Posts Tagged ‘Franks’

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’

Only Philosophy Can Reverse Civilization Collapse

August 12, 2015

World population is presently exploding. How many human beings were there before dogs became in wide use? In 35,000 BCE, it is estimated that Earth had three million human beings. Before the rise of cities, in 10,000 BCE, world population had reached 15 million. The rise of civilization was enabled by a technological explosion, the discovery, invention and intense use intense use of science, technology, writing, genetic engineering (dogs, cattle, goats, chicken, cats, wheat, rye, millet, rice, beans, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, etc.), irrigation, fuel, etc.

Civilizations rise when they find new technological tricks to dominate and exploit their environments, be it the human, and, or, natural, environments. Those tricks exhaust resources after a while, bringing stress, thus war (against people, and, or, nature). War activates the fascist instinct, bringing the rise of plutocracy (as observed nowadays), and complete cretinism (also known as theocracy). This makes the collapse worse. Civilization can be destroyed by fate. The most famous case is a civilization we owe so much to: Crete. It was devastated by one of the worst volcanic explosion in 25,000 years (as it tried to recover, it was hit by a “plague”, according to Greek historians). 

Cretan Girls Leaped Over Bulls In The Nude

Cretan Girls Leaped Over Bulls In The Nude

Crete is part of our cultural inheritance. Today, the status of women depends upon the breakthrough ancient paintings (from the Knossos Palace, above), some 40 centuries old, depict. The status of women was high in Crete. Women could be in authority, for 2,000 years. Women were then to be subjugated in Greece, for 3,500 years (yes, time flies, these are big numbers: civilizational setbacks can last millennia).

Europe is named after Crete, an acknowledgment. The goddess Europa was from Crete (and one of her sons was the famous king Minos, after whom Minoan Civilization is named).

An example of self-imploding collapse is the Maya. The Maya were, for millennia, an extremely advanced civilization which seemed to be on its way to accomplish on its own something similar to the ascending superiority of Middle Earth (my term for the Mediterranean plus Egypt-Middle East-Arabia plus India area).

However, a terrible century long drought starting in the Seventh Century struck the Maya who proved unable to manage the crisis, to which they added terrible wars (the worst involving a queen, in the leading role, not just the usual demonic males). All Maya cities were destroyed. When the Spaniards landed, eight centuries later, the Maya were just shadows of their former selves (yet, they proved to be tough customers).

As Jared Diamond (2005, in his book “Collapse”) wrote, one can only be struck by “the disappearance of between 90 and 99% of the Maya population after A.D. 800 …and the disappearance of kings, Long Count calendars, and other complex political and cultural institutions.” Not just that, but much more importantly, the giant irrigation system of the Maya, with its dams and canals, was one of the world’s largest, ever: it can still be seen from space. When that centuries old irrigation system was left in disrepair, civilization became history.

In the close-by very extensive highlands of central Mexico, many powerful states also rose to high levels of power and prosperity, only to rapidly collapse. Teotihuacan (the sixth largest city in the world in the Seventh Century) and Monte Alban among those to experience dramatic collapse, with populations decline of at least 20–25% from their peak within a couple of generations (Tainter, 1988).

Civilization collapses come in many guises. Egypt cycled through more than two dozen dynasties, and a couple of century long occupations, tweaking itself every time. However, in the end it was unable to stay an independent, original civilization, undergoing thereafter 2,000 years of subjugation. 

The present civilization was born from a near-collapse. And was born thanks to a philosophical reset.

Indeed, in the case of the Greco-Roman empire, full collapse was avoided. The Franks rebooted Greco-Roman civilization, with their own Germano-Christian sauce, by the early Fifth Century (defeat of Goths who were ejected from Gaul, 507 CE, thanks to the battle of Vouille’). This is completely clear, when one inspects known facts, battles, laws, and the Storia Francorum of bishop Gregory of Tours.

The truth of what happened was masked by severe setbacks which were endured in the Sixth Century, under (Constantinople based) Roman emperor Justinian: Christian madness made Greco-Roman intellectuals flee to Persia (!), while a terrible plague (“Justinian Plague”), and a mysterious cataclysm (asteroid, volcano?) struck Earth’s climate. (The reality of what happned under the Franks was also masked by French Revolutionary propaganda, which was anxious to put all and any “ancient regime” in a bad light, and the usual Anglo-Saxon propaganda, anxious to disparage its absurdly French origins in all and any way.)

Differently from the Maya, the Franks centered in, or around Paris, and the Romans in Constantinople, were able to adapt to the catastrophes of the Fourth (Christianization, Gothic invasion), Fifth (Germanic invasions of 406 CE; then, the Huns), Sixth (as related above), and Seventh Centuries (dramatic war with Persia, followed by the surprise attack of the god crazed Arabs).

Both then defeated in the Eight Century those fanatics of war who had attacked like carnivorous locusts.   

The official “Renovatio Imperii”, the Renovation of Rome, was made formal when Carlus Magnus (Charlemagne) was endowed with the sole “Imperator Romanorum” (Imperator of the Romans) title in 800 CE, an imperial tradition which went on with say Otton II in 962 CE, and for more than a millennium (formally, Napoleon I, as leader of Francia was entitled, the Roman way, to grab back the title for himself).

Greco-Roman civilization incorporated the Cretan, Egyptian-Sumerian, Phoenician civilizations (with more than a touch of Etruscan). Then other Middle Eastern elements were included (Mythra, Great Mother Cult, Judaism, etc.) Western civilization incorporated even more: the fierce love of freedom, and women, of the Germans, and the generalized tolerance and open mindedness of the Franks (by 600 CE all citizens were Franks, and, within a generation the slave trade was outlawed by the Imperium; that latter fact was a world’s first). Interestingly the Franco-Roman synthesis incorporated traits which Crete had, but that the Hellenes had lost (for example maximum sexual equality, in at least some respects: there were female Cretan matadors, playing with ferocious giant bulls).

Conclusion? Even in an horrendous situation (the decline of the Roman empire, under fascism, theocracy, barbarity, invasions, ecological collapse, plague, unfathomable impact of a giant explosion somewhere), fresh new ideas, arising from shock philosophy can turn things around. The Franks demonstrated this thoroughly. The Chinese also did, on a more modest scale… Until Mao came, and unleashed the Dark Side onto fossilized Chinese thought, habits, and a philosophy, Confucianism, which had ruled for 26 centuries, as the symbol of ultimate wisdom (which it was not).

To repeat slowly: the Franks introduced the following reforms, in rough chronological order:

  1. The rule of warriors bound to common sense and religious tolerance (in complete contradiction with the Catholic terror, just prior). This was illustrated by Clovis’ quip that, had his Franks been there, Christ would never have been crucified. On the surface, it’s as if Clovis had understood nothing of Christianity. Indeed it looks as if Clovis had not understood that God wanted to be crucified, just to visit a guilt complex on his followers, same as with the story of the snake and the apple. Most probably, Clovis understood all too well< and made a show that he was firmly intend to violate God’s law. In any case, under the Franks, Judaism, Paganism, etc were freely practiced. Christianism with a human, even Frankish face (to the Vatican’s rage).
  2. The implementation of a modern, much less sexist, non-discriminatory legal system, applying to all by 600 CE, the Lex Salica, on top of Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman law. By 600 CE, all citizens of the Imperium Francorum were Franks (in a dramatic contrast with the situation in Spain, where the Visigoths applied Visigothic law just to themselves; same in italy where the Lombards, another type of Germans, were above Roman law)
  3. The outlawing of slavery (starting around 650 CE).
  4. Nationalization  of the Catholic Church, constitution of the largest professional army since Republican Rome, to face the humongous Islamist invasions of 721-745 CE. Destruction of the army of the Arab Caliphate (which thus collapsed in 750 CE, crushing Bin Laden and other Islamists forever thereafter).    

