Posts Tagged ‘Egypt’

Why This Site Shouldn’t Interest Most Americans

June 26, 2017

Very few Americans don’t believe in a God, or Life Force, Spirits and other Superstition (according to many polls, one of them reproduced below). I of course believe that all those who believe in superstition or divination are victims of a lack of introspection, resulting in a regrettable submission of (their) perception to domination. This the foundation of their political subjugation. It’s also the royal road to subjugation. Thus countries friendly to superstition and the religions attached to it, are typically submissive to mighty plutocracies.

And thus, as we see inequality rising around the world, it can be tracked to the imposition of the American “neoliberal” model, a modern ideology to impose the grossest traditional plutocracy!  Only 2% of North Americans do not believe in the supernatural: a god, life-force, spirits. This means that most North Americans are superstitious. In comparison, 11% of South-East Asians do not believe, in a god, life force, or spirit. One could say South-east Asia is five times less superstitious…. In France, a whopping one-third of the population don’t believe in a god, life force, or spirit. Thus the French are less ready to believe that plutocrats are benevolent, philanthropic spirits, under a merciful god… (The Market?)

The cult of all things religious has been reinforced top down in the USA since 1954, date of enthronement of “In God We Trust” (which displaced the Republican “E Pluribus Unum”).

For example, Americans are taught to venerate Pastor Martin Luther King. To esteem MLK is honorable, but his cult, at the exclusion of the cult of others, and not learning what exactly happened, arguably even more meritorious, is dubious. After all, President Eisenhower, an ex-general, and Earl Warren, head of the US Supreme Court, did the the heavy lift and courageous combat against segregation in the 1950s.  

***

Forget God and its “Pastors”: Presidents, Generals and Judges are who Order Progress:

Here is Earl Warren:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group…Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Much clearer than “I have a dream!”. To desegregate schools, Eisenhower sent the army. Conclusion: if you want to fight injustice, clear legal, republican thinking and the army, in other words, force, is what is needed.

This Is Why The French Revolution, Core to the United Nations’ Charter, Happened in France, and Not America!

MLK was made into a living god, a sort of Muslim-like “Messenger”. In truth he was part, and rather at the end, of a much more powerful wave he surfed on. Heroes may be useful, but the cult of the providential man prepares that of the “philanthropist” as plutocrats call themselves. (Just as in the Middle Ages plutocrats modestly called themselves, the “best”.)

Thus, when I criticize Islam, many Americans feel I defend the Bible (which is actually the source of Islam, something i know, but they don’t…)

The entire left of the world, not just the USA, suffers from searching for heroes, rather than clear thinking on the Republic. But this is precisely what the plutocratically owned media and the masters of public opinion, wanted. It’s the result of meta teaching, inculcating impotent forms of thought.

I should speak only to the French agnostics (but they don’t generally read English well enough to understand me, as a French professional philosopher once told me, thus he asked me to translate my thoughts in… French; a full-time job I couldn’t possibly do. Actually, I have no time to write a book. As Socrates implicitly pointed out, thinking per se is a full-time job… Socrates, going overboard, famously called writing “the semblance of truth”; that would make all of math, physics and now biology the “semblance of truth”… Although I do agree for Plato…)

***

Cult Of God, One & Only, Came From the Hydraulic Dictatorship Zone:

Verily, much of the roots civilization we use today appeared in what I call the Middle Earth (earliest writing is from there; although it was completely independently evolved in Mesoamerica). Egyptian civilization appeared 6,000 years ago, and the first city known in Anatolia, a few millennia before that.

However, the Middle East, central to the Middle Earth, suffered desiccation of the land, and then the minds, as it veered into . Thus it is natural that this physically sick region came up with a sick metaphysics. It is also of some import: it’s no coincidence that the Roman empire collapsed when Christianism was imposed to it, and countries such as Syria collapsed when Islamism was imposed to it (in the Seventh Century already!)

Some have noticed an analogy between “Ra” as in the theology of Egypt, AbRAhamism, and BRAhamism. This is not as ludicrous as it sounds. First, Abrahamism clearly arose in Egypt (as the Bible recognizes sneakily). Secondly Brahamanism, which gave rise to Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism itself came from the old Vedic religion, which, in turn, comes from the Middle East. Wikipedia says:

According to Anthony: “Many of the qualities of Indo-Iranian god of might/victory, Verethraghna, were transferred to the adopted god Indra, who became the central deity of the developing Old Indic culture. Indra was the subject of 250 hymns, a quarter of the Rig Veda. He was associated more than any other deity with Soma, a stimulant drug (perhaps derived from Ephedra) probably borrowed from the BMAC religion. His rise to prominence was a peculiar trait of the Old Indic speakers.[27]

The oldest inscriptions in Old Indic, the language of the Rig Veda, are found not in northwestern India and Pakistan, but in northern Syria, the location of the Mitanni kingdom.[40] The Mitanni kings took Old Indic throne names, and Old Indic technical terms were used for horse-riding and chariot-driving.[40] The Old Indic term r’ta, meaning “cosmic order and truth”, the central concept of the Rig Veda, was also employed in the Mitanni kingdom.[40] Old Indic gods, including Indra, were also known in the Mitanni kingdom.[41][42][43]

The preceding illustrates well the concept of the Middle Earth. It also means that 72% of the world’s population derives its metaphysics from Egypt, or thereabout). More or less (the Egyptian empire often encroached deep on the so-called Fertile Crescent, which is anchored in the West by Israel, Lebanon, Syria…

Ultimately, Egypt, soon after a remarkable attempt at monotheism (which promptly spawned Abrahamism), decayed. Why? Some will point at the invasion of the “Peoples of the Sea”, which Egypt, alone among the Great Powers, was able to defeat (at considerable cost).

***

Egypt’s Government Model Was So Obsolete, Its Civilization Became Senile:

However, shortly after, Egypt exhibited a lack of animal spirits and was durably overrun by Libyans, and then Assyrians, Persians…  Tellingly, it’s the very fierce Greeks and their uncouth students, the Macedonians, who freed Egypt.

What happened to Egypt? Long drawn out dictatorship, when the rise of new technology called for start-ups, basically Greece was full of startups. Startup city states…

True, Egypt got invaded by vast empires, modernized versions of itself. When the Persians came around and colonized Egypt, so they did because Achaemenid Persia was a multinational empire, ultramodern in many ways.

However, ultimately the tiny Athenian startup defeated Persia at Marathon, and then insolently landed an army to free Egypt (its mental benefactor) from Persia!

***

Puritanism Does Not The Best Minds Make, Deep Thinking Is Dirty:

Last week I went out with a number of friends of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion, aggravated by reactive vegetarian ethics. I was retrospectively surprised by the lack of animal spirits. How can one have artful, constructive mental intercourse without the blossoming of passion? It certainly can’t happen when all conversations are guarded. After all, that’s why the divinity was imposed: the divinity imposed a subdued mentality, a submissive morality, and, definitively, a lack of inquiry.  

Thus it’s no accident that the French, long at the forefront of the battle of ideas against the obscurity of stupor, are the ones most aware that all past superstition is just that, superstition without foundation, as reckoned by its own definition.

And these are not words without foundation: in the Twelfth century, Pierre Abelard reinvented Classical logic (and went further). In the Fourteenth century, another Parisian, Jean buridan (Johannes Buridanus), went even further with the Cretan Paradox (rendered famous by Kurt Godel). Buridan also invented the hard part of Newton’s laws (three century before Newton). Actually Buridan anticipated not just Newton, but also Riemann’s force theory (used by Einstein and Al. in the Theory of Gravitation aka “General Relativity”!)

Both Abelard and Buridan were involved in colossal struggles, fights to death, with the catholic Church. Buridan had refused to enter the faculty of theology, so that he would not have to take an oath to the god of Abraham. Abelard fought Saint Bernard to death. Saint Bernard was then the most important, and most fanatical Catholic. At the time, it looked as if Saint Bernard sort of won. But history showed he lost. Buridan’s work were outlawed by the church, under the penalty of death, except in far eastern Europe, where they were taught to the young Copernicus.  

During the period 1100 CE to 1700 CE, Christianism caused an unending succession of terror, major wars, crusades, holocausts and massacres throughout Europe, and from there, the world. How come Europe didn’t collapsed as Rome did? First Europe was governed mostly by a plutocracy which was severely related and intermarried. They killed the poor a lot, themselves, much less. And actually that plutocracy was firmly in command, in secular command.

For example a fanatical Catholic such as Saint Louis put his mother, Blanche de Castille, ex-ruling queen, in charge several times as he made war through the Middle East (and letting himself be made a prisoner by the one and only female ruler that Islam ever had, in Egypt!). So he let a woman in charge, but he also had organized a modern justice system, now copied everywhere, including the USA.

Rome collapsed, because emperor Theodosius, around 390 CE unleashed the office of “Inquisitor” he had just created, against the “Heretics” (“those who made a choice”). Inquisitor, heretics: two terms, dripping with blood and terror, bathing in fire, imposed by Roman Catholic emperor Theodosius. By 400 CE, the empire was collapsing so much that the bishops put the Franks in charge of three provinces.

The Franks were Pagans

Hopefully, they still are!

And will stay that way! Maybe Americans could join their forefathers the Franks, and realize that, if they want paradise, they can get it only on Earth. Let me rephrase this a bit: If one wants paradise, one has to work hard, because one can get it only on Earth! It means in particular that on eschews the seductions of the rule of hell (plutocracy), and better start with free universal healthcare, as those who believe it’s their task to create and make a really Good God!

Patrice Ayme’

Secular Egypt, Civilized Egypt

August 18, 2013

OUTLAW MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

The public, live, worldwide, could see Muslim Brotherhood fanatics shooting at security forces from the gigantic, beautiful minaret of the Al Fatah Mosque in Cairo. Policemen returned fire. So it was, all over.

Colossal hypocrisy blossomed among the West’s political leaders: suddenly here they were, siding with Al Qaeda, whining about the security coup in Egypt. The leader of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Doctor Al Zawahiri became their spokesman. Was then Al Qaeda just a way to get big budgets for otherwise indefensible activities?

Do our vertiginously hypocritical chiefs ignore that Secularism is the secret of the West? Secularism means: living in one’s own age. This enables the rule of the following values, symbolized in one neat coat of arms:

Ruling the West: Ferocity, Justice, Republic, Unity, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Ruling the West: Ferocity, Justice, Republic, Unity, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Notice the oak for strength, and the olive, for peace. The Republican Roman Fasces, represent the power of justice, to cut infamy in two; the law as the ultimate ruler, made strong by the unity of the People, bound around the idea of justice; fundamentally the entangled letters “RF”, superficially “Respublica Francia” (in Latin) fundamentally mean “Free Republic”, republic and freedom entangled, something for the People Republic of China to meditate. This coat of arms ought to be that of the world, including Egypt!

Do our double-faced, plutophile Western propagandists, suddenly in love with Al Qaeda, want us to forget that all the countries of the West were founded by the military? Generally the military was fighting plutocrats covered by a sacred religion. Why can’t  the same courtesy be extended to Egypt?

It’s sick to see the emissary (emirssary?) of Qatar, an extreme, hereditary plutocracy, a financial support of the Muslim Brotherhood, go around Europe seduce plutophile servants of the established order (for which Qatar is a core value), who then stand by his side (as just happened with the West German foreign minister: should not Germany be cured from siding with racist plutocrats, already?).

No part of the West ever lived free under an Islamist regime: the fundamental reason is the extreme violence within much of the Qur’an.

Moreover, Salafist Islam implements a racist distinction between believers and non believers (the later being punished all the time). The multicentennial reign of Islamists, from Portugal to Rumania, was a quasi-continuous subjugation, oppression, demolition, ruination and depredation. The pleasures public slavery and impalement provided with were not to Western taste, which had evolved.

