Posts Tagged ‘Colonialism’

Colonization and All That: All Over, And Not the Worst!

August 25, 2018

The first indication that people are evil-minded is when they too readily, and too frantically, diabolize others… And diabolizing colonists falls in that category. Fall, as we will see, particularly deeply.

The human species is a colonizing species. Colonization has many potential dimensions. For example, it can be ideological: Indonesia was colonized that way from India (Buddhism), later from Arabia (Islam), and then from the Dutch. (Arguably since, by the CIA and its ilk.)

Yet, French president Macron, anxious to please North African dictatorships, recently called “colonization” a crime against humanity… a real barbarity“. Problem: over last 3,000 years most of Earth got mostly occupied by colonizers: all the Americas, Oceania, most of Africa, nearly of Europe, Japan, Indonesia, arguably most of China, etc.

Afghanistan was colonized by Achaemenid Persians, Greeks, Buddhists, Hindus, Mongols, Islamists, Moghols, Persians again, etc. Can we say Brits, Soviets and US/UN colonized Afghanistan? Not really the correct semantics! A return to correct human ethology is no colonization!

***

Politics Is Practical Philosophy, Yet, Philosophy:

Long ago, the tyrant of Syracuse got the top literary prize in Athens. It is traditional for philosophers to despise politics. Yet, most worthy philosophers were deeply entangled with politics, when not with politicians themselves: I know of no exceptions. But I want to generalize that: I would claim that, shockingly enough, most worthy politicians were philosophers. Whether they claimed to be so or not, is besides the point. Most influential politicians implemented new philosophies, not to say religions (Muhammad). Sometimes the new philosophy was implemented most spectacularly: think of Czar Peter the Great not just torturing to death “Old Believers”, and forcefully modernizing Russia into the West European model… under the penalty of death.

Some have objected there is no philosophy in, say, Julius Caesar’s writings. Well, there was enough for him to be the leader of the “Populares”. Caesar, a “populist“! And so on. Out of the top 30 leaders of Rome, all of them led philosophically. Even when Agrippina, the mother of Nero, imposed herself as Rome’s leader, to a macho Senate, she was doing a philosophical work, and opening the way to Augusta Galla Placidia, and several Frankish queens, the most important of who would outlaw slavery in 658 CE.

Eliminating slavery was also an eminent philosophical work. Interestingly, Saint Bathilde’s order was not preceded by the establishment of an entire anti-slavery philosophy by some eminent philosopher. Christianism pretty much ignored slavery as a problem, and the then just established Islam, took it for granted. The first eminent philosopher to condemn slavery was Bathilde herself… Yes, Bathilde, herself the top politician, the top ruler of her time in Europe, the Merovingian queen and ex-slave herself!

All the Americas Are Colonial. So Is Europe, Invaded by the Celto-Germans (among others). So is China, which has been pretty much colonized by the Han…

Although the West of China was colonized by Indo-Europeans who brought a lot of technology, (and killed the men, keeping the women for breeding, as modern genetics reveal).

***

All Politicians, Including Macron, Trump, Are Philosophers, Whether They Know It, or Not:

It’s not just Voltaire, Adam Smith, Rousseau, De Sade, Goethe, Herder, Hegel, Ricardo, Marx, Proudhon, Nietzsche who can be viewed as having forged much of today’s contemporary debate. When Earl Grey delivered a let’s-declare-war-to-Germany discourse in Parliament, August 2, 1914, a certain idea of what civilization was and entailed was loudly defended. Philosopher Bertrand Russell disagreed so deeply he was thrown in prison for his pro-Kaiser, pro-German plutocracy stance. Earl Grey was philosophically right, Russell was wrong.

And of course, Kant, Hitler were “philosophers”, in the sense that hundreds of millions Europeans thought they would “guide” them towards better worlds. Thanks to idiotic, self-contradictory, most inferior, extremely lethal ideologies. But philosophy is relative, like time itself.

Indeed, both wisdom (sophia) and love (philo) are relative. The wisdom of a slug is not that of a sea otter (their time perceptions are not the same, to start with). Hitler’s idea of wisdom was mostly demented (it could only hurt what he claimed to defend), and his idea of love was akin to the self-love of a suicidal maniac (Hitler engaged in a war he was sure to lose, in spite of a miraculous victory in a battle against France… a victory which made it all the more certain that he would lose the war).

China is a linguistic patchwork which reveals a tormented colonial past. The imperialism of Mandarin is quickly burying all this.