All these reforms were of a philosophical nature: the Vatican discussed excommunicating Charles Martel, for expropriating the Church, but concluded it was safer not to debate with a Hammer. When the Franks formed, named, and made a bishop, within three weeks, from an illiterate Frankish warrior, they were sending a message to the Vatican about who was the boss: secularism, not superstition.

Civilization survived from smarts, not just swords.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Perspective: Islamophobia Is Not Racist

March 19, 2015

Truth depends upon perspective. Yet, that does not mean there is no truth in perspectives. Global Truth? The union of true perspectives.

One perspective cannot oppose another, it complements it.

Islamophobia is just, literally speaking, the fear of Islam, an ideology. How could fear of an ideology be racist? (I am not talking about fear of people who happen to be Muslim; I have many Muslim friends! And I joke with them, instead of going below the table, trembling abjectly.)

Well fear can be racist, if fear is unjustified. Yet, with Islam, it is not.

Look at 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…”

Caliphate Salad, 9th Century. Different Before, Different After. At War, Always.

Caliphate Salad, 9th Century. Different Before, Different After. At War, Always.

[Maybe I should have used another map; this one depicts a Carolingian empire reduced to France; In truth, with its “March States”, it covered most of Western Europe; Also “Byzantium” called itself “Roman”.]

Of course, one has to know what a Hadith is. Israeli voters apparently do, and they gave Netanyahu, 50% more seats at the Knesset. The Hadith above is part of the “constitution” of Hamas.

Identifying the color of skin to race has proven genetically erroneous (even Israel recognizes this, sort of). But we are living in intellectual times. It is about the race of thoughts.

We know, perhaps, of the order of 10,000 religions which have graced humanity. Most condoned human sacrifices. All are feared and condemned by all our contemporaries, except for a handful of these 10,000 that are practiced nowadays.

Why, if 9,979 “revelation”, “prophet” based religions have proven erroneous and condemnable, those practiced today are better?

The answer is simple: the religions still in existence today have been secularized. Christianism, to roll out example number one, as practiced today, is nothing as what its founding texts make it to be. Christianism in 2015, even by its fiercest fanatics, is closer to Secularism, also known as the Republic, than to Christianism practiced and imposed by its authorities in 400 CE (when Rome was ruled by bishops: the bishop of Milan imposed his will onto emperor Theodosius, an ex-general, a very fierce mass homicidal tyrant who mad a war to philosphers).

Christianism, or, as it was then known, Catholicism, was secularized after the Franks took ever greater power between 450 CE (Attila’s invasion) and 507 CE (defeat of the Visigoths by Consul Clovis).

This went on until 1097 CE, when the invasion of the Orient by the Turks, recently converted to Islam, passed a tipping point.

Until then, Frankish counter-attacks had repelled Islamists from Southern France (they raided all the way to Switzerland, Northern Italy). A Frankish army had freed Rome from an Islamist army.

However, Islam, interpreted literally, as found in Qur’an and Hadith, is a perfect war religion. Making war into a religion (Jihad!) helped the Turks invade what was left of the “Pars Orientalis” of the Roman empire. A huge massacre of 10,000 Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem, plus calls for help form the Eastern Roman government (Constantinople) launched the counter-attack of the Crusades.

Fascism is the mindset that optimizes war making. Whatever the good reasons to launch a massive crusade, it resulted immediately in the rise of massive Christianofascism. Jews east of the Vosges mountains were the first victims. The ultimate victim was philosophical Secularism: in the following centuries, Christian Fundamentalism killed millions (after warming up with tens of thousands of Jews killed, if not hundreds of thousands, Christian Fundamentalism killed a million Cathars; after that four centuries of mayhem between various Christian sects and with those who protested brought increasing mayhem.

So the rise of religious killing madness has been seen in Europe before. Twice.

The first rise of Christianofascism brought down the Roman government.

That is rather ironical. The imperial government had launched the Christian derangement to start with, so Rome was punished by its own fascist instrument.

The second rise of Christianofascism was a smoke screen behind which the secular power of rabid plutocracy hid itself. Roughly the same mechanism as the first time

And what of “Islam”, meanwhile?

Islam was specifically designed for war and conquest. That certainly was not exactly the full intent of Muhammad. But he is not the one who wrote down the Qur’an and the Hadith. Soon after his death, “Islam” became an astounding, giant war machine. The Qur’an was (mostly) written twenty years later (although some parts are even more recent).

As I said countless times, that led to war between (self-declared) Muslims (and so the many Caliphates above, and this is just one picture in time, Caliphate kept on coming, and going, all over the place).

In truth there was never an uncontested “Caliphate” (it means a succession).

The Caliphate is a myth:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142379/nick-danforth/the-myth-of-the-caliphate.

The preceding article focuses on the Turks, who became Muslims only 1,000 years ago, and put Islam as war religion to good use, by quickly building a giant empire that put the Romans in Constantinople on the ropes.

The Caliphate was a myth, from the start. Right away, some thought Ali should have succeeded Muhammad. But Ali became only the Fourth Caliph, in an ambiance of religious war, and his sons and his followers got massacred (as Shias remember all too well).

So “Islam” never knew peace. Neither external, nor internal. At least in the Middle Earth (of course, most Muslims are in South, and South East Asia, but that is another story).

As, in the Islamist model, according to the Guide Principle (Qur’an Sura 4, verse 59), the state is identified to one man, there were never institutions, nor continuity thereof.

Contrarily to the West: the Catholic church had continuity, and even Roman administration pretty continued under the Franks, and so did Roman secular law.

So what, looking forward?

Well, maybe one should look at France. Genetic studies show many French in the South and South-West, are (partly) of Berber, and, or, Arab descent.

Muslims were not discriminated against in Europe during the recovery of invaded territory (except, tragically in Spain around 1500 CE, at the end of the Reconquista).

So the solution is to secularize. Do to Islam what was done to Christianity. And don’t go backwards, as has happened in the USA since the 1930s.

I have said this for years. The New York Times just discovered it in “A Christian Nation? Since When?”:

“AMERICA may be a nation of believers, but when it comes to this country’s identity as a “Christian nation,” our beliefs are all over the map. 

Just a few weeks ago, Public Policy Polling reported that 57 percent of Republicans favored officially making the United States a Christian nation. But in 2007, a survey by the First Amendment Center showed that 55 percent of Americans believed it already was one. 

The confusion is understandable. For all our talk about separation of church and state, religious language has been written into our political culture in countless ways. It is inscribed in our pledge of patriotism, marked on our money, carved into the walls of our courts and our Capitol. Perhaps because it is everywhere, we assume it has been from the beginning. 