Salafist Islam is the Islam of the Ancients (that’s what Salafist means). Contrarily to bien pensant repute, it’s an extremely violent ideology, read direct from the Qur’an. Therein a crucial difference with Christianism.

After Greco-Roman philosophers complained that the Old Testament (basic to Islam) was full of atrocious lessons in barbarity, the “Founding Fathers of the Church” (Saint Jerome and company), around 400CE, admitted that the Bible was metaphorical, and not to be taken literally.

Twice something related happened in Islam: around 850 CE the Caliph in Baghdad, declared unlawful future (re)interpretations of Islam’s sacred texts. More interestingly, Saladin and his successors, in Egypt around 1200 CE, outright outlawed the literal interpretation of Islam, and they cracked down with a ferocity that I would welcome in Egypt today. (If Nazism is unlawful, why not Salafism? They are not similar by accident: Hitler had more than a passing familiarity with Islam, and sang its praises on many occasions; Hitler loved all that Biblical stuff, especially the holocausts.)

Literal interpretations of Islam reappeared in the Eighteenth Century in the wilds of Arabia, when a fanatic called Wahhab presented the ancestors of the present Saudis with a coy plot to come to power: pretend to serve the true god. So here we are: we see the enlightened leaders of the European Union calling for the return of Wahhab, side by side with Qatar and Al Qaeda.

Plutocrats of the world, Unite! How touching!

The reason why Muslims spend much time killing other Muslims, is that disagreements naturally arise about who is, or who is not, a genuine believer (the distinction is left unclear in the very short Qur’an). While the call to kill, or, at least, to abuse non-believers is unambiguous. Hence the circus in Syria. There, too, secularism is the only way out not involving a holocaust.

Why do the leaders of the West want Islam to rule Egypt? Because it was so great when Christianism ruled?

Christianism’s rule in the West, 16 centuries ago, brought a sudden apocalypse (not by accident: Christianist imbeciles had read in their sacred texts that the apocalypse was supposed to bring back Jesus!… So they did their best to bring an apocalypse, by taking countless bad decisions).

Christianism brought the end of any semblance of republic, the reign of superstition, decerebration, crusades, the Inquisition, Sharia, religious wars, the institutionalization of racism (against intellectuals, secularists, Jews, Pagans and countless exterminated minorities). All non believers were exterminated (except the Jews, because Jesus had been one; with uncharacteristic Christian generosity, the extermination of the Jews was contemplated, and half carried out).

Christianist rule has a name: the Dark Ages.

How did the West get out of the apocalypse? Through military force. The military is intrinsically fascist, because that’s best for fighting. However, the best performing military, to achieve higher performance, also needs to be up to date in its weapons and thinking. In one word: secular.

The Franks became the shock troops of the Roman empire, because they were highly multicultural (living in present day Netherlands, between sea and land, Germania, Gallia and Roma), and ended up with the best weapons (the Celts had the best metallurgy, and equipped the Roman army since its inception!)

As the Franks helped Constantine conquer the empire, they knew how Constantine’s Christian sausage had been made. They refused to join, as the threat to secularism (on which, as I just said, the Franks’ supremacy rested) was clear to them.

Similarly, the Egyptian military is an excellent position to know how the Muslim sausage has been made (and the double faced role the Euro-Americans are playing with the Islam game).

After trying several times over 150 years, the Franks finally took control of the (North Western) Roman empire and subjugated apocalyptic Christianism.

Christianism devastation went on elsewhere, for another 150 years. That led to a systematic destruction of reason, wisdom and knowledge. Roman intellectuals, and their books fled to Persia, followed by a terrible war between the Oriental Roman empire and Persia. Constantinople had to agree to be nicer to its own intellectuals, at some point. But won the war.

Muhammad pointed out to his Arab followers that the time had come to attack the Romans and the Persians. The Arabs were hungry, ferocious, and, at the time, their women followed them in battle, preventing them to flee (!) and finishing wounded enemies. (Then the Arab army got lucky, twice, but that’s another story.)

So it’s fanatical Christianism and the resulting mental degeneracy it entailed, that enabled the sudden take-over by Arab raiders known as “Muslims”, of most of the Roman empire, and all of Persia.

Tellingly, the one place where the Arab armies would be annihilated three times in a row was the place where fanatic Christianism had long been turned into a force for (secular) education. The Franks had completely defeated the viciousness of the Pope Gregory the Great (usually celebrated as “great” in conventional historiography). The Gregory the Villainous threatened to burn alive bishops who allowed “grammar” to be taught (that meant secular knowledge). But the bishop of Dignes (south east France), so threatened, was protected by the Frankish army. Gregory had no army (the Roman emperor Charlemagne created the Vatican state, more than two centuries later).

So Christianism made the bed of Islamism. Better: the Copts, that is, the Egyptians, did not believe in the Trinity (because of a 4C bishop of Alexandria, Arianus, had a problem with a triple god who was nevertheless one; he had refused the subtle balance between Jesus, Zeus, and the Logos). That’s why the Muslims do not, because the relative of Muhammad who told him what he saw in the desert (some Archangel), was a professional Christian Copt monk.

The idea of superstition is to find an idea that stands above the world. That may be appropriate sometimes, to save a civilization. However, civilization exists to create ideas, and so any civilization resting on a superstition comes quickly into contradiction with itself. No doubt the Romans came to that conclusion, and, well before the end of the Republic, had embraced all religions. As long as they did not call for human sacrifices (those where completely eradicated), or as long as they behaved (after a major scandal, the Egyptian cult of Isis was outlawed for a while). Thus:

Sustainable civilization means secularization. If a civilization is not secular, it is, or becomes obsolete.

Putin ought to meditate this, as he gave Christian Orthodoxy with a Russian sauce a quasi state religion status; Peter the Great viewed Orthodoxy as the major problem of Russia, and took shattering measures to break its grip (an inside joke, as Peter broke himself the limbs of some religious fanatics on the wheel, just to have the pleasure to hear them plead for their lives).

To deny secularization to some countries, because of their Oriental origins, as many political leaders in the West just did, is sheer racism.

Secular Salic Law. Civilization Without Secularization A Degeneration.

Secular Salic Law. Civilization Without Secularization A Degeneration.

[This is a tiny part of the Salic Law; it had 65 chapters to start with, and underwent constant changes and augmentation; by 600 CE the law made all inhabitants of the enormous empire a Frank, without consideration of origins or religions; a Jewish Syrian selling camels in Paris (!) could have Frankish children.]

The West was not founded by Islamists, or Christianists, or other deluded Superstitionists. The West was founded by Secularists, firmly grounded in reason. The West was founded by the Salian Franks. Those “Salted” Dutch ruled through the secular Pactus Legis Salicae (Pact of the Salic Law).

The main difference between Salian Law and republican Roman Law was the replacement of many death penalties cases by more humanitarian fines.

Greater humanism was the main difference between old Greco-Roman civilization and the “RENOVATED” version the Franks imposed, and celebrated.

Aristotle had contemptuously pontificated that civilization needed slaves, so that people like him could sit on their haunches and think of higher things.

The Franks contradicted Aristotle: let there be machines, beasts and bioengineering to serve us.

The Far East (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia) also practiced bioengineering: new varieties of rice were developed, that produced twice a year; around 1000 CE. This is one of the reason why the population of the Far East exploded. Another, of course is that the Far East was secular: Confucianism, Taoism, and (original) Buddhism have a very low superstition index. Thus the Far East developed a lot of science and technology on its own, and that advanced civilization. The Middle Kingdom and its neighbors thrived for the same exact reasons as the West.

In the end, the West dominated more because, starting with the Franks, and the abolition of slavery, it was less oriented towards using people as machines or animals. But it was a close call, as the Christianists and Islamists nearly annihilated civilization (Western books were saved mostly through Zoroastrians, and the regard most Caliphs of the 8C and 9C had for… Greek culture… there again following another twist in the Qur’an…).

Written in Latin, the Salian Law was purely secular.

Just by imposing secular law, the Franks, more than 15 centuries ago, got rid of aggressive Christianism. The Franks literally founded the West with precautionary Christianophobia. It was high time. True, the Franks claimed to be “Catholics”, but the Catholicism they imposed had nothing to do with the religious terror that brought Rome to its knees.

Even before the Qur’an had been written down, the Imperium Francorum sent spies to find out who these Islamists were. A case of precautionary Islamophobia, right from the start. The Franks long viewed Islam as a form of particularly aggressive militarized Christianism. They were familiar with the problem: hordes of black dressed monks, especially in Egypt, had laid civilization to waste, three centuries before.

France has been at war with invasive, aggressive Islamists ever since. 60 generations of hostility.

Why can’t Egyptian security forces be given the same liberty?

Or do Western leaders whine because time is up on their ravenous instrumentalization of Islamization, their counterfactual, perfidiously manipulative, identification of Islamization with civilization? Are they afraid that their oil supply is threatened, or that they will have to start treating Arab speaking people not just as Muslims, but as full human beings?

An organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood, operating inside the French or American republics as it did in Egypt  would be outlawed overnight, and lethal force would be used. So why not the same in Egypt?

When Western leaders talk as if the Muslim Brotherhood was holy, a case of human rights, they are just hypocritical, lethally vicious and racist. The Muslim Brotherhood ought to be outlawed in Egypt as it would be in the American or French Republic.

It is easy to understand why corrupt leaders in the West would want Egypt to stay under the oppression of an ideology invented in the desert by analphabets, 14 centuries ago: this way, 85 millions Egyptians, and 35 millions of inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, where the oil comes from, and much money, would stay subjugated, ruled by their pseudo-god fearing masters.

But for those who really care about the well-being of Egyptians, there is no doubt that getting rid of 1650 years of delirious, somewhat satanic variants of the religion of Abraham, will help. Abraham? The despicable character who wanted to please a satanic boss (known as “god”) to the point of killing his innocent child.

Where, in the entire history of humankind, can we find something as condemnable as a foundation of elevation? Notice it’s the boss himself who stopped the servile crazed psychopath would-be child killer’s hand. So bosses are the fount of humanism! Especially after they order to kill children?

It certainly makes sense that the despicable Barroso, head of the European Commission, another living incarnation of Star Wars’ Jabba the Hut, who does not mind 50% unemployment rates in part of the European Union, according to his plutocratic god, would threaten Egypt (with cutting aid to starving people). The barbarian Baroso embraces the Muslim Brotherhood, as a new trick to make the youth suffer more afield.

The ancient Republican Romans knew what to do with a thought system that had turned wanting to kill children into a religion: annihilate it.  They face it with Carthage. No doubt that, if Carthage had not sacrificed children, it would not have been annihilated by Rome.

The inhuman pulsion to kill children inherent to Abrahamism was probably copied from Carthage and Moloch. Abrahamism was adopted by Rome, later, but, by then the Republic was in pieces (in a telling detail, Constantine, the self described “13th apostle”, inventor of Christianism, killed his adult son and nephew; he also steamed his wife).

To rejoin the forefront of civilization, it long occupied, Egypt needs to become secular. Those who, from their heavenly secular fortresses, think otherwise are just Twentieth First Century racists. Let them join Al Qaeda. Sorry, they already have.

Polls show more than 80% of Egyptians support the security crack-down against the Islamists. “Moderate” Islamists have no more than 15% support. Faced with the determination of the 500,000 strong Egyptian military, the plutophile cowards who lead the West will no doubt back-off.

The fact remains, in that fatidic week, when Egypt plunged in a remedial civil war, our money loving Western leaders showed their face, and that was the face of Al Qaeda. I do not doubt that they are going to put some new mask on, and change the subject real quick. Yet, it was a very revealing moment.

***

Patrice Ayme

Why EGYPT DEGENERATED

August 4, 2013

Abstract: Before the Middle East sank into dictatorship and theocracy, it had been on a long term mental decline. This was well known in, but poorly resisted by, the Roman Republic. The decay of the Hellenistic regimes (Alexander and successors), and of Rome itself, was marked by a progressive adoption of fascist, theocratic and generally plutocratic features, much of them from the Orient.

