and war, is, of course, what local potentates and global plutocrats want. Plutocrats want hell to rule, and their game is war: after FRANXIT, European “nobles” spent 10 centuries waging war with, when not marrying, each other. War enables to kill low lives at will, it’s most delicious to the nobility. Brexit, which will not happen, even if voted upon, is more of the same: a process of amicable division heading to war. The horror visited on Jo Cox is no accident, it’s part of a system. A system of moods. The moods of tribalism boosted by a huge society our instincts (for want of a better word) are not made for.

***

The nationalist fervor in Britain has reached, in all too many quarters, Nazi levels of hysteria. The assassin of British MP Jo Cox, mother of two young children, appeared in Court, and was asked to confirm his name. Thomas Mair said:My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.  Twice. Otherwise that despicable murderer stayed silent. (Reminder: Mair assaulted the 41-year-old mother of two, beat her, dragged her by the hair, stabbed her six times, and shot her three times. Obviously a case of extreme hatred, with Islamist intensity. Mair may not share all the ideas of the worst Islamists, but he shares their mood, that killing those who destroy their stupid beliefs is the highest calling. Moods are contagious. Mair hates Islamists, but unbeknownst to him Islamists and Nazis have much in common: this is what Hitler rightly thought.)  

Technically, Factually, Literally, Linguistically, Religiously, Constitutionally, Civilizationally, Nominally, The Frankish Empire Was "Rome". Much Of Rome Had Been Invaded By The Islamists, But Occidental Rome (the Franks) and Oriental Rome (Constantinople) Blocked Further Islamist Invasion, In 13 Centuries Of War For The Former.

Technically, Factually, Literally, Linguistically, Religiously, Constitutionally, Civilizationally, Nominally, The Frankish Empire Was “Rome”. Much Of Rome Had Been Invaded By The Islamists, But Occidental Rome (the Franks) and Oriental Rome (Constantinople) Blocked Further Islamist Invasion, In 13 Centuries Of War For The Former.

How did hyper-nationalism rise in Europe? It’s a long story. The long story of a disease. The long story of a recurring disease. Hyper-nationalism and divisions were pre-existing conditions. Rome wiped them out, replacing them by a universal, (relatively) tolerant state and civilization.

When the Roman legions led by Julius Caesar invaded “Long Haired Gaul” (“Gallia Comida”), Long Haired Gaul was highly divided, and overall ruled by a theocratic plutocracy. Galli Comida consisted in sixty nations, with sixty central banks, all the way to the tip of Armorica, which spoke three language, under a religion friendly to potentates, illiteracy for the masses, and human sacrifices (in other words, quite a bit like Wahhabism). Curiously, in some technologies, such as metallurgy, Gallia Comida was more advanced than all other  civilizations.

The Romans put an end to that non-sense, unifying what would become Francia under one government, one language, and one currency. Gallia kept her strengths, lost her weaknesses. Thereafter, Gallia would be the successor state of “Rome”. Mutual tolerance made the Germans known as the Franks an ideal match. The Franks would extend Francia to all of a unified Germania, thanks to a war which took three centuries (500 CE, Clovis, to 800 CE, Charlemagne).  

Since the ultra divided, bellicose Gallia Comida, the history of governance in Europe went through four phases, and knew four regimes.

First a Roman epoch, which lasted four to five centuries. Secondly the Empire of the Franks (Imperium Francorum) rose, and came to cover all of Western Europe. The third phase started in the Middle Ages, and can be precisely traced to nationalist decisions taken by Paris, in the Tenth Century, which promoted local governance at the cost of global governance. The fourth phase is the pacific unification of Europe, reconstituting one state under Republican, Democratic form. It is this pacific construction which many Brexiters are ready to kill to prevent ever closer union.

The Franks themselves called where they live “Europe” in the Eighth Century. By 800 CE, Charlemagne proclaimed the “Renovation of the Roman Empire” (Renovation Imperium Francorum). Here is another view of the situation. Notice that the modern terminology used is a misleading lie: the yellow and pink empires below called themselves “Rome”, and cooperated economically, politically, militarily, linguistically, making a union for more than eight centuries (both using Latin):

The "Frankish" Empire Called Itself "RENOVATED ROME" And The "Byzantines" Called Themselves "ROMAN"

The “Frankish” Empire Called Itself “RENOVATED ROME” And The “Byzantines” Called Themselves “ROMAN”

Mislabeling history is the first step towards turning it into a pack of lies.

Common wisdom often declares that “Charlemagne’s empire failed”. Common Wisdom does not even know why it says it, it is one of these stupid things people say to look smart. Stupidity economizes thinking, that makes it popular.

