Posts Tagged ‘Le Pen’

Le Pen Trumps Plutocracy?

December 14, 2015

At first sight the rage of the likes of the magazine “The Economist” against Trump and Le Pen is strange: after all, The Economist is on the “right”, so are the preceding two. A clue: The Economist put the preceding two in the same bag as Bernie Sanders, under the mysterious label “Populist”… I guess a “populist” is someone for the People by contrast to those who are not (the likes of “The Economist”).

My own mom accused me to be “Front National” just because the French (“far right”, not that it is clear what that means) National Front has adopted certain issues I have long held dear. For example, many countries (and not just in the West) have seen the rise of new aristocracies. ⅔ of the top French companies by market value are held by inheritance, whereas it’s only around 20% in the UK or the USA; the reason emanates directly from the tax system; and the exact same tax forces are now at work in the USA, namely the exemption of the hyper rich from taxation, and inheritance tax, with a artfully crafted loopholes and exemptions. Notice in passing that this is a case where France is more “capitalist” than the USA (contrarily to legend).

Sugar Coated Plutocracy: French Aristocracy Bond Girl & Palme d’Or: Most Of French Power Is Held By Dynasties: Ancien Régime All Over Again

Sugar Coated Plutocracy: French Aristocracy Bond Girl & Palme d’Or: Most Of French Power Is Held By Dynasties: Ancien Régime All Over Again

[“Léa Seydoux“, in the latest Bond movie, above, of her true name, Léa Hélène Seydoux-Fornier de Clausonne, is from an immensely rich and famous family, which has been that way, for many generations. So it is, all over French society: Sons of… and Daughters of… are those who succeed and get into the .1% of everything (singing, acting, administrating, politics, medicine, engineering, etc.). Consider the just published book “Fils de.. Filles de...”]

I guess, by that token, I am pro-Trump as Trump has embraced single payer, or even socialized health care system. In truth I am pro-truth and about issues.

Much of these outrages emanate from a political system which has embraced hero-worship, instead of issue-worship.

Hero-worship, celebritism spurns thinking. Thus a world where 97% of the convicted for serious crimes in the USA do not come in front of a jury, and are judged by non-judges… While Americans are persuaded they live in a country of justice. Or a world where a human right lawyer in China joined Marine Le Pen in being accused of “ethnic hatred” (the difference being that Le Pen is number two in French preference for president whereas the Chinese lawyer has been incarcerated for 18 months).

OK, let’s quote some of the (honorable, supposedly) USA “Republican” pundits. A raging conservative, Guy Benson, bemoans that:

“Republican voters — driven, it would seem, by Trump backers — became astonishingly supportive of (a) maintaining the Iran nuclear deal, (b) government-run and -funded healthcare, and (c) race-based affirmative action when the pollster informed respondents that those positions were held by Donald Trump, as opposed to Barack Obama.  These aren’t hypotheticals, by the way.  Follow those links, and you’ll discover that longtime Democrat Donald Trump has embraced all three liberal stances during his current presidential run. Not back when he was donating generously to Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid over the years (yes, yes, “because he’s a businessman!”), and not even more recently, when Trump was declaring his support for the wasteful “stimulus” package enacted by Obama, whom he declared had rescued the American economy; no, these are viewpoints articulated by the current iteration of Trump.  The punchline is that his supporters don’t care at all.  Trump’s Democrat-style campaign is driven by feelings and identity, not issues.  The HuffPo survey also revealed the same phenomenon at play on the other end of the spectrum, as hordes of Obama cultists reflexively tossed foundational liberal-left ideals overboard after they were told they were agreeing with Trump, versus Obama.  Can we abandon all reason and alleged principles in order to march in lockstep with an anointed political figure, or oppose a bete noir?  Yes we can. The point is that emotion-based hero worship can heavily erode afflicted parties’ previous adherence to values, ideology, and critical thinking.”

Hero-worship, what I call “Celebritism” is an increasing problem, and fully a part of the oligarchic phenomenon, itself a subset of the plutocratic mindset.

The plutocratic phenomenon does not suck out all the air from democracy, but from intelligence itself (the USA’s first billionaire, Carnegie, explained this, 130 years ago). Yet plutocrats should remember this: at some  point great vengeance is exercised (it happened even in the USA, witness president Eisenhower 93% upper margin tax rate). And history indeed shows that, at some point always, the pen trumps plutocracy

Patrice Ayme’

Joan Of Arc: Pet & Pest

May 29, 2014

National myths are the paradigms of the plebs. When all they do is exalt nationalism, for nationalism’s sake, they foster fascism. And only atavism, not justice, then justifies this sorry rage.

Joan of Arc incarnated Nazism without any Social pretense (the “z” in Nazism is for “socialism”). It’s even worse: D’Arc effectively turned a three way civil war in France into a religious war.