Much of Africa was colonized, by Peuls, Arabs, Bantus. All of North Africa was invaded by the Arabs, and the Arabic language was imposed to the Latin, Berber and Coptic speaking populations. When the French invaded Algeria in 1830s (in part to fight piracy and Ottomans alike), they used as an argument that they, as heirs of Rome, were coming back, with a modern version of Latin, the old language of civilization there… It’s a fact that Arabic was imposed on non-genetically Arabic population: a successful colonization, linguistically, religiously, and socially…   

African colonization by Europeans in the late Nineteenth Century was driven by the subtle argument that, to stop slavery in Africa, Europe had to take control. That may sound outrageous, but it is a fact that European powers were successful in stopping slavery in Africa (with some exceptions, like Mauretania). Also the argument is so good, it has been reused by the European Union and the United Nations themselves since: the idea was that some parts of Africa needed to be put under tutelage. A few decades ago, it meant the full power of UN embargoes was used to destroy racist regime (in Rhodesia, South Africa). More recently aid to say the Republic of Congo was given, but only protected by accounting from UN, and, or EU. The chief of Sudan was accused of crimes against Humanity by the International Court of Justice (a UN agency based in La Hague). The lightning military interventions of France in CAR, Ivory Coast, and Mali were all approved by the UN.

My own dad, a senior geologist, was employed by the UN in Cameroon, and Kenya to check that UN financed geological prospecting was done correctly.

Much of this doesn’t have to do with “colonization”, but with correct administration, and what has long been called the “mission civilisatrice”… which Caesar himself indulged in Gaul, when, among other things, he forcefully replaced the Helvetii where they came from (Helvetia).

***

Horrendous Colonizations:

There are plenty of abominable “colonizations”. Except they are not really “colonizations”. Some are outright exterminations which the Mongols instrumentalized, to encourage awe and obedience, all over. Real colonizations should involve colonists, Roman style (the Romans gave both the word and the semantics). For example, the exploitation of Congo by king Leopold of Belgium hardly deserves the label of “colonization”. The invasion of Mesoamerica by the Spaniards was a colonization, and it incorporated abominable ways, and outright aggressions the aim of which was to destroy civilizational diversity.

An example is the colonization of the Tarascan state (west, and enemy of the Aztecs). This was gratuitous, and highly controversial in Spain. The main Spanish perpetrator lived a long life, and always refused to recognize his crime, which was deliberate (conquistador in chief Cortez had agreed with a modus vivendi with Tarascan). Basically he held that Christian/Spanish civilization couldn’t allow a competing model to survive.

Roman colonizations involved instead retired legionaries invited to exploit agriculturally some land distributed by the Roman state (such land was aplenty after war). That was somewhat more civilizing and pacific. There were bloody revolts against Roman colonists, but rarely (the most famous being that led by Boudicca in Britain).

***

Semantics Can Make No Prisoners:

The foremost reason to write against the wholesale condemnation of “colonialism” is that it’s deeply unintelligent, as it makes no distinction, and choses the easy way out of condemning all of humanity (as Buddha initially did, before he realized the gross errors of his early fanaticism). Condemning “colonialism” is also deeply hypocritical: it implicitly pretends that those who do the condemning aren’t at all like those they condemn. But of course they are: tribal chief at 39 years of age of armed forces capable of killing 50 million people in half an hour, Macron exists, but shouldn’t… While they pretend to be better than what they condemn, “colonialism”, Macron and his ilk are actually worse than anything humanity conceived before.

Right, it’s not exactly the fault of the top politicians: somebody needs to tell them, that their Politically Correct spewing is now viewed for what it is: not very smart. Somebody they will hear. More sophisticated ideologies need to spread (but they won’t come from official philosophers, salaried where they are, because they support the establishment). It’s not enough to go cackle around against “colonialism”.  It’s actually counter-indicated…

There is as much colonialism as they are colonialism, and colonies. An example is that the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, English and Russian colonies in the Americas differed deeply, in the philosophies which guided them. It is a fact that the English colonialism was the most exterminationist.

Patrice Ayme

 

Need For Civilizing Planet Stronger Than Ever, As African Population Explodes, Planet Fries

November 28, 2017

Colonialism, as practiced by the Europeans powers, was sometimes, and all too often, atrocious, and, or, grotesquely exploitative. Famously the worst case was Belgian Congo; now the Republic of Congo, managed as personal property of a plutocrat, the king of Belgium. There were “incontestable crimes” in many other places. In Algeria (where half of my family is from) the part of the population which was both Native and Muslim, didn’t have access to the same educational level as those of Jewish or French descent. That was clearly a violation of basic human rights, and a stupidity (although it started from a concession to leave Muslims alone!) In India, the English applied a vicious and deadly salt tax, while importing food from a subcontinent which was partially starving. And so on.

