Posts Tagged ‘Franks’

WHY & HOW CIVILIZATION COLLAPSE (Part 1): Alexander, Greeks, Romans, Franks, Vikings, Macron, Mali

July 2, 2017

Why Do Civilizations “collapse”?

Many have tried to say something on this subject, but their knowledge of Deep History was superficial, and Political Correctness prevented them to think in full. They didn’t do as good a job as the British historian Edward Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, published 241 years ago, by an extremely long shot. Gibbon understood the importance of system of thoughts. To understand history, one had to understand the importance of system of moods. Submissive mentalities such as Confucianism and Islamism dug their own graves. All too many success authors recently, did the same, by not understanding by not admitting that mindsets and metaphysics rule civilizations.

Why have Western Civilization and China not collapsed? Well, China was both very incompetent and very lucky. Incompetent, in no small part, because it was intellectually isolated (not anymore!) 

Western Civilization was smarter than China, that’s the non PC revelation which nobody wants to draw: non-collapse is all about intelligence. In great part because, Europe, the labyrinthine extremity of Eurasia, is less isolated than China: Europe is smack dab in the Middle Earth. Thus Europe had the opportunity to learn much more history than China, isolated by a whole array of giant mountain ranges and deserts. Those societies which learned history better did better. For example, Europe learned in various ways why its ancestors, the Sumerian cities, Egypt, Babylon, Tyr, flooded, dried up, became unrecognizable after invasions, degenerated into quasi-oblivion, were completely annihilated (Hittites, Phrygia, Assyria, Tyr, Carthage), or became irrelevant (Eastern Roman empire, and all parts of the Roman empire conquered by the Islamists and not wrestled back).

This continual learning was applied live, as events unfolded, by the master leaders. Alexander had a deep appreciation of the higher principles which made a highest civilization tick: he was tolerant and forgiving, qualities that Julius Caesar, who had studied Alexander’s life extensively, copied to excess! Julian would also sin in the same exact superior way. Clovis didn’t study the Greeks to the extent Caesar and Julian had,  yet he expressed his determination to use force to rewrite the fundamentals of Christianism, upside down (keep the good, throw away the bad!) Charlemagne took himself for a reincarnation of King David, and operated accordingly. Hence the Romans, when they took control of Hellas were careful not to annihilate their cultural ancestors and superiors, the Greeks. Instead, they just put their foot on them, and the Greeks despised them back (until they regained control, 800 years later).



And the dementia it both incarnates, and brings forth. More than 200 reasons have been evoked to explain the collapse of the Roman State. I have basically just one, but it’s a master reason which, modulo long, devious logical chains and happenstance, imply the other 200 reasons. That master reason made the Roman State completely senile. And we are repeating it now, by letting just a few do all the thinking, supposing they can think (and not just follow a public opinion which has itself been informed by plutocratic media), and having just a few do all the ordering around.

The senile, superstitious empire, and its well-meaning, evil leaders, and founding church fathers, was wiped out, and replaced by the frankly philosophically brutal Franks. However, as we will see, similarly to the Yuans, or the Romans of the morbid Republic, or the Romans of the late empire, by the Ninth Century, the Franks lost track of whom the Barbarians to be fought were. They forgot that smashing Barbarians was number one top priority.

Just like now.

And the reason for forgetting the evil of Barbarians is that we are led by an oligarchy who know all too well it’s evil (Bill Clinton surprised me by admitting that said oligarchy was nothing if it didn’t do good, at the Kohl funeral in the European Parliament; I guess he was burying himself alive? I noticed the absence of Obama, by the way…) Oligarchies are always anxious to entertain Barbarians even more abominable than it is. So that they shine, and are excused, relatively speaking.

We are indeed going through a similar process right now.  I watched ex-Kanzler Helmut Kohl funeral ceremony at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. Kohl unified Germany, held hands with the French president and consented to the French idea of the common currency (“Euro”). A great European, who had learned his fundamental lesson among the ruins of the 1000 Year Fascist-Racist Nationalist-Socialist Reich, to which the French Republic had declared war, six years prior.

Superficially it was a great Franco-German European get-together. What I saw was an assembly of potentates, some notoriously corrupt, kissy kissy with each other. Kanzlerin Merkel and French President Macron talked well. However: Words are empty at best, full of poison, at worst, when thought by only a few, they feed too much power in too few hands.

Some will object. They will say the obvious, thinking they are very smart when charging windmills. They will smirk, not knowing their prove the point they want to deride.



One guy in Strasbourg was Russian Prime Minster Medvedev. He is apparently nearly as wealthy as Bill Clinton. Not bad for a guy who was only always in government jobs. Even when they are not wealthy in properties, those oligarchs who have all the power, are wealthy in outrageous power, and we don’t have the means to talk back (several major media in the USA and the UK ban me, for example, as they are seemingly terrified that their readers would read me in a comment… And then realize I am more free, better informed, and all together more interesting).

Representative “democracy” is all about a few elected individuals taking all the decisions. Right. That’s exactly how and why Rome went down. Accepting the Earthly rule of just a few individuals is accepting the rule of a few minds, unexamined. It is accepting the rule of idiocy. The pure Republic was rather a direct democracy; the impure Republic which Augustus set-up was rather a fascist dictatorship. The pure Republic established the empire, and dreamed to extend over the whole planet! It could, and would, have done it, had it found a way to preserve direct democracy, globally. That was, on paper, easy: to conquer the world, Rome just had to globalize the anti-plutocracy mindset! That would have required to refurbish the absolute legal limit on wealth, and also to end slavery (the Franks would do the latter; absolute limit on wealth was less crucial with the Franks because of fair inheritance laws).

Rome all the way to India, China, reaching the Pacific? It didn’t happen because Roman direct democracy collapsed in a plutocratic crisis.


Notice that, most the Western Mediterranean, is divided between the Carthaginian empire and the Marseilles empire. Rome is still tiny. The logical thing to do was for Alexander to conquer all of Arabia (the south had agriculture). He intended to do just that, before taking care of Rome and Carthage (not Marseilles, or Magna Grecia in south Italy, both of which were Greek). However Alexander died at 32, while preparing the mixed sea-land invasion of Arabia. Also notice the hole in the middle, uncolored in purple: this represents Athens and her allies, which Alexander did not force to submit. The fiend Antipater, older than Alexander by half a century did, though, after he probably had the Alexander poisoned! The real Game of Throne is so complex, we don’t know yet where it started, nor how it will end…


Conquering the was tried by Alexander the Great first, but his Greek and Macedonian army longed for home, and found that India was much more powerful militarily than expected. Indians could, and were defeated, but clearly the resources were too stretched out. On his way back, Alexander, infuriated with his men, led the army through the terrible, absolute deserts of Southern Iran, suffering enormous losses. Back in Babylon, Alexander apparently decided to get more organized, conquering first all of Arabia. Then he would turn to the west, and take care of Carthage and Rome.

Then Alexander listened to his mom, the redoubtable Olympia, a royal from a kingdom west of Macedonia, whom his father Philippe had divorced to marry a youngster with whom he had an infant son. Alexander didn’t have to kill his father himself, the chief of the security detail did , and before you know it, Alexander was heading east at the head of the army his father had prepared to deal with Persia’s Achaemenid plutocracy. Greek valor, Macedonian horse, and Alexander’s military genius did the rest. In a matter of years, Alexander had created a hybrid empire with the locals. The elites would talk Greek for centuries, from Central Asia to India.

Olympia wrote to Alexander that Antipater, the most important general of Philippe, was plotting against him. Alexander ordered Antipater to come to Babylon, from Greece. Antipater refused. Next thing, Alexander is dying mysteriously. His closest helper was Antipater’s youngest son. Many (including myself) feel that it is likely that Alexander was poisoned under Antipater’s orders.

Antipater then went to destroy Athens’ direct democracy (everybody debate and vote on all important decisions), replacing it by a plutocracy (only those who are rich enough vote, and it’s to approve what the bosses have determined is to be done).

Notice that Alexander had left Athenian direct democracy alone (and Athens had not rebelled against Alexander, but did, against Antipater).

This is the problem with monarchy, or oligarchy: only a few take the decisions. If those few are excellent and not in error, it works great. But a few minds can’t get it right all the time, however smart.



An example of this ineptitude of monarchy, or oligarchy, with only a few minds thinking, is provided by Charlemagne. Charlemagne had pretty much a no-fault reign (however his gift of a large estate to the Pope would give the fascist theocrats a power base, for many centuries to come, enabling them to devastate much of Europe with their ludicrous superstition).