The usual explanation (by the famous historian Fernand Braudel) is that the Middle East evolved in an “hydraulic dictatorship” mindset. True. But that does not explain why it did not have it earlier, nor why this oligarchic mindset infected Greece and Rome, so pervasively later. The explanation? Mindsets with lives of their own, can propagate like plagues. It is wiser and more pertinent to analyze (and denounce!) the religious intellectual fascism that amplified the “hydraulic dictatorship” mood, while it established an empire of its own.

Blocked By Zarathoustra

Blocked By Zarathoustra

If Zarathustra’s advanced philosophy had reigned over Egypt, and the Fertile Crescent, instead of primitive, nasty Abrahamism, with its blatant desire to kill and torture people, to please the sky-boss, on a cross or during jihad, the Middle East would have turned out differently (Achaemenid Persia took control of Egypt for only 125 years or so). This is the remark underlying many of my observations. And, I believe, an underlying, unconscious irritation with Abraham  underlays the “Arab Spring”. Many from Syria, Egypt to Morocco are taking a turn against the fascism hiding behind Abraham’s pathetic figure.

Oh, lest I be accused of racism, let me point out that, during the Sixth Century, Roman intellectuals had taken refuge among Persia’s Zoroasthrians, who defended them vigorously. Rome (also known as Constantinople nowadays) was using Abrahamism’s fanaticism to justify its fascist rule, and thus made the bed of Islam.

Increasingly inappropriate theocratic plutocracy is why Egypt went down.

This moody process took nearly two millennia of encroaching decerebration, until fanatic Christo-Islamism clamped down onto Egypt within its saurian jaws. (This is the first of two essays on Egypt. As usual the bottom line I foster is hard-edged realism: calling a croc a croc, and gods who masquerade as crocs, crocs and crooks.)

***

EGYPT DOMINATED FOR MORE THAN 2,000 YEARS:

In Roman times, Egypt was still perhaps the world’s richest region. So it had been ever since the Sahara got desiccated, and its dwellers retreated where there was still plenty of water (and sun, and alluvions).

The riches from the Nile Valley, and adjoining oases, attracted a lot of greedy invaders, and Egypt was frequently massively attacked and sometimes occupied for centuries (for example, the establishment of the New Kingdom after two centuries of invasion by the Semitic Hyksos).

Egypt had long been at the forefront of civilization. This speaks for the power of a centralized state: Egypt was the world’s largest, most centralized state for at least a millennium, when it intellectually dominated with its eight million inhabitants (a very large population for the times).

A lot of Greek mathematics originated in Egypt. Great pyramids were perfectly aligned on the north. Egypt, collaborating with Sumerian cities, elaborated, over millennia, the idea of an alphabet (then perfected by the Phoenicians).

One gets vertigo, contemplating Egypt’s history. A millennium after the pyramids went up, an innovative Pharaoh, Athekanen, invented, and imposed monotheism (that no doubt later morphed in Judaism/Abrahamism).

When Persian dictatorship tried to take the world over, the Athenian republic came to the help of the last honest to goodness Pharaohs. Memorable wars were fought.

By the time the Greco-Romans became dominant, Egypt had been at the forward edge of civilization for at least 3,000 years. Prior to Imperator Caesar arguing furiously with Pharaoh Cleopatra about who it was exactly that was culprit of the shameful burning of Alexandria’s library during military action (they settled their fight in bed; their child, Caesarion, was cowardly assassinated by Caesar’ great nephew, his heir, the despicable “Augustus”, founder of the Roman Principate, a parody of Republic, reminding us strangely of what we have today; RINO, Republic In Name Only).

***

WHY DID EGYPT DURABLY COLLAPSE?

It’s hard to describe 6,000 years of history in a few sentences. One impression I gather, having meditated over Egyptian history for decades, is that it was first about the military and police. When Egypt had its military and police just right, it was doing fine (although a spark was increasingly missing, that the Crete’s Minoans, and then the Greeks ended up providing).

How could the military and police go wrong? Either by being too strong, oppressive, dictatorial, or by being too weak. Too much calm could also lead to civil war, such as when 94 year old Pharaoh Pepy II died after a very long reign (that brought down the Old Kingdom).

The Egyptian military learned that to safeguard the homeland, it had to extend broadly around it. However, that was not enough: staying on top of military technology, and a preventive diplomacy was a must: at the end of the 13th (!) dynasty, the invading Hyksos showed up with a new weapon, the composite bow. The Hyksos attacked and occupied Egypt for 2 centuries in conjunction with their southern allies from Kush.

The New Kingdom threw the occupiers out when the rump Egyptian military counterattacked with that same weapon.

Similarly the Sea Peoples invasion of the entire Orient was caused by superior military technology, developed in the Aegean Sea (an area that the Minoan thalassocracy, Egypt’s ally, owned before it was wiped out by a volcano).

After Ramses IX or so, Egypt progressively fell to ravenous Libyans, whereas its eastern flank became the realm of various Israelites and Mesopotamians on a rampage. Egypt had lost the vital spark that made it superior. It was reduced to a rich valley.

Why? I would advance the following explanation: Egypt had become a philosophical backwaters. The rigid theocratic state of ancient Egypt, with its increasingly silly looking religion, was left behind by more advanced philosophies and polities. Others had grabbed ideas that had originated in Egypt, and ran further with them.

The earliest known set of laws, 5,000 year old, is Egyptian. Yet, the law was made the backbone of government authority in Babylon next door, 38 centuries ago (Code of Hammurabi). The government erected all around Babylonia formidable steles on which the laws were engraved in stone.

Or the civilization of Zarathustra in Iran, with its promotion of good, evil, and truth as the most important concepts (beats the man with the head of a hawk any day). Watch Israelites mixing Egyptian monotheism with Punic human sacrifices of the son.

The West adopted the formidable intensity of these new ideas with a flourish, but Egypt did not. It was a matter of degree: as I just said, all these system of ideas originated in Egypt. But Egypt failed to aggressively re-invent and amplify them. Egypt failed to metamorphosis. Instead it put Crete and then Greece, in charge of doing so.

What the West would do, though was to make those meta-ideas, law, science, absoluteness of empathy, which are central to the genus Homo, central to the emotional system it endowed its civilization with.

Pharaonic Egypt did not evolve mentally enough. And that made its military and its military-industrial complex, lag. Second best, in military matters, means extinction.

Weirdly the “Sea Peoples” invasion made the situation worse. Egypt was the only state that resisted it. But barely. Yet, it enslaved an enemy army. This both weakened and rigidified Egypt. The Sea Peoples rejuvenated many places they invaded.

For instance, the Etruscans, went on to grab the iron-rich province of Italy, ultimately enriching obscure indigenes called the Romans, Egypt stayed stuck in its elaborate, but by then sterile emotional and emotional systems. Soon it was unable to resist even Libyans. Then the Persians followed.

Once again, the military aspect comes to the fore. When I was a teenager, I was very anti-militaristic. I am still that way, but, ultimately, it’s always the military that enforces righteousness.

(Intriguingly the USA, France, the UK, and even Israel, are presently implementing changes to make their military more futuristic, while diverting more military missions to the… civilian sector, as spectacularly demonstrated by the NSA-Snowden scandal; methinks that they should collaborate more, and more openly.)

***

GREEK DRIVEN EGYPTIAN RENAISSANCE:

My thesis is that dynastic Egypt became a victim of intellectual fascism, generated on its own. An objection would be that, if the Egyptian civilization was roughly the same in 3,000 BCE and 1,000 BCE, how could it have become more fascist?

Fascism, as its name indicates, is about fasces, making many minds point all in the same direction. That’s excellent in combat, but miserable in imagination. However imagination leads to higher intelligence, hence greater combat capability. Thus fascism, being of one mind gives greater combat capability everything else being equal, but is also a lower common denominator, hence the necessity to lift the intellectual base from its opposite, when not in combat.

(Once again a military lesson in disguise, and this is why the French army is reducing its personnel by about 10%, and some conventional forces, while spending more getting ready for future wars; the Israelis talk of going through the same process and the Americans will probably follow… but for the pork barrel F35 program…)

If one looks at the Frankish empire 12 centuries ago, one sees the world’s most advanced political system (although primitive by the best Greco-Roman standards).

The church had been nationalized, forced to educate secularly, slavery was de facto outlawed, tolerance was the law (Christians were free to become Jews, and they did, massively; Muslims left stranded by the recessing invasions were free to be whatever). The Franks then proclaimed the Roman empire had been renovated. It took another ten centuries to throw out Abraham’s crazy, pedophobic god, and renovate the Roman Republic itself… minus the man is a wolf for man mentality.

What’s the picture? Constant change. The cathedrals gave a pretext to create massive iron architecture rendered possible by hydraulic hammers. But it was just a pretext. The reality was that singular change had become the new secularism.

In my thesis Egypt mentally froze, while the world it had given birth to, kept on changing. New dimensions opened, but Egyptian civilization ignored them . The dimensions the Egyptians had created progressively became a lower dimensional subset of the Orient. Egyptian civilization became increasingly intellectually fascist in a relative sense.

How come the Egyptians could not adapt? Well, they did, to some extent. Hence the New Kingdom, and monotheism (for a while). Also Egypt subcontracted the sea, and much culture to Crete and the Greeks. The Minoan thalassocracy centered on Crete blossomed as the most advanced civilization mostly with the help of its natural partner, Egypt.

Under the Greeks, and then the Romans, Egypt underwent a renaissance. For six centuries, Alexandria became the world’s most intellectually advanced place (although Athens had rebounded).

However, Abrahamist superstitious terror, starting in the Fourth Century, crashed civilization. Nowhere was the madness of men in black, the monks, as ferocious as in Egypt. Probably because nowhere else was the breath of theocracy as strong (from the latent mood of theocratic hydraulic dictatorship). The philosophers tried to resist. But secular Egypt was caught in a vice.

The fascist Roman state did not want an intellectually independent Egypt, so, when it was not in open conflict with the monks, it was allied to them. Intellectuals fled to Persia. The bishop of Alexandria created Arianism, which contradicted the “Catholic Orthodox” doctrine of the Trinity set-up by the self declared “13th apostle”, emperor Constantine. The simmering conflict with Constantinople went on until the Arab Muslims surged from the wastes of Arabia. Coptic Egypt, including Palestine, made peace with them. Until, three years later, it realized that the Muslims were even worse than Constantinople.

Egypt then fought Islam to death. And lost that second, desperate war. Ever since theocracy has reigned over Egypt, with few eclipses (one in the times of Saladin, when Frankish penetration was massive; one in the modern era, when European secularism was in control).

So here we are. Peaceniks believe that what was grabbed by military force will be surrendered peacefully. Well, the present Egyptian military begs to disagree. Correctly so, if one looks at history. Islam was not voted in. The Calif Omar just attacked and invaded.

***

FUNDAMENTAL CO-DEPENDENCY:

Meanwhile, al Zawahiri, the real brains of Al Qaeda, one of the principals, if not the principal, of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, has resurfaced so mightily that, terrorized, the great Western powers closed their embassies in many countries. (Hey, Mr. Terrorist In Chief, what happened to your elimination of Bin Laden? Did not get enough data from it?)

What does this all mean? How come Egypt went back to theocracy after the Brits left? Well, precisely because, starting in 1945 on the cruiser Quincy with FDR, the USA played the Muslim Fundamentalist card, to get all the oil it wanted from a family, the Saudis, that took refuge behind theocracy to justify its rule.

That made the Saudis, and thus Washington, addicted to their enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood. Quite a bit like a junkie with heroin. Don’t like it, think one could stop, but never do.