But the founding fathers didn’t create the ceremonies and slogans that come to mind when we consider whether this is a Christian nation. Our grandfathers did.”

Then the New York Times exposes how American plutocracy found that the Christian god (the “Allah” of the Qur’an) was all the help they needed.

As the New York Times reveals to the baffled masses:

“Back in the 1930s, business leaders found themselves on the defensive. Their public prestige had plummeted with the Great Crash; their private businesses were under attack by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal from above and labor from below. To regain the upper hand, corporate leaders fought back on all fronts. They waged a figurative war in statehouses and, occasionally, a literal one in the streets; their campaigns extended from courts of law to the court of public opinion. But nothing worked particularly well until they began an inspired public relations offensive that cast capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity. 

The two had been described as soul mates before, but in this campaign they were wedded in pointed opposition to the “creeping socialism” of the New Deal.”

One should take this seriously. Islamophobia is a timely attitude, yet, Christianophobia has been neglected all too long.

The fight for secularization is also a fight against not just Christianization, or Islamization, but also against plutocracy itself.

One has also to remember that the very principle of plutocracy, a few having everything, especially power, is another description of fascism.

And that fascism is intimately related to war.

And that war arises from limited resources. Even in chimpanzees.

And that nothing will limit resources as much as climate change, acidity change, nitrogen change, and all other changes were are visiting on Earth. With a wild abandon, which plutocracy is no stranger to.

Recent pollen analysis in French beehives showed thirty-one (31) different insecticides. For some reason, French bee populations are collapsing except in remote islands, and non-chemically treated mountain areas. Bees are fundamental to the biosphere, since there are flowering plants, and they bear fruit. Verily, we need more than those fruits greed can bring.

Real seriousness is multidimensional, variegated, observant. And does not pose for a popularity contest.

Find, oh you wise ones, as many perspectives as possible, and the deepest ones, while not trusting blindly those popular yesterday.

Patrice Ayme’

ADDED VALUE IN THE XXI CENTURY

March 9, 2015

PRODUCING SUPERIOR THINKING TO IMPROVE NOT JUST WORLD SOCIO-ECONOMY, BUT SURVIVAL:

Capital Exponentiate, Decapitate Wealth To Feed Minds:

Piketty’s “Capital In the XXI Century” argues that the return on capital is greater that that on labor: r>g. All economists from the pseudo-left fell on their knees, astounded by the depth of that observation. They obviously never studied history, let alone archeology.

In truth, Piketty’s big deal inequality, that r>g has been known for 12,000 years, as I have emphasized in countless essays, for years. I have even explained the mathematical-psychological reasons why r>g. Piketty has smirked that he discovered r>g when he wrote the book. (A case of arrogant ignorance buttressed by colossal stupidity: that r>g ought to have been the first law of economics. That it took centuries for economists to discover this cannot possibly be a matter of stupidity, but of the will, on the part of economists of not understanding how the masters who fed them got their power from.)

So Piketty claims he just discovered that r>g: maybe economists are not idiots, but they play some on TV? (Some are bound to think that Piketty should be my ally, and thus I should be nicer to him; however, correct philosophy tends to be done by being only friendly to truth.)

Homo Thrived In This Cold Climate For 2 Million Years (Georgia, Tusheti NP.) Thanks To Science & Technology

Homo Thrived In This Cold Climate For 2 Million Years (Georgia, Tusheti NP.) Thanks To Science & Technology

It was so well known, that the return on capital was higher than that on income, r>g, that all reasonably sustained societies had colossal, decapitating taxes on wealth.

By law, hook, or crook. And when this was not the case, when wealth became hereditary in an exponential way, disasters happened. Generally invasion and destruction.

This happened to all the plutocratically corrupt Chinese empires when Genghis Khan’s Mongols came down.

The peaceful variant is revolutions such as 1789 (for twenty years the king had been meekly trying to make the aristocracy pay enough taxes).

When a great Native American, or great Viking chief died, much of their possessions (it could thousands of horses) would be redistributed.

Time to re-learn the wisdom of the ancients.

***

SUPERIORITY OF THE WEST?

Why did the West become so superior? Or China, for that matter?

Technology. Superior technology. Coming from superior thinking. Both the Greeks and the Chinese had colossal contempt for barbarians. (In both cases it went so far that the Greeks lost everything, and the Chinese came very close to annihilation).

Around the year 1000 CE, the Vietnamese (it seems) invented new cultivars of rice, which could produce an entire crop, twice a year. The population of East Asia exploded accordingly.

A bit earlier, the Franks had invented new cultivars of beans. The Frankish Tenth Century was full of beans. Beans are nutritious, with high protein.

Homo is scientific and technological. Thus, two million years ago, pelt covered (tech!) Homo Ergaster lived in Georgia’s Little Caucasus, a pretty cold place in winter. And the population was highly varied genetically (showing tech and travel already dominated).

***

A GREATER OBSESSION WITH FREEDOM MADE THE WEST SUPERIOR:

Here is the very latest. Flour was found in England, in archeological layers as old as 10,000 years before present. It was pure flour: there were no husks associated. The milling had been done, far away. How far? Well the cultivation of wheat spread to Western Europe millennia later. The flour had been traded, and brought over thousands of miles. Most certainly by boat. Celtic civilization, which would rise 5,000 years later, was expert at oceanic travel.

What’s the broad picture? Not just that prehistoric Englishmen loved their flat bread, no doubt a delicacy. Advanced technology has permeated Europe for much longer than is still understood now by most historians. Remember that the iceman who died in a glacier, 5,000 years ago, was not just tattooed, and had fetched in the lowlands a bow made of special wood. More telling: he carried antibiotics.

China and the West diverged, because the philosophies of the Franks and the East were different. The Franks had outlawed slavery four centuries before the great divergence started. This helped freedom, especially the freedom to think of new technology and science.  (Frank = Free.)

The more enslaved a population, the less inventive. It is not just a cultural-psychological phenomenon. It may be epigenetic. The Franks were more ethologically correct, and that enabled to unleash full human epigenetic.

(Being endowed with full human capability, is perhaps why G.W. Bush was incredibly brazen when he became president, going to invade Iraq, whereas Obama was subdued, and just worked, under Summers’ orders, to save the established plutocratic order, like a little boy, obsequious servant of the great white masters; OK, Obama did not descend from slaves, yet he was exposed to the black slave culture, throughout, and somewhat clueless about it.)

The Germans had been obsessed with freedom since ever, and, since in particular, their first contacts with the Romans. All that Germanic freedom led to population explosions, and invasions of Greco-Roman lands, which, for centuries, were systematically cut down by hyper-disciplined Roman armies.

All this was brought into one mold by Consul Clovis, who, as Roman Imperator, and himself son of Roman Imperator Childeric (also elected king of the Salian Franks), made the soldiers of his army understand that they would have to be extremely disciplined too, under the penalty of death (Roman style, a revolting notion for free Germans).

Militarily, the Franks by combining freedom and discipline, were an undefeatable force ever since (the Mongols knew this all too well, thus did not send their scouts west of Croatia; then allied themselves to the Franks to capture Baghdad and Damas).

Free peasants had no slaves, but they needed help: domesticated beasts and mechanical advantage were thus evolved by Frankish society. When Europeans made it to China, they were astounded that people did everything, without using machines or beasts.