President Macron of France, camped in front of the Faso, French and European flags, just said that he belonged to a generation which had not known “colonial” Africa (whatever “colonial” meant; it varied considerably: French colonial America was in most ways the opposite of English colonial America, for example). Macron spoke bold, new and direct (and for three hours, nearly half of it answering questions!) The French language has become more African than French, he correctly observed. Macron added that “Africa was engraved in the memory, culture and identity of France” (as a child brought up in Africa I am pleasantly surprised that this is said at last: long time coming; the reciprocal is also true, hence the massive attempted illegal emigration from Africa to France; I will argue here that it should neither be necessary, nor illegal… The way it used to be under the so-called “colonial” regime).

Macron’s visit was rather courageous: a grenade was launched against a French military vehicle shortly before his arrival, wounding bystanders, among other unpleasantness. Macon said there was “no more African policy of France”, but just a desire to look at a “continent of 54 countries… where the past and traumatisms vary”. The “past must passed”. Macron insisted that “his generation” was not giving lessons, or telling what Africa should do but, instead simply encouraged those who want “liberty and emancipation” (the usual neoliberal lecture). Macron correctly identified Africa as the place where all challenges of the world collide. A tipping point of climate and economy.

What does Macron proposes to Africans trying desperately to get to Europe? To return them where they come from. That won’t do. Macron brandishes globalization (“mondialisation”) as this great church, forum, market and future we have together. But, as it is, globalization can’t work, since it is globally lawless. Yes, being ruled by globalization is being ruled by a state of lawlessness. No great civilization ever survived, let alone, rose, through lawlessness. Quite the opposite. As we will see below, such is the lesson of all the civilizations forebears to the present one (in other words, such is the lesson given by the most successful civilizations).

However decried, “colonization” knew also many successes, as revealed in comparison with what is going on today, in all too many countries. Surely the Cambodian holocaust, when 25% of the population was murdered by its crazed leadership, would not have happened if France has remained the overlord of Cambodia (similarly for Rwanda, if Belgium had stayed in power). Empire and military force have their merits: the Cambodian genocide ended when the Republic of Vietnam’s experienced military invaded, and re-established civilization throughout Cambodia, by executing or arresting the savages (known for their human liver soup).

When Mauritanie was controlled by the French, even after independence, the respect of law didn’t differ significantly from that of the French Republic (I knew the desert as a child there; the giant land was perfectly peaceful and safe, even far out in the wildest wastes). However in 1985, Islam was declared state religion and sharia, the grotesque set of rules from Qur’an and Hadith, was declared law of the land of the Islamist “Republic” of Mauritania. Conclusion? 5% to 20% of the population is enslaved, and sharia is used to terrorize critics into submission.

Ideally, some imperial masters would come, and tell the Mauritanian leadership that they have to enforce UN law, effective promptly, or they would be dismissed. But then the next problem would be that the economy of Mauretania would be destroyed: slaves would have to be employed, ex-masters would have to learn to work. More money would also have to get through the country, namely it would have to be integrated to the world economy.

Baobab forest, Senegal. It used to be that the understory below Baobabs was thick, green, rich with life. Now, no more: the increased drought and heat from the greenhouse is desiccating the land.

Once Republican law is added to a vast economy, one has an empire. We have a vast world economy, we need a vast world empire; it even exists, to a great extent, and is called the United Nations. It’s just an insufficient extent. These ruminations were fostered by a comment from Eugen R [after some English corrections and enumerated remarks from PA]. Here is Eugen R’s comment:

“I just spent few weeks in Eastern Africa, touring villages, as well as the bush. The villagers live according to their ancient customs selling girls at their fourteenth birthday even if educated in schools managed by missionaries, for 6-10 cows, to give birth to children. [[1]] They live out of nature, or what it produces, while destroying it [[2]].

The village headmasters have dictatorial authority. For example they decide who will get land to build houses in the village and who do not. The alternative is to leave for the cities, directly to the slums, where the unemployment is close to 100%. [[3]]

The only positive development is, that the villagers understand how important for them is conservation of wildlife, that brings tourists, who are the only source of cash money for them, even if most of the income from tourists is collected by the white or Indian lounge owners. [[4]]

In 1970’s when Mugabe took over the power, Zimbabwe’s population was about 6 million, now it is close to 17. [[5]] The economy grew zero so the problems grew three times. This is an example of decolonisation in one African country. But the others, with less violent governments, are not doing much better. This is what I call the cultural trap [[6]]. On one hand it is romantic, fashionable and valuable to try to preserve the unique cultures, on the other hand it is not sustainable, and Europe will pay for the necessary expected collapse, either by mass immigration or by extreme nationalistic regimes. I don’t know what is worse.”