In any case, as long as Egypt keeps on revering the mythical individual, Abraham, who was willing to bind and kill his son to please his boss, it will not be free of intellectual fascism of the worst kind. A religious frenzy that celebrates the mind of those who want to destroy children, the same exact frenzy that led to Carthage’s destruction. And one that ancient Egypt never got involved with.

So, when Egypt was the greatest, it did not view children as religious fodder. But, for more than 13 centuries, the greatest religious celebration has been a psychopath’s willingness to kill his son. How difficult is it to see that such a superstition is not viable, and that, in such a valley of tears, and fears, nothing very good can grow again?

***

Patrice Ayme

NO REVOLUTION, NO CIVILIZATION

February 20, 2011

 

DON’T ASK WHOM REVOLUTION IS TOLLING FOR, IT TOLLS FOR THEE.

Civilization Without Revolution Is Only Perversion And Stagnation. We Revolve, Thus We Progress.

***

Abstract; Civilization amplifies man. Plutocracy destroys man. There are many reasons for this, such as greed (l’appat du gain, in French).

However, the full truth is much more sinister than that. Ultimately, plutocracy destroys man by design, evil design, rather than by happenstance.

As usual, by plutocracy I do not mean just the rule of wealth, but also what eggs on this obsessive behavior, the RULE OF EVIL. Plutocracy: Pluto’s rule, Pluto in full, not just the Pluto who wants to grab all the treasures of the underground, but also the Pluto of everything else, the one who can make himself invisible, the one who is the other name of Hades.

So, by Pluto I mean Pluto as evolution created it: the ultimate way to keep Earth in balance with the genus Homo. Through the culling of the genus Homo. (But culling, just so, is so delicate to do, with weapons of Mass Destruction.)

 

Plutocracy in the usual sense, the rule of wealth, appeared as soon as huge quantities of capital could be created, and thus concentrated by the few. Indeed, capital tends to concentrate (a purely mathematical phenomenon).

As capital concentrates on the few, others are left with too little. Thus plutocracy renders most people impotent. But people are made to be potent. “Live potent or die”, this is how evolution had it. Thus plutocracy makes civilization morbid, ready to collapse at the first adversity, be it only because not only does it estrange Homo from himself, but, by making most members of society impotent, and thus incompetent, it makes for a society of worthless individuals, grains of sands in the machinery of meaning.

This is why revolutions are necessary. Verily the real sense of the concept of “revolution” is not destruction, and a jump into the unknown, for the unknown’s sake. In truth, it’s the exact opposite. Revolution is actually the act of going back, to re-turn [Latin: re-volvere]. Nietzsche would have been pleased. He was obsessed by the “Eternal Return of the Same”. I am saying that said return has to be engineered.

Return to what? What is so revolutionary about returning?

A real revolution returns to the fundamental nature of man. A real revolution re-empowers average individuals, by allowing them to return to their fundamental nature. A real revolution free people from those chains Rousseau was talking about. (That is how a real revolution can be distinguished from the fake ones: a real revolution brings back to the real nature of man; a fake one drags man further away from man; what I mean here is that Lenin, for example, organized a fake revolution; he brought more plutocracy, not less… And that was even his program!)

Thus, although revolution is necessary for progress, it is the most conservative thing. The enemies of revolution claim to be the most conservatives, but they are the exact opposite. Or then hyenas are the most conservative. After all, they want to keep the entire carcass to themselves.

Civilization has to protect itself from excessive plutocracy. It does this by undergoing periodic revolutions, cleansing excessive plutocracy, adapting the essence of man to the new reality that advancing technology, plutocracy, and changing circumstances have brought about.

Otherwise, if civilization does not undergo a significant revolution in a timely manner, it fails epically: see the Mayas drying up, at each others’ throats (650-900 CE). Or see Muslim Spain falling apart all by itself (in a flurry of petty lords fighting each other) , or look at the Baghdad Caliphate in 1258, annihilated after typical plutocratic madness had rendered it unable to perceive the roughest outline of reality (see below).

The West has been erroneously described as “Christian”. Nietzsche insisted that this was never true, and that aristocratic morality dominated along, whose values were deeply anti-Christian. Although Nietzsche sourced his reasoning in literature, the historical record is pretty clear, and the actors even more so. They have names, and I don’t hesitate to brandish them. Real history beats philology anytime.

In truth, the fundamental ideology of the West at its best, is the permanent revolution. The West has done well because of its propensity to revolution.

 

In its most significant outline, the history of the West is pretty much the history of revolutions. Revolutions have cleansed plutocratic pollution. They have prevented the Occident to turn into the hydraulic dictatorships of the Orient. Revolutions have allowed to adapt to technology, and push it further.

Contrarily to received wisdom, revolutions do not have to do with mobs. Revolutions are always led by intellectual elites. Then a People implements it. When a mob rises to seize the Bastille, it is the fracture at the end of an accident.

The history of China is replete with fascist paroxysms such as the short lived Qin dynasty. A revolution in more ways than one, many have said, and evidence shows, but in my set-up anything that augments fascism considerably, to the point of burning books and burying scholars, actually end up increasing plutocracy, and does not qualify as a genuine revolution (which has to do more with ideas; fake revolutions by plutocrats and fascists aspiring to become plutocrats are abundant; see Libya, and various other Arab speaking regimes).

The Ming can be viewed as a revolution against the Yuan (= Mongols), but there again, its anti-intellectual character makes it more a mental collapse and a coup than anything else.

In other words, between Confucius and the Twentieth Century, a lapse of 26 centuries, China has known 2 successful foreign invasions (not counting the ephemeral French, British, and Japanese occupations), but no revolution. The absence of genuine revolution was China’s major problem. China has been playing catch-up, by indulging in at least 4 major revolutions in a century, which brought in a cornucopia of Western ideas. And many have worked spectacularly well.

Same in India, for that matter. In spite of Buddha’s pretty meditations below those big trees, the caste system stayed in place until the British squeezed the life out of it. That was a non neglectable 33 centuries or so. And it was genetically based (modern gene studies have shown). So much for the great achievements of Indian philosophy, and the life impacting wisdom exuding therefrom. But now India, too, has become revolutionary (I will make Gandhi a honorary revolutionary, but not the main one, just for the occasion of this particular paragraph).

Similarly in the lands that Islam crushed, no genuine revolution was ever seen. Except in Turkey, where the intellectual leadership that characterizes a real revolution was provided by the “Young Turks”.

Right now, the intellectual leadership for revolution against fascist plutocracy is provided by the Internet.

The quasi simultaneous revolutions in Athens and Rome, 26 centuries ago, are exemplary. An earlier example was the revolution from the top in Egypt, when a Pharaoh decided to reduce vampiric theocracy by imposing just one god, a secularist, naturalistic god, to replace the many gods with their attending theocracies (circa 1350 BCE). This Egyptian revolution, like many other Egyptian revolutions, had consequences to this day (in particular, it clearly influenced, JCI, Judeo-Christo-Islamism, the religion of Abraham, the would-be child killer; the child killing itself is in the “MLK” tradition: Moloch, and had nothing to do with Egypt… Until the followers of Abraham, that is, partly, Moloch, conquered Egypt, 16 centuries ago).

An anti-plutocratic revolution is a matter of restoring the highest principles above the machinations of the few who are animated by that part of the ethology of man which is man-destroying.

There are other types of revolution, in science, philosophy or art. They are related to purely anti-plutocratic revolutions, because any established system of thought gets captured by an oligarchy (priesthoods, such as the priesthood Muhammad was trying to avoid when he set the basics of Islam, are examples). So for correct new thinking to be accepted, an oligarchy has to be seduced, or vanquished.

Thus Europe has been thinking well, because Europe has cultivated the spirit of revolution. This observation generalizes Nietzsche’s thesis that the spirit of the god Dionysus (the feasts of the senses, mental anarchy), animated the Greeks as importantly as that of Apollo (classical beauty, rigor).

Reciprocally, if the spirit of revolution falters, so will creative thinking. Be it only because creative thinking, when it is creative enough, is always a revolution.

***

***

REVOLUTIONARY ANTIQUE EGYPT:

Egypt brought enormous contributions to civilization. It was at the very top, until rendered stupid by the religion of Abraham. Egyptian civilization was the last remnant of the Saharan civilization, which had to flee to the margins, as the Sahara became the world’s toughest and largest desert (short of Antarctica). The Egyptians adapted to the Nile. Their contributions go far beyond the monuments left today. The Egyptians were part of the work group (so to speak) which invented the alphabet, as they exchanged ideas on that with the Sumerian cities.

A lot of what came to be known as Greek mathematics originated in Egypt. Egypt had also a close, symbiotic relationship with Crete before the later got destroyed by the crazy volcano. Much later, at some point Athens attacked (for a while successfully) to free Egypt from its Persian occupiers.

Deciphering ancient texts has shown that life in ancient Egypt was amazingly modern in feeling, closer to the present day West than to the Salafist hell which have come to pass for normal in the region for the last millennium or so. People would have a picnic in the park with the children (watching the crocs and hippopotami). A lot of the famous legends of the bible can be found verbatim in Egyptian fables. The Egyptian fables are thousands of years older.

Women were fully liberated, as they used to be in prehistory. Egypt had many female pharaohs, as the eons passed by. And many queens of superlative influence, such as Nefertiti. That makes Islam, with its vision that woman ought to be, at best, worth half a man, particularly offensive, and grotesque, in a place which knew little sexism for millennia.

As the following demonstrates, real Pharaohs could be extremely enlightened. At the time of the following, the Pharaonic empire was gigantic: it extended all the way to Mesopotamia and Anatolia.

***

 

A REVOLUTIONARY PAROXYSM OF CONSEQUENCE IN EGYPT, 33 CENTURIES AGO:

Pharaoh Amenhotep IV had succeeded his father Amenhotep III’s. Amenhotep III reigned 38 years (better than Mubarak!). Mono-Atenism, a revolution, was launched by the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV who changed his name to Akhenaten or “Living Spirit of Aten“. Akhenaten was exasperated by Egyptian theocracy, which was sucking the empire dry (he was the top theocrat, so in good position to know).

Amenhotep/Akhenaten’s chief wife was Nefertiti. His son was Tutankhamun (DNA confirmed). So we are among the elite. Akhenaten’s revolution was from the top.

The revolution imposed by Akhenaten was astounding: he basically imposed the belief that the nocturnal struggle of the sun, characteristic of the old Egyptian religion, did not happen. Instead the rise of the sun was viewed as mechanical, led by a mechanical god (who had three aspects). Akhenaten believed in a god one could not really pray to. (So what happen in the after-life? After a beloved daughter died in childbirth, the pharaoh recognized he did not have an answer… and he was sad; that was the Achilles’ heel of his religion… Achilles would come within a century).

Akhenaten preceded Judaism by 2 centuries. some have suggested he was the true Moses. Sigmund Freud, a sexually obsessed secular Jew, argued that Moses was an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt when Atenism fell in disfavor (as bad luck would have it, there was a plague). There is much to be said on Akhenaten. Akhenaten believed in nature, and the art of the period is characteristically, very realistic:

clip_image002

Plaster portrait study of pharaoh Akhenaten (or some pharaoh closely related to him). The heads of Nefertiti (= “Real Beauty has Come”) and Tutankhamen, are from the same period.

***

MEN DIE, IDEAS LIVE ON:

From the preceding a conclusion arises with inevitable splendor. Revolutions are natural to Egypt. Recent Muslim autocratic stagnation is not.

If Ancient Egypt had been as dumb, in a sexist way, as the Qur’an wants it to be, it would not have been: dumbing women down, dumbs down all of society, because women teach infants and small children, when intelligence is taught the basics. That was always the downfall of sexist societies. They breed idiots.

That makes Islam, its associated, vicious, meek potentates, offensive and grotesque. It is amusing to see a religion coming out, and making fascism into a moral principle (see Qur’an, Sura 4, verse 59, a quote all would be revolutionaries and defenders of Islam ought to consider; it makes Hitlerism virtually identical to Islam, on that point, the point of what Islamist politics is all about; no wonder: Hitler knew Islam well, and sang its praises).