So not too many children, but then communal living: Middle Ages villages in Europe were commune-ist regimes. Exploitation of property was divided according to how many could work.

The end result was strong philosophical pressure for ever more advanced technology. Although China was ahead in some tech, as soon as Europe heard of it, it captured it greedily. That philosophy permeated all of Western European society. Peter the Great, emperor of Russia knew this so well, he went to study incognito as a worker in Dutch naval shipyards.

***

AMERICAN ECONOMIC DISCOURSE: A TROJAN HORSE

Does the drive to advanced tech dominate now?

Not as much as it used to.

Why? American plutocracy. And the “Nobel Prizes” of a whole army of obsequious plutophile servants thereof.

Because the spirit of all-conquering technology has been displaced by Capital in the XXI Century. And more specifically its USA monopolistic operators (such as the insufferable Bill Gates, and cohorts of financial operators). Technology is, and will stay, of course, the main and ultimate capital of humanity. That’s how Homo colonized the Caucasus, two million years ago.

Piketty, in his book, brushes technology off. Absurdly, he believes that tech can provide only a 1% return. That’s thoroughly stupid: inventing full Quantum Computers, for example,  would have tremendous consequences, as any device could be made hyper intelligent.

Yet, this sort of attitude makes Piketty an object of admiration in USA Academia.

Why? Because USA Academia is plutocratic through and through. Piketty’s ideas do not threaten plutocracy. Quite the opposite: they will allow it to survive. Diminished, true, but alive. My ideas would destroy plutocracy. Let alone the fact that it would take a long time to implement Piketty’s scheme. My schemes, being multi-dimensional, could be implemented faster, and start to bite right away.

(I do agree with several of Piketty’s propositions, such as a world cadastrum, and progressive taxation on capital: I have advocated them for more than a decade!)

***

PLUS OULTRE:

However, a European solar plane just took off from Dubai. It will go around the world on solar power alone. The main force behind this project, the inventor and pilot, the engineer Picard (scion of ancestors just like him) asserts that the global adoption of such technologies would lower energy waste by half.

Europeans, following the Europeans who had migrated to North America, were the richest, most powerful, better nourished people in the world, for five centuries, because their economies produced more ADDED VALUE than any other economies (in particular, better guns).

To re-establish relative riches, Europeans need to focus on what produced that superiority in added value production. That means technological superiority, and this is fed by a more educated population. More educated scientifically, and thus philosophically.

Philosophy, done in a humanly ethologically correct way, is the metaphysics of science. It all fits together. Anything else is an amputation of the possible. Of the humanly possible.

China understands this very well. At least the science part. (Not too sure about the philosophical part; without it, China may well follow the path of fascist Germany. It’s going that way, with a military budget bigger than France, Britain and Japan combined: $145 billion.)

How to do this?

How to add so much value from mind that superiority is re-established?

Well establish the correct philosophy, put it in power, teach it, finance free maximum quality education, free at all ages.

Pay by taxes on wealth, and large incomes, fortunes, in such a way that there would be a practical cap on wealth, as the Roman Republic used to have, when it really worked.

Decapitating wealth is important for the youth: it will show youth that material wealth to excess is such a bad thing, it had to be made unlawful. It will replace mind at the apex of what youth ought to aspire to, and be programmed by.

***

KEEPING A CIVILIZATION GRADIENT WILL SAVE BILLIONS:

Billions of lives, that is.

The usual partisans of insignificance, nihilism and masochism will no doubt whine that Euro-American economic ascendency is a bad thing. They prefer to be haughty slaves than responsible masters.

European scientific superiority led to a reasonably stabled world order. (Except for some populations of the Americas who got exterminated, thus clearing the lands for Europeans.)

In a world where everybody has the same weapons, and ecology is collapsing (still not raining in California, fourth year in a row, in the greatest drought in several millennia), it is to be feared that disorder will express itself as it has in the past: the sort of massacres that make entire populations disappear. That is what Netanyahu is thinking of…

So defining properly Capital in The XXI Century is not just economically and socially important. It is morally important, in the apocalyptic sense of “moral”.

Superior mind is the ultimate capital. Obviously hardly a notion that comes naturally to economists. As what is called “economics” is mostly a fake science, and famous economists are mostly people who have learned to lie about that fact.

When Piketty claims he just discovered r>g, 10,000 years after most of our ancestors, he demonstrates that. More generally, the same critique can be directed at entire fields such as most of theoretical physics and even mathematics, as funding from plutocrats has become ubiquitous. By buying the hierarchy, the plutocrats bought the thinking. That’s what they wanted. Thinking to be directed incorrectly.

We have see this before: this is how Aristotle, or more exactly his sponsors, nearly destroyed civilization. The difference? The stakes are much higher now.

Can I be more specific in my critique, give a hint of what is wrong with Academia? Most thinkers in Academia are too specialized. Right, much science requires hyper-specialization. Say when one is studying Pluto’s atmosphere (the Solar planet not the god of planet finance). One needs hyper-specialized science. However, there is also the science, and the thinking, about big questions. In those fields, hyper-specialization, unguided by the broad picture, can lead to error: look at much of theoretical physics, much of philosophy, much of economics.

It is precisely because Thomas Piketty is obviously pretty ignorant of history, that he believes he just discovered r>g. After 10,000 human societies made the  notion central to their cultures. It is also why economists do not even know that, during most of humanity’s history, money creation was not farmed out to private individuals (the bankers). So they cannot even feel that there is anything wrong with the present money creation system.

Ignorance allows the devil to hide in the details.

Patrice Ayme’

Savage, The Franks? Islam Is Worse

February 26, 2015

Our friend the half-philosophers may start to huff and puff, as “Franks” were citizens of a federation (actually two of them, the one of the Sea, and the one of the River; the one of the Sea, or more exactly, Salt, is now known as Salian, or Salic).

Whereas “Islam” is a thought system, devised by some Arab warriors (PBUH), who got a good gig going for themselves.

To put in the same basket an ethnicity and a religion  is what some half-philosophers would love to call a “category mistake”. The irony is that I know (the basics of) Category Theory, and they don’t.

In Category Theory, there is a concept called a functor, which allows to go from one category to another.

Is Islam a functor from life, to death?

Is Islam a functor from life, to death?

In other words, because I know of functors, I can mix and match different categories such as Franks and Islam, and be relaxed about it (instead of being all gripped and unimaginative, as the average constipated half-philosopher; notice in passing that the concept “functor” was invented by the philosopher Carnap in linguistics).

The historian Pirenne, long ago, suggested the thesis that the collapse of the economy in the High Middle Ages was caused by the Islamists (Islam confiscated most of the Roman empire, and imposed a total embargo, cutting not just the Paper route, but the Silk Road).

In other news, On Fascism, Russian & Islamist Edition, Feb 26, 2015, a plan surfaced for the invasion of Ukraine, written more than a year ago, by some major Russian plutocrats, who have influence on Putin and are best buddies with the leadership of the Russian “Orthodox” Church.

Don’t worry, anybody involved will soon die, and things will calm down, this is Putin’s way.

There is a clear self-censorship going on throughout the West right now, because people are scared of these fanatics, the Putinists, and the Islamists. This, in turn, is deleterious to any critical mood, thus discourse, thus adverse to fixing any problem.