***

An enlightening comment. Here are my remarks:

[[1]] Selling and buying girls should be strictly outlawed, and terminated by imposing extremely severe penalties (many years of prison for the buyers, and even for the sellers, while their families would get some government support while they are meditating in incarceration). Among other benefits, it would be to diminish the birthrate. (Otherwise, the population will be diminished, holocaust style, as happened in Rwanda when it was Africa’s most densely populated country). 

[[2]] Where there is access to the sea, factory fleets from distant countries (say Korea) have ravaged the African fisheries. That should be repressed and the perpetrators should do prison and hard labor for a very long time, and their boats should be confiscated. In other places, dams have ruined the environment by preventing seasonal flooding on dozens of thousands of square kilometers or more. Senegal is an unfortunate example for both. Although Senegal gets some help from French military aviation to detect illegal high sea fishing, the repression should be considerably augmented. (There is evidence that Korean factory fleets were allowed to hug the Senegalese coastline while, and because the son of pseudo-socialist president was busy becoming a billionaire; lack of international law, order and discovery has prevented Senegalese justice to recover all the stolen money.)

In many places in Africa, natives are not aware that cutting trees dessicate the land. Something that girls who study much longer should be made aware of.

[[3]] Ideally, an imperial organization, under UN supervision, would be re-installed: once Africans get to cities, work would be provided to them by European companies (and also American firms, secondarily, especially in the Anglosphere). Thus, instead of doing nothing, and being incarcerated in their own cities, Africans would get to partake in the construction of the world. That would cut mass illegal desperate immigration to basically zero.

As the Europeans and Africans would mix more freely on African territory, more natural relations, less master to slave would develop. Because of the presence of an “imperial” administration (itself under close democratic watch), corruption would collapse, and European investors, now protected by strong laws which would be extensions of European laws, would invest massively (as they used to… in the colonial era).    

[[4]]. I detest “trickle down economy”… except when the alternative is no economy at all. As is all too much the case, in all too much of Africa. No economy at all means, actually, obscurantism, war, holocaust, even cannibalism. As observed.

[[5]] The Maoists were perfectly conscious of the problem of overpopulation. So they instituted the one child policy (with exception for minorities, such as Tibetans). Thus China has now *only* 1.38 billion people (with a slowly increasing population. India’s population is increasing at a fast linear clip and will soon pass China (give or take nuclear war). if Mao and his able underlings and successors had not instituted the one child policy, China would have four billion people, and would be desperately poor, deprived, invaded, at war, and lawless, as much of Africa is. Instead, the People Republic of China is becoming one of the planet’s guiding lights, on a trajectory to become quickly the world’s richest country, and already one of the smartest.

Overpopulation is a disaster for Africa, but it’s not PC to say this. It’s even less PC to observe that overpopulation is an invitation to destruction, war and abomination.

Many African countries  Kenya’s population was 8 million in 1960, now it’s 48 million (600% augmentation). Niger went from 3 million to 21 million, more than 71% of the population can’t read. However, women have more than seven children in Niger, and parents there want always more. The planet can’t take it, and Niger should be forced to cut its population explosion. Niger population is expected to be 42 million within 17 years: should they all come to France? Except for the south and a big river, most of the country is Sahara desert).

Africa is not alone. This is one world, one planet. Africa’s problems are our problems, even if we live in Kamchatka, or Bolivia. Work is a human right. Having hundreds of millions of Africans without work is a violation of human rights worse than some forms of slavery (history show many types of slavery; slavery in Babylon, 4,000 years ago, was not slavery in the USA, in 1850, or traditional slavery in Mauritania in 2017).

New technology has brought new crimes, thus necessitates new laws, indeed!

The attempted illegal massive African immigration into Europe is the symptom of massive human rights violation, which forces the refugees to take life threatening risks, so desperate they are. Europe cannot say it didn’t create the problem. It did, as much as it did create colonialism. Under colonialism, this problem didn’t exist (subsaharan Africans have been coming to Europe for millennia, records and archeology show).  Solution? Send, work, investment to Africa, but that can happen only if imperium, imperium of the LAW is extended there. It’s not a question of giving Africans lessons.

The state of Qin became supreme in China within a few generations of having adopted as official policy “LEGALISM” (also called “rationalism”). This was no coincidence: the rise of the most famous states of civilization are a direct consequence to their being “STATES OF LAW”: Egypt, Sumer Cities, Babylon, Sparta, Athens, the Roman Republic, Qin, and the Frankish Empire>>Europe>>”Renovated Roman Empire”>>European Middle Ages>>USA + United Nations + European Union, are examples of the power of legalism.