The French Front National uses Jeanne D’Arc as a front. That’s an affront, but not the way common wisdom would have it. Indeed, even under the worst scenarios, Marine Le Pen could never turn into as much a historical monster, as Joan of Arc was. D’Arc relaunched a civil war, that, thanks to her demonic efforts, lasted another four centuries.

Separatist Sister Souls In Fanatical Bigotry

Separatist Sister Souls In Fanatical Bigotry

Once Yolande’s pet, now recycled by Marine.

[By the way, in case Le Pen did not notice, Brussels used to be in Gallia and Francia, for more than 2,500 years. So Marine Le Pen, rendered mad by greed, wants to cut France in two.]

The president-elect in Ukraine just identified the separatists there to “Somali Pirates“. That’s exactly what Johanne was: a separatist, an outlaw.

Indeed what was the alleged work of Joan of Arc? A secession. Far from being a French heroine, Joan of Arc split France in two. Far from being a liberator, Johanne enslaved Western Europe to centuries of war. Her call to ethnic hatred against the “Anglois”does not help her modern philosophical depiction.

Indeed an accord had been found between the two feuding French governments, one in Paris, and illegitimate, the other in London, and legitimate. That was after nearly 90 years of (un)civil war. An accord reunited the government. After his death, the king in Paris, was to be succeeded by the king in London, Henry V of England, who was much younger.

Henry V appears in three Shakespeare plays, and is called the “Star of England”. grandson of Edward III of England. The latter being the one and only grandson of Philippe Iv Le Bel, of France. Edward III was the true king of France, being the son of Isabelle of France, queen of England, and legitimate (according to the Salic Law), queen of France (as the only child left of Philippe Le Bel).

So this 485 year war was all a Franco-French affair. To present it, as too much nationalist histories do,  as a national conflict, with the redeeming figure of 19 year old Johanne on top, is to put nationalism and a monster war on an altar, and worship them.

From the heights of wisdom, it is more judicious to put view them as garbage, and stomp on them.

The settlement with Henry V as king of the reunited kingdom, was infinitely better than the ferocious three way civil war between Anglois, Armagnac and Bourguignons. (At the time, all sorts of languages were spoken in “France”; even by 1900, only half of the population spoke “French” as a native language!)

After months of negotiation with Charles VI of France, the Treaty of Troyes (1420), agreed to by the queen of France Isabeau de Baviere, recognized the 34 year old Henry V as regent and heir-apparent to the French throne. This treaty deprived Isabeau’s own five sons of the throne. Henry was not just an invincible conqueror, he was the legitimate king.

Henry V, the victor of Agincourt, was subsequently married to Charles’s daughter, Catherine of Valois (1401 – 1437). However, following Henry V’s sudden and unexpected death in France two years later, two months before the sickly Charles VI did, Henry was succeeded by his infant son, who reigned as Henry VI (1421 – 1471). It was a case when lethal dysentery changed history.

When Jeanne said:”King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France… settle your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France,” she is actually a child addressing an even smaller child, the king, and the legitimate head of the state of France.

All this mythology was prompted by Yolande of Aragon, queen of four kingdoms, who did not want to be vassal to a super power in the north. Or just loved power, whatever (she was in power, and a power, for 43 years).

The bottom line is that the events that Joan of Arc came to symbolize are all wrong (and it’s no wonder the so called Front National embraced her). Prior to this triumph of bigotry, what’s now called France and England, had been part of the same polity of more than a millennium. To celebrate Joan of Arc is to celebrate religious fanaticism of Osama bin Laden’s intensity, and the 400 years of further strife the victory of Yollande and Charles VII brought.

More details can be found in:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/joan-of-arc-roasted-too-late/

Nowadays, common commentators remember only this of the period: the Agincourt victory by the “English”, and the martyrdom of Jehanne. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the first is often used to prove the French are worthless, cowardly, inferior militarily idiots. The second is evoked to prove the viciousness of the English. Never mind that the victors of Agincourt were annihilated in a battle later, and that the southern French army developed a new weapon, field artillery, that allowed to kick the “English” out.

“English” that were French truly. Never mind too, that the main accuser of Jehanne was bishop Cauchon, who was French, whichever way one wanted to look at him (his aggressive philosophy led him later to accusations of heresy).

Joan of Arc, national hero, was nothing but: ultimately the war between Paris and London was rather lost by Paris. Certainly, that spirit of division and conflict weakened France: remember Louis XIV, chasing millions of Protestants out of France (maybe because he had been rendered mad by a festering hole in his nether region, which lasted decades).

Thus, in a way, Joan of Arc is the perfect festering, fanatical symbol for would be simple minded fascists.

Writing a new, and more correct, history, means throwing a lot of old myths, and their accompanying deleterious illusions, into the fire.

Patrice Ayme

 

 

 

Joan of Arc