One cannot have a sane public discourse if one cannot even draw a human being. Having public insanity in place of public discourse will affect the Republic, to the point it will die, and that is why it died in all and any nation that submitted to Submission (aka “Islam”).

TODAY’S ISLAMISTS: MORE BARBARIAN THAN THE FRANKS, 16 CENTURIES AGO:

As it rose Christianism destroyed the Roman Republic (or what was left of it). In 363 CE, under fanatical emperor Jovian, an ex-general, a systematic policy of burning libraries got started (Jovian may have been behind the assassination of laic emperor Julian, I am speculating). In 381 CE under ex-general Theodosius, then emperor, laws were passed to enact a “War Against the Philosophers“. Heresy (“making a choice”) became punishable by death.

The Roman empire, which still had many characters of a Republic (which officially it was… Now a “Christian” Republic) exploded.

However, in the next century, in the West, the Franks took control, and build a Catholicism so moderate that it made Paganism, Judaism, and Apostasy all legal (and conversions in all directions).

Interestingly, the Franks, who soon built what they called “Europe”, as an empire, have the reputation of uncouth savages. “Frank” means Ferocious, not just Free.

But the Franks had no problem with Catholics becoming Jews: entire village converted, until the priest was the only Christian in town. Charlemagne himself, 4 centuries after the Franks acceded to power, had his friends call him “David”, because he wanted to be like Israel’s King David (not a friend of God, according to the Bible).

Compare with the savagery of Islam: somebody who leaves Islam is to be killed, say the Hadiths.

So what of the supposed great intellectual tradition of “Islam”? That sounds strange, on the face of it. What about the great intellectual tradition of Christianism? Well, the answer is that there is no such a thing: as soon as he became a fanatical Christian, Pascal produced nothing. All great “Christian” intellectuals are intellectuals first, and, second spent the reminder of their mental capabilities avoiding the fire in which the church wanted to throw them.

In France alone, around 1530, three major philosophers were burned alive for having contradicted Catholicism. This explains why Descartes, a century later, preferred to live in the Netherlands.

Contrarily to repute, the situation with Islam was even worse. At least, in the West, intellectuals could engage the Church in full combat, and they often won. This is a direct consequence of the Frankish leadership submitting the Christian leadership, starting in the Fifth Century. After that time, the Church was never again the government of the West (except inside the Papal states, a gift of Charlemagne, later de facto rescinded).

Famously, around 1300 CE Philippe IV of France and his vassal the English king engaged in full submission of the Pope and his army. The Pope and the Templars both ended judged, dead, and, more importantly, taxed.

So what of these great Muslim thinkers? The answer is that most of them were, truly Jewish or Christians, or very recently “converted”, or then did not finish too well.

ISLAMIST SCHOLARS WANT TO KILL YOU:

The fact is, the greatest Muslim university, Al Azhar in Cairo, is definitively founded on what the Franks, 15 centuries ago, would have viewed as barbarian principles. It actually refused to condemn the “Islamist State” as not conform to Islam.

Al Azhar has decided that those who renounce Islam and their children ought to be killed:

“In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful

Al-Azhar

Fatwa Committee

A question from Mr. Ahmed Darwish who presented the question through Mr. (Blanked out) of German nationality:

A Muslim man of Egyptian nationality married a Christian woman of German nationality. The two spouses agreed that the aforementioned Muslim man would enter the Christian religion and join the Christian creed.

  1. What is the ruling of Islam regarding this person’s situation?
  2. Are his children considered Muslims or Christians and what is their ruling? 

The Answer:

All praises are due to Allah, lord of all the worlds. And peace and blessings be upon the greatest of all messengers, our master Muhammad and upon his family and companions all together. As for what follows: 

We inform that he has apostatized after having been in a state of Islam, so he should be asked to repent. If he does not repent, he should be killed according to the sharia.

As for his children, so long as they are small they are Muslims. After they have attained maturity, if they remain in Islam then they are Muslims. If they leave it, then they should be asked to repent. If they do not repent, they should be killed. And Allah knows best.

President of the Fatwa Committee of Al-Azhar

Seal of the Committee

September 23, 1978”

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=24511.0

Our civilization was founded on rejecting this sort of savagery on the part of Christianism. When the Islamists appeared, the Franks considered them to be a Christian sect, the Sons of Sarah (Saracens). Let’s persist in rejecting the savagery.

Antique Greece was not just defined by what it built, but what it rejected, the Barbarians (those whose talk sounded animal-like: barr… baa). One cannot be positive all the times, otherwise positivity itself loses meaning.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: After publishing the preceding, it came to light that the Islamist State, applying literally the savage texts that guide them, destroyed Mesopotamian art more than twice older than the invention of Islam by the raiders (Muhammad and the father of his 6 years old child bride, etc.). isil-video-shows-destruction-mosul-artifacts-150226153158545

There is no savagery but savagery, and Islam is its prophet?

FREE WILL Was Not Built Yesterday

February 4, 2015

Free Will Is No Free Lunch.

Wherein It is Shown That “Free Will” Is, At Best, a Quantum Architectural Process, Thus Something Long In The Making: If You Want Freedom, You Need To Work On Your Brain. 

In Mental Inertia, I argued that much of what humans do has to do with being dragged along with what one has become, and, or, the thing, or behavior that has already started. Many made the observation long before, but what is new is that the enormous architecture of the brain makes it amply clear why it is so. And that there are no derogation.

It remains to consider what this means for the problem of “Free Will”. And for the SOLUTION of “Free Will”.

Mental inertia is both problem and solution for “Free Will”.

The Franks Exhibited Their Colorful Variegated Wills

The Franks Exhibited Their Colorful Variegated Wills

“Free Will” causes a traditional problem for a train of thought in the West. This so-called “compatibility problem” comes from believing in an absolute, omnipotent god… Or from believing into what came to replace the omnipotent Judaic god: an absolute, omnipotent, completely deterministic Classical Mechanics.

There was a near-civil war among Catholics in France in the Seventeenth Century about the problem of “Free Will” (then called the problem of “Grace”). Blaise Pascal was on the side of the omnipotence of god (after he had a near fatal disease and became nuts). Louis XIV had to intervene, and shut down the “Jansenists“, the fundamentalists who believed in the ultra omnipotence of god.

If either omnipotent god, or omnipotent determinism, holds the universe in its grip, individuals are pre-determined. They have no freedom. There can no “Free Will”.

This is counterfactual: obviously, the Franks who founded the West, were extremely free. “Frank” means “Free”, or “Ferocious” (a distinction without a difference). And the Franks had lots of Will: a few tens of thousands of Frankish warriors came to rule over many million Gallo-Romans and Germans. The defeated all other armies in Galli and the Germanias.

How could the Franks be compatible with the old omnipotent God? Naturally, they were not: Clovis, King, Consul, and Imperator, knew this well. So Clovis re-invented God, in his own special way. All right, Constantine had done the same, two centuries earlier. Constantine, after fighting them, had allied himself to the Franks. Clovis threw away the old metaphysics of the Evangels.

As Clovis said, “if me and my Franks had been there, Jesus would never have been crucified!