However, when advanced in years, Charlemagne saw the first Viking raids. He didn’t know what to do. Neither did his successors, his son and grandsons. Worse: his grandsons fought each other for control (of pieces) of the empire. That was ridiculous, all the more as Charlemagne had a potential Navy, and certainly expertise, from the Venetian Republic, a subsidiary, “march” state.

The Franks should have known what to do with the Viking raiders: after all, the Franks themselves started their career, so to speak, raiding up rivers in Hispania and Gallia, more than five centuries before the Viking imitated them!

What Charlemagne would have done, had he been a young man, and had he thought correctly, was to set-up a Navy, and go to colonize the Scandinavians. Instead, the Vikings made hundreds of major raids, ravaging about a third of “Renovated Roman Empire” before they were finally subdued, through a combination of force and civilizational persuasion.

Notice that the Franco-Romans, when they went on to (re)conquer Britannia, two centuries later, put an end to the Viking kingdoms there. William the Conqueror made his military force irresistible, by advancing democracy in England (the Franks outlawed slavery, and established a sort of monarchy-of-the-people).

By the Eleventh Century, the Franks knew all too well that wild Vikings had to be subdued. But, in 800 CE, they didn’t take the Viking seriously. And then the Viking started first by mostly raiding rich churches, that didn’t bother the half-Pagan Franks too much: the Franks liked to use the Roman Catholic churches as libraries and secular schools, but they weren’t feeling the pain of churches’ treasures being carted away… By 888 CE, when the emperor was deposed for paying the Barbarians, that mood had changed!



Some will scoff: why should they care about all these Greeks, Romans, Franks, Viking and Renovated Romans?

Because we are encountering the same sort of situation today.

The Renovated Roman Empire (“Carolingians as conventional historians have it) had to search, attack and destroy Scandinavian power, the “Fair” (Norway) and “Dark” (Denmark) Vikings. The Vikings had the same ideology: basically they saw easy pickings among the “Renovated Romans”, the world’s richest empire. Similarly the refugees nowadays see easy pickings in Europe. Just show up, get welfare.

A refugee from the wastes out there, if she can sneak into France, say on a tourist visa, can  have a child, for free: the French state will pay for everything. Whereas a French citizen from overseas (there are more than three millions) will go to France, have a child, and pay full fare.

Fine, some will say. But then there is this massive refugee crisis, millions of refugees, thousands dying a month, vaguely reminiscent of when all the Vikings, Muslims, Magyar, Avars, wanted to grab a piece of Europe for free. They were able to stay in peace after they changed their ideology.

However, the Ninth Century was an apocalypse for the Renovated Roman citizens living in West Francia (pretty much today’s France, Benelux, and Western Germany. It got so bad, that the citizens lost all respect for the authorities.

The last overall Renovated Roman emperor,  Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Fat, was reproached his inaction against the Viking: asked by We The People, to free Europe’s capital, Paris, from the Viking. Paris had been the de facto capital of Francia since the army there elected Julian The Apostate Augustus, in the Fourth Century.

Charles, great grandson of Charles I (Carlus Magnus, Charlemagne) chose to buy off the Vikings, instead of massacring them into submission (the proper course of action). As a result, the Vikings were right back. Again and again.

Charles III actually paid  the Vikings to attack Burgundy (then in revolt). He subsequently failed to deal with revolts in Swabia, Saxony, Thuringia, Franconia, and Bavaria. The nobles of the Empire deposed Charles the Fat  in 887, and he died two months later in 888. He was the last single head of the united Renovated Roman Empire (decomposing West Francia went her own way).

An anti-Viking superhero, who fought in the frontlines, close and personal, Odo, Count of Paris, nominally succeeded the deposed Charles III as king of West Francia (Neustria, Austrasia, etc.). I say nominally, because, locally, people have had enough of global governance. Imagine Brexit to the power six (2^6 = 64…)

Ultimately, as I said, a combination of military force and force of civilization, would make the Vikings submit (they got to stay in the places they had so well depopulated).

However the population of West Francia had lost all respect for the capacity of imperial authorities to protect them. Local power was seen the best protector of We The People. West Francia (the western two-thirds of present day France, and the Benelux) exploded into 60 different states (the same number of states which Julius Caesar had found there, a millennium earlier!).



Emmanuel Macron, the latest elected French king, is going around, speaking eloquently of a “Europe which protects”. Ah, yes. High time. It’s not 888 CE anymore?

Macron has learned the right lesson from the debacle of the Ninth Century: the “Renovated Roman Empire”, after 800 CE, made a terrible job at protecting its citizenry. Armies were more used to see who was top dog among the Franks than to fight the invaders (one of these battles among siblings, Fontenoy, killed more than 50,000 of the best Frankish warriors, in a few hours in 841 CE).

So what to do now? The Barbarians are at the gates, and breaching through. Europe paid the Muslim potentate, the Sultan Erdogan, billions, to keep the Barbarians away and out. The Roman empire used exactly the same method for decades, before it failed spectacularly. It had only made the Barbarians more barbaric and more demanding, and more powerful.

The way to handle the Barbarians is to go out, and destroy whatever makes them so barbaric. When Rome had its terminal refugee crisis, from too many Goths at the gates, Christianized Rome was welcoming, and thus found itself at war on its own territory. Instead, Rome should have projected force outside, and help the Germans, and Scythians, outside, against the Huns.

Right after his election, king Macron went to Mali, a country twice the size of France, where France wages war against the Barbarians. And now the king has gone there again. Good. This is the way to do it. Project force. China was doing best when projecting force outside, it’s not just a European thing. As China found out, not projecting force can result in having can result in a situation where the whim of one man could have annihilated the entire Chinese population, the entire Chinese civilization, language, everything Chinese.

However Genghis Khan was intelligent enough to have a high opinion of civilization. He brushed off the proposal of his generals to exterminate China, turn it into a steppe.

Wage war outside, exterminate the Barbarians. Let the ignorant call that “colonialism”. History knows better, they don’t.

Patrice Ayme’

Why The Anglo-Saxon Rage Against France

June 21, 2017


Another day, another explosion of a luggage full of high explosive in a public space, courtesy of Islamist terrorist, Oussama Z., a primitive Moroccan screaming “God is great” in Arabic. He tried to terrorize Brussels’ train station, but law enforcement spotted him before he could organize properly his devilish terror weapons. The fanatical barbarian was promptly shot and killed by officers. The Islamists have good reason to be enraged against France, and anything French-like, such as Belgium, ever since they attacked France in 715 CE… And got whipped. Before they invaded again, in 721 CE, to be whipped again. And again, in 732 CE. Some are gluttons for punishment. Islamist feel that the more punished they get, the closer to God. Which is great, probably because He is a homosexual in denial, who detest women. Different people, different nations, different mentalities.


France Alleged To Be “Liberticide”, Latest example of Anti-French rage and Hypocrisy:

Recently various major Anglo-Saxon media, including the crooked New York Times, preventively trashed new proposed anti-terrorist French laws as dictatorial. This is more than hypocritical. Those proposed French laws are nothing of the sort. Whereas US practice is beyond dictatorial, they are more police-state like (8 millions are under “Judicial Supervision” in the US!) 

For example a proposed French law says that the police could ask drivers of vehicles to have those inspected when they want to enter a security perimeter around major events (such as the “Tour de France”). This is a measure against car bombs. However, if the driver refuses an inspection of his or her car, to see if it carries a huge bomb, the driver can leave, no question asked. Try that in the US: you will be shot at, and everybody knows it (so nobody tries!) Everybody in the US knows that when the police gives an order, either you obey, or you get shot.

How “liberticide” is that? According to the crooked New York Times, enormously so (New York Times is crooked because it has banned me during the 2003 Iraq war, and for the last 6 years, although it denies it does, a further lie!)

By the way I have driven cars in the USA which way inspected for car bombs. Turning around was not an option, as I was dealing with the ladies and gentlemen of the US Secret Service, and that was nine years ago already. Major US media didn’t write editorials about it. I also found this to be no problem at all (because my car was not equipped with a car bomb!) I didn’t feel my right to carry a car bomb was trampled underfoot.


Conflicts between nations and versions of civilization arise from different mentalities:

These different mentalities do not just arise haphazardly. They often originate for a number of incontrovertible reasons. For example Fernand Braudel found that the desiccation of the Middle East brought increasingly dictatorial regimes, necessary to organize the enormous, increasingly complex hydraulic systems necessary for the survival of civilization. Thus the Pharaoh became “shepherd of his flock” (as official Egyptian propaganda put it, copied by the Bible a millennium later). Not surprisingly, Egypt, long at the forefront of civilization faded away as an engine of mental creation.