As I always say, but it is as good a place to remind it as any, plutocracy encourages theocracy. After all, plutocrats thrive better when they are viewed as divine, or as having a special relationship to god (the formula Roman emperors settled on).

The European Middle Ages is the archetypical example of plutocracy leading back to theocracy. In recent decades, plutocracy has been facilitating theocracy both in the USA and in Muslim countries, the former bringing the later, and it is backfiring in both places, as it always does. That this plutocracy is USA based is irrelevant to the mechanism itself; the initial rise of Salafist Islam during the Middle Ages was also plutocratically driven, but indigenous, and took much longer.

Rebellions, revolutions and wars in Europe cut down, again and again, the unhealthy rule of plutocracy and theocracy.

Past Egyptian revolutions’ ideas are still driving our civilization today. However, the first rate civilizational role of Egypt collapsed after the grabbing of power by the follower of Abraham. In light of this, anybody extolling instead the grandeur of Islam ought to go see the history doctor. Probably the psychiatry doctor too.

Akhenaten was the world’s richest man, when he launched his revolution, and had always known extraordinary privilege. He used his astounding position to rule for the better, and leave behind ideas that would help to rule for the better. That proves that the relationship between money and rule has to refined, as I advocate. Plutocracy is not just the rule of money. Akhenaten’s rule was no plutocracy, because he was not inspired by the worst in man, but by secularism, pragmatism, the observation of nature. It was the rule of revolution, actually aiming at decreasing theocracy and plutocracy.

(Marx himself was made possible because his friend Engels was rich, born of the rich; top thinking has always required a tap on the top means.)

However the evolution of ideas know strong relapses, and the stronger the ideas, the stronger the relapses. Under later Pharaohs, a lot of the ancient Egyptian religion was re-instated (although Akhenaten’s ideas were never completely forgotten).

By the time of Pharaoh Ramses II, Akhenaten came to be known simply as “the enemy“, and the method he had himself used, what the Romans came to know as “Damnae Memoria”, where all references and statues and representations of a previous ruler are erased, was used against him.

***

EUROPE, OR CONTINUOUS REVOLUTIONS EVERYWHERE:

Sparta, Athens and Rome had drastic revolutions within a century of each other. The Athenian revolution was more drastic than the Roman one; Athens was a democracy, the People ruled, whereas Roma was a republic with a “mixed” constitution (Polybius dixit), part democracy, part aristocracy (with the two chambers systems of Sumer, 15 centuries earlier).

Revolutions is how Athens and Rome came to be. Those who admire Greco-Roman antiquity admire revolution. Athens had more than one revolution, as it relapsed in plutocracy. Those revolutions threw out kings or tyrants, in other words, plutocrats. The Athenian or Roman civilizations would not have happened without these revolutions. What would have happened instead is a mystery: a Marseilles-Etruscan alliance against Carthage?

It is significant that, in the usual Marxist view of history, these fundamental revolutions are ignored; however they redistributed wealth, expropriated, and reorganized the class structures. They are more reminiscent of Fidel Castro’s revolution than to anything mild. I guess evoking their amplitude and radicalism would have sabotaged Marx’s simplistic view of the ineluctable flow of history, from feudalism to communism.

Many other thinkers have ignored those revolutions too, including Nietzsche, who contented himself with pointing out that the Greeks were hysterically “Dionysian”, non rational in the conventional sense, and therein their superiority (until Socrates came around, all tangled up with his little three cents arguments). In truth the Greeks were fundamental revolutionaries.

Conservatives, Neoconservatives, and various fascists wax lyrical when they evoke Rome, but they tend to forget that it started as what would now be called a “Marxist”, or “Socialist” revolution. Although, in all fairness, the Italian fascists, and even the Nazis remembered. Those critters were explicitly anti-oligarchic, and anti-plutocratic, as they understood quite well that the Peoples they led by the nose confusedly understood some elements of the connection between plutocracy and civilizational regression.

So fancy night clubs were supposed to be closed, In Nazi Germany (wow). In truth, of course the Nazis were faking it, it was a camouflage: so it is when the death adder resemble dead leaves. The Nazis were the greediest, and so where their supporters, and they all conspire to steal the Jews and other Europeans, so greedy they were.

Even after it was occupied by the armed forces of plutocrats, Athens kept on revolting. First against fascist imperialist Macedonia. Finally, with Roman help, it was successful in getting rid of Macedonia. It had taken 180 years.

But the Roman allies stayed, like the Americans would have liked to do in France in 1945. And they stayed in an aura of terror, because they had wasted Corinth, on the ground that t was too socialist a city.

Still, Athens stayed alive, like ambers of a fire ready to devour its Roman masters. Emperor Justinian, nearly 6 centuries later, would finally close the Athenian academies, and outlaw any critical, secular, or philosophical teaching not under the state’s Christian close supervision. The punishment for miscreants was according to Saint Pau’s orders: by burning the culprit alive.

The Revolution of 1789 in France was severely criticized (including in the USA at the time), for being something iconoclast, something never seen before, bloodied, respecting nothing.

However, those holding such opinions show their ignorance of history. The revolution of 1789 was in the best tradition. It was the revolution Athens and Rome should have made: giving universal rights, including voting, to all.

Athens had given the vote. Rome had taken back the vote, but extended the rights.  The revolution of the universal rights of man and the citizen of 1789 was in the best tradition started by Athens and Rome. BLOODY REVOLUTIONS: THAT IS HOW THE WEST WAS WON.

The two heroes represented below assassinated one of the two tyrant brothers of Athens (514 BCE). Members of their families could dine for free forever after.

clip_image003

clip_image004

Statue of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Naples. [Roman copy of the Athenian version by Kritios and Nesiotes.] The heroes are au naturel, because the raw spirit of real men needs no cloak. Only the Dark side needs to hide.

The conspiracy to do away with the tyrants was revealed a few minutes too early, so the other tyrant escaped and was able to torture the surviving hero to death. Later a Spartan army swooped in, and did away with him too. Violence does not just feed on violence, it can eat up entirely.

This by the way illustrates what I would call the NON VIOLENCE FALLACY. The illusion that violence can be vanquished, or is best vanquished by non violence. if that Spartan army had not shown up, the great Athenian civilization would not have been. [See below.]

There were even mini-revolutions under the fascist Roman empire. The Roman republic was forced by its Italian allies to grant them citizenship: Rome won that war, but lost the argument. It was a war for equality, something even more drastic than a simple revolution. Finally, under the Severian emperor Caracalla, Roman citizenship, and all its privileges, was given to all free men (3C).

Then, of course, Christianity itself, imposed from the top by Constantine as he was busy conquering the empire (helped by his Franks), was a revolution. Christianity, as interpreted by most Christians, was opposite of a lot of the Roman ethical system under the empire: instead of cruelty, it promoted love. Christianity was even opposed to the ethic of the republic; instead of the (republican) law, it promoted forgiveness (highways became deadly as the Christians refused to punish robbers). And so on. Rome was punished by its own instruments, as the application of Christianity soon proved itself more cruel than anything Rome had known, ever. Killing with kindness is still killing. And Christians were often more demented than kind in any sense.

That Christian ethical ethical revolution was not the end all, be all. It built up on the Greco-Roman republican ethics (with its notion of equality). It was more sexist than Romanitas (after all Rome had empresses, the Augustas: whereas the church never had a female leader). Christianity was also indifferent to the greatest flaw of the Greco-Romans, slavery.

***

THE FRANKISH REVOLUTION:

The ethical driver of Christianity was a reaction against Roman materialism and cruelty. However Christ was himself power mad and cruel, as demonstrated when he suggested to bring unbelievers to him so he could strike them with a sword, and kill them. One could argue that Christ was less power mad and cruel than say, emperors Constantine, or Constantius II, who killed most of their own families. But that is not saying much. As a good Roman imperial leader, Christ celebrated his ability to break families with his personality cult, as children would follow him rather than their parents, a boast Hitler would also make, word for word. Great minds of the Jewish hating kind think alike.

OK, Christ probably never existed, so I will forgive him. Nietzsche correctly argued that it was erroneous to describe European civilization as “Christian”. Nietzsche observed that the European aristocracy rarely behaved as if it were Christian, but, instead celebrated anti-Christian values.

Indeed those who view Europe as Christian are far from the truth. They are confusing the truth, and the crafty cover-up which was set up to hide it. Most read history naively. As Clovis pointed out, if he had been there with 10,000 of his Franks, Christ would have never been crucified. Naively, one could say that Clovis understood nothing to Christianity. But it would be as if saying that the wolf understands nothing to the sheep and its immaculate robe, because it eats it alive, and splashes blood everywhere. Who is naïve here?

What Clovis was saying is exactly what he said: if he had been there with “10,000 of his Franks”, there would have been no crucifixion circus, and thus no Christianity. 10,000 Franks: no Christianity.

The Franks did not respect Augustus’ advice to leave northern Germany alone. The Franks conquered Europe, brandishing the cross, because that instrument of terror was excellent with distant savages. But they did not conquer Europe with love. Quite the opposite. They conquered Europe with military hyperactivity: several of the most famous Frankish leaders, over a span of 3 centuries, were continually at war. The Franks made the Romans look like placid cows. The Franks invented methods of victory and domestication later copied by the Mongols, and the Americans.

The Franks made an anti-Christian revolution (they were above any suspicion, since they had just converted to Catholicism, they loudly proclaimed, caressing their francisca). Christianism had been against law, order, the military, thinking, books and education, to the point of suiciding society. The Franks swept all this, and established at the helm a sly mixture of German democracy and Roman fascism, under the banner of “Europe”.

In the following three centuries, one can argue that the Franks piled up at least three other revolutions: the outlawing of slavery (7C), the nationalization of the Church (8C), and forcing the church to teach secular knowledge to all the children (8C). And all of this was before Charlemagne. Charlemagne instituted a flurry of mini-revolutions. Such as linguistic revolutions: replacing Roman capital letters with Carolingian minuscules, which could be written in 3 strokes, and thus allowed to copy books much faster. They also created written German.

The invasion of England by the Franco-Normands also rode in as a revolution (and many revolutions rolled over England in the next 6 centuries). The Conqueror instituted a direct relationship with his subject, and preserved the local assemblies. His relationship with the lords of his French army would soon lead to the Magna Carta (as the French Barons saw themselves as partners in the conquest of England, rather than simple subjects).

Another aspect all too neglected, is that the Franks claimed (like the Romans) that they came from Troy. The Roman story may have percolated from the mysterious Etruscans (who indeed came from the area of Troy, sort of). The Etruscan plutocrats were the victims of the Roman revolution, but they had taught Romans to count their cows.

However the Franks were much more seriously anti-Greek, in the sense that their vision of society was definitively radical: they wanted no slaves, and women were to be equal enough to reign (Rome had several “Augustas”, reigning empresses, de facto, but one had to wait the Frankish queens to have female leaders with exactly the same “authority” as if they had been men… the reigning queens and empresses Europe would enjoy a millennium later come from that tradition… curiously it died in France where it had been born, as a reaction to the fearsome Isabelle de France, daughter of Philippe IV le Bel, queen of England).

This is the flow and ebb of revolutions; the Greeks and the Romans had been outrageous enslavers and sexist demons. Crete, the partner of Egypt, centuries before the Dorian conquest of Greece had not been sexist: it had female toreadors, exerting with very little clothing. However the Dorians came in as males armed with steel swords, killing the men, and enslaving the women.

Both Christianity and the Franks owe their success, ethical, and then material, to the fact that they reconciled civilization with the authentic inheritance of the genus Homo.

France, of course, stayed revolution central ever since (even organizing one in America, just for the heck of it, repaying England with some of its own medicine).