Emperor Charlemagne did not fail. He was one of the most successful leader that the world ever knew. Indeed, all the invasions were successfully repelled, or integrated (even in Spain with the Emirs). Charlemagne was succeeded quietly by his son, the empire stayed in one piece. Later, though, the problem of succession rose again. The Roman empire, whether led by the Romans or the Franks, did not have a succession mechanism. (Mostly because the regime was not constitutional in Rome, and because, in the case of the Franks, kings were elected… for eight (West Francia) to fourteen (Center and East Francia) centuries.

So, when the Franks “renovated” the Roman empire, they kept the election mechanism of the Frankish army, yet mixed with, and influenced by, the Salic law (equal succession of material goods, hence properties). As often the richest or their consorts ended up as leaders, and there were many of these, thanks to equal inheritance, there were often many elected kings fighting each other, often siblings. Thus, it was a mess: the Imperium Francorum, although unified as a civilization, was continually morphing into various subdivisions, dividing again, or unifying after a battle or two. That was a serious problem, but it became much worse with… Franxit.

One of the reasons to view the nearly three centuries long Carolingian European empire, centered around the reign of Charlemagne, as a failure is that, in the period 650 CE- 900 CE, the population of Europe collapsed. The population of France nearly halved, down to five millions. The historian Pirenne suggested that the disappearance of half of the Roman empire, gobbled by the Islamists, had everything to do with it: that’s called Pirenne’s thesis.

I generalize part of Pirenne’s thesis, and disagree with the rest (Pirenne thinks the rise of Islam cut off Occidental Rome, which is true, and thus enabled it to become original, while I think it just increased its originality). The obvious cause of the demographic catastrophe was a number of simultaneous invasions (Muslims, Avars, Vikings, etc.). The first Viking raids and counterstrikes by the Franks happened during the last years of Charlemagne’s long reign. Charlemagne had spent his entire reign waging war, subduing Saxons, Muslims, Avars, etc… And suddenly, there came the Vikings, straight out of not yet conquered Scandinavia! The Renovated Roman empire was highly successful in… surviving. In comparison, submitted to less, the Roman and Chinese states failed (more than once).

The division of the empire at the Treaty of Verdun in 843 CE did not have to be definitive. It became so, a century later when the Western Franks refused to take part in the election of the Roman emperor in any sense, leaving two-thirds of the empire to its own instruments. This was similar to Brexit. But it happened nearly 11 centuries ago. It was FRANcia eXIT, which I call, FRANXIT. It froze the map below into 10 centuries of war.

Western Francia Proclaimed Her King "EMPEROR IN HIS OWN KINGDOM" Exiting The Rest Of The "Renovated Roman Empire". The Situation Got More Complicated When Western Francia Conquered England, Then Britain

Western Francia Proclaimed Her King “EMPEROR IN HIS OWN KINGDOM” Exiting The Rest Of The “Renovated Roman Empire”. The Situation Got More Complicated When Western Francia Conquered England, Then Britain

To make succession clear, in the middle Middle Ages, the Western Franks went to hereditary kinship, guaranteed  and implemented by a Council of the Kingdom.

The king could nominate an heir, as happened for Henry V, Francis I, or Henri IV. A dreadful violation of the proper Salic Inheritance Law brought the 500 years war between France and England, and another violation of proper succession was caused by Joan of Arc and those who pulled her strings).

The rest of the Roman-German empire stuck to election, now reserved to a dozen of “Grand Electors“. After a while, only Habsburgs were selected, and the Swiss (among others) revolted against them. (Napoleon formally put an end to the Roman empire by then “Germanic” and “Holy”.)

After a large Republic was (re)established on September 22, 1789, the French Republic, Europe started to go back to the old Greek Republican model: selecting the executive by holding an election, and using further election for succession. Germany opted for that system in recent decades, Britain uses a primitive, incomplete version thereof (“First by the post” crowned by a monarchy).   

However, a French aristocrat from Corsica, declared himself emperor. Napoleon had been imprinted on the grand old tradition of Roman generals grabbing power for themselves in the degenerated, devolving empire Augustus founded.

Calling the self-obsessed Napoleon a unifier of Europe is curious: how could he unify Europe by gifting it to his own family? How unifying was that? Agreed, lots of people say this. But it does not make it right. The Revolution failed around 1800s, mostly because of this Mr. Napoleon. The next best chance surfaced in 1945 in San Francisco, when the Charter of the United Nations was modelled after the French 1789 Declaration of the Rights Of Man. (The United Nations themselves had appeared as a concept in 1942, when the Chinese, Great Britain and the free French found themselves two new allies, namely the USSR and the USA; hence the five permanent members of the UN!)