Indeed the Republic of China is, philosophically speaking, a direct descendant from the “LEGALIST” state of Qin. Qin in official pan-Chinese imperial form, led by Shi Huangdi, lasted only a decade. However Qin was already supreme before the birth of Shi Huangdi. Moreover, Qin was succeeded by the Han dynasty, which adopted the “legalist” system of Qin. “Legalist” may sound like an obscure concept, but it was highly practical. Legalism was opposed to the systems of fiefs, land grants given to mighty plutocrats, which had festered before under the Zhou dynasty (for 8 centuries!), and which brought the notorious Warring States period (to which the Qin empire put an end, through direct conquest).

Instead of land granting to mighty plutocrats, Qin guo used state officials to administer regions… This is the exact same system which was adopted by the Carolingian Franks to “renovate the Roman Empire”… 11 centuries after Qin. Charlemagne covered the Renovated Roman empire with 300 “counties” headed by nominated officials (those would degenerate two centuries into fiefs, launching the messy plutocracy known as the feudal system)

We now need to renovate the world, and it includes Africa, under the command (imperium) of law. Yes, an empire of law, not just a globalization of feudalism. That, of course is not just something that France alone can impose. When France, helped by her vast empire, opposed Nazism in the 1930s, alone, she ended invaded in May-June 1940 (while US plutocrats, who had fueled, fed and helped Hitler in all ways, laughed).

A sense of history, and civilization, is not enough. One has to have the means.

And this brings me to the “cultural trap” Eugen R spoke of above. [[6]] Cultures are nice, but there is only one law. The one and only law compatible with human nature. In particular the “obscurantism” Macron talked about is incompatible with human nature. Enlightenment is not a modern thing: it is the nature of humanity.

However, when Macron claims that “religious extremism” is not religion, he understood nothing to superstitious religions. (Not to say he didn’t have to say that to the primitives!) Admiring local cultures should never extend to admire local superstitions (including various Christianisms and Islamisms).

It is rare that I approve of a president’s discourse (I approved of roughly none of my friend’s Obama’s discourse, and especially not his ridiculous discourse on Islam in Cairo). It actually never happened. I have also called Macon a Trojan Rothschild Horse, or the like. However, Macron’s discourse in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, was very courageous, and nearly perfect. Africa found a president.

Now it remains for France to find the means, and that means financement, and that, in turns, means submitting plutocrats to the imperium of law, and pay taxes, instead of evading them, thanks to small criminal states such as Malta, Luxembourg, ireland, etc. Yes, when Ireland refuses to let Apple pay tax, it is criminal, and yes, it’s killing Africa.

When Ireland supported Hitler (under the guise of “neutrality”, like Switzerland) during World War Two, it was already catastrophic: the small neutral states were crucial in the defeat of France in May-June 1940 (hence Auschwitz). Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, all of them “neutral” in 1939, and early in 1940, all made the (momentary, but very bloody) defeat of civilization possible.  

We have the same situation now: the plutocratic order is the real world government we have now. To switch to a “legalist” system as Rome (26 centuries ago) and Qin (around 350 BCE) did, is what the planet needs. Now.

Immigration to rich countries is a form of colonialism: nothing wrong with it, as long as it enriches all, overall. However, it shouldn’t turn, as it has, into an exploitation of misery. To reduce the misery, investments have to go the other way. But not just financial investments (as Macron sing-songs). Ideological, legal investments too. The trade of ideas is the most important trade. 

Yes, Macron, we are orphan of a common imaginary. Not that some of this imaginary was always correct: some African students accused Macron and France to incite the catastrophic, illegal immigration across the Mediterranean. Macron retorted that :”Who are the traffickers [of human beings]. But they are Africans, my friend! They are Africans! Ask yourself also that question! It’s not French people who are doing human trafficking in Libya! It’s Africans! We must all seize our responsibilities! We have started to dismantle the networks. But stop this discourse which consists in saying:’the problem it’s the other!’ You are incredible!”

Here Macron, correctly came close to one of the great lies of the Politically Correct: the slavery of Africans is organized by Africans. What Macron didn’t say explicitly, but may have meant implicitly, is that African slavery was organized by Africans, even way back when (contrarily to the lies of the PC). I have argued that slavery out of Africa actually saved African lives (the evidence is overwhelming; however it’s also overwhelmingly suppressed, because it’s so un-PC; an Indian friend begged on her knees that I removed that essay, claiming it would destroy my reputation… Instead i put the title in capital letters, emphasizing importance!) It’s pretty clear that millions of Africans who try to emigrate to Europe right now believe that emigration may well save their lives, or may make them worth living.

In a sense, colonization of Africa didn’t really, durably happen: with the exception of South Africa, where a few million descendants of Europeans cling, where are the Europeans? Colonization of America (or Australia) did happen: Europeans are all over, the Natives were mostly wiped out, notwithstanding parodies such as the tall blonde ex-Harvard professor, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who claimed to be an American Native to get prestigious teaching position.