***

TO UNDERSTAND MAN, GO OLD:

When one wants to understand man, one has to look back to prehistory always. This is the most worthy religion; re-ligare, re-tying to our true nature, and, thus the true nature of nature. Why?

Simply because man, and that means man’s ethology, evolved over at least the ten million years anticipating that sliver we call history. It’s not ten thousand years of Neolithic, not even one half of a thousandth of the duration, when the gens Homo has proudly carried its name,that changed the eons that preceded them.

OK, some population, from Norwegians to Kenyans, learned to digest milk as adults, in the last few millennia. But they did not change how they loved, feared, hated, and yearned for glory, mayhem, and the hunt. Why? Because man is out of nature, for and against nature. Manipulating nature into something more suitable is what Homo does, ever since she learned to cut rocks just so, make clothing, and use fire.

However, nature, in its full glory, has not changed much. OK, Homo has mangled the biosphere, and caused the worse extinction tsunami in 65 million years. But the rest of nature has stayed pretty impervious: lightning is still there, volcanoes erupt, and the tides don’t dance the samba, however strong we wish them to. And we are quickly running out of metals (a problem overlooked by past historians, as far as I can tell, but which was a major factor in the decline of Rome).

What is the implication? The deep nature of man, of Homo, was apt to solve the deepest problem: evolve a nature to master nature itself for the better (and the better had to be defined according to wishful thinking). So the deep nature of man, prehistoric man, is not just about who we truly are, but about what the true nature of the mental machinery for resolving nature is.

***

NEOLITHIC & CIVILIZATION AMPLIFIED THE DARK SIDE:

If anything, Neolithic and civilization (the first cities appeared in Anatolia, 10,000 years ago) made a bad situation worse, or let’s say that civilization and neolithic made some already all too human characteristics, much more so. And not always for the good.

 

I am not saying that this is a possibility, but, rather, part high probability, part fact. Why? Because the neolithic and then even more so, civilization, increased human densities, hence human interactions enormously. Increasing density put humanity, and humanism, on steroid, so to speak. Man’s intelligence is culturally programmed, and if the intelligence of culture blossom, so does individual intelligence (it goes the other way too: submitted to a really stupid culture, such as Nazism, or superstition, individual intelligence can go in reverse).

Studies of earthly remains show that neolithic life was extremely murderous. And it was probably much more murderous than before. Indeed paleolithic human groups used to be small, widely separated, with low birth rates, during the millions of years of the paleolithic. Paleolithic man had more problems with the local lions. Although, of course, expeditions to steal someone’s else fire were probably the greatest achievement for hundreds of thousands of years as Homo Erectus appreciated fire, an engine of survival, but did not master enough thermodynamics yet (namely that heat is motion). Wars, and holocausts (of more than a dozen humanoid species) imparted the human mind with its very Dark Side.

Thus the Eden Rousseau longed for, not only never existed, but was deeper in prehistory, where our character comes from, and roasted Rousseau for dinner was a much rarer occasion indeed (in all senses of the term).

But still, agreed, things got worse, in more than one sense as the combinations evil thrive on multiplied with each other, when human densities went up.

Civilization meant the high density of cities, but it also meant the high intensity of thinking, and therein the possibility of imaginative solutions, those which allowed to survive, the sustainable ones, the mores, morality, and its enforcement, the law.

It is funny how many talk about “oligarchy”, the rule of the few, whereas few talk about “plutocracy”, which I define as the rule of hell. But, pray tell, how could only a few rule, without giving hell to the many?

 

Another countersense is to call regimes such as the Tunisian, the Egyptian “autocracies”, the rule of self, whatever that means. Since when has “self” ruled alone? The Tunisian and Egyptian regimes rested not just on the army (which switched sides), but the police (now claiming to have been a victim too), and, just as American rule in Iraq and Afghanistan, on secret armies of private goons expert at the darkest arts, such as killing people from afar (snipers’ position were revealed on Twitter, though…)

Maybe Stalin was the closest approximation of the rule of self, or then Roman emperor Domitian. But Stalin, after his buddy Hitler attacked the USSR, stayed secluded for days. When he met with the politburo, Stalin expected to be fired (aka executed). Even Stalin did not rule alone. Domitian, or Nero, ended up doing so, and they were disposed off in vast plots. And plots not from the People, but from fellow oligarchs, or more exactly, plutocrats (a similar scenario held with Caesar, except Caesar was far from alone, but he decided to go around as if he did not even need one companion or bodygard).

Look at vile regimes such as Mohammed VI’s in Morocco, or the Saudi: you have got many, thousands, grossly profiting from the regime. Same in Jordan, or Algeria. Ultimately people of the West profit also from cheap phosphates (Morocco) or cheap oil (the Arabs). in truth, the money is recycled, such as when the owners of Arabia buy zillions of dollars of weapons to their fellow senior partners in plutocracy based in the USA.

In Algeria, health care is free, thanks to the 60 billion dollars of oil revenue, a lot of which is redistributed.

 

Call, if you want, Mubarak’s Egypt an oligarchy, or a dictatorship, but both descriptions will come short, as neither brings to the mind the rule of the worst that the human character can display. But a regime which can kill more than 300 of its pacifically protesting citizens in 2 weeks (while hurting thousands more), for all to see, that’s a hellish regime. Of course, Libya will do worse, because it’s less civilized.

***

RECOGNIZE EVIL, IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT IT:

Where does hell come from? Here is the Roman answer:

clip_image006

It’s all mixed up! Yes, the yin-yang symbol appeared at least seven hundred years earlier in the West than in China. Even two thousand years earlier, if one counts, as one should, its ubiquitous apparition in Celtic art (where the Romans probably got it from, since Gallia Transalpina is now known as Northern Italy).

Roman republican civilization was hard, tough, uncompromising. It’s the Romans who brandished:”Homo homini lupus.” (Man wolf for man). Under the Principate (“empire”), this revelation turned to plain cruelty.

The same idea, that toughness is central to effective civilization, is in the fascist symbol, representing justice, an idea adopted by Rome from Etruria. A bundle of rods together: E Pluribus Unum, Out Of Many, One, holding an axe. So justice without the threat of ultimate violence is not.

 

clip_image007
Roman fasces

 

Not only is hell all mixed up, it is a matter of location in the dynamics of the swirl. No violence, no justice. Justice associated to violence: the way of the West, the way of revolution.

***

THE NON VIOLENCE FALLACY TRICK:

Since Gandhi became fashionable, it has been said that the best revolutions are non violent. How convenient for those with the guns.

It is true that non violent methods can be very useful. Mr. Gene Sharp’s writings on nonviolent revolution, such as “From Dictatorship to Democracy”, a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats, available for download in 24 languages — have inspired dissidents with practical advice.

However, as I always tend to argue, Gandhi did more bad than good. So arguing pacifism, and non violence was good is a bit like arguing that vegetarianism was good because Hitler, a vegetarian, wanted to free Bohemia. OK, Gandhi esteemed Hitler, I know, and Hitler did free bohemia, his way.

Gandhi was fighting an enemy, the British, whose ridiculous tax on salt, and the like, was going to be discontinued, just as their rule. The Brits were the first to know that. Gandhi was fighting scurrying rabbits. Gandhi’s later life shows that he was aware of how wrong he had been. Not only did he want to repay the Muslims, in spite of death threats of enraged Hindus, but it seems that he wanted to die.

Non violence is pushed by those who want to fight only scurrying rabbits, and bleating sheep. It is a maneuver of the vicious ones, essential to their rule. even more so than building a fear barrier.

Greenpeace forced Japan to give up killing whales, in the present Japanese execution of whales season. But if Greenpeace had been only peaceful, it would have got nowhere. Instead it took huge risks with its science fiction motorized catamaran, and great violence was used.

***

PLUTO PREFERS TO HAVE A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE:

While the oligarchies advise peace and moderation to protesters, they do not feel so constrained. In Egypt the 18 days rebellion of February 2011 killed at least 365 people. Within a few days of the start of protest, the obviously mentally impaired Khadafy had killed more than 200.

To counteract that governmental violence, violence of the People, that is force of the People, was, and had to be used. The demonstrators protected the Egyptian Museum on Tahir place, which (violent) thieves (probably regime goons) had raided. Thousands of Molotov cocktails were exchanged. If all “non violent” Egyptians had been thoroughly non violent, Mubarak’s son, Gamal, would have sat in the throne in September, after another fake election, as planned by the plutocracy.

In Tunisia, demonstrators tried to take over jails, in which political prisoners were held. They got killed, until the Tunisian army, charging with tanks, interposed itself, ordered the prison guards, police and goons to open the jails, and surrender.

When a real revolution is needed, real violence has already been used. Only more violence can push it away. In Tunisia, definitively, and in Egypt, half way, the revolutions have worked because the armies sided with the demonstrators. So it is FORCE which decided which way things would go. The pictures of Kasserine, with the red berets officers standing barking orders from the top of tanks, holding heavy caliber weapons tell more than volumes of wishy-washy pata philosophy by the meek and weak.

And indeed, where the army supports the regime, the regimes did not break. Algeria is the quintessential example (but there the army can justify its existence, as it fights vicious Muslim fundamentalist closely related to Al Qaeda). In Libya the murderous clown, Khadafy, at the head of what he calls his “massocracy” (rule of the masses), killed more than fifty, just in the first two days (Libya is supported by various European powers).

In Bahrain, the USA supported dictatorship felt that it could fight, considering that the world empire of the USA has a major military basis on the premises. So the army, paid by the plutocrats, came out in the night as demonstrators were sleeping. The army charged and shot, killing at least 5.

One could object that my little theory that non violence does not amount to much was disproved in South Africa. But South Africa was a special case, and not just because of Mandela’s extraordinary intellect. His enemies themselves were also pretty extraordinary, and they had lived through something similar themselves, as victims, a few generations earlier, during the Boer War. The Boer had been submitted to a holocaust, and none of the other locals had it so bad.

Both Mandela and Gandhi were British trained lawyers. Both are depicted as giants of non violence. However, that’s an illusion. Mandela’s approach was completely opposed to that of Gandhi. And so were his solutions. Mandela embraced bombs when it was important to show the whites they would not win a violent struggle. Seriously jailed, he embraced the minds of his enemies, learning Afrikaner, and subduing them mentally. Then he found a “Truth and Reconciliation” approach which was most appropriate to South Africa.

Some who read me carefully may feel that embracing Mandela’s “Truth and Reconciliation” while approving the French method of shooting legions of collaborators in 1944-45, seems a bit spastic.

However, different places, different reconciliations. In South Africa, the Peoples needed to be reconciled. In France, starting in 1944, the population had to be reconciled with the idea that the republic was strong. Also the USA, carried a bit by president Roosevelt’s dislike for France, had planned to occupy France, as if she were Nazi Germany, or Poland, and the USA were the USSR. The USA had to be warned to: a diminished France would play the game of collaborating with the new world order, but only so far. and, as in 1939, was ready for the greatest sacrifices.

Shooting up to 40,000 collaborators in 1944-46 was not just a sacrifice on the altar of the republic, it was a warning by the republic to all enemies: if we can do that to the French, we can do it to you too.

This American occupation did not happen because the French army, even with 6 million prisoners in Germany, was more than a million strong (not counting reserves). And it was a ferocious army. Some officers had fought 6 years. An IBM director (believe it or not), and the fact that North Africa was basically France at the time played an important role there (which explains why the USA then tried to separate France from North Africa, exciting the Muslims against the French republic).

In other words, just as the USA exploded atomic bombs over Japan, in part as a warning to Moscow, France executed a lot of Nazi collaborators, as a warning to those too tempted by the idea of crossing again the French republic. The fasces of the republic had to come down hard, as a strong teaching for Europe, the world, and the future. After the war, the USA collaborated with thousands of the most vicious Nazis. In France the collaborators of Nazism had to be very careful.

Some may feel that I talk, talk and talk, gushing with execrable facts and theories, and, as a French speaking commenter decried, that I never propose any solution. But not so.