Why The French Are Like The Franks Who Became Like The Gauls:

It’s a curious thing that the same mentality inhabits France now as it did even before the Romans showed up. The population changed significantly in the meantime from massacres, immigration, emigration, etc. Centuries before the Roman empire, though, the 60 states of France each had their own treasury (and currency). And, in many technologies they were best in the world. Much of the Roman military equipment was purchased in Celtic Spain and Gaul (light metal helmets, swords). Five centuries later, the 37 arsenal of the Roman empire made their own weapons, right. But that was five centuries later, and by then Gallia was arguably the strongest piece of the Roman empire, and with a mind of its own (there was even a “Gallic empire” within the Roman empire, for a while).

France: trade routes from Med to Atlantic, and from Med to North Sea, and from Med to Germany! Melting Pot Max!

So why the same? Precisely because France was the original melting pot, the three main trade routes between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe being there. A crossroad of trade and especially mental trade. The Gauls actually used Hermes, also known as Mercury, as their main imported deity. That was the god of commerce, and communications


Why The Clashing Mentalities Between France and the Anglo-Saxons?

England has been in conflict with France since, paradoxically enough, the highly successful invasion and colonization of England by a French army led by the Duke of Normandy. As the latter and his barons took control on the other side of the channel, the new king of England, namely aforesaid Duke, became a vassal of the king of France. The king of Francia was not any king out there. After the de facto secession of the Western Franks from the rest of the “Renovated” Roman empire, the king of France was officially “Roman emperor in his own kingdom”.

This status of vassal went on for centuries. The situation became worse when the “Louve de France”, the She-Wolf of france, daughter of Philippe IV Le Bel of France, became absolute monarch of England. She was succeeded by her son Edward III, grandson of Le Bel, legitimate king of England and France. At that point, the leadership of England could claim that Paris was vassal to London, and the 475 years war (so-called “100 years war”) was on.

Another problem is that the Duke of Normandy had to persuade the English that it was in their best interest to be ruled by him. First, of course, the french outlawed slavery in England, something that the 20% of the population who were slaves, loved. But William had to make We the People stakeholders in their nation: England had been crisscrossed by civil wars and invasions, with all sorts of Angles, and Saxons, and (“Fair”) Viking from Norway, and Dark Vikings from Denmark, for 5 centuries… Thus William of Normandy installed a sort of more direct democracy which was frowned on by the more traditional Franco-Roman plutocracy on the other side of the Channel. That “English” trick was increased in following centuries, for example when other (French) aristocrats tried to be elected king by the (English) Parliament, and hoped to do that, by first increasing the powers of said Parliament.

In any case, as France was much more powerful than England then, with several times the population and riches, and a closer connection to Roman inheritance, the leadership in England could survive only through more devious and militarily efficient means than those used by the French from France.

In the end, England became basically a more efficient version of France, and that included a mentality that the French could see as more pragmatic, less principled, more perfidious and hypocritical.

As French supremacy lasted until 1815, the English had to try much harder until then, with a more underhanded mentality. In 1815, the English monarch renounced his claim to the throne of France (a claim started by Isabelle and her son Edward III, and later reconfirmed in an accord to end the “100 Year War” which Joan of Arc and her operators would violate, relaunching the war for another 375 years).

After that, France was clearly the junior partner in the way of world empire… But not as a land power, where the French military stayed the most powerful in the West, most of the time, until May 1940.

The German empire was the world’s most powerful military in the period 1871-1914. However, in September 1914, it was nearly annihilated by a French counterattack at the First Battle of the Marne, shattering the conspiracy to take control of the world. The reason for french military might can be tracked all the way back to the Third Century, when the Confederation of the Salian Franks was created, and Franks went up Roman rivers in what would become the Viking style, five centuries later. The alliance between Romans and Franks arose from these earlier conflicts, when the Romans, and in particular Caesar Constantine, realized that Frankish military might was best co-opted, rather than fought.

The ascent of the Franks was defined by them militarily defeating all and any enemies who tried to encroach on present day France. The list is nearly never ending, and includes the Huns, the Goths, and the Berber and Arab armies of the three invasions of Francia by the Umayyad Caliphate (715-748 CE), which brought its demise in 750 CE (as the bones of its armies laid in France). The switch from “Franks” to “French” happened in the Twelfth Century, and the first unelected French king was Jean I, an infant who ruled 5 days, before being probably poisoned (by Countess Mahaut of Artois; now a region of pseudo-independent Belgium).

Thus the French are frank and aggressive. On this civilization grew and multiplied. Frank, to know and transmit the truth, which is the core strength of war. Aggressive, to impose the truth. Why so much war? Because France is at core of Europe, where the easiest main three trade routes pass (going across the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Carpathians, the Balkan Mountains or the Caucasus, all East-West ranges, mostly, is best done through… France!)

More details of European topography, showing better that the easiest trade routes indeed go through France… South of Massif Central (the volcanic range in the middle of France), going west, and up the Rhones valley.

The French state is the direct descendant of the Roman state. There is actually no discontinuity whatsoever, militarily, legal or otherwise. The first well-known elected French king, Clovis, was also Roman Consul and Imperator of the Roman army. Clovis succeeded to do what the Roman state couldn’t succeed to do in the preceding 150 years: Clovis crushed and evacuated the Visigoths (Battle of Vouillé, in 507 CE). Thus Francia and Constantinople, all the way to the Tenth and Eleventh Century, viewed themselves as part of the same Romanitas (resulting in common military campaigns, as when the Eastern Roman fleet operated on the French Riviera in the Tenth Century, in cooperation with Frankish armies in the interior, to extricate the Muslims who had been terrorizing Western Europe, in still another invasion; the First Crusade, 150 years later was the reciprocal courtesy…)

The philosophical method William the Conqueror used is exactly the same which Clovis used. And that’s not happenstance. Notice that, in both cases, those methods were quite opposite to the cool massacres, and thorough holocausts enacted by Julius Caesar when he conquered Gallia (Gaul).

However, the gigantic French empire was the object of US greed by 1914, and the envoy of hyper racist US President Wilson (a democrat, ex-president of Princeton University, a famous plutocratic university) conspired, encouraged, abetted and talked the German Kaiser into launching a world war, which he couldn’t win, with the result that, in 1945, the US was in perfect position to grab both the British and French empires, in the guise of decolonization.

This crowned the “American Century”, this worldwide empire, in the glory of which we are all presently basking.

So why the “Anglo-Saxon” anti-French rage?

This anti-French rage is a preventive measure, lest all the preceding be found out.

And should we be Zen-like, satisfied with this cognitive cover-up, organized in great part by the glorious US plutocratic universities? No. Why? Because we are getting through what promises to be maybe the greatest extinction of the biosphere ever since Snowball Earth. The simple US greed mentality is completely insufficient to deal with this crisis. Americans emit 16 tons of CO2 per capita, per year, in no small reason because they are such glorious, sensitive people, having attended their glorious super smart universities of greed, and they need to drive big truck as soon as they are 16 years old. By comparison, the French emit 6 (six) tons of CO2 per capita, per year. Because they are such losers. But, precisely, we need to learn to lose gracefully the battle of mental comfort and venal stupidity, to win the next war.  The ultimate war. The war of biosphere survival. A war against all of yesteryear’s mentalities.

Patrice Ayme’


Banality of Rogues

January 1, 2017

The famous Prussian Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt, an anti-Nazi who slept assiduously with the Nazi Heidegger, her thesis advisor, married to someone else, wrote about the “banality of evil”, a concept that became famous… Although Arendt’s “discovery” would have made the Catholic Inquisition shrug and smirk, five centuries prior (the Inquisition would have said:’This is exactly what we have been talking about, evil everywhere!’)

Today I will speak of the banality of rogues. You see rogues tie in with the (re-)Foundation Principle. No rogues, no civilization. (There goes one of the main critiques against Donald Trump! Yes, I just saw the movie “Rogue One”…)

We have a real, huge example in history, the very base of our present civilization: the Franks were both rogues, and “renovators”, as they themselves described themselves, of the Roman empire. No less. But actually the Franks did much more, founding Western civilization in full, by outlawing slavery, making secular education mandatory, and running an imperial, military society which, somehow, saved and overcame antiquity, while preserving an open society (the whole picture got in trouble with the First Crusade: see, it’s the fault of Islam, once again, ha-ha-ha).

I was reading in a history publication, how the Roman empire went down, and they mentioned all sorts of barbarians: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Vandals, Alans, Huns… They forgot to mention the most important ones, the ones vested with Roman power, more than any others, the Franks… It was as if they talked about breathing, but forgot to mention air.

Ignoring the re-foundation of Rome by the Franks is ignoring, not just history, but the re-foundation of civilization, no less. Indeed the Franks removed the most glaring defects of Rome.  (That “renovated” empire officially went on until Napoleon, emperor of the rogue imperial part of said Roman empire called Francia, then France, shut it down in 1804.)  

Habitable Exoplanet With Ring In the Movie Rogue One: In Our World, Our Mental World, There Are Now Exoplanets Everywhere. In 1600 CE, Giordano Bruno got burned, just for suggesting that.

Habitable Exoplanet With Ring In the Movie Rogue One: In Our World, Our Mental World, There Are Now Exoplanets Everywhere. In 1600 CE, Giordano Bruno got burned, just for suggesting that.

[Earth may have had a ring at some point in the past (some scientist have speculated, looking at some otherwise weird data). Thousands of exoplanets have been found since the first one, 51 Pegasi b, at the University of Geneva eleven years ago. An exoplanet was found, in 2016, around the closest star, Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf; the planet is in the habitable zone. Details are unknown, as the planet does not seem to come between us and its star; good spending in astronomy would allow to look at it directly, using existing technology.But our corrupt leaders have prefered to give money to our plutocratic masters, and, thus, crumbs to themselves, rather than making science all it can be. Science is the one job for all, and necessary for survival, moreover.] 

How did Rome die? Basically from sclerotic thinking, mental paralysis, senility: the establishment by Augustus of his damned “Principate”, with a permanent “First Man” (Princeps) at the helm, was the fundamental cause of mental decay. We The People got completely disinterested from the most interesting question, and the few families at the helm were too idiotic to have any new ideas.

Once mental decay is at the helm, and pervades the base, nothing can save a society: when problems occur, they can’t be solved. This is what happened to Rome. Confronted with worse problems in the Fourteenth Century France sailed right through, as nothing had happened, because Fourteenth Century France was an intellectual power machine, greatest in civilization so far, ever.

Buridan, who was worth ten Newtons, at least, having overturned Aristotelian physics, discovered ⅔ of “Newton’s” laws, and justified, as a result, the heliocentric system, was not just chief of the university of Paris, but counselor to four French kings. That was typical of the situation in France, England, Germany and Italy at the time. Buridan’s network of students and collaborators extended throughout Europe. Meanwhile Florence’s bankers funded that Italian Republic’s mighty army with national bonds…

So the fierce, swift and abominable Black Plague killed half of Europe, and no aristocrats… So what? Rome, affected by smaller plagues, tottered on the brink of extinction…

Yes, one can point to the sorry state of the Demoncratic Party, with its entrenched interests, drinking the elixir served by self-serving plutocrats (such as those who set-up Obamacare without cost control. And no, don’t point at Trump; he and his Kellyanne Conway, among others, are a breath of fresh air, after decades of increasingly metastatic plutocracy. We will see what they do.

Sometimes heavy destruction is the only way to construction. It is alway the case, when the construction is huge. (And this is true for brains too, explaining why philosophers have it hard, when they interact with the commons… and reciprocally!)

Oh yes, it can hurt: this is the implicit theme in the last Star War saga (“Rogue One”). The rebellion has done evil things we are informed, and we see it trying its very best, to do some more (the father of the heroine is assassinated by the rebellion, although he works against the empire; the movie is notable also for the fact the main hero and character is a human female in her full glory, second to males in no way whatsoever!)

It is a complicated world. It will get ever more complicated. Mastering its complexity is the most crucial part in fighting evil. To master complexity, one has to understand it first. Thus, standing in the way of understanding is the greatest, deepest meta-evil.

Only rogues dare to understand, and act upon, what others refuse to understand, or even see. Rogues are necessary to progress, forward, and civilization is riding a bicycle: no forward motion means collapse. Because a ruined ecology is always biting at the heels of civilization.

Civilization may not like rogues, but it needs them, to be born again, with a better intelligent design, necessary for survival.

Being a rogue is not just a neurohormonal state. It is a mental architecture. Studies just published showed that first mothers get their brains permanently modified (details another time). Similarly a rogue brain is different from the brain of a servant of the establishment like Obama. It is permanently different. Giordano Bruno, or Galileo, or Descartes, or Montaigne or Abelard, were permanently different.

The superiority of the “West” (“Pars Occidentalis” as the Romans said) is due to its being just enough of a host medium to rogues. The fate of rogues was not as good in Islam, by orders of magnitude; after he got in so much trouble for fighting the Church, Abelard, in the Twelfth Century, toyed with the idea of going to live among the Islamists (so he wrote). Wisely, he did not do it: he would have been killed there (instead, in the West, his ideas won, over the centuries…)

Happy New Year To All (even the abysmal Obama, basking in Oahu, and his cohort of the corrupt!)

Rogues watch ants with sympathy…

Patrice Ayme’

Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy

December 27, 2016

In the Real World, Foundations Saved Civilization Before:

The combination of imperial collapse followed by re-birth from Foundations within happened several times already, for real.

Civilizations collapsing into Dark Ages from the actions of dozens of millions of people occurred more than once. And then very small groups arose, often within the collapsing empire, and imposed new ways of thinking which enabled civilization to restart. One such case was the Mongol takeover of China, and the subsequent collapse of the Yuan dynasty replaced, within a century, by the Ming dynasty (appropriately founded by a Buddhist monk).

Yet the most striking examples of collapses are in the West, and the most spectacular ones come with two foundations.

The first collapse was that of the seven superpowers which made the Bronze Age civilization. They were attacked by nations which made “a conspiracy in their islands” (said Pharaoh Ramses III in 1175 BCE). Besides the calamitous invasions by these “Peoples of the Sea”, a number of disasters striking simultaneously (calamitous climate change, including super drought, quake swarm, etc.) brought the entire trading system down, upon which some civilizations depended for survival, and then generalized destruction followed. The Foundation consisted in a number of Greek city states, mostly on the Ionian coast. The Second Foundation was Athens.

However soon enough, an unserious Greece was taken over by the fascist Macedonian empire, and its successor regimes, the Hellenistic kingdoms.

The Second Foundation was the Roman Republic itself. Rome had been created where the shock waves from Magna Grecia, Italian Greece, and the Etruscans collided. That positive interference brought herdsmen to civilization. The Etruscans were themselves one of these roaming “Peoples of the Sea”, and they had settled in Syria for a while, before grabbing the part of Italy with the richest iron deposits: Foundations everywhere.

Rome freed Greece, and then turned into an evil empire itself. Rome degenerated ever more into all sorts of fascisms… and progressively collapsed ever more, as one major system after another became dysfunctional.

Then emperor Constantine re-founded Rome by imposing the Catholic Church, which had grown semi-secretly for two centuries, as a favored institution within the empire.

At the same time, other Roman generals cum lawyers equipped the savage Germans constituting the Frankish Confederation with a Latin written law, the Lex Salica. The Franks were opposed to Christianism. In a further twist, Constantine and his successors used the Franks as shock troops of the empire (Once the Franks staged a full civil war to give back control of the empire to secularists).

Meanwhile the First Foundation, Catholicism, collapsed Rome, and then it gave control to the Second Foundation, that of the Franks, which had opposed them. In a complete turn-around, the Franks then adopted Catholicism, modifying it extensively to eliminate all its bad aspects (no more apocalypse around the corner, total tolerance for fellow religions, mandating secular education, etc.), while keeping the good ones (charity, altruism, Christian Republic mentality, etc.). Within 150 years, the Franks would outlaw slavery in Europe (there had been no slavery in Germany, so this is more the German than Christian influence: all bishops were very rich and they had dozens, or hundreds, of slaves).

Small foundations can, and will always, save civilizations. For two main reasons: 1) their small size enable them to think democratically, thus better. 2) the excellency their struggle for survival forces on small foundations, require them to think straight and true (otherwise they won’t survive).

It is likely that some of the real events I just related inspired Asimov: he was a very knowledgeable person (and the Foundational aspects of Rome and Athens were well-known, as was the social failure to oppose Macedonia in a timely manner, in spite of the strident warnings of the philosopher Demosthenes).

When I read the Foundation Trilogy, long ago, I found, even then, some of its aspects very dated. But in a way, that is the entire point.

Psychohistory was not invented yesterday, we have crucially depended upon it, for millennia.
Patrice Ayme’

Skulls in the Stars

I’ve recently been trying to become more acquainted with science fiction as a genre, as most of my life I’ve been focused primarily on horror fiction.  A natural and obvious place to place some emphasis is on classic works from the golden age of science fiction, and a natural and obvious place to start there is with the work of Isaac Asimov.  A few weeks ago, I read Asimov’s Foundation (1951), and blogged my thoughts about it.

Asimov has written seven books set in the Foundation setting; I figured that I would be content reading the first one, to get a feel for it, and then move on to other authors and other series…

… and, as of today, I’ve started reading the fifth of the Foundation novels.

As the first three books, Foundation (1951), Foundation and Empire (1952), and Second Foundation (1953), form the original trilogy, and I thought it…

View original post 1,138 more words

Cracking Down On Literal Islam

November 25, 2016

Europe is finally waking up to the danger of Literal Islam. “Literal Islam” means reading the fundamental texts of Islam as what they are supposed to be, according to Literal Islam itself: as the word of God. For me, Literal Islam, Salafism and Wahhabism are roughly synonymous.

Says The Economist:”In the very loosest of senses, all Muslims are Salafi. The word literally describes those who emulate and revere both the prophet Muhammad and the earliest generations of Muslims, the first three generations in particular. There is no Muslim who does not do that.”

So what did these three generations of Muslims do? They conquered, by the Sword, the greatest empire which the world had ever been. In a century. If You Think The Sword Is True, Islam Is True. If you think there are higher values than The Sword, Islam of the first three generations, is just an invasion by the most bellicose fanatics The world had ever seen. Have a look at this map, showing the brutality, the violence of the most significant Islamist attacks and invasions between 622 CE and 750 CE:

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Pure Arab Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

Tremendous civilizations were wiped out by the Islamist invasions, such as those of Mesopotamia and Iran, and the Mother of all Indo-European religions, Zoroastrianism. Not content with wiping out millennia of common civilizations, Islam tried to wipe out millions of years of human evolution itself, by making women half, or less, of men. (Whereas the human species has low sexual dimorphism.)

Thus, celebrating the Fundamentals of Islam is celebrating the fundamentals of a dramatic, extremely brutal invasion. The Economist however, pretends moronically that: “…there are Salafi mosques whose preachers are theologically conservative but are far from terrorists…”

You mean they are not making bombs? Sorry, The Economist: that makes no sense. The lethal violence in Literal Islam is overwhelmingly present in the texts, maximally nasty, boringly repetitive, and extremely scary. Yes, scary, like in phobia. As in Islamophobia. Can one not be a terrorist, when one teaches that terror is what God wants, and orders?

There is nothing subtle about Islamic violence as found in the Fundamental texts of Islam: vast categories of (most) people are supposed to be killed (either by God, or the Believers, or both). Apostates, Non-Believers, Gays etc. Those who kill in the name of God will go directly to paradise: they will not be submitted to the last Judgment: hence the great success of the Islamic invasions. The Islamist warriors were persuaded that death would bring them eternal happiness, life, and being on the right of God.

The Last Judgment will happen only after the last Jew has been killed.  (Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”. That Hadith is repeated a lot, and is part of the Hamas Charter.)

Some will say: no problem we will keep an eye on those who read Fundamental Islamic texts literally, make a terror watch. Propped by Saudi and other Medieval types, oil money, those people are already millions. Is surveillance to become the most important industry? Or is it easier to strictly outlaw all Literal Islam?

A few days ago, more than half a dozen Salafists were arrested in France. They were all unknown of security services (which track more than 10,000 Islamists already!). The Islamists had planned murderous attacks throughout France. One of them taught in a public school. Nobody suspected him (they hide among ourselves, like the crocs below the murky waters, ready to strike, causing ambient paranoia, as intended).

When is someone who does not follow Islam literally not a Muslim anymore? That is a simple question pregnant with a dreadful answer: those who do not believe in Islam anymore, apostates, are to be put to death.

At this point, Politically Correct demoncrats generally lash out, from their tiny knowledge base learned by rote, that Christianism is just as bad as Islamism, so we are racist to implicitly claim a difference, etc., etc.  (Never mind that most of those who lash out at Islam don’t believe in Christianism either.) Well not quite. There is not a symmetry between Islamism and Christianism. Christianism was worse, in the sense it came first, and got the ball rolling, by terrorizing first. But then Islam copied it, but it was worse, because Islam is the state, whereas the relationship between state and Christianism was much looser (except in the periods from 386 CE to ~450 CE and again, for two long periods in the late Middle Ages/Renaissance; in both cases, state terror got enacted under the guise of the Faith.

Yes, Roman officials launched condemnations to death for heresy. In 380 CE, the Edict of Thessalonica of Roman emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. By this edict the state’s authority and the Church officially overlapped. Thus the state enforced religious terror, whenever convenient. Thus church leaders executed (some) heretics. Within six years of the official criminalization of heresy by the Roman Emperor, the first Christian heretic to be executed, Priscillian, was condemned in 386 CE by Roman secular officials for sorcery. He was put to death with four or five followers. The edict of emperor Theodosius II (435 CE) provided severe punishments for spreading Nestorianism (a Christianism found all the way to Mongolia). Possessing writings of Arius brought the death penalty (Arius influenced the Coptic church, hence Islam).

So the Christians, more exactly the Roman Catholics, were anti-civilizational savages. Guess what? The empire of savage fanatics soon collapsed. It was replaced by the fresh Confederation of the Franks, which reinvented Christianism from scratch, complete with plenty of newly created saints. The Franks viewed Christianism, or, more exactly, Catholicism, as a help, a secular help, to rule over dozens of millions of Roman subjects throughout much of what is presently the Eurozone (Netherlands, Germany, Eastern Europe, Italy, Gaul). But all religions were allowed, including Paganism, Judaism, islam, etc.

Things changed just at the time the Frankish emperor in Paris decided he was king of France, and it was high time to submit the giant County of Toulouse. “Philippe Auguste” allied himself to the Pope, killed a million Cathars, grabbed their lands. Thereupon, Christian terror was back, as it was so profitable. The Enlightenment would put an end to that Christian terror.

Islamist terror had been profitable all along. Still is.

A further problem is that Literal Islam is not just an incitement to ultimate violence. It is also an incitement to unreason, and violating the most basic standards of what makes humanity, humanity.

Amusingly, The Economist, propelled by the anxiety of sounding indiscriminate, contradicts itself: “It’s important to understand that of the various forms of Salafism described, there is one, the unreconstructed kind, which can (though does not always) morph into terrorism.” Well, real Salafism is “unreconstructed”. By definition.

We need clarity. Go read all the basic texts of Islam, then report. Stop parsing red herrings, please go to the meat of the matter. Religious terror was extirpated from Europe during the Enlightenment, it is high time to bring some light to all this darkness. So, instead of leaving Islam as a darkness which cannot, and should not, be explored, please visit it.

It’s instructive. The basic texts reveal that Muhammad actually ordered women’s faces NOT to be covered. So why the contemporary insistence, now, that they should be? Because it’s a way for Islamist dictators (like the various kings, emirs, ayatollahs and what not) to terrorize the Republics.

Or, at least, to put them on the defensive:’Oh, you see you don’t respect freedom of religion!’

The French Republic installed a law outlawing face covering. Islamists howled to the Moon, naturally, that’s all old tradition of Mecca, older than Islam, but the French Constitutional Court upheld the law as it was explicitly made for security reasons.

I would advise Donald Trump to have such a law passed ASAP in the USA. Every time a woman goes fully veiled in the streets she attacks civilization, human ethology, the Republic, public order, and helps convert the Enlightened West into the incomparable messes that all countries ruled by, and with Islam have become (yes, from Morocco, where Islamists are in power, to Indonesia, where the governor of Djakarta is prosecuted for “blasphemy”, because the Islamist god is that weak little simple-minded creature that needs very much to be protected, by killing lots of insulting people, lest that fragile entity wilts away…)

Just do like France, Donald: after all, it is a question of security (veiled women were used massively in the Franco-Algerian civil war, to carry explosives, allowing a tiny minority to seize power and keep it to this day, while leading Algeria through another civil war which killed at least 200,000). Outlawing Islamist veils will help to change the mood: no more blatant tolerance for the nefarious ways of the enemies of reason.

It will be interesting to hear the devilish ones preaching that Islam is perfect for the countries they, themselves exploit. And it also means the rather drastic observation: Whenever, pretty soon, burning hydrocarbons is made unlawful, Islam will disappear. Because the main reason for its modern existence will be gone. As simple as that.

Patrice Ayme’

CONQUEST Of England, 950 Years Ago: End of Slavery, Birth of Modern Democracy

October 16, 2016

The BATTLE OF HASTINGS, WON By The FRANKS 950 YEARS AGO: Outlawing Slavery, Jump Starting Democracy

How did British democracy arise? With the exact opposite maneuver from Brexit. What is the opposite of Brit-exit? Frank-in. And when William the Conqueror, came in, conquered-in, he did not just bring, but enforced a more advanced civilization, and much more, a process to self-feed democracy.

The ascent of Britain, blossoming into the edge of world civilization is a long story which started well before Caesar’s two landings in England. The mighty, yet disorganized Celtic civilization had been divided into a diversity of a bewildering obfuscation (fostered by the Druids) of countless small units: Gaul had 60 nations, with 60 central banks, senates and three languages. Roman organization put an end to that non-sense, and Gaul came out much stronger, wealthier and more intelligent (the Druids cultivated stupidity, by outlawing written expression, except among themselves).

The collapse of the Roman state brought an even greater mess to Britain, while the continent got reorganized under the Franks’ Lex Salica (see chapter inside the essay on Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood). The reconquest of England by the Franks under the command of a Roman duke of Normandy added a whole new layer of complexity in the subtilty of government. It is William’s Conquest, a conquest by a plurality, and the most advanced principles, which instigated the rise of the world’s most advanced democracy, protected, as it was thereafter, by the insular nature of Britain (whereas the rest of the Roman empire, on the other side of the Channel, fell in ever worse divisions sheared from ever mightier armies).

After its conquest under Claudius, a Roman emperor born in Lyon (Lugdunum), Britannia was unified and pacified for more than four centuries. However budget cuts by the theologically minded plutocrats who ruled Rome around 400 CE, led to the withdrawal of the legions (which constituted the core of the crack field armies of the empire). Local Roman militia was unable to repel waves of invasion of determined Angles and Saxons in the next two centuries. Finally British forces retreated towards Wales or took refuge in what came to be known as Brittany (formerly Armorica, the large western peninsula of France advancing in the Atlantic). Then the Viking came, overrunning much of England, and all of Ireland.

By the Eleventh Century, the king ruling England, Edward the Confessor, had no direct descendant. (His earlier life had been astoundingly full of battles and unlikely events; suffices to say he was the seventh son of his father, from his second wife, Emma of Normandy who ended up marrying a Viking invader, Cnut, who conveniently executed some of Edward’s half brothers. Edward spent many years in exile in Normandy (and acted accordingly: Edward could see that Frankish civilization was superior). 

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of Some Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue (Poitou, Anjou, Flanders) or Green (Bretagne)

The Reconquista Of Britannia By A Dux Of The Roman Empire:

The reconquest of Britannia by a Roman Dux was no accident: five centuries after being overrun by the Angles and Saxons, the British Isles were more of a wasteland than ever, as waves of Viking sloshed all over. It was high time for re-establishing civilization. Only force can re-establish civilization (a theme of mine). William would apply overwhelming force, in the service of the most advanced civilization anywhere. And it worked splendidly: the progress he launched became self-feeding, and promoted peace. Indeed, after William’s conquest, except for a victorious Dutch invasion in 1688 CE (with the objective of defeating France’s dictator, Louis XIV), England would never be conquered again. 

The closest relative of king Edward the Confessor was the Norman Dux (“Dux”, Duc, Duke, was a Roman military title of the Late Empire: a Dux was the superior military officer of a large province, only subject to command from the Emperor himself). More exactly, Edward was the grandson of the maternal uncle of William the Conqueror. The accession of William to the ducal throne had been difficult because his father had died in Nicea (Anatolia), when William was seven years old. William’s mother was his father’s mistress, an independent business woman who then married somebody else. However, Dukes of Normandy were often “illegitimate”, and there is no doubt that his father intended William to be Duke (he made his vassals take an oath of obedience to his son, before leaving for the crusade, over his family’s objections).

By the age of 23, the battle tested William was the uncontested Duke of Normandy, and Edward was back, overlording an English realm streaked by Viking raids. Thus, in 1051 CE, Edward selected William as heir (no doubt feeling that Britain needed to be reintegrated in the Roman ensemble, for its own good as it indeed turned out). In 1064 CE, a top officer of Edward, Harold, showed up in Normandy, helped William wage war in Brittany, and told him that he, Harold, would support his claim to the throne (at least that is what Normand discrediting propaganda claimed at the time).

On January 5, 1066, Edward died and Harold, treacherously, took power as king of England. Many other claimants and grandees were not happy, and a complicated war started, with four parties involved.

However William was an official Duke of the Roman empire, had been named future king 15 years prior, and thus William was the only one with real legitimacy, and enormous clout (but making William king meant that Britain was reintegrating the Roman empire! And thus who thrived from the mess were going to suffer). Indeed, consent of Pope Alexander II for the invasion was obtained, and a Papal banner was flown by William. The Roman emperor also gave consent. On top of this, William was an extremely experienced military leader, used to command in the Roman imperator tradition (namely ready to execute miscreants as needed). William had been at war since age 8. And he was now 38 years old.

An enormous fleet was built, 3,000 ships it has been said. It sailed from the Somme river, once intelligence informed William that Harold’s army had been removed from the Channel and was battling in the north.

William led an army greatly composed of contingents under the direct command of many French barons who were not his vassals. In particular William’s forces comprised Breton, Anjou, Poitou armies (which made the left wing at the Hastings battle, commanded by Alan the Red, a relative of the Comte de Bretagne) and a French, Picardy, Flanders army (which made the right wing at Hastings, and was commanded by the Count of Boulogne, who was severely wounded in the pursuit of the Anglo-Saxon forces).


That two-third of William’s army was made of Frankish allies not his vassals was of great consequence: his non-vassal allies would shortly enforce upon the king the MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM, the Great Charter of Liberty.

During the battle, William’s left wing, the Breton army at some point cracked and fled, and was pursued by Harold’s forces, led by two of his brothers. That stretching of the enemy in the open enabled William’s cavalry to surprise and destroy them. The Normans feigned retreat twice more, to expose Harold’s army to cavalry (Harold had no cavalry, and no archers, William had both). William engineered attacks after attacks, changing strategy repeatedly, and had several horses killed under him. In the end, Harold was killed, some say by William himself (that Harold was killed by an arrow is apparently a later legend which arose when the Bayeux tapestry was misinterpreted).

The war was not finished.  English clergy and aristocrat nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king to replace Howard (whose body William had ordered thrown in the sea). To win the war, William instigated reforms right away.

William changed England in many ways. For example he was partly financed by Jewish financiers and brought rich Jews from Rouen to foster lending in England (an activity forbidden to Christians with Christians, but allowed from Jews to Christians). Thus William introduced Judaism to England (so Jews were not always victimized by it did not exist prior to that there).

William had made church reforms in Normandy. He extended them to England, and replaced English clergy by Normand clergy. William also enforced all the laws passed by Edward the Confessor (the preceding English king, who had spent most of his formative years in Normandy, thanks to William’s family, and much of his life, and had made his relative William his heir). Some laws protected especially the “Frenchmen who had come with William to England”, as one would expect after a conquest. But William went much further.


William The Conqueror’s Laws Created A New Polity And New Civilization:

William introduced ten major new laws. The first made Christianism the official religion (exit the pagan gods).

William’s second law made all Englishmen take a direct, personal oath of loyalty to the king, as if they were soldiers in the Roman army. Those who did not take the oath would not be considered to be freemen. The oath had to be witnessed by many. That was a very significant advance: prior to this, citizens did not have to take an oath of loyalty (only the Roman soldiers had to, except for a few years under Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius around 308 CE).

All problems have to be solved in court, ordered William. Non-attendees were heavily fined, up to the amount of the charge against them.

The final two laws passed by William were stunning:

No man is allowed to sell another man. Anyone breaking this law will pay a fine to the king.” This law outlawed slavery in England. 20% of the population had been enslaved under Harold. William, as a Roman Dux, had to implement the Lex Salica’s most prominent feature, the one that distinguished it more saillantly from Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman Law, was the interdiction of slavery. It is also on that law that the prosperity of the “Renovated Roman Empire” rested. Britain had been reunited with the empire (although, it was implicitly intimated that it never left).

No one shall be executed for crimes they have committed; but if they are guilty of a crime, they will be blinded and castrated. This law is not to be challenged.” Outlawing the death penalty was very much a world first. (Although the EU has outlawed the death penalty, the USA still uses it, 950 years later.)


Outlawing Slavery Was Not Just Frankish Law, But An Essential Part of William’s Power Grab

As a Dux of the Roman empire, William had to implement (Franco-)Roman law. Slavery had been made unlawful by the (English-born) Queen Bathilde of the Franks in 650 CE. Later the Franks conquered most of Western Europe, including the British isles and the part of Iberian and Italian peninsulas still held by the Muslims. The outlawing of slavery by the Franks was extended to these liberated territories where Roman rule was re-imposed.

In turn, the outlawing of slavery no doubt facilitated this Roman reconquest. For example, the 20% of Englishmen who found themselves to be “freemen” as long as they took a loyalty oath to William were no doubt enthusiastic supporters of William.


Frenchmen, and French

In the following centuries, many powerful French characters and adventurers in England, would try to preserve their power, or try to seize power, and would push for various democratic reforms limiting the power of the king. Out of that came the Magna Carta Libertatum (the descendants of the allies of William wanted to keep the powers William had conferred to them, that of allies, not vassals), the power of Parliament (Lancastre hoped to be elected king through Parliament, so he boosted its power; Lancastre was killed on the battlefield, but his reforms stayed). And so on.

Ever since William’s conquest, France and England have been entangled (although intellectual life on both sides of the Channel had been entangled for two millennia already: Druids would study in Wales, Saint Patrick was educated in Cannes, Anti-slavery queen of the Franks Bathide was from Kent, Alcuin, Charlemagne’s main PM and philosopher was English).

The reason for thinking otherwise, that England and France have serious differences (instead of being family), was the dictatorial drift under the fanatical Jihadist tyrant Louis XIV, while England went the other way, towards more democracy. Democracy brings power, dictatorship, weakness. The result was that France became weaker and England blossomed into a superpower. In the (world) wars of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Year War, and the Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars, a haggard France was defeated and more subtly plutocratic England became a world empire.  

It is the mess of more distributed power which rendered England ever more democratic. Whereas in France, the emperor-in-his-own-kingdom (that was the official expression!) Philippe-Auguste (literally: the lover of horses who augments!) colluded with the Pope to destroy the (quasi-republican) giant County of Toulouse (which was ruled under a Count, but mostly by Parliament).

However, moods perdure. Lancastre, one of those who exploited Toulouse got there the idea of using Parliament as a weapon against the king, and implemented the idea in England.

Intelligence is greater, the greater the ability to detect, distinguish, identify & imagine (knowledge, distinctions, equations & allusions).

Contemplating history shows that reason is not linear, but a web. And guess what? Quantum Theory says the same, and it has a name, entanglement. This is an entangled world, and to reveal it, one has to reveal its implicit order. It arises from occurrences. By building one’s neurology while missing the most important occurrences in the world pertaining to it, one risks becoming stupid. 

Patrice Ayme’.   


France Taking Command After Breakshit

June 29, 2016

How The Empire Fell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contempt For France and the Latins:

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

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

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

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


France Is Different:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Withdrawing England’s Privileges:

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

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

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

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


After Ejecting UK PM Cameron,

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Brexit Or the Madness of Plutocracy

June 22, 2016

Brexit vote tomorrow. This is a completely idiotic, immoral referendum organized by anti-Europeans (Cameron & Al.) against even more strident anti-Europeans (right wing Nazi like extremists plutocrats’ servants and hedge fund managers desirous to keep their manger in Great Britain’s archipelago of tax havens). There are trite pros and cons of BRitain EXIT referendum, all over the media. Here are mine:

  1. The fundamental mood motivating the will to exit the European Union is as ugly, violent, racist, tribal, and, to put it in one word, Nazi as it gets. The extreme right-wing fringe of the right-wing party in England launched it. For them Margaret Thatcher, who campaigned for, and ratified the Single European Act is a left-wing Marxist traitor. This was demonstrated by MP Jo Cox’s assassination by a… Nazi whose most cherished possession is a manuscript from Adolf Hitler. Even imbeciles should be able to understand that one. A Nazi assassinates in the most gory fashion the defenseless mother of two young children, just like the original, most excited Brexiters want to assassinate Europe.
  2. In particular,  full bloodied Brexiters hate the “ever closer Union” concept. They have understood no history whatsoever.
  3. So it’s hilarious how ill-informed some people are, who scream that Trump is a racist right extremist while supporting Brexit. Just like Hitler, they want to build a particular sort of Europe which hates. The head of Brexit, Nigel Farage posed in front of a flow of Muslim refugees, calling it the “Breaking Point”. It could not get any clearer. Guess what? After Farage flaunted this blatantly racist act, the pro-Brexit faction surged. How much clearer can one be?

    Head Of Brexit Faction, Nigel Farage, Said That, To Defeat The Muslim Refugee Flow, Britain Has To Close Her Borders With Europe. That Made His Popularity Surge

    Head Of Brexit Faction, Nigel Farage, Said That, To Defeat The Muslim Refugee Flow, Britain Has To Close Her Borders With Europe. That Made His Popularity Surge

  4. The European Union as it is does not work. But if one asks US citizens whether they like the “direction of the USA”, or the US Congress, most of them say no by up to 85%. Still, no American idiot has come up to suggest a USexit referendum. There were USexit votes around 1860, and those votes brought the deadliest American conflict, which killed 3% of the US population (thsat would be ten million killed, using the US population for 2016).
  5. The British population is not the most dissatisfied by present European Union government (the so-called EC ”Commission”, a ridiculous name). The British are much more satisfied than the French, whose dissatisfaction is only surpassed by the Greeks. Still the French have not been proposed a referendum about whether they want to be in the European Union (in 2005 the French and the Dutch turned down a proposed Constitution of the EU; a more modest reform was ratified in the conventional manner). Of course they do. Why? Because the French do not confuse improving the European Union, and destroying it.

The alternative to the European Union and its “ever closer union” is war. War from “ever greater disunion” was tried before. Plutocracy would love to try it some more. War is to real plutocrats what golf is to basic oligarchs. War does not have to occur tomorrow, it’s best served cold, and starts with tariffs. (Not that tariffs cannot be justified, they can, and could be for a number of excellent reasons, some of them, like a carbon tax, approved of by the World Trade Organization). The French are much more angry against the EC than the British. But don’t throw the EU baby with the EC bath.


The crisis of refugees flooding into Europe is striking and intolerable. It has a precedent: this is exactly the problem Rome encountered, starting around 110 BCE. Consul Marius then solved the invasion by exterminating the three German tribes which were invading the Roman Republic in three battles (two of which happened next to Aix-en-Provence, and are celebrated to this day, in the names of locales). The Germans kept on trying to invade, and the situation became overwhelming when cretin Christian (sorry for the pleonasm) emperor Valens, to demonstrate his power did not wait for his nephew Gratian to come over with the Western Roman army (co-emperor Gratian was close-by, and marching in). The Goths then exterminated the Oriental Roman Army, and ended taking Rome, a generation later (410 CE).

The Renovated Roman empire led by the Franks suffered an even more severe sequence of simultaneous invasions in the Seventh and Eighth Century. In 715 CE, the Muslims were in Narbonne (an important regional capital in Rome). The Franks were the first to call themselves “Europeans”, and it is because they were “Europeans” that they won.   

Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) saw the battle of Poitier as a key turning point in European history (but so were the preceding European victory at Toulouse in 721 CE, and the European victories at  the Battle of Avignon, the Battle of Nîmes, and the Battle of the River Berre.

Headless, without armies, all its armies having been destroyed by the Franks and a subsequent, related revolt of the Berbers in 740 CE, the Caliphate based in Damascus then collapsed in civil war (750 CE) and the Franks started the reconquest of Spain, before the reign of Charlemagne, establishing the Marca Hispanica as early as 785 CE.

Here is British historian Edward Gibbon’s famous counterfactual passage from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-78): Had the Muslims won at Poitiers,

“A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

Could something good come out of Brexit? Yes, sure. Contrarily to what the fanatical tribal puppets of global plutocracy (whose international headquarters are Great Britain) believe, ever greater union is the way out of ALL European problems. Brexit could kick out a fifth columnist, a saboteur, and encourage the others to get together.

Those who want to divide Europe, instead of making it stronger are the real traitors. And the real enemies of freedom. To defend the borders of Europe, a European army had to march into Syria, after removing the dictator plutocrat Assad, dear to London, thanks to his assets. Anything short of this is nothing. 

For decades, stupid anti-Europeans in Britain have thought cool, smart and extremely British to declare the European Union was a “club”. Not, it’s not. Please read that again: it’s an union. Union. Get it? If you want a tax haven, go live in the British Virgin Island tax haven. The time of stealing other Europeans is near.  Actually, it has arrived. Nothing like a whiff of exasperation. After all, that’s what did the Nazis in.

Patrice Ayme’

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

June 19, 2016

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

Long Live The Euro: 1) Basic History of Romans & Franks

December 26, 2015

Marine Le Pen proposes to go back to the Franc. This is rather ironical for a nationalist, as the Euro, a French invention, extends French power. However, as it is, in the present international context, the Euro is not functioning optimally, and indeed, seriously hindering the French Republic. Nevertheless, I will demolish the stale anti-Euro arguments imagined by servants of the USA’s plutocratic order, the ones Le Pen is following like a bleating sheep. There is a glaring problem with the Euro, indeed, but not the one talked about by those who dislike the Euro. And that problem has an obvious remedy (long found by the USA), a change in the mandate of the European Central Bank.

In a nutshell, the Euro was conceived as a top down mechanism to force one more unification device inside Europe. The idea is to create problems which only further European unification can solve. The Euro is functioning correctly that way, albeit too slowly. And no wonder: at this point, European finance is led by an ex-partner at Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street bank, under the mandate of making the Euro a store of value (even if kills the European economy). That has to be changed. Along… American lines.

Common Currency Area: Roman Empire Europe, 815 CE. In 1066 CE, the Franks Launched Their Re-Conquest of Great Britain

Common Currency Area: Roman Empire Europe, 815 CE. In 1066 CE, the Franks Launched Their Re-Conquest of Great Britain

Those who don’t understand the map above, should not talk about the Euro. As we will see, though, they do talk about the Euro, while not minding whether, or not,France and Germany were actually part of the same polity, for half a millennium.

(For the election of Holy Roman emperor in 1519, the two candidates were the Duke of Burgundy, ruler of the Netherlands and Loraine, and the King of France, Francois I; both were native French speakers, born not far from Paris. The former became emperor as Charles V.)

Those who don’t know European history, including hordes of American pseudo-intellectuals, can only talk foolishly about the Euro. That’s the whole idea: they are supposed to make us all stupid. Once we are stupid enough, we will be eager to serve them, or so they have observed.

That despicable horde of greedy disinformers and impudent liars includes one of the leading (diminutive) bulls, Milton Friedman, bullying his way into a thicket of absurdities which he himself erected.

Friedman learned nothing, absolutely nothing, from the Second World War. That, too, is no accident. It’s a disease frequently found in American Jews. It’s not just the usual francophobia. There is a much more sinister mechanism at work. American Jews are supposed to know nothing much about the Second World War, except there was a big bad “The Holocaust”, and, somehow, the French were involved.

Why so ignorant? Preservation of their own Jewish sanity. If American Jews knew more of the history of the Second World War, they would have to explain why they did nothing, while their brethren and relatives were mass assassinated in Europe.

In particular, American Jews would have to explain why they did nothing, while racist American plutocrats were totally, massively supporting and enabling Hitler and Mussolini. Where was Friedman then? Well, he was employed by Roosevelt’s National Resources Committee (on which he more or less spit later, naturally).

Fortunately the Nazis and their enemies, the French, did learn from WWII what had to be learned. And what they learned, is that they had to unify.

Whereas, it is telling that people who allegedly claim to care about holocausts in Europe, want to divide Europe some more, when it is precisely those divisions which caused the holocausts. The basic flaw of Eastern Europe, where most American Jews are from, is that a divided, divisive, grotesque patchwork of little authorities at each other’s throats, some of this nation, some from another, some from one religion, some from one other, some from a language, or sect, some from another language, or sect.

The first fact of European history is that those who invented the modern usage of the word Europe, the Franks, conquered, unified, and… (to a great extent) created Germany. Including the German language! (The Franks, being themselves Germans, were in excellent position to bark out orders to other Germans.)

To understand the Euro, one has to go all the way to the first Roman State, and why it failed spectacularly:

The Roman empire’s border inside Germany, anchored on the Rhine and Danube, was too long, too fractal, hard to defend. The one and only solution was to conquer all of Europe (and make a short border across the European peninsula). The only Roman who decided to do this, Julius Caesar, was assassinated on the eve of his departure at the head of the most formidable army Rome ever had. After that unfortunate event, the assassination of the leader of the Populares, Roman plutocracy took over enough to impose its agenda. Roman plutocracy was more interested to exploit the Roman people, rather than to call on the Republican spirit to make Rome safer, and more sustainable.

Actually, the history of the next five centuries of Rome showed that Roman plutocracy preferred to be invaded by barbarians, rather than to call back the Roman Republic (analogies with what is going on today, are invited). In the end, it was the Franks who brought back enough Roman republican elements to progress beyond Greco-Roman civilization, and, later, thoroughly destroy the invading Islamists (once again, comparisons with today jump to mind).

As it sank in ever thicker plutocracy, the first Roman State never conquered Germania. The result was half-baked military solutions, beating the German hordes back, each time they raided the much richer Roman empire. It brought constant, expensive wars which Rome could not afford. It also brought catastrophe, when the Huns, charging through the steppe, all the way from Mongolia, pressured the Goths, and the latter decided to take refuge inside the Roman empire. It was a refugee crisis second to none, yet the refugees came in, fully armed and battle trained, and the Christian dazed Roman emperors confronting the problem, may have longed so much towards the apocalypse, promised by the Bible, that they may have spurred it along. (Once again, comparison with today, are invited.)

However, the Franks turned Augustus’ strategy on its head. As soon as it succeeded the first Roman State, the Second Foundation of the Roman State, the empire of the Franks, threw overboard Augustus’ stupid advice, to leave Germania alone. The Franks relentlessly pursued the conquest of all of Germany, and more. It took three centuries. Charlemagne, Carlus Magnus, finished the job.

The preceding map of Europe is not understood by despicable people such as Milton Friedman and his ilk, who are paid not to meditate upon it (supposing they ever came across it). Friedman is paid to entertain the idea that Germany is bad for France.

Low intellectual lives such as Friedman typically don’t know that, under the Franks, freedom of cult was extended to all those who did not have a Cult of Death (thus the safe Sufi practice of Islam was tolerated). They don’t know that the Franks three times, earlier than Charlemagne, broke three massive Islamist, Cult of Death invasions, and that the Damascus Arab Caliphate fell consequently, having lost its armies (750 CE). They know nothing, these haters of Europe, and still they talk, exuding their venom, because they are paid to do so: it helps the American empire and its overlord, global plutocracy, to tell the world and themselves that the Europeans are self-destructive idiots. At this point the Friedman-Krugman venom is feeding Marine Le Pen (who has opportunistically jumped on it; as a Member of the European Parliament, she probably knows better; in any case she could only hope to implement her program if she had an absolute majority at the French National Assembly).

The Roman Currency failed, because Rome did not conquer Eastern Europe:

The Romans ran out of precious metals in the Third Century: using the technology they had, the mines were exhausted. By 300 CE, Rome, under emperors Aurelian and then Diocletian, had switched to a complicated mix of Fiat Currency and command economy. As the state, weakened by plutocracy, was not strong enough, the Roman Fiat Currency suffered inflation (although the Roman gold currency would not, and was used for another millennium).

China had the same problem, lack of precious metals and invented the ultimate Fiat Currency, paper money, in the Seventh Century to circumvent it (Bolivian silver traded by Spain would solve the Chinese problem nearly a millennium later).

The Franks solved the argentum/argent problem the old fashion way: they did what the Romans did not find the force to do. The Franks conquered Eastern Europe, where the silver mines were. Suddenly, there was enough money to operate the economy again, and, by 1000 CE, the Franks were the richest per person and per unit of energy (my AWE), in the world (contrarily to what the “China-on-top” school of thought has it).

[To be continued… Next: Milton Friedman ill-informed, asinine and biased observations about the Euro, and whether the Eurozone is not an “optimum currency area”]

Patrice Ayme’