Posts Tagged ‘Proclamation Line of 1763’

Advanced Morality: First, Learn To Be Polite With The Truth

May 16, 2017

Another self-glorifying US historian explains in Aeon magazine that “Democracy needs politeness”. And what is the ultimate form of politeness? Political Correctness! Political correctness, or the transformation of reality into insanity. Indeed, the “historian” Steven Bullock claims that: “Autocrats shouted, cursed, and bullied, while American revolutionaries used politeness as a tool of radical politics.”

That’s statement is a piece of towering disinformation.

First, although kings and queens occasionally “bullied”, uppity peers, of the kingdom, they would very rarely stoop to shouting and cursing. That would be to admit weakness, dearth of “majesty”.

Second, the principal “radical” character of US politics after getting rid of British rule was that the frontier which the monarch in London had imposed was shattered, and Indian lands got stolen on an imperial scale.  

Look carefully at the “Proclamation Line” on the west side of the colonies. That was supposed to their frontier under the British Rule. That was the real cause of the war.  The Real Cause Of the War Of Independence Was the “Proclamation Line of 1763”. It prevented the expansion of the English American colony to the West, thus it blocked a very nice land grab. The “Boston Tea Party” is a system of thought designed to disguise the main motivation for what really happened.

Steven Bullock describes British and US plutocracy as if they belong to a universe where all rules are upside down. Says he:

Britons and Americans of the 18th century applied these ideals of sympathy and respect to public as well as personal relationships. Seeking restrained and responsive leadership, the 18th-century ‘politics of politeness’ offered a powerful challenge to angry and overbearing authoritarian rule. For many contemporaries, this critique often seemed broader and more compelling than the discussions of legal and constitutional issues that are better known today.

Politeness developed in Britain, and Europe as a whole, but its political applications became especially important in 18th-century British America…

Why upside down? Because there was nothing polite about the British and American empires. They both conquered large swathes of the planet over record time, and held to those. No morality was held back: to defeat France, Great Britain used Prussia as a weapon. Prussia was a hyper militaristic, extremely racist state. Now people bemoan Nazism: it’s fashionable. However, 1756 Britain made support for (what would become) Nazism a reality. Prussia murderously discriminated against Jews and Poles. That was part of what Mr. History Professor sees as “politeness”. Also, the reason why the french Revolution did not propagate to England was not so much that England was more democratic, as Voltaire affected to believe. Actually, England was more effectively plutocratic, under democratic disguise: French peasant owned their land, not the English peasants (in England, aristocrats held everything).    

Actually, there was nothing new about politeness: it was already expected in Republican Rome. What was new in the Middle Ages were the “Courts of Love” which made explicit what were polite relations between men and women. That surely did not exist in Rome: Rome was very sexist. The Republic was very sexist, and the empire, a little bit less so. Not as sexist as present-day Islam, but still one had to wait the extreme Late Roman Empire to see one “Augusta” meaning one supreme Roman leader who was a woman. The Franks and later the French and “Renovated Roman Empire” they created had many supreme leaders who were women, well before Eleanor of Aquitaine (queen of France and England).

In truth, what was “compelling” in Britain, is that, if an admiral lost a battle to the French he was shot and that was it. Idiots with a smattering of knowledge of perverted history will call that polite! Britain was actually a horrendous dictatorship relative to France in  more ways than one, and proved it by attacking France with its utmost in 1792, in at least two ways: by financing and exciting Prussia, once again; unfortunately for the cowardly British plutocracy, Prussia was defeated next to Paris at Valmy, September 1792; the other way was by directly invading Provence.

Bullock hints that we are not polite enough, that compromises democracy, when we call libidinous greedsters for what they are, leeches upon civilization, horses of the apocalypse of the biosphere, he disingenuously bemoans.

However, first there is no democracy as it is. About 2,000 people take all the important decisions in the West or the USA, and set the important moods. They are themselves puppets of the worldwide wealthy class of the.01%, or so.

Democracy in Athens meant a quorum of 6,000. That would mean a direct vote by around 20 million people for any decision, in a country such as the USA. Not just a few hundred baboons mostly selected by their ability to seduce the rich enough to run for elections.

Secondly, politeness is all too often a way to disguise viciousness: by affecting to treat others one speaks to kindly, surely, one could not be treating anybody shabbily. Surely, by talking falsely now, with exaggerated deference, one invites others to do the same.

And surely enough, most of the US Founding Fathers founded a pseudo-democracy which was the most successful holocaust machine devised in the last 6,000 years of known civilization. The American Natives were mostly exterminated and certainly evacuated, from an entire very nice, temperate continent. Hey, such polite people! Who could suspect the polite Jefferson to have sex with children, enslave, and grab Indian lands as vast as Western Europe, so that his tribe could colonize them after murdering the original owners?

When the Ancient Regime’s police in Paris told Jefferson that he could now keep slaves in France, and politely asked him to let them go, and, if they decided to stay, pay them wages, Jefferson politely agreed. But he lied, politely, because the best lying is very polite, and most productive that way.

Then, when asked politely by the children he had enslaved whether he would free them once they had returned to America, Jefferson politely said he would do so. Not because Jefferson was genuinely truthful, but because his disingenuous politeness made it so that the children he was abusing and enslaving would not run away in Paris, and ask for help from the French authorities.

Just as Christianism as founded by the so-called “Church Founding Fathers” around 400 CE, was the most polite, greatest anti-civilizational ideology in the history of known civilization. Thereupon, the Dark Ages. It is surely not polite to point this out.

Instead, one should set-up a “Muslim Appreciation Month” as California did it in 2016.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/california-recognizes-august-muslim-appreciation-awareness-month-n621851

Surely, if we appreciate Islamism, we appreciate Christianism, thus the Dark Ages! All very polite, with obscurantism! Appreciation as a principle is a manipulation, just as encouragement and punishment as principle are abusive manipulations. Especially when applied to non-handicapped children.  Encouragement, punishment are not ingredients in a recipe, to be kept in balance to taste just right (contrarily to what traditional Chinese pedagogy has it, which keeps a balance of 5:1 between encouragement, the wén 文, and punishment, the wǔ 武!). Verily, encouragement and punishment should be the fruits of reason.

To be frank is to be polite with the truth.

Appreciation for truth is what we need now. It’s the antidote for Political Correctness. Political Correctness is that, if it feels right, it’s right. Political Correctness, replacing truth by hedonism, is the exact annihilation of the essence of humanity. OK, it’s not polite to point that out. But it’s the truth, and it’s because of it that the greatest, most brutal life extinction in at least 65 million years is proceeding now (and it could get worse).

A small example: Yes the Bush government and the Bush family lied about why they invaded Iraq, and then lied about why they let Iraq be devastated. That was a violation of Geneva convention, and people who deliberately violate the Geneva Convention on a massive scale surely are criminals against humanity. Being “polite” in this matter would amount to become an accomplice of these grave violations.

Conclusion: One has to learn to be polite with the truth, not higher-ups, who are little more than thieving baboons who ran away with democracy.

Patrice Ayme’