What we need now is to counterbalance immigration of Africa to Europe by an immigration of Europe to Africa. And don’t decry those colons, one way, or the other. Yes, it all has to be made legal.

We are orphan from the best of a common imaginary we need to recover, while, and for the same reason, we need to destroy the worst of same said common imaginary. Building a better world starts with building a better truth.

Patrice Ayme’

Syria, Garden Of Torturous Delights

May 24, 2016

What is going on in Syria? A zoo of human passions, and traditional patterns of history. A war is going on. There are simple wars, and complex ones. Syria’s war started simple, one dictator against his subjects, and it is now very complex, having become the war of all against all.

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Initially the calm and secular Syrian society came of age, and a consensus was reached: the hereditary dictator got to go. However, the dictator, a trained doctor, son of tough and crafty tyrant, did not want to go, and those attached to him, all the way to Western Europe, in particular the City of London, did not want to go. Chess, Go, and other games people play have rules. War does not. War’s limit as those of the human spirit.

Don’t believe me? Remember then the Obama’s administration “signature strikes”: killing gatherings because terrorists also gather. On the face of it, the theory was as barbarian as anything in known history. Even Genghis Khan’s forces would massacre, but only after a fair warning: ”Surrender, or we will massacre you!” Even the Nazis, who did worse in secret, on a much larger scale, did not dare claim to be as vicious, for all to see.

Thus, definitively, progress is not a quiet, long stream. Instead it can go in full reverse.

Actors in Syria are now many: much of the Western world is involved, including Russia. Yet the motivations of Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, US, Britain, France, Assad, etc.., are all different.

So what does Assad, initial master of that game, want? Initially, dictator Assad wanted just to stay in power, as all dictators do. But then, his strategy to free the Qur’an fundamentalists worked. He helped them, be it only by purchasing “their” oil, just like Turkey did (and sent back weapons, in the case of Erdogan; some people writing this in Turkey, got five years in jail, just for writing this…).

However, Assad is head of the Alawites. Alawites have their own Muslim religion. As the Qur’an promises to kill apostates and unbelievers, worshipping Mahomet and his god differently from one’s neighbor, is a grave, potentially lethal, fateful tragedy. Romeo and Juliet is nothing in comparison. The end result was that the Alawites were badly treated until the French showed up. Under the French, they quickly reached the highest spheres. Alawites have been reluctant to leave them ever since, especially considering that it’s not just a question of social status, but of survival.

Assad was able to get away with his savage repression of pacifist, secular civilians. Then he was able to get away with his manipulations of Islamists, freeing them and endowing them with enough power to become a justification to his brutal, homicidal rule.

Then a new mood surfaced: why not to just eradicate Non-Alawites?

How do I know (correctly guess) that such is the main motivation of Assad now? Too many strikes on schools and hospitals rather than enemy soldiers. That’s called reading between the facts.

So Assad is a monster, in the line of perfectly respectable historical monsters: just as Alexander the Great, or Little Father of the People Stalin, Assad sounds perfectly reasonable. Not to say that the “West” is not also an accomplice. In other words, it’s not just Putin who is a collaborator of genocide (Putin did save Palmyra, so he is not all bad… Far from it, on this subject).

And of course, Assad does not stand alone anymore than Hitler (or the Kaiser) did: when Cameron, France and the US stood ready to strike Assad, British MPs, copiously paid by the sort of fake prosperity the likes of Assad and his family bring to England, voted against striking him, blocking PM Cameron. Thus giving the pusillanimous Obama such cold feet, he had in turn to betray the French…

As we may see next, the mood of the so-called “West” is divided on the subject of striking monsters in a timely manner. In Syria as in many other places. Under the pretext of loud anti-”colonialism”, genocide is authorized… As it is perfectly compatible with the plutocratic doctrine, that evil should rule. Thus anti-”colonialism” is a fig leaf to hide the most significant naughty bits, namely free reins for torturous delights, hidden by tortuous denials.

Genocide of the mostly Sunni population of Syria is a delight many secretly savor. Too bad for the collateral damage.

Patrice Ayme’

Europe Immigration Massacre

April 24, 2015

 

Something went wrong in the general picture of Europe as the den of horrendous colonialists, projecting force worldwide: the previously allegedly exploited masses swim across the Mediterranean like lemmings, in their apparent desire to be exploited some more.

And they drown like lemmings.

Greece and Italy suffer the brunt of the “invasion” (which should be properly viewed as an opportunity). Just last year Italy imprisoned 171,000 refugees from Africa, and more than 50,000 from the Middle East.