It is not that Clovis did not understand the ancient passive message of submission to the child-sacrificing Abrahamic god. No. Clovis did NOT want to understand it. Where Abrahamism taught submission to the child-killing, omnipotent, freakish god, the great rabid dog in the sky, Clovis taught reason, and thus rebellion, and the dignity of common sense.

The Franks, the Free, the Ferocious, wiped clean the errors of the Greco-Roman civilization, and especially its Catholic degeneracy, and dysfunctional slavery. Frankish Will founded the civilization we have. And it was all because the Franks were so Free and Ferocious. It would have happen without.

The Franks made a caricature of old Catholicism, and threw it to the oubliettes de l’histoire.

the Franks had so much Will, that they could afford tolerance, and highly colored clothing. Tolerance was how the Franks ruled: all those unfortunates that rabid Catholicism had excluded, such as “Philosophers”, Pagans, Jews, and other traditional ideologies, were welcome back as full members of society. More than that: the Catholic TERROR was removed as a factor clamping down on the minds.

By 600 CE, everybody in the huge Imperium Francorum, was a Frank. (In another two centuries, they called themselves “Roman” again.)

Frankish Will was force. In the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, it turns out that the three attackers were viewed as terrorists (“fiché”) by the State. But the French, nowadays, have lost the Will which characterized the Franks (in the 1960s, such terrorists would have been preventively detained. This is how De Gaulle broke the OAS. Around 1,000 French are fichés.)

FREE WILL IS BACK!

Nobody serious and well educated believes in God or Classical Mechanics anymore: the former was exposed as a trick of elites, the latter has been replaced by Quantum Physics.

Thus nothing stands again to block Free Will, on a matter of principle. If I were Nietzsche, I would add something he did not think of: the old omnipotent god destroyed by its very omnipotence the very possibility of Freedom. That was the whole idea of the Roman emperors of the Late Empire, starting with Diocletian (circa 300 CE).

On the face of it, the expression “Free Will” is revealing. “Free Will”? Is there Will that is not free? Is it well known, in the West, that Will can come in a non-free variant?

Can Will be chained, or, let’s say played with, amplified? This is the very idea which makes baboon armies so dangerous, and, thus efficient: when 200 male baboons act as one, that’s 400 four centimeters long canine facing the enemy. The King of Prussia Frederik the Great’s superior military rested a lot on discipline second to none. The more an army’s soldiers have the Will of the Chief, the more efficient it is.

Is Will getting leveraged, like anything else in this singularity-of-technology age? Well, yes, of course. Just look at Jihadists; their Will is getting leveraged… Through an amplification from institutionalized hatred, much of it from electrons circulating in the Internet.

Now they show on the Internet how they burn their enemies alive.

More scientifically, yet less profoundly, Konrad Lorentz and others showed that animals with brains can be “imprinted”. Their neurobiology, exposed at particular times, such as the first time, to some input, can stay that way forever.

For example, Lorentz made baby geese behave as if he were their mother. The experience has been reproduced a lot since. Come to think of it, it is central to enable animal husbandry, so it should not be exactly news

FREE WILL: A QUANTUM ARCHITECTURE

Free Will will, of course involve all of Quantum Physics. Roger Penrose, jumping on that bandwagon, believed the Quantum would show up as originating from pretty large scale objects (“micro-tubules”). That was very far-fetched.

All what is sure, and that’s enough, is that all molecular processes (including DNA) will see the evolution of their finer features Quantum controlled.

Quantum Biology will dominate biology, within a few decades. Meanwhile, physicists had to take into account the fact that we may have no Free Will whatsoever, and thus have been condemned, in a Quantum Sisyphusian way, to repeat the Quantum Non-Locality experiments after excluding carefully all and any human being.

Per the delocalized nature of Quantum Processes, we will get there a framework for consciousness corresponding the intuition we have of it.

Then the real question becomes: how Free is a Will that emanates from Quantum Processes? Quantum Processes are delocalized, and entangled, throughout. They make an architecture. Free Will, thus, is not a point-wise effect, in the instant. It is going to be an architecture.

Free Will was not built yesterday. And it was built from a world of inputs and entanglements. We are observers, experimenters, tinkerers and explorers of our own minds. We may be free in some ways, but not of the heavens, hells, and routines we have built onto ourselves, and been imprinted with.

We can will Will, but we are not free to will a Will we did not freely willed, for a very long time, and through much hard brain work. That is why people who live under Submission, will always be slaves, even if, in their impotent hysteria, they go around and about burning people alive, here and there.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Europeans As Mongols of the Sea? No.

January 20, 2015

Anti-European propaganda in the USA never rests. Fox News (basically) proclaimed Paris the Most Dangerous City in the Universe. Obama himself helped. Hugely erroneous ideas and theories about historical facts are necessary to feed hugely greedy thus criminal systems of thought. Paul Krugman, per the general American anti-European mood, not to be overtaken by Fox or Obama, suggested that Europeans were “Mongols of the Sea”. I will show why this is, mostly wrong. (The mood of Krugman and his ilk, though, is as wrong as wrong can be.)

Geography is destiny. Does that mean superior geography is superior destiny? What about… human geography? History is culture, intelligence. Does that mean that a richer history is a richer culture, intelligence? Why did the Mongols invade all over the place, from Palestine, to Poland, to India, Korea, Japan, and Indonesia? Geography is destiny: they were at ease in the central Eurasian steppe, the world’s greatest grasslands.

Eurasian Steppe in Pink. Notice How Green & Full of Coastlines Europe Is.

Eurasian Steppe is in Pink in the picture above. This enormous amount of pink, this gigantic steppe from the far east to central Europe made travel easy for all and any people who knew how to survive the cold of Eurasian continental winter. This explains the Huns, the Hungarians, the Mongols… But also the Indo-European phenomenon, as, from West of Mongolia, they could go to Europe, India, and China. And they did. Notice How Green & Full of Coastlines, islands and Peninsulas, Europe Is… And the central position of France (explaining lots of history and mentality).

[Mongolia is the land south of Baikal Lake, the long and lonely lake in the middle of Asia, just north of the steppe. Ulan Baatar, the Mongol capital city, is the world’s coldest.]

In his book “Gun Germs and Steel”, Jared Diamond suggested that Europeans had lots of everything because Europe has had lots of everything to start with. Diamond had a chicken and egg problem. He was both chicken, and egg. Both scared, PC, and embryonic, not even.

The idea that geography is history is very old. It’s not just found in Braudel’s concept of Hydraulic Dictatorships, but also in the ancient Greek observation that Greeks were around the Mediterranean Sea as frogs around a pond (Herodotus).

Diamond observed that Europeans had plenty of domesticated animals and plants. So European material superiority was just happenstance (and not caused by their superior race, or culture).

That was, however, silly. Domesticated animals were evolved by man. Husbandry of animals was the robotics of the past. As the Franks learned to manage (what they called) Europe without slavery, they replaced slaves with animals and mechanical advantage. A new mood was born.

So doing, the Franks fabricated a mood of Freedom and Creativity. Harsh, massive, satirical critique of the Catholic Church, started in the Twelfth Century. The Pope reacted by killing millions (the Cathars, and then Valdese) and inventing the Inquisition.