If the armies dominate, as I say, then the West, should it want to change the regimes, can influence the armies. Those armies generally depend upon the West for their armaments, and, thus, training. (A dictatorship such as Myanmar receives military support from its main trading partner, and fellow soul in more ways than one, China. it is the exception that proves the rule. In the world plutocratic system, no dictatorship is an island.)

Exerting force on the military is what the USA has done in Egypt. The force to be exerted could be just the force of persuasion (say in Jordan, Libya, Morocco).

***

ROME FAILED BECAUSE IT HAD JUST ONE REVOLUTION. THE FRANKS SUCCEEDED, BECAUSE THEY HAD MANY:

The history of the West is pretty much the history of revolution. Continual re-evolutions have allowed the West to keep on progressing. It is pretty telling that Rome had only one revolution (when it threw the Etruscan kings out). Then there were many centuries of an increasingly democratic republic, until the disastrous Second Punic War (starring Hannibal). Rome’s elite was decapitated, nouveaux rich took over. Plutocracy thrived, and fed the military industrial complex. The machine overheated, the world was conquered, with one war of choice after the other. Aggression against Greek republics committed.

Then those aristocrats, the Gracchi tried a revolution, but they and thousands of their supporters were killed by armies of private goons in the employ of the hyper wealthy. At that point the Roman republic was lost, and transmogrified into a senility gnawed at by gangrene (and indeed, by 200 CE, although the empire is still militarily overwhelming, science and literature have died).

The Gracchi had viewed the problem with total clarity: plutocracy. They described it with flame and fury. They legislated land redistribution. Thus, once again, Marx and company invented nothing there. The Roman republic died, because the revolution the Gracchi tried to implement, failed. It failed, because overwhelming force was used against it. And only because of that.

As the Greco-Roman civilization caught fire, disintegrated, and ravaged all, in its theocratic death throes, the Franks tried several coups, revolutions, and all out wars. The Franks named two of their candidates Augustus, and one of them was the famous Julian, Augustus of the unified empire, hated by the Christians, who call(ed) him the “Apostate” (he was mysteriously killed).

Clovis succeeded where Julian failed (unfortunately, by then, after 125 years of anti-civilizational terror most books and teachers had been destroyed). Whereas Julian and his brother, soles survivors of their family, had access to a tremendous library and teachers in the imperial castle at Macellum in Cappadocia, the libraries got burned under the order of Augustus Jovian, who succeeded Julian, and the teachers soon followed.

It is pretty telling that nobody ever disserts about Christian theocracy and its tremendous holocaust. Is that a form of racism? (Namely Christians can do no wrong, so the proclamation of the Dark Ages by 375 CE is something better ignored. What would have happened if the Nazis had won? Auschwitz and its 40 square kilometers, would never have happened? )

Revolutions can fail: the first half dozen anti-Christian revolutions attempted by the Franks failed. Julian counter-revolution also failed. It can be argued that he used too much “Truth and Reconciliation”. “Truth and Reconciliation” would not have worked against the Nazis. When American services used the Nazis after the war, the approach was “Lies and Concealment”. Clovis and company succeeded in part because they claimed that they were not what they were, so they were well accepted. Another trick was to progress progressively; when slavery was outlawed (around 660 CE), it was outlawed initially only in the sense that citizens of the empire were not allowed to own Christians.

***

Conclusion: WE RE-EVOLVE, THUS WE DOMINATE: Rome did not re-evolve, so it declined and fell into a heap. Having learned from this mistake, European civilization is about permanent revolution. When plutocracy has become too domineering, it is time for some more re-evolution. The reason for this continual struggle is that technology evolves, thus opening new avenue of domination to plutocracy. For example Corinth invented the trireme. Soon, a public-private program devised under Themistocles, allowed Athens to build 200 triremes (cutting all its primary forest in the process), and to construct a sort of aquatic empire stretching all the way to the Black Sea. That was all for the good. However, the plutocrats of Macedonia, those predatory horse lovers, also learned to build triremes, and, differently from the Greeks, they were extreme imperialists. In the end, they defeated Athens in two sea battles, as the rich Athenian captains decided to go to the Dark Side.

This shows that, the faster technology evolves, the more opportunities open to the Dark Side. The present financial markets, with their metastatic evolution are a perfect example: new technology has literally allowed them to get away with murder. For example as the world organization they set up for commodities, or rather, necessities of life, have allowed them to starve to death thousands, if not millions.

Let’s not overlook the fact that both the Athenian and Roman republics were sparked by forceful ANTI-PLUTOCRATIC revolutions. The Franks themselves conducted quite a few of them. So what’s the ultimate religion of the civilization we have now? REVOLUTION. Forget Christ, his jealousy, and his sword, in the name of his self aggrandizement. When the Americans made their revolution, it was against the king, the plutocrat in chief. It would take more than a century for the USA to see a billionaire again.

We welcome our Egyptian comrades to the side of permanent revolution. Their road is long and narrow, and passes through their hearts. Many have died, and more will, as satanic regimes fight back. All over North Africa, the Middle East, and even the world, Western plutocrats have installed rotten plutocrats they deal with, in a collective exploitation of all the peoples, all over, all the time. Insane maniacs such as Khadafy are perfect examples. Cracks are appearing in these cozy arrangements. Make no mistakes: what you see in Egypt, you have it at home. It’s just a bit more crafty. You had plutocracy in Egypt, because you have it at home.

 

But the fact also remains that North Africa and the Middle East have been the object of the very Greco-Roman and Hydraulic Dictatorship influences which made them too friendly to sexism, enslavement, and submission to theocracy and its obscurantism. “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Qur’an is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” So goes the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood.

They Muslim brothers, those submissive ones, learned that from Theodosius and Justinian, but they don’t know that. in a way, they are slaves to Constantine, Jovian, Valens, the two Theodosius, and Justinian. They need to be liberated from their Roman catholic lords.

Once I pointed out to a very educated Moroccan woman living in the USA that the Romans came to Morocco before the Arabs. She was so outraged that she told me that it was the end of this 15 year acquaintanceship, just there. Education is relative. But the big question, in the flow of history is: when is it enough? In 1258 CE, the largest army ever fielded by the Mongols, led by Hulagu Khan, attacked Baghdad. More than half the force was not Mongol. Aside from the usual Chinese siege technicians contingent, the army counted the Georgian army, Armenian cavalry, and the unavoidable Frankish contingent, from Antioch. All Muslim inhabitants of Baghdad were destroyed as if they were rats. Maybe a million died. The “House of Wisdom”, and countless libraries and treasures of the literature of antiquity were annihilated.

It was an immense catastrophe, and the end of the most enlightened Islamist civilization that ever was. I guess the Muslims of Baghdad ought to have been careful not to antagonize Armenia and Georgia (which were Christian centuries before Muhammad was born). Hulagu was particularly incensed by the Caliph’s haughty plutocratic behavior, and made a short discourse telling him why he should died for having preferred luxury to the welfare of the People.

Democracy permits men, and women, to live free as evolution made them. Greco-Roman theocratic plutocracy, as incarnated by countless Roman emperors, the true prophets of the Qur’an, was a perversion of civilization by the Dark Side. It is high time to revolt against 25 centuries of history of a pervasively perverse type.

And the West better not stay in the way. Being in the way, would not be against the nature of the West, it would be against its best self interest. $300 dollar a barrel oil will help the planet, and thus the West. But not just that. Roman leaders used to start their declaration with “Urbi et Orbi” (” to the City of Rome and to the World”). Republican Rome, when it became imperial, had it in its head that it would conquer the world (that was already an idea of Alexander, which had to be abandoned when his army went on strike in India). That dream terminated when a German coalition led by a traitor a la Bin Laden, Arminius, smashed the elite Roman army in Northern Germany.

We now have not only the occasion to spread republic and democracy, worldwide, but it is also a necessity, the alternative being rising seas and thermonuclear war. It will also be a good occasion to reflect on, and correct, the fact that, as the Athenians would point out, our present system, of “representative” democracy, is more oligarchic than democratic.

Ultimately history will judge today’s political leaders. It will judge whether they sided with civilization and revolution, or plutocracy and mayhem. It’s their choice, their judgment. But fear the consequences:  history can move at lightening speed. So did it, already 25 centuries ago. Let alone today. Today’s scums don’t have palaces big enough to hide inside. And the planet is now a village: nowhere to run.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: Mubarak, his wife and sons, and all the plutocrats associated to them, and similarly in Tunisia, are plutocrats of a high criminal type. They should all regurgitate their ill gained possessions, and be punished. Switzerland waits from a word form an Egyptian prosecutor to freeze all their assets.

A Long & Windy Road For Tunisia, Egypt…

February 15, 2011

 

Democracy Needs Institutions. Democracy Is Adverse To Army, Plutocracy & Superstition. A Tall Order For The Lands Where Theocracy Reigned.

***

Abstract: God destroyed most books, and killed most of its numerous enemies. But that was not enough. The Franks subdued God in 486 CE. Thereafter, the Franks made God eat in their secular hands.

However that charming scene was true only in the Imperium Francorum (Empire of the Franks), centered around Francia (modern France). The rest of the theocratic, fascist Roman empire kept on sinking in the Christian superstition, like a hopeless mammoth in the tar of ever increasing stupidity.

The theocratic dictatorship based in Constantinople was able to keep on imposing its holocaust, cloaked in superstitious terror. Under the fanatical terrorizing Christian-in-chief, emperor Justinian (483-565 CE), who reigned 40 years, much of the Roman empire was reconquered (Justinian attack all, but the Franks, who represented Roman authority just as well, but a Frankish army attacked Justinian’s forces in Italy).

Justinian caused great religious oppression, in the name of his triple headed god (does that make the Christian god a hydra?). He committed massive exterminations in the name of superstition, killing millions. Intellectuals fled to Persia, which, long the enemy of Rome, became, paradoxically, the protector of Greco-Roman intellectual treasures (that’s how the "Golden age of Islam" started, with the much older Zoroastrian civilization proving more mentally sustainable that the Greco-Roman folly; the former was founded by a philosopher, the latter corrupted by slave masters).

Ultimately the South East corner of the Greco-Roman empire, starting in Gaza (!) rebelled. That rebellion was exploited by Muhammad, and his cousin, a Christian monk. It is now called Islam. But it was all too similar to what it replaced, Christian terror. In particular Islam followed Constantinople’s degenerate idea of civilization, imposing a theocracy.

When God rules, the People does not. Theocracy prevents the growth of DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, which are crucial to overcome Plato and Socrates’ objections to democracy. Whereas in Occident, democratic institutions steadily grew in power, respectability, and inevitability. Democratic institutions make expertise compatible with one person-one vote, one person-one voice…

Egypt, and all lands conquered by Islam, have a long way to go. They are going to vote, but their democratic institutions are weak, or inexistent. Those lands have to do to Islam what the Franks did to Christianity 15 centuries ago: put it in a tool box. Then build democratic institutions. Maybe their growth can be accelerated, thanks to the worldwide web.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian army is a plutocratic device with its head in Washington. It is also a democratic device, as younger officers and soldiers are not as corrupt. This sort of contradictory situations has often happened in history. The most spectacular case was Athens herself, as her Navy was both highly democratic, but also insidiously betrayed by its leaders, rich men fatally attracted to plutocracy (who succumbed to the ancient charms of Antipater, one of the old generals of Alexander and his father).

In Imperial Rome, the army had also replaced, and displaced, the People ("Populus"), as it quarreled with the Senate, for 5 centuries or so, to see who was going to eat more of the cheese.

Thus it is not clear how things will turn out throughout the lands submitted to overwhelming, crushing, anti-intellectual superstition for 17 centuries. There will be a battle royal. The plutocracy which is trying to subdue the West, and has done an excellent job at it, cannot be too happy as it sees its greedy tentacles bruised overseas. Especially considering that is where the oil it buys its own serfs with, comes from.

Then again, as was done last week, the Obama administration could help the force(s) closest to democracy. That closest force, last week in Egypt, was, indeed, the army (as it was in Tunisia a few weeks before). If the USA, and the EU, help democracy as much as they used to help the oil men and Israel, much unexpected good could come out.

***

***

Republican and democratic practices in Western Europe are not yesterday’s papers. Republican and democratic practices in Western Europe are about 27 centuries old. That is, older than the Bible. They preceded similar practices in Rome, and even Athens.

Of course, the Germans lived under a sort of democracy in their forests. But they hardly had a modern state. Actually they had no states at all.

However, the Greek colonies in southern France, such as Massalia (from the Greek: Μασσαλία), or Nice (Νικαία, Nikaia, "Victory" in Greek) were combative republics, surrounded by enemies (Carthage one of them). They built an empire which collided with Carthage in Spain.

Republic and democracy are not invented overnight. The memories of what happened before was not fully erased later. Just the opposite: it stuck around, a fog of truth from the past. Southern France would stay persistently more democratic in its institutions, and people from there would make the English parliament into an institution which could rule (that would take another 4 centuries).

Some Neoconservatives who used to love invading the Middle East with giant armies have somewhat repented (an example is Roger Cohen of the New York Times). Their new sing song is to say that the USA brought the Egyptian revolution, after trying everything else under Bush, from billions of dollars thrown at the problem to outright invasions.

This is a misreading of history. Bush’s predecessors, other American presidents, starting with Roosevelt, FDR, had succeeded to subjugate the Arabs, using a hefty dose of support for old fashion Islam (Salafism) to do so (FDR himself inaugurated the method in 1945). The American presidents also used highly hypocritical anti-Europeanism masquerading as holier than thou anti-colonialism (somewhat reminiscent of when Hitler posed as a liberator of oppressed populations, to better invade and subjugate; Europe ought to remember how the USSR and the USA cooperated during the Suez-Hungary crisis, and the dictators in Moscow threatened to atom bomb Paris and London, with apparent American encouragement).

This American system of oil procurement and control worked well, and for a very long time. However, it carried within the germs of its own destruction. Enormous American hubris showed up in somewhat crazy support for Salafism. It backfired already when the Iranian Shiites proved to be ingrate. And so it was with Saddam Hussein, who used to obey, and shake the hand of Rumsfeld with enthusiasm (Rumsfeld being Bush II’s defense minister later).

American exploitation of Salafism backfired further when Osama Ben Laden and his colleagues, employed by the USA to defeat the Soviets, realized that they were instrumentalized by American plutocrats: they were tools of American plutocracy, and could sit at a table, but not the highest one.

Salafists and Arab nationalists came to understand that the American plutocratic plan was forever an exploitative order, where the oil would flow as long as it could, as cheaply as needed. That hurt the pride of Arab war lords, especially after their huge army had done the heavy lift in Afghanistan. When they tried to do a similar job, on their own, in, say, Algeria, they saw the Americans lining up behind the French to support the military dictatorship there. A civil war that killed much more than 150,000, led nowhere the French did not want to go.

So the Salafists friends of the USA soured on the USA. The same happened in Iran. Next Saddam Hussein, long a Euro-American strong man, and an enemy of the Salafists, also soured on the USA. His attempt to switch to the European currency for the oil payments was a final insult that the USA was not going to tolerate (as it threatened the world dollar system; something that the USA cannot afford is to pay its oil in Euros).

Thus Bush’s feeble, disorderly military efforts, were an attempt to recover control. He did not. Far from it, he made a bad situation worse. The only thing that progressed was military technology, but, since no peasant army was planning to invade the USA, except for the unstoppable Mexicans, it was no use. Obama is now using cheaper and craftier methods. However, in great part thanks to the worldwide web, the collusion between the USA (and to some extent, France) and the dictatorships is better known.

The Egyptian army chief of staff was in the USA when the revolution started, the Egyptian army is formed by the USA, and the generals get retirement pay from Washington. Besides, the army is in direct business, in cooperation with American business interests.
The Tunisian revolution lighted up in Kasserine, and the poorest part of that poor city. The dictator, Ben Ali gave his goons order to shoot. 40 elite marksmen in Kasserine alone. French TV, in hidden camera took some in picture, standard military machine gun in the back, and long barreled sharp shooter gun in the front (to kill people from afar). The pictures and stories of the unarmed demonstrators were shown on the Internet. Associations allied to WikiLeaks, taught internet users how to turn around the internet embargo set by the Tunisian dictatorship.

The revolutions started in Tunisia and Egypt are secular. They came from young, unemployed, smart and educated youth. The revolutions have to do with poverty. They may not know it (although ElBaradei does), but they strive to undo 13 centuries of Islam supported dictatorships.

Make that 17 centuries of dictatorship in the name of Christ and then Allah. Islamist dictatorships were an outgrowth of the Roman Catholic empire, and its abominable theocracy (which had gone on for three centuries, when the Prophet Muhammad thrived).

Initially Alexandria surrendered to the Muslims because it was suffering under the atrocious "Catholic Orthodox" Roman theocratic dictatorship. The Christian fanatics had earlier burned the library, the largest in the world. They had butchered alive top intellectuals, such as the world famous Hypatia (Hypatia’s chief butcher is still a Christian so called "saint", so is that even bigger butcher, Justinian). Alexandria realized its mistake within 3 years, and revolted, but it was too late, and the Second Caliph, Omar, clamped down.

How does one create democracy? As Socrates sourly, and obsessively, repeated ad nauseam, one man, one vote is no panacea. The European Middle Ages retorted more subtly, by building many DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS. The guilds were an example. So were orders (lawyers, doctors).

The feudal system was itself somewhat democratic, because it rested mostly on oaths (namely contracts; the system originated with the Roman state contracting German micro nations for defense).

In theory the law of man applied to all equally. after the immensely wealthy Count of Coucy let a poacher hang, Louis IX informed him that next time it would be Coucy who would hang.

Athens had (mostly) two democratic institutions: the National Assembly of the People, and the Navy.

But, in Athens as in other Greek cities, would-be oligarchs and plutocrats were not far from the surface. At the battle of Plataea, a Greek army led by a 40,000 Spartan contingent (5,000 Spartans + attending Helots), and a considerable Athenian army, plus other cities, confronted Xerxes’ juggernaut (300,000 strong says Herodotus; that number has been contested, but I contest the contesters).

I find pretty telling that the horribly invading Persians had Greek allies, such as Thebes. And there was (Herodotus numbers again), 50,000 of them, Greek traitors (Herodotus admits that’s a guess). Why were so many Greeks supporting the horribly invading, fascist, plutocratic Persians? Because Thebes’ regime was oligarchic (that is the word, and concept, the Greeks used at the time to describe Thebes). Athens was a democracy, Thebes an oligarchy. In Athens the People led, and sometimes led like a mob. In Thebes, at the time, only a few ruled, so they became naturally friendly to the few who ruled Persia.

A plutocracy is an oligarchy, not all oligarchies are plutocracies. However, they tend to be friendly to each other, as the principle of the few who rule the many unite them. Modern representative democracies are, de facto, ruled by a few, so they are oligarchies. Thus no wonder that, like Thebes at Plataea, they love plutocracies. And that is a warning: people talk big, and they say we live in democracy. but the Athenians would have sneered, and enumerated a long list of reasons why democratic republics such as the USA and the EU are not democracies. (Many Europeans would readily agree about the EU.)

The Franks made a big deal that their presidents, which they called "kings" (or, more exactly, "Rex"), were theoretically elected. The French dropped the pretense after Philippe August (1223 CE), but, it was never far removed. The Franco-English civil war (the 485 years long so called "100 years war") started precisely because the rightful Franco-English queen, Isabelle de France, was refused her rightful inheritance, by a Paris based cabal. Henri III, before being called back to head France, had been elected king of Poland, and his chosen successor, Henri de Navarre, was pretty much (reluctantly) elected by the Parisians.

Two thirds of the Frankish empire, its middle and eastern part, kept on electing its emperors all the way until the Corsican dictator Napoleon from Ajaccio, much admired by the weak minded, discontinued the practice in 1806 (being a Corsican bandit, he gave all the top jobs to his family, and, to this day, Sweden is led by his descendants).

But let’s stop digressing. The Franks had forced, by law, all and any Christian organization to teach secularly. Even before that, the bishops of Gaul had understood belatedly that the Christian folly was destroying civilization. Frankish power protected them from the murderous madness of the Pope Gregory (so called ‘The Great"). That was facilitated as the Frankish state named as many bishops as it pleased.

Out of the cathedral schools grew Europe’s university system, which became a democratic institution. It took a few centuries to allow professors to marry officially, since the despicable Saint Paul put marrying just above burning. Christians, following Christ, love burning; emperor Justinian, the saint mentioned above, attended the burning of many individuals he did not like the religion of, such as Pagans, Hellenist (= secular humanists), Samaritans, and various Christian heretics. Calvin would do the same, 1,000 years later (proving, if need be, that it had everything to do with Christ)

Other democratic institutions which grew in the European Middle Ages were the state administration and hospices (some of which being direct survivors of the Roman state; although French police, by 1300 CE, had become more powerful than Roman police ever was, as proven the arrest of most Templar monks on Friday the 13th).

Democratic institutions could not grow in regions dominated by Islam. Because Islam claimed to be a political system. It’s intrinsically a superstition claiming to be a theocracy. The only sort of institutions compatible with the Qur’an are tribes (it’s mentioned there). They are hardly democratic.

The Occidental bishops had tried theocracy around 400 CE contributing to the disintegration of the Roman empire (bishop Ambrose of Milan excommunicated the mighty, notoriously Christian, emperor Theodosius, as the later had done a small holocaust somewhere; Theodosius had to beg to be forgiven and reinstated…).

The difference with the Oriental part of the empire is that in the West, the Franks, who obviously despised the Christian moral system and its superstition all along (while officially embracing it), took command, and established their secular state (with the Christian cross brandished high as a symbol of the new ethics, which had more to do with Franco-German ethics than Christ’s obscurantism).

In the Orient, the Roman Catholic Orthodox (that’s how they called themselves) machine had not been dismantled (although Muslims came close to defeating it, it suffered terminal defeat only in 1204, at the hands of the Franks, although the Franks had already saved its skin with the First Crusade).

The (present government of the) USA and its People (Peace be Upon It!) do not want a real Arab revolution.

Why? Because if the Arab speaking people took control, they would ask for as much money for the oil as the free market can take. That would mean oil at $300 a barrel (then the secondary sources such as the tar oils of Canada would become irresistible). It would also mean that Israel could not afford anymore its present leaders and their mean policies.
What we have right now, is a coup, not a revolution: we were threatened with Suleiman Aleikum, the Moo-Barack from behind, as I pointed out in a somewhat timely manner, 3 days before Suleiman’s grab for power came crashing down.
A last minute change put directly in control the only candidate for a democratic institution in Egypt, the army. Vice President Suleiman was livid, as he announced in a 40 second address, God’s mercy, Mubarak’s resignation, and his own personal eclipse.
Speaking of mercy, it would be merciful if my incendiary essay on the subject had been read in high places…
An obstacle is that the Egyptian army is not just obedient to American plutocrats, but itself plutocratic on its own. Generals are paid by Washington, especially when they retire. moreover, it is said that the Egyptian army controls as much as 15% of Egypt’s GDP, and thus is fully part of the worldwide plutocracy. So this plutocratic control is not over in Egypt.
It is far from clear that the Egyptian people will come out on top. A fortiori other Arabs. The obscene Mohammed VI is thriving in Morocco, having gathered 10% of GDP all by his little self. He is the Pope of Morocco. Like Justinian, a similar sort of Pope, he commands the army. History ought to write a warrant for his arrest.

***
Patrice Ayme