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

Amnesty International condemned the very latest European measures as “Mesurettes” (little measures in French). I agree. Maybe to compensate for the appearances of measurettes, France and Britain speak about going to the United Nations to get the authorization to sink the boats of the enemy (apparently, the enemy  would be all fishers, trawlers and commercial boats from Algeria to Turkey?)

It reminds one of Obama’s drone policy (now “under review“, after killing Western hostages, announced a contrite Obama yesterday). Hey what could go wrong with bombing civilians one has observed, doing stuff? If bombing civilians is good for Obama, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, why is it not good for France and Britain? Eternal peace beckons…

In truth, the immigration problem to Europe forces a complete revision of what it means to be a “progressive”, dismantling 70 years of “anti-colonialist” hare-brained self-glorification discourse by pseudo-intellectuals of great renown.

Europe wants the advantages of empire to persist, such as material wealth, health, lack of risk taking, social laziness, and philosophical comfort. While Europe does not want to endure the costs of empire.

Europe is an empire which wants fate to provide, but does not want to contribute to fate with an enlightened vision.

The cost of empire means, first to master one’s vital space (Lebensraum in German). An empire masters its environment through military force, used, threatened, or implicit. Military means are viewed as primitive by (most) Europeans. So are demographic means. Overall, Europe has a timid, not to say senile, approach to the world, a mix of greed, fear, and laziness, physical and philosophical.

The case of Libya is typical: France and Britain finally finished the war France had been engaged with the Libyan dictator, on and off, for decades. However, they were mostly alone in Europe. Strong support came only from Obama’s USA. Any follow-up was no of the advantage of China, Russia, and, generally, all the countries in the world, which do not want to see Europe behave as if it were an empire.

It is OK for Russia, China, the USA, Indonesia, and even Australia, to behave like empires, ravaging the planetary environment, imposing their ways and means, but, for Europe to do so, the Europeans agree that it should not be.

Thus Libya, long part of Europe, as part of its ancestral civilizations of Phoenicia, Greece and Rome, was left to its own instruments, after having been decapitated.

This European self-flagellation and mortification is all for the better, as it fits the mood of dolce vita which Europeans are very much attached to.

In particular, it was self-congratulatory, rather than analytical, for European intellectuals to rant against colonialism. So now here we are: tens of millions of people are trying to get into Europe, thousands are dying, trying to do so.

This is not without similarities with the crisis that put an end to the Roman empire. Rome was depopulating, and increasingly senile. Various barbarians were trying to get in, by force. Rome accepted refugees, but, often without integrating them well.

So here we are again.

Rome ought to have projected force, mental and physical. But plutocracy is fundamentally idiotic, so Rome became ever more stupid. All the moral force provided was Christianism (and thank god for that). So, when the barbarians more or less conquered the empire, at least they were philosophically compatible with Rome.

So what to do?

Fix Africa, fix the Middle-East, by projecting the mental and physical force necessary for the continuation of the advantages of the European empire. Yes, it means American sized military budgets. It also means a strong immigration policy, a chosen immigration and integration policy (as Canada and the USA use).

If this path is not chosen, actors unfriendly to Europe, such as Daesh, the USA, China, will extend their empire in Africa and the Middle East, Europe’s doorstep, and the door will soon give way.

The number one problem of Europe is demographic and cultural depopulation. Poorly managed immigration and empire make it worse. In a way the migrants are saying that it is empire (of law and goodness), or death. Let’s listen, and learn.

Patrice Ayme’

Camus Mudified

August 1, 2014

I read on an Academic site in the USA that: “Albert Camus supported French colonialism”. That struck me as grotesquely incorrect. An horrendous statement. (And I am not particularly in love with Camus’ work.)

Unsurprisingly, my retort was not published. Amusingly the initial essay was called “Stifling Discourse On the Left”.

Why was I stifled? Because it’s obvious to all “bien-pensants” (well-thinkers) that the stifling French rule in Algeria was a terrible, colonial thing.

Once a citizen of the USA expressed that opinion, that the colonial French deserved what had happened to them in Algeria. He was a geologist, an old friend of my dad. You know, the way friends are made in the USA: fair weather, and not too deep, politically correct in all American ways.

My dad an Algerian born geologist who discovered Algerian oil and gas (while employed by an Algerian oil company). He found the verbal trashing of his homeland inspiring. He retorted: “Certainly, there would have been no civil war in Algeria, if the French had killed all the Natives, the way it was done in the USA”.

The American “friend” was not amused at all. He and his family ceased all and any contact with ours. So much for the great American friendship. His name was Birdstall.

Camus was brought up by his mother in Algeria, where he was born, under extremely modest circumstances. Poorest of the poor. Saved by the Republican educational system (when it still worked). To call Camus’ family background “colonial” is an insult.

The excuse to trash Camus is always the same. After he got the Nobel in literature, a student called on him to take a stance about the civil war in Algeria. Camus retorted, off the cuff, that: ”Si j’ai a choisir entre ma mere et la justice, je choisirai ma mere” (or words to this effect). “If I have to choose between my mother, and justice, I will chose my mother.”

Well, “justice” is a social construct. One may well find oneself in conflict with it. Just ask dozens of millions of Mitteleuropa citizens, in the 1930s and 1940s. Or any country, just before a revolution. Algeria was in a revolution in the 1950s, justice was taking a back seat to motherhood.

It has become common opinion that the good guys were from the Front National de Liberation. The opinion was all the more common as it advantaged the USSR… and the USA.

However, most people living in Algeria did not support the FNL. How do I know this? Among other things, there was a vote! In the early 1960s, more than 60% of the Algerian population voted for the new French Constitution.

That was the first, and last free vote Algerians would get.

As The Economist put it in 2001: ”… given that the French army by the end of the 1950s had more or less won its war in Algeria, why did Algeria nonetheless gain its independence? If Mr Stora is puzzled, Mr Wall is not… French public opinion was sickened; the French intelligentsia was outraged by the practice of torture; and, “just as important”, America could not accept French policy.

Did Charles de Gaulle, summoned back in 1958 to meet France’s constitutional crisis and end the Algerian war, realise all this? Conventional wisdom is that he was France’s far-sighted saviour, accepting almost from the outset that the loss of Algeria was inevitable. Mr Wall, having trailed through both French and American archives, disagrees. De Gaulle’s acceptance of Algerian independence was a belated pragmatism, forced on him by his failure to win over the Americans, first under Eisenhower and then under Kennedy.

…pessimistic implications for the future… the United States was a critical force in pressing France to accept Algerian independence.”

That’s also my opinion. To make matters worse, the average French population was anti-Algerian racist (both against Muslim and Pieds Noirs)… And so was De Gaulle (who made very clear racist statements).

That was not just criminal, but thoroughly idiotic.

Why? Because it made a travesty of reality under the guise of political correctness, when all it was reflected a subjugation to the USA’s White House, and its attached plutocratic Congress.

What was the idiocy?

Most people in Algeria who did not support the FNL. (Nor did they support the French colons, who were a small, distinct class… And they did not support those colons for the same reasons that they did not support the FNL).

Sartre, and many “intellectuals” support of the extremely cruel FNL was an offense against civilization (later pursued with Sartre’s support of hard core “Maoism”).

The FNL advocated publicly terror torture of toddlers. That some elements in the French army used torture on some terrorist suspects is a separate issue. The French army never advocated publicly to torture toddlers.

Do you want to live in a country where the leaders have advocated torturing toddlers? Few would. So, when De Gaulle, on orders from the USA, gave Algeria to the FNL, he was being treacherous and stupid: of course most Algerians wanted to move to France, as being overruled by blood thirsty tyrants had little appeal.

So De Gaulle did his best to prevent that mass exodus. Still, the pressure is still on, and 52 years later, it’s much easier for an Algerian to immigrate to the USA, than to France.

And guess what? The present president of Algeria, Bouteflika, a corpse in a wheelchair, is an ex-general from the original FNL.

So what of Camus? In truth Camus begged to differ with most of the French intelligentsia, which was more into being a well thinking herd, than really thinking, and this is why he got trashed. Still is.

Camus wanted the Algerian Civil War to stop. Camus wanted the Republic to be strong, and motherly. But the Republic is relatively weak, and getting weaker. Those who conquered entire continents (Anglo-Saxons, Russians) are stronger. Their reasons are thus better. If nothing else they sit on all that oil and gaz. Even if the ground explodes cataclysmically, nowadays, with all that warming:

http://mic.com/articles/95232/those-massive-black-holes-discovered-in-sibera-are-even-more-alarming-than-scientists-thought

(Thanks to Alexi Helligar for informing me of this!)

It does not matter. The ground explodes? War is their friend. Let there be war. It’s just a matter of not being on the losing side. A chorus of well-paid intellectuals singing their praises, is most helpful. Yesterday the Bible, today those who recite their well honed version of history.

Dragging Camus in the mud by modifying his beliefs is deeply dishonest. So was the devastation of 1962, when many populations which lived in Algeria before Islam was invented, and Arabic written, 3,000 kilometers away, found themselves in a worse tyranny than they were under Paris’ boot. (Only the Jews could flee in majority; many ended in Israel.)

The future of Algeria? Just wait for the oil and gas to run out. Then the other shoe will drop.

Patrice Ayme’