The philosopher Alain Badiou, a far left anti-racist rather Marxist fanatic, yet one of the top professors in France, admitted recently that “only Europeans think”. As a French government campaign of the 1960s crowed: ”In France, on n’a pas de petrole, mais on a des idees” (or, more exactly, used to have ideas…).

Paul Krugman suggests that Europeans were the “Mongols Of the Sea”. Says Krugman:

“…Western Europe, because of its geography and lifestyle, had a disproportionately large number of skilled open-sea sailors. Very few of these sailors would have been engaged in warfare in normal times… can’t we argue that they provided a base of skills that gave the Atlantic fringe a big military advantage at sea?”

Of course, we can argue that, and it’s true to some extent, but not to another.

When Caesar got to the Atlantic coast of Gaul, he was astounded by the multitude of high, large, ocean going Celtic sail ships. (Early Roman galleys defeats against those ships turned into victory after Caesar forces invented a particular device, the crow.) By the Sixteenth Century, and probably earlier, the Basque fished massively cod off Cape Cod.

Isaac Asimov, by the way, did not invent psychohistory. He just invented the label. Psychohistory is in full evidence in Herodotus.

A question is why the Mongols were Mongols. Well, the world’s largest steppe extends from Manchuria to Hungary. The place where it had the largest extent, after South Russia switched from savagery, nomadism, hunting, gathering and trapping to agriculture, was, precisely Mongolia (not suited to agriculture).

Nomads are war like, they naturally attack and exploit peasants (see Arabs and Islam for a similar situation). After the Amazons and the Scythian empire got replaced by peasants, the Mongols were free to pay visits, with their nomadic war style, from one end of Eurasia to the other.

It’s actually the Huns who got the ball rolling. They tried to conquer Western Europe, but were defeated drastically in Gaul. First the natives in Orleans apparently surrendered their city, just to ambush them. Retreating, Attila’s giant army was then shadowed and harassed by the Frankish army. Finally, cornered, the Huns were near-annihilated in Champagne by a Franco-Roman and Gothic coalition (Aetius, the Roman commander, who had been raised among the Huns, saved them, in a weird turncoat maneuver).

The Mongols of Genghis Khan were direct descendants of the Huns of Attila. They remembered all too well what had happened between the Franks and the Huns: here is psychology again. Actually the Mongols made precise considerations on military effectiveness: composite bows go soft in the wet forests of Europe, and little Mongol horses were nothing relative to giant Frankish war horses. After a costly victory in Hungary, they decided to stop. Some of their vanguards had reached the Adriatic sea in Croatia.

Instead the Mongols allied themselves with the Franks to conquer Baghdad and Damascus… The alliance was nipped in the bud by the racist Saint Louis, Pope, and a difficult Mongol empress. In the end, the Mongols became Muslims (as the Pope apparently hated Nestorian Christianism more than he hated Islam).

True, the Europeans beat the Mongols at their own game. The famous Mongol tactic of retreating in disarray to create an ambush, was actually most drastically used by Duke Odo (Eudes) at the Battle of Toulouse in 721 CE (five centuries before Genghis Khan). The Franks originally fled, then enveloped the pursuing, and overconfident Islamists. (This gigantic battle is mostly ignored nowadays; Islamist historians claimed the Frankish army was 300,000 strong, and that the Muslims suffered 375,000 “Martyrs”. It was the first severe land defeat of the Muslims in one century of Islam.)

The Mongols did not have an industrial basis. What they did have, as Huns, or, four centuries later, Avars, and still another four centuries after that, Genghis Khan’s tumens, was super military training (as did Muhammad’s Arabs, for the same reason… Or the North African Saharan Berbers they allied themselves with to annihilate Christian North Africa)).

Europe, by contrast, had a superlative technical and industrial basis: the Celts provided the Roman Republican army with swords (Spain) or thin light metallic helmets (Gallia). The Celts, as I said above, gad ocean going ships that none of the Mediterranean people, not even the Greeks, had. It’s the conceptual descendants of these ships which allowed to send large armies across the Atlantic in the Fifteenth Century.

The outlawing of slavery in the Seventh Century forced Europe into high science and high technology. The construction of cathedrals is the proof of this: although superior Roman concrete had been forgotten, the cathedrals used iron in a crucial way. Said iron structures were too strong to be manipulated by hand, so hydraulic hammers had to be invented, and they were.

After Augustus lost three crack legions and their supporting troops in Northern Germany, Rome stagnated militarily. That led to an ecological collapse, a military collapse, and then a demographic collapse. The Franks inverted the avalanche of collapses by conquering Germany, and finding enough silver in Eastern Europe to reconstituting a hard currency (routinely boiling counterfeiters helped).

The Mongols had superior military organization, still they knew they were no match for the Franks (the conversation between the top Mongol generals about this are in the Secret History of the Mongols). The Europeans, though, set-up superior organizations in roughly all domains.

This is what the plutocrats are hell-bent to destroy presently. Do not forget that Greek plutocrats (the friends and “Executors” of Aristotle) and Roman plutocrats, did not hesitate to destroy the civilizations which had produced them. Our plutocrats are not any different.

Comparing Europeans to raiders of the steppe can only help.

But did the English Colonists who invaded North America succeed to do what the Mongols failed to do, and the Nazis also failed to do, namely to exterminate most of the Natives? Certainly so. Thus Americans became, de facto, what the worst Mongols dreamed to be: not just ruthless conquerors, but thorough terminators.

This ruthlessly terminating, not to say exterminating, mood, is, no doubt, still with us. That’s why Bush went to kill 500,000 , or more, in Iraq: just because he could.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

Dying Of Laughter. Not Dying Of Fright

January 11, 2015

MORTS DE RIRE, PAS MORTS DE PEUR

Fanatics kill those who laugh. Their crime? They did not die of fright, first.

Huge demonstrations in France to protest the killing of famous humorists, authors, and even of an important progressive Bank of France economist (Maris). And also Jews, just because they were Jews, and police officers, just because they were police officers.

Four million people marched in  the streets to demonstrate their support for Freedom of Expression, and the LAIC Republic (with more than 80% approval rating). Forty-seven heads of states and governments joined, including Merkel, British PM Cameron (his first demonstration, ever), and all the important politicians in Europe.

The Marseillaise was sung, again and again, for Charlie Hebdo humorists, some of the fiercest anti-nationalists, ever.

"Je Suis Charlie" Demonstration in Nice

“Je Suis Charlie” Demonstration in Nice

The bells of Notre Dame rang for some of the most Atheist and Pagan thinkers, ever. This is perfectly appropriate: after all, the philosopher Pierre Abélard taught at the Cathedral which stood where Notre Dame now is. Abélard exposed the contradictions of theology, publishing the “Sic Et Non”, the “Yes And No” in 1121 CE. Abélard founded general semantics, among others things, and was famous throughout Europe for his songs.

The attack against Charlie Hebdo was the most severe such attack ever since Francia was founded by the Franks, more than 15 centuries ago. A fact that is striking and true: even the Nazis did not stoop that low (instead they affected a respect for French culture, and that’s how Sartre and company got started).

The Franks clamped down on ”Orthodox Catholic” Christianism, which had devastated the Roman State they were then in charge of saving. The Franks re-established the laic state that ruled before the Emperor Cult and the associated Christian State emperors imposed.