Philosopher Bertrand Russel, one of the highest Lords in Britain, loudly insisted that the Kaiser should not be fought, as he was in the process of unifying Europe, with his surprise attack on France, Russia, Belgium and Luxembourg of August 2, 1914. For this feat of delirious imagination, Russell was put in prison for the duration. Hitler was no unifier, either, although some, even delusional Jews, have presented him as such. Instead, Hitler was a certified destroyer. He did not just destroy the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and Slavs. He destroyed as much European diversity as he could put his claws on. Although he finished, unsurprisingly, yet ironically enough, protected by French-speaking SS, mostly from Belgium, while residing like the large rat he was, below his demolished chancellery… History made fun of him, in the end, as it had of Napoleon.

The mood of unification of France and Germany is as old as the Franks. Smart unification and vigilant tolerance were actually the engines which propelled the Franks. That’s why the Franks succeeded to unify everybody… including Pagans, Jews, Catholics, and all sorts of tribes (that was done by 600 CE, when everybody in the empire became “a Frank”). 

The Franks were a confederation from “Germania Inferior” who wanted to civilize themselves through unification and romanization. In a way, the Frankish Confederation was a micro European Union all by itself, and thus willing to unify further. The Franks, after taking control of Roman northwest Europe, discarded Augustus’ idiotic advice, to leave Germania alone. Instead, the Franks went all out to conquer Germany (something they had mostly done by 600 CE). Charlemagne and his immediate predecessors completed the work by 800 CE. However in the Tenth Century, the Western Franks, as the typically arrogant Parisians they were, decided to discard the rest of Francia. The result would turn after a few generations into 1,000 years of wars.

After the First World War, this, that division brought war, was understood by much of the elite, and a first attempt of French-German unification was tried. However, that attempted unification was broken by the Anglo-Saxon plutocrats and their Nazi pets (please forget my neat and striking rewriting of history as it really happened).

During their occupation of France, which started to end in 1943 when French troops reconquered Corsica, the Nazis themselves observed the futility of fighting the French. It was if they were fighting a better version of themselves, of what they wanted to be. A tiny French army had inflicted a severe strategic defeat to Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the entire Italian army, in May-June 1942. That saved (the future) Israel, from annihilation, and condemned the Nazis to drive desperately to Stalingrad (as they could not drive anymore to Iraqi oil).

In the end, the Nazis themselves, defeated by the French again, 27 years after the first , had admitted that fighting with France was self-destroying. After the war, the German Bundesrepublik copied the French Republic, and that was that. Ever since, the two have gotten closer.

In the last three decades, though, stubborn sabotage by the British of the European Monetary Union, has led to a debilitating stasis. The Brits, operating on plutocratic order, partly of American origin (Boris Johnson is American born), blocked the construction of the structures the Euro currency needed.

The solution is obvious: kick Britain out of the European Monetary Union. If Britain votes to “Brexit”, it will be a perfect opportunity to do so in the unavoidable renegotiation that will follow. Hence “Brexit” may well lead to further Franco-German union…. Which is all which matters.

The preceding historical information is not known in detail by those who lead us. It is not known that the European empire was broken deliberately by the exit of Western Francia. Hopefully, though, enough is known for leaving enough of the mood that division, for division’s sake, even if started peacefully, leads to war.

A simple example. Europe needs a European FBI to fight sovereign, global crime in Europe (including Jihadism), Europe needs an Attorney General. However all European governments, including those which claim to be pro-European, are against that. Because potentates want to keep as much power to themselves. Meanwhile Jihadists, Putinist plutocrats, hedge fund managers, hyper-wealthy tax evaders, and tax evading corporations do not just thrive, but rule. This is how the rule of the aristocrats who devoured Europe started: very rich people who were able to divide We The People with red herrings and fighting each other.  

Cameron just said that voting to exit the European Union would be like jumping out of a plane, there would be no coming back. Sure. Real Brexit would destroy the world. But, in reality, full Brexit is impossible, and there would be much more voting and (hopefully constructive) confusion. Instead it would allow Franco-Germania to run out of excuses for not forging ahead with a much closer union.

The Franco-German David Cohn-Bendit a convinced European and leftist, thinks nearly as much, observing that Britain has sabotaged Europe. Just as yours truly, he is ambivalent about the Brexit vote: kicking Britain out of the EU could give a needed kick into the EU anthill, and replace it by something more sophisticated, and more democratic. This does not mean that all too many Brexiters are driven by intolerable, infuriating hatred, and the pain of what is affecting them, which they did not succeed to understand.

Understanding is what one should strive towards, not the bellicose divisive distractions war brings. And much understanding starts with knowing the deep history of Europe. The Europeans are lucky enough to have the world’s best documented and most instructive history. Let them read it, and extract the substantial marrow: hysterical division for no good reason massively kills people and progress.

Patrice Ayme’