The Franks created their own bishops, and their own saints. This is well documented in bishop Gregory of Tours’ “History of the Franks”. Gregorius was leading prelate of Gaul (Gallia). The Christians fanatics, led by the Pope, would brandish death threats for generations. Ultimately they had to come on their knees, and beg the Franks to chase the Lombards (Long Beards) from Italy. That was 300 years after Clovis imposed a tolerant, laic Christianism.

Laic Christianism? Yes. Actually laic versions of Islam, especially Sufi (such as the one centered on Senegal) already exist. They have been submerged by fanatical version promoted by Saudi Arabia plutocrats, in the last few decades.

France became the “Eldest Daughter” of the senile, murderous Christian Church that had ravaged the Roman mind, Romanitas. So doing, Francia rebuilt Christianism.

(Three centuries after Clovis, Charlemagne attributed land to the Papacy, creating the so-called Papal States; it was well understood that the Pope took his orders from the “Renovated” Roman Empire).

Laicity translates the French laïcité, from Late Latin laicus + French -ité –ity. “Laicus” comes from the Greek “laikos”, meaning, of the people. I am not going to dissert on this now, but “Laikos” stands for “Human Ethology” (to describe it in the contemporary scientific semantics). Our common humanity, in other words.

When an ideology tries to devastate human ethology, Laicity, it should be repressed. Repression is civilization.

Indomitable Spirit, Crushing Infamy

Indomitable Spirit, Crushing Infamy

France has lost many battle, but is winning the war. This is exactly why Al Qaeda targeted her at her heart, Freedom of Expression. “Frank” means “Free”. The Franks gave their name to the Roman “Francia” they led.

Even the New York Times, in an excellent article by Douthat recognizes that “France is the Crucible of Europe”: “notwithstanding these declinist fears, France isn’t actually irrelevant or spent. Instead, it’s arguably becoming more important, more central to the fate of Europe and the West.

… politically, culturally, even intellectually, events in France over the next half-century could matter more than at any point since before the two world wars. Indeed, more than Germany or Greece or Britain or any other actor, it’s in France that the fate of 21st-century Europe could ultimately be decided…”

Why and How Did France Become So Central To Civilization?

Present day France, at the crossroads of the three main trade routes of Europe, has been continually at war for millennia, and whoever happen to reside there lost many battles. However this central position has fostered tolerance and understanding. Already 16 centuries ago, Celto-Germans, Romans, Jews, Franks, Goths and Burgunds had built a melting pot: many languages were spoken (three Celtic languages, Latin, Frankish, and various Germanic languages), and many religions were practiced (Francia did not have.

By 600 CE all citizens of what is now most of France, Germany and surrounding lands had become “Franks” (following the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 CE).

The Franks, attached to freedom, as all Germans, outlawed slavery over all of Europe… Except in the part of Iberia the Islamists controlled. After the Franks invaded Britain in 1066 CE, not only did they outlaw slavery, but the franks established the basis of a more democratic state.

This made France a natural place for Protestantism: Cathars and Protestants appeared there, centuries before Luther. And for the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment brought not only the republic of the United States of America (with a 5 trillion dollars world war to defeat Britain and give birth to the USA), but also the French Constitution of 1789, which proclaimed all men equal and gave them equal rights, independently of property, race, ethnicity, religion.

The Revolution of 1789 gave rise to the United Nations’ Charter, the very core of today’s civilization. 1789 also gave rise to the present European Union. France originated, and is the natural soul of both enterprises (and not just of the USA).

Let’s go back to Douhat (who embraced several themes I embraced for a decade):

“Then amid these political and economic patterns there’s an important intellectual possibility — namely, that if there’s something beyond the West’s current end-of-history torpor, some new ideological conflict or synthesis, it might emerge first in the place where so many revolutions had their birth.

France has always been a country of extremes — absolutist and republican, Catholic and anticlerical, Communist and fascist. Now it’s once again the place where strong forces are colliding, and where the culture’s uncertainties — about Islam, secularism, nationalism, Europe; about modernity itself — suggest that new ones might soon be born.

The decline has been real, but the future is unwritten. If there is real history yet to be made in Europe, for good or ill, it might be made first in la belle France.”

Not just Europe, the world.

Far from being struck by blind awe, evoking France, and its intellectuals. Actually the devastating notion of “multiculturalism” was born there. Some secondary French intellectuals breathed heavily on the United Nations, in a dumb tradition Rousseau inaugurated, to suggest that any culture, as long as it was different was glorious and to be allowed free reign.

This was Rousseau’s grave error, and it’s not at all what the history of Western Europe suggests. Far from it.

It is the Franks who grabbed and brandished the word “Europe”, when the Islamists launched three furious, massive land and sea invasions of Francia, in the period 721 CE-749 CE. They failed, their armies were totally destroyed, the Arab Caliphate fell (750 CE).

The history of Europe is the history of the progression of ever better ideas (and the annihilation of very bad ones). The Romans outlawed any religions founded on human sacrifices, and tried to make work a universal republic (their failure was due to a global fiscal failure, allowing the rise of plutocracy; so the problem is very contemporary). The Franks threw out religious fanaticism, and outlawed slavery.

None of this would have happened without creative brainwork. Those who don’t understand satire, don’t understand creative thinking. Satire is an old Greco-Roman tradition: consider the Satyricon (Book of Satyr-like thinking”; or consider satire from Horace, Juvenal, Apuleius…). Dionysian thinking and practice was all about satyrs, and satire (Nietzsche recognized its use around 1870, but Dante, Rabelais, Erasmus, Voltaire, etc. are all about it).

France is the country of intellectual extremes because it is the country of debate: one cannot debate persons who are in full agreement. Many French, when launched in a conversation, love to start their sentences with :”Non!”. It’s not that they dislike their interlocutor, but they need to stand, and be opposed (they will often defend the opposite point of view in the next debate).

And that is why Al Qaeda targeted the core of what makes debate possible, Freedom of Expression. Satire, and especially blasphemy, is not just a right super intelligence has. It is not just a duty.

Satire and blasphemy is how super intelligence is born. Imitations never qualified.

Patrice Ayme’

Vignettes on the massacre: 1) One the heavily armed thugs took over a Jewish supermarket, on the ground that all Jews should die (that’s more or less implied in the Qur’an, and certainly very explicit in the Haddith: I will roll out the quotes in another essay). The terrorists commandeered one of the cashiers to close the iron curtain. A 21 young Tunisian grabbed the terrorist’s machine gun, armed, aimed, and pulled the trigger. But the gun jammed, and the murderer tore him apart with his AK47 (the terrorist had already killed a “black” policewoman, shooting her in the back, and grievously wounded other people, the day before).

2) An African immigrant introduced many shoppers in the congelation room  of the Jewish supermarket, told them to stay silent, locked the door, and cut the power. They were not detected by the terrorist, and all saved. The African succeeded to flee, and informed the police.

3) Some hostages informed the police through Smart Phones. After a hostage told the police that the terrorist was making his prayers, the RAID force decided to attack immediately. After a furious exchange of gunfire, the madman charged the officers, and was riddled with bullets, so that he could not activate explosives. Casualties: 4 officers were lightly wounded, terrorist killed, no hostage hurt (those killed had been killed by the terrorist earlier).


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism