Posts Tagged ‘racism’

A Black Problem, Indeed

January 13, 2017

Defining people by the color of their skin, and, even worse, by the color that their skin does not have, is racism. Period. Take that one, and swallow it, it’s good medicine. “Niger” is Latin for “black”. For racist reasons, the word has been controversial. Yet, the situation is complex.

Consider Greek tragedy, during the greatest age of Athens, from space. What is tragedy about? Primarily, reason. Secondarily, the fate reason, or lack thereof, irresistibly brings forth. In turn, fate imprisons human beings in its icy grip. The solution is to educate the Furies, those “Ancient Children”.

Reason can, and should, be applied, not just to instruct children, but to words and the concepts attached to them.

I was brought, raised and educated, as a child, mostly in Africa, among Africans. Let me tell you something I knew, so extremely well, when I was six years old, that I never deviated from, be it only once, for decades thereafter. This ancient piece of wisdom was taught to me by my mom. She uttered it just once, as a warning, she did not have to do it twice:

Calling someone “black” in Africa, is perceived, rightly, as a RACIST insult: never do it. Call Africans, “Africans”. 

A Touareg Couple. The Blue People of the Desert. Don’t Call Them Black: They Would Think You Are A Lunatic, Ignorant, Offensive, Vicious Aggressor. And they are not Arabs, either... Touareg alphabet is more than twice older than Arabic alphabet...

A Touareg Couple. The Blue People of the Desert. Don’t Call Them Black: They Would Think You Are A Lunatic, Ignorant, Offensive, Vicious Aggressor. And they are not Arabs, either… Touareg alphabet is more than twice older than Arabic alphabet…

[The French called Touaregs “Les Hommes Bleus”, the blue men, as they protected themselves from the harsh desert heat, light, wind and sand with layers of blue cloth. They live in the middle of the world’s largest desert, the Sahara. They have been denied a country, so far. The desert was crisscrossed by traders, war parties and raiders, for millennia. And many came for slaves in Black Africa. However empires, such as the Almoravids, were also born there, ruling over 3,000 kilometers, all the way from Mali to Europe’s Al Andalus.]

Most Africans, indeed, are NOT “black”, but of various shades. Thus, if I were, say, beige, why would you call me “black”? I am so little to you that you don’t even look at me? Is calling me according to a color I don’t even have part of the general distortion of me you enjoy inflicting on me, and having me answer to?

Am I so insignificant to you, that you do not bother to find a proper qualifier for me, deeper than skin-deep? Or, worse of all, as many “blacks” are from the deepest forest, or are well-known to be viewed as such, are you trying to insinuate that, I too, are not from a culture worth mentioning?  

In a reply, Facebook DuJuan Ross observed that: “Malcolm X himself popularized the descriptive as a deliberate militating against White Supremacists resorting to it as a pejorative.”

Malcolm X had an interesting trajectory (including among various variants of Islam, one of which got him assassinated). His reddish hair inherited from his Scottish maternal grandfather brought him the nickname “Red”. Malcolm said: “I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.”

Malcolm X made his little reasoning that calling people of part African ancestry “black” and “negroes” . He was himself following Aimé Césaire and Leopold Sedar Senghor, world-famous writers and activists who made the same reasoning a generation prior. (My father was a friend of Senghor, a great writer, French MP and co-author of the French constitution and first president of Senegal.) The martiniquais poet and politician Aimé Césaire forged the word « négritude » Cesaire and Senghor used outright “negre”. “negritude” (negre being the French deformation of “niger”, namely black in Latin). Fine, I am all for it.

There is something correct about this, when addressing the culture and art of populations which are as black as black can be (say in parts of West Africa not long penetrated by Peuls). Indeed the art, there is delightfully obsessed by ultimate blackness. A painting where the dominant “color” is black can be eerily beautiful, and street artists in… Black Africa are experts at it. I am very attached to this art, tied to my childhood, and which have seen nowhere else. So one can use “black” where it is appropriate. What I am decrying is systematic, deliberate distortions of reality.

Aimé Césaire was from the Caribbean, not Africa. So it is only natural that he did not know that, in Africa, qualifying people by the color of their skin is frowned upon, and viewed, rightly, as racism. North Africans, Peuls, many East Africans, Ethiopians, Christian or not, and most enemies of the Zulus and other Bantus in South Africa, turn livid when one calls them black.

I find much of the work of Malcolm X deep and judicious. However, calling someone such as Obama, who is not any more “black” than 50 members of my own American family (I have seen them together) is not just ridiculous, it’s dishonest. Obama himself knows this very well, so why the double language? What are we selling, which require lies to be bought?

Let me repeat slowly: calling people by the color of their skin, and even more so when said color is imagined (as when someone beige is called “black”) is giving maximum importance to maximum superficiality. It’s not just racism, but an attack against reason.

But of course, it’s no accident. There is a meta-reason for it. When one celebrates attacks against reason in one area, one is then in the mood to make more attacks against in other areas. Thus one ends, deprived of reasons, nude and without defense when exploiters come to issue their orders. Hence the sorry state of affairs.

Ironically, the Obama presidency was a victim of the black problem. Having called Obama “the black president”, and viewing this superficial absurdity as a great success, most of Obama “supporters” did not support him at all, when and where he needed support and encouragement.

The failure of the Obama presidency is greatly entangled with the black problem of brandishing the black label as the end-all, be-all. Let’s stay away from all this obsession with skin color.

Reason is about finding out why people do what they do. There are always reasons. The Universe does not play with dice. Yes, I know Quantum Physics, in its present most accepted formulation, says the opposite. But that was in the last few decades, and evolution has been all about reason, in the last 600 million years, ever since there are brains, and they think.

So please learn to call black what’s black, and leave it at that. Obama was first an Hawaiian (who spent 4 years in Indonesia), brought and educated by white people, at Hawai’i most exclusive private school. Nothing black about any of that, and as any real African would tell you. 
Patrice Ayme’

Racism Starts With Discrimination

August 22, 2016

Official philosophers, paid to philosophize by institutions of advanced learning, tend to hopelessly small thoughts, most rewarding to their employers, who are always looking for ever more efficient ways to make us all stupid and divided. Indeed, those employers profit from great propaganda, and the best propaganda is the one setting the concept, universe, parameters, of the debate. A Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, profits from the New York Times’ soapbox. Says he in “My Parents Mixed Message On The Holocaust”:

I am a philosopher. My calling, at its very basic level, obligates me to question the beliefs with which I was raised. But on this topic — how to live — I was given two answers. Which view do evidence and reason command?

Plutocrats Prefer We The People To Sink Rather Than Think. Well Paid Pseudo-Philosophers Are Best For That.

Plutocrats Prefer We The People To Sink Rather Than Think. Well Paid Pseudo-Philosophers Are Best For That.

Jason-the-philosopher pursues:

“I accept the legacy of my father. But it is impossible for me to shut out my mother’s concerns. Maybe the reality is that all groups are at war for power, and that to adopt an ethic of common humanity is a grave disadvantage. Maybe we should do what we can, but prioritize the safety of our families.

History speaks strongly on my mother’s side. So does my anecdotal evidence. I am white Jewish-American; my sons and wife are black Americans. I cannot retreat from my commitment to these groups. Being interested in the equal dignity of other groups is an additional burden.

It takes work to feel the suffering of Palestinians when I hear of the anger they bear toward my fellow Jews, even though I recognize its clearly justifiable source. It takes much more work to feel the suffering of poor white Americans when I hear it coupled with a thoroughly unjustifiable racism directed against my children. Is it work that I should be doing? Or should I be doing the work of attending primarily to the flourishing of my children?”

I sent a comment to the New York Times. It was censored. Of course. Here it is:

You call your sons “black Americans”. This makes them into what you call a “group”, and others call a “race” or a “tribe”.

Therefore you racialize and tribalize your own sons.

This is most strange, as your sons are actually, at the very least, half white Jewish-Americans. So why not call them “white Americans”?

But there is more. As most “black Americans”, even Michelle Obama, have already some “white American” ancestry, your sons are most probably more white than black. So why not call them what they are? White Americans?

Because racists anti-”black Americans” would call your sons “black Americans”? So you adopt the racist discourse to conceptualize your own sons?

To be a racist, one needs to discriminate AGAINST a “group”. To do so, one needs first to discriminate BETWEEN “groups”. Indeed, first, the “group” has to exist. Thus, to define a group by exerting enough discrimination to distinguish it is, by itself, discriminatory.

[End of comment censored by NYT. By the way, Jason the Philosopher, above, is author of “How propaganda works”]

This hostility to “racially” based discrimination is highly practical: all French Jews were not officially classified as “Jewish” by the state in France, as French law prevents the official establishment of religion or race, thus polls thereof. Thus, in France, there cannot be “groups” based on “race’, “religion”, etc. Consequence: during the Occupation of France by the Nazis, most French Jews escaped “the holocaust” (“only”, 75,000 were assassinated by the Nazis, most of them foreign Jews who had escaped to France, and whom the USA had refused to accept as refugees).

By contrast, The Netherlands required Dutch subjects who were Jewish to register as such. Conclusion: it was very easy for the Nazis to find them. Most Dutch Jews died. 125,000 of them.

In a broad perspective, classifying people under “religious” or “racial” appurtenance perpetuates religious discrimination and “racial” strife. As the USA is extremely mixed

***

Oh, last but not least, there was more than just one holocaust in the history of humanity. And some were more thorough. For example, the Cathars were fully (holo) burned (caust). Literally (once, in a particular mass assassination, 2,000 Cathars were burned, alive, together!) Judaism does not have the right to own the concept of “holocaust”, and to refuse to share it with any other “group”.

Doing so, monopolizing the concept and usage of “holocaust” would be an offense against countless groups, reason, and knowledge. Not a good way to avoid a repeat, or, at the very least, hostility.

As Voltaire pointed out ironically, official philosophers are not there to find the truth, but to comfort power. One does not find wisdom by following the money. Racism starts with discrimination, and, apparently, Yale philosophy professors are paid to discriminate between human groups. Not coincidentally, the famous “Skull and Bones” society was founded in Yale in the early Nineteenth Century. It inspired the Nazis, and even some of the most dreadful  SS propaganda.

Patrice Ayme’    

 

Decrying Islamophobia Is Racist

June 14, 2016

On June 13, 2016, the so-called Islamist State killed a police captain in France, cut the throat of his wife, who died as a result, and took their three-year old toddler hostage. The killer, a (“French”) Islamist State recruiter who had been condemned to 3 years in jail for terrorism, was killed. Yes, that was the day after Orlando. France and the USA are squeezing the so-called Islamist State bridgehead in Libya hard, hence the quick pace of terror. Practitioners of total Islam are showing the true nature thereof.

Islamophobia means strong fear of Islam. It is called racist by the haters, but it is not racist: strong fear is not racist if it can point at explicit threats: strong fear of Nazism would not have been racist in the 1930’s. The Sacred Texts of Islam explicitly order to kill some categories of people, just because of what they are, or believe, even if those beliefs have no bearing on other people’s lives. Not to be afraid of lethal threat for no good reason is, assuredly, self-destroying.

Not that brandishing self-destruction enables to win arguments with Islamists: the Sacred Texts of Islam all give the highest rewards to so-called “martyrs”: they sit on the right of God, and will not be judged during the Final Judgment, but, instead, the “martyrs” will go directly to paradise, where they will enjoy milk, honey, 72 virgins and “fresh boys who are like pearls”. See the self-destruction? Not only is the Qur’an homosexually oriented, but it kills homosexuals (or martyrs in general, for that matter).

So why such pronounced fear of Islamophobia among so many of the pseudo-good thinkers? As I have argued, the rebirth of Islam was a plot mostly initiated by American oilmen and Anglo-Saxon financial plotters, more than 80 years ago. So why not to condemn it? Because now a new factor has risen: the fear of anything, and, first of all, of iconoclastic opinion. They tend to agree to all and any deployment of force, they are the equivalent of intellectual invertebrates.

Islamophilia Promotes Inhuman Activities. Snowflakes Sell Their Souls To Satan, Lest They Melt In Tears

Islamophilia Promotes Inhuman Activities.  Snowflakes Sell Their Souls To Satan, Lest They Melt In Tears

We are now dealing with a generations with so little intellectual backbone, they have to be called “snowflakes”. Those flakes can’t take an idea, let alone a joke, if it’s not “safe”. Don’t try lousy jokes such as:’Hot Muslim guy penetrates 100 gays in minutes’… they will burst in tears, and have worse words for you, than for the steroid laden gunman himself. However, jokes are crucial: the ambivalent attitude on homosexuality in the Qur’an which I made explicit in the preceding essay is revealing, and should be the butt of jokes. 

We are dealing here with propaganda of the worst type. Not just a propaganda of ideas, but a propaganda of moods: generation snowflakes, the hysterical fear of all and any fears erected as a panacea. The sort of propaganda that enabled terror to rule for millennia. Such terror profits those who rule through the most demonic means.

The Bible, Old Testament, claims that homosexuality is an “abomination“. The idea passed explicitly to the Qur’an, which quotes the Bible, 12 centuries later. Then the Hadith (more sacred Muslim texts from 13 centuries ago) was very explicit that homosexuals should be killed…

Those texts have to be condemned and called allegoric, metaphoric, whatever… This is exactly what the “Founding Fathers” of the “Catholic Universal” church did around 400 CE. 

The Founding Fathers of the Catholic Church were trying to make Christianism acceptable to the masses, and especially, to the Roman army. In 400 CE, the Franks were put in charge of the military defense of Gallia (to become “France” a millennium later), Germania Inferior (Low countries), and Germania Superior (Germany, Switzerland)

Although the Founding Fathers of Christianism called the Bible metaphorical and allegoric, it was taken literally, a millennium later with the crusades, inquisition, religious wars… In France alone, the Crusade against the Cathars, by itself, killed more than one million (7% of the population). Nearly four centuries later, seven religious wars between French Protestants and French Catholics killed millions.

The crusading madness had started after the Roman empire eastern capital, Constantinople, begged the Franks for a rescue from the Turks, who, after converting to Islam, a war religion, swiftly invaded Anatolia. So, initially, the motivation was good, but there was then horrendous mission creep (very long story including cannibalism and bathing in blood).

From the point of view of the Franks, ever since 721 CE, Muslims had horrendously invaded Europe, and were defeated at huge cost, in countless battles and wars. So, once again, the motivation, for many centuries was excellent, and as fundamental as it gets, for example when a Frankish army delivered Rome and the destroyed Vatican from a marauding Muslim army.

All in all, though, bad people saw the use they could make of the Catholic frenzy. Many of the great emperors of the European Middle Ages had negotiated, and even allied themselves with Muslim rulers (Charlemagne and Frederick II Barbarossa did this). However as time went by, very bad people used the worst aspects of Christianism (which have been duplicated in Islam, and then some!)

The wars generated by Christianism stopped when Europe and her colonies went through a philosophical change enforced by the primacy of secular laws over those of religious superstitions. The same remains to be done in the lands over which Islamism reigns presently. The task is huge: consider the crusade against the Shia which Saudi Arabia is presently waging in Yemen to a huge cost of children’s lives (the United nations declared a few days ago).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/uncritical-islam-lethal-homophobia/

Linda Putnam commented: “Christianity condemned this practices as you say, Patrice. And in the Western world they are strictly illegal today. However, in the Near East, these Islamic practices go unpunished for the most part….

In the last 19 centuries, Christianism was all over the map with much of the 1789 “Rights of Man”/United Nations Charter. Jesus, strictly speaking, condemns homosexuality, as it is condemned in the Old Testament,  as an “abomination”, and Jesus claims he preaches all of the Old Testament, in its entirety.  Killing non-believers was preached by Jesus himself (Luke 19;27, among others). Now Christianism is confined to a secular legal cage, and can be shown to the masses safely.

Many countries have Sharia law. For example Malaysia (where only 50% of the population is Muslim!). Malaysia replaced British Common law with Sharia… At least for the Muslims. Reason? The Qur’an is very friendly to dictatorships. See:

“O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Surah 4; verse 59).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/god-hates-democracy/

Linda Putnam: “The ‘Religion of Peace”. Is ‘peace’ only for the believers of Islam. The kafirs cannot expect peace at the hands of the strict practitioners of this religion.”

Indeed. The Non-Muslim part of the world is called the “House of War”. The greedy elite of a corrupt country such as Malaysia, a monarchy with just 50% Muslims, has not just imposed Sharia law, but proclaimed that Islam was the “state religion”. Indeed, Islamizing terror is a dictator’s best friend.  

Overall, Islam was imposed onto the Middle East and North Africa by the application of sudden, overwhelming brutal military force. The counter-attack led by the Franks, including some of the crusades, evacuated the dictators and savages who had embraced Islam as the best pretext, from most of Europe proper. It took 11 centuries (from the invasion of Spain to the liberation of Greece). But one cannot say the job is finished. A superstition reigns over the natural ethology of man, the Republic.

Islam is friendly to dictators, who are always looking for reasons to execute or terrify people. They find plenty of such reasons in Islam’s Sacred Texts. By promoting Islam as excellent, and most peaceful, for populations suffering under it, the pseudo-left, the PC crowds, and the oilmen and financial plotters they have been sleeping with, are racist. Not to say greedy.

Patrice Ayme’

PLUTOCRACY IS MASS MASTER CRIME

February 1, 2016

American Racism & Slavery Originated With The Rule of Greed. This Is Just A Particular Case Of Plutocracy:

Atrocious pictures on TV: suffering infants with microcephaly in Brazil, victim of Zika. Most of their heads are missing. Below those nearly inexistent skulls, are eyes full of pain. They experience paralysis… This calamity was avoidable, with enough fundamental research, early enough. The governance of this biosphere tottering under our blows, is cruising to the apocalypse. The Zika virus was detected 2 years ago in French Polynesia, and now it’s all over. It is carried by an omnipresent mosquito which has learned to live in water-friendly human garbage. There is no vaccine. The immune system reaction often provokes paralysis (from the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS))

The world is turning satanic. Pluto power, all over. This can be directly traced to the fact the worst are allowed to rule (directly, or through their teleprompter reading servants). The worst people (from the CIA, G. H. Bush, or KGB, V. Putin), the most glaringly corrupt (Clintons), the worst moods (the market, that is, greed, as an ubiquitous guide for what’s good), the worst lies (plutocrats are philanthropists), etc…

Some who support the plutocratic Clintons claim that electing a female will subdue an evil, sexism, which is as bad as plutocracy (Krugman). This is ill-informed, naive, unobservant, silly and erroneous in many ways. What is needed is the instructive perspective of history. First of all, there were many female rulers before. Even several “Muslim” countries elected female Prime Ministers (and those countries are still legally sexist). China, Rome, Russia, Britain, and especially France, had female rulers, at crucial points of their history.

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

[Hatshepsut, chief wife of Thutmose II, mother, when she came to rule, of one year old, Thutmose III, is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs. Hatshepsut ruled as the fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Let it be said in passing that the famous Nefertiti apparently ruled on her own right. We know exactly what she looked like, as we have many detailed pictures of her.]

Egypt, the first massive civilization, had female rulers since the First Dynasty, 5,000 years ago. Queen Meryt-Neith or Merytneith or Merneith First Dynasty (~3000 BC) was listed among other, and her tomb is with the tombs of other Pharaohs. She was the wife of Djet, and the Mother of Den. Some of these queens played major roles: one founded the Fifth Dynasty.

Racism, sexism, religious intolerance are mass moods (which can be partly legislated, as in some so-called “Muslim” countries). Plutocracy is something else: a political regime. By controlling, and ruling society, plutocracy turns it into its own image: the rule of evil. Here is an example:

THE PLUTOCRATIC TEMPTATION BROUGHT SLAVERY TO AMERICA:

Take the case of slavery: the Franks made slavery unlawful in their vast empire, which comprised Gaul and most of Germany, in 655 CE. The situation was made even clearer in 800 CE: the Franks proclaimed the  “RENOVATION” (“RENOVATIO”) of the Roman Empire. And Constantinople agreed (Charlemagne, Carlus Magnus found himself sole emperor of the… Roman empire!)

How was the empire “RENOVATED”? Well, the one and only difference with the Roman Empire just prior was… SLAVERY. The Roman empire had been renovated by outlawing slavery! This is what the Franks said, and it caused a virtuous circle, as fundamental technology went where the Roman emperors had forbidden to go (Roman emperors, as good plutocrats, naturally detested change, and the Will to Knowledge which fosters it).

Four centuries later, in 1066 CE the Franks, led by the Duke of Normandy, re-conquered Britannia (England to start with), and outlawed slavery there too.

The American colons re-invented slavery in New England, starting in 1620 CE. Those colons were richer, by far, than European peasants (as evidence and letters from Pilgrims, flaunting their riches, show).The colons’ motivation in re-establishing slavery was not survival, but greed. Tobacco agriculture expanded greatly, very soon after, thanks to the import of massive numbers of slaves from Africa. Some American states were 90% African slaves.

Jesus Christ also thought that money was the root of much evil. Jesus did not mention racism as an evil (simply because the Greco-Roman empire was not racist: some emperors came from Africa, and at least one, from Arabia). In the USA racism appeared to justify slavery: it was OK to enslaves Africans, because they were just apes, or halfway there. (Sexism evolved along similar lines, thousands of years before; sexism cannot be found in small human groups, because it would make them dysfunctional.)

Paul Krugman pretends that sexism and racism are independent from plutocracy. Krugman claims sexism and racism stand on their own. It may be true in a sense, but they both originated from plutocracy, historically speaking. In a way, this is a debate about what the word “Pluto” means. “Pluto” was the new word for “Hades”, god of hell, after “Hades” got such a bad reputation, no decent Greek would dare evoke Him.

Whether one should fight plutocracy, or just say that just being ruled by a woman would dispel evil, is a debate about how evil works.

Anybody who knows a bit of history knows that such a debate is stupid: the last ruler of imperial China was an empress who ruled decades, and made a bad situation way worse… The mother of Louis XIV, a ruling queen, prevented, by a five-year civil war, the rise of a Parliamentary Republic in France. She was a significant malefactor of historical proportion. She also made her son all the devil he could be. She taught him, by example, that nastiness should rule (that’s another way to say “plutocracy”). Sure enough: Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, after mass torturing them for decades (the jerk is still respected in France, because he did a few good things, go figure this masochism in a boudoir… Naturally, Louis XIV established slavery overseas…)

“Pluto” is the god of the underground, thus Pluto is the god of hell, and fire, but also the god of gold, silver, precious stones, riches. The modern usage keeps only in mind the latter part, but Jesus disagreed (and so do I). “Pluto” has many of the characteristics we see in today’s plutocracy: for example, he could make itself invisible (like Dark Money, invisible to tax authorities and gullible voters alike).

Money it ultimately power, and ultimate money corrupts ultimately. And ultimate corruption means the affected individual becomes satanic, or, using the root of the concept of satan, plutocratic. Yes, plutocratic means satanic, it’s as simple as that.

Slavery, racism, sexism, are all consequences of plutocracy. Plutocracy is the master cause. Periodically, plutocracy runs out of control, and takes over. At best, it’s stopped by revolution (Britain, France and the USA had revolutions, and the former two, several, starting in 360 CE!) At worst, plutocracy brings annihilation of a civilization (as happened to the Mayas, or the Baghdad Caliphate, destroyed by a Mongol-Christian coalition in the Thirteenth Century).

A world is led by devils is intrinsically evil. Time to get rid of the whole idea.

Patrice Ayme’

No Assimilation: Racism & Destruction

November 29, 2015

We have to be guided by history. The present ecological, plutocratic, immigration and Islamist crises (in order of importance) are informed by history. However neither our delusional “leaders” nor the herds they guide know enough history to inform decisively the present crises. Verily, history is the best teacher.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were also guided by history, but we are in a much more advantageous position than they were: history in Greco-Roman times was at most 1,000 year old. Now the history we know of, much of it from increasingly detailed archeological work, is more than 10,000 years old.

An example: detailed archeology, recently done, revealed that the Late Roman empire was much richer than previously believed. There was no evidence of economic decay, far from it. So the catastrophes which struck it in the Sixth Century were of a different nature than Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Diocletian Baths

The Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Franks were stuck by the story of Troy, which was the limit of what they thought they knew for sure (modern archeology has not decisively determined the exact events of Troy’s adventures: it’s a work in progress). But they did not really know the truth: soon thereafter the “Greek Dark Ages” nearly obliterated history.

Something was learned though: the Franks (barely) avoided the total collapse which had struck the Greeks 15 centuries earlier. The Franks (like the Romans before them) claimed they descended from Troy. Whether that’s true or not, what they meant is that they knew how to avoid catastrophe.

And they did.

How did the Franks do it? By NOT doing what the Romans had done. Or, more exactly, by doing civilization in the spirit of Ancient Republican Rome, not the degenerated  self-obsessed imperial fascism of emperor Commodus and his successors.

I am a bit unfair to the successors here: Commodus perpetuated a mood actually launched by Augustus himself: Augustus, differently from his great uncle, Julius Caesar, had not understood the necessity to expand the empire. Augustus explicitly advised his successors to NOT conquer Germany. The advice was respected, and therein all the problems of Rome.

Had the Romans made a determined effort to conquer Germany, they would have had to reinstitute the Republic in full. If the Republic had been reconstituted, in full, Roman governance would have been much smarter, and capable of solving the problems thrown at Rome.

Thus, when speaking of war, and whining about it, the herd forgets that democracies make war best (as the Athenians demonstrated at Marathon, when they charged irresistibly the immense multitude of fascist imperial Persian storm troopers).

Thus, to push things a bit, to make war better, one has to make democracy better. Thus the army was an important factor of de-segregation in the USA.

Speaking of segregation, that was the problem which killed Rome the most. The Romans had basically renounced ASSIMILATING the Germans. Germans were viewed as hopeless, yet too strong, barbarians.

The analogy with what is going on today is total. The Germans came in with their own legal systems, their own Sharias. The Romans respected that. So states within the state grew (a bit as has been observed in France and especially Belgium, where at least one city should be de-Islamized).

And why were the Germans so strong? Because the state had grown weak, from not taxing the hyper-rich enough. Just like now. Lack of taxation of the hyper-rich has made Europe weak. Military weak. Germany is going to send 650 soldiers in Mali, to relieve the French Army there (which then will be able to attack the Islamist State). One is talking about pathetically small numbers here, for a country as large as today’s Germany. Meanwhile the French don’t have enough air refueling capacity to bomb as much as they could (Germany there is speaking to provide air refueling for the French Air Force).

When the Roman state decomposed in the “Occident”, very small numbers of warriors were involved, roughly equivalent to those the Islamist State and its various faction have.

Verdict: one has to forcefully assimilate, and make the Republic stronger, as needed to do so. Both phenomena are entangled.

And don’t try to assimilate Islam instead: that was tried before. Not just with Islam, but Christianism itself: to convert Germans to the empire, the Roman leaders (Constantine and his successors) used Christianism. Christianism is a sort of superstitious republicanism claiming all men are equal, under fascist god, etc…  Well, it did not work: Christianism devoured civilization, and did so, in particular, in the Orient. The Orient was suddenly destroyed, within a generation by the wars, and the weakness, physical, intellectual and moral, which fanatical Christianism brought. In particular it brought Islam (just read the Qur’an, Muhammad himself explains it very well!)

I am perfectly aware that the ignorant view assimilation as racism. This mentality was launched by a herd of European pseudo-philosophers who loved fascism (either Kaiser, see the deluded Bertrand Russell, Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin style). Loving fascism provided them with perks, including from American pluto-imperialism (which was delighted to see proper critique replaced by non-sense).

That assimilation was racism has been the main driving force to create racism and segregation in French society (against the very people those who denounced assimilation pretended to protect!) Same, and worse in Belgium, a state representing well the sort of degeneracy which affected Rome. Actually Belgium’s only justification, as I have explained many times, was to weaken France, by cutting off from it the fiercest part of Gaul (“Gallia”; reference on that: Julius Caesar). It’s working splendidly: France nearly lost the two world wars against fascist Germany thanks to the existence of Belgium as a mentally, and militarily tiny independent kingdom.

(For those who do not understand the preceding paragraph: all the recent terrorism in France was planned in Belgium, by pseudo, unassimilated “Belgians”, who were simply barbarians educated by the Sharia.)

Hollande seems to be taking his war against the Islamist State seriously; that’s a political U-turn: just as Rome needed to conquer Germany, the empire needs to reconquer the Orient . Because, indeed, before it got subjugated by Islam, with the results presently observed, the Orient was to Rome, and before that to the Macedonio-Greeks, and, even before, to the Zoroastrians (I don’t expect the admirers of the late Edward Said to understand any of this).

Philosophy has to guide. Philosophy which knows history, and thought about it, that is. But force is to observe that most so-called philosophers of the Twentieth Century knew no history, or then so little, that they could use it to justify their madness (this is an attack against Michel Foucault, Althusser, etc.). Simone de Beauvoir, who knew enough history to teach it to all of France under the fascist Vichy regime, was rightly infuriated by Foucault’s distortions of history. Now all these obnoxious, and cruel, self-obsessed dwarves are viewed as pinnacles of wisdom. No wonder our politicians went mad. Now they have to quit the Fourth Century Roman political line they have been repeating.

And be happy! Or the strength will not be found. One has to learn to be happy through the worst. Especially when it’s only bad news affecting others.

Patrice Ayme’   

Wilson A Racist; Exploding Seas

November 23, 2015

A quickie today, I have to go dive with the Manta Rays:

The Architect of USA Policy In The Twentieth Century Was A Frantic Racist Disguised As An Apostle Of Peace:

A scandal is surfacing at Princeton University, as the president and founder, Wilson, is found by the student body to be a racist. The official view on Wilson is that he was a saint, an apostle of peace, and the gentleman who, to his regret, had to intervene in World War One.

My vision is the exact opposite. I  have explained that Wilson, after he became president of the USA, and because he was a racist, encouraged the Kaiser and his top generals to attack the French Republic. So doing, Wilson invented the American policy of using fascist Germany to destroy the world, and, in particular the world order imposed by democratic European power.

During World War One, American trade, with the active collaboration of the Netherlands enabled Germany to keep on fighting (otherwise the Franco-British blockade would have forced it into surrender within 18 months).

It is good to see the student body, and even some of the administration of Princeton University, is rising a piece of the veil covering up American racism, and its far-fetching consequences…

***

How the USA explodes seas:

One far-fetched consequence has been that, as the USA was made by oil, the fossil fuel industry has had a tight grip on American policy. Just a few weeks ago the American Secretary of State was claiming the Paris Climate Conference would not be bidding. He was rebuffed by the French president (they are friends, and speak in French together as Kerry is bilingual). If COP 21 is not binding, seas will explode beyond the comfort level…

Vast mounts have just been found in shallow seas off Siberia, some 1,000 meters across. They are probably caused by global warming, which is much more pronounced up north.

From university of Tromso:

….these newly discovered subsea pingos may be quite recent. This lends support to another hypotheses, the one that states that mechanisms that form pingos on land and mechanisms that form mounds on the ocean floor are completely different.

“The subsea-pingo like formations are significantly larger than the ones on land. Gas leakage from one of the ocean floor pingos offshore Siberia shows a specific chemical signature that indicates modern generation of methane. We suggest that the mound formed more recently, moving material physically upwards.”

Dissociation of methane ice

On land pingos are mainly formed when the water freezes into an ice core under soil, because of the chilling temperatures of permafrost. However, subsea pingos, may be formed because of the thawing of relict subsea permafrost and dissociation of methane rich gas hydrates.

Gas hydrates are ice-like solids composed of among other things methane and water. They form and remain stable under a combination of low temperature and high pressure. In permafrost the temperatures are very low and gas hydrates are stable even under the low pressure, such as on shallow Arctic seas. Thawing of permafrost leads to temperature increases, which in turn leads to melting of gas hydrates, therefore, releasing the formerly trapped gas.

“ The methane creates the necessary force that pushes the remaining frozen sediment layers upward, forming mounds.” says Serov.

Quiet explosions beneath the Arctic shallow seas

Subsea pingos can potentially blow out, without massive attention, as was the case with the highly visible Yamal craters, but with massive expulsions of methane into the ocean. For petroleum companies these areas may pose a geohazard. Drilling a hole into one of these subsea pingos, can be not only expensive but also catastrophic. During a geotechnical drilling in the close by Pechora Sea, an industry vessel unknowingly drilled a hole into one of these mounds. It triggered a massive release of gas that almost sunk the vessel.

“We don´t know if the methane expelled from the subsea pingos reaches the atmosphere, but it is crucial that we observe and understand these processes better, especially in shallow areas, where the distance between the ocean floor and the atmosphere is short.” says Serov.

Reference: “Methane release from pingo-like features across the South Kara Sea shelf, an area of thawing offshore permafrost”,  Journal of Geophysical Research.

Yes, the situation is serious. Even more serious than when American racist were supporting, enabling, instigating German racists, a century ago. Let no one say it was not clear. The racists failed, in their attempt to impose their order worldwide. However, the destruction of the biosphere, once it has gone too far, will be self-feeding. That’s what the tipping points are all about.

Patrice Ayme’

Nazism: A Paradigm

July 27, 2015

Some cackle that whenever one mentions Nazism, one has lost the debate (Godwin’s Law). Verily, of chickens today we talk.

Is the idea that nothiAdd Mediang compare to you, oh, Nazism? As in love songs? Nothing compares to Nazism, oh (my love?) Assuredly we are living in strange times. Yet, reality is even stranger.

Nazism, for want of a better word, is firmly anchored in the German mood, from way back. So much for Nazism being an “accident”, caused by “one” gangster, Hitler, who made Germans kill, purely accidentally and without any inclination to do so, 70 million people (make that more than 100 million, when counting the first round, World War One, and associated distraction, like exterminating Native Namibians).

The first pogroms of the Middle Ages started when the herds of Crusaders, during the First Crusade, reached German speaking lands. (Although the Crusade was launched from French speaking areas, and this, by the Pope, personally.)

Luther made countless declarations calling to burn Jews, destroy them, torture them, and rejoice in their lamentations: “I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects. . . act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish.”

This murderously racist, not just racist, mood persisted, over centuries: Prussia had anti-Jewish (and also anti-Polish) laws, in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.

Geeks who subscribe to Godwin’s Principle will never know any of that, as they will declare that their history professors have lost the debate, as soon as they mentioned Nazism.

Meanwhile, geeks are preparing to make us all slaves of skynet. They can now take control of cars at a distance. Something I experienced years ago when, more than once, uninvited forces took control of computers of mine at a distance, big time.

That obscurantism of making Nazism incomparable, never to mention it, that God Win Law, is well named: Let me please introduce GOD, who is all about ignorance, that’s how those who promote him WIN.

The Godwin Law is strong in the USA. This encourages young Americans not to enquire about the troubling pattern of USA based plutocracy in supporting Hitler.

Let me put it in one sentence: if the USA had helped the French Republic by declaring war to Hitler in 1939, or in the first half of 1940, neither the Holocaust, nor the full horror of World War Two would have happened. That is, of course, a terrible revelation. It is a more comfortable strategy to  block the conversation before it starts.

Geeks spend all day programming, they have to replace the culture they never had, with a cute appearance, in search of some intellectual dignity. Deliberate buffoonery masquerading as superior wisdom, enables them to cover-up their crass ignorance, especially to themselves.

Once again, in connection with their attempt to build Skynet, the not-so mythical system where machines control everything (as found in the movie Terminator), and their demonstrated past relation with NSA and other occult organizations, this is quite troubling.

If nothing compares to the worst baddies, so they should never be mentioned, will geeks extend their desinvolte courtesy to banksters? Mention banksters, people, and you have lost the debate? This is de facto what is happening: Greece is all over the Main Stream Media, but the connection between said crisis, and its genesis in banking, rarely mentioned.

The original name of god in Hebrew was: The-One-whose-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Uttered. Thus by refusing to name Nazism, one makes it divine, in the old biblical way.

I propose the exact opposite. I propose Nazism is a paradigm of nationalism and socialism gone wrong. I propose that Nazism was the culmination of a process.

I propose that much of the German mood was Nazi, from 1815 to 1945. At the very least (considering Luther, it should rather be, from 1515 to 1945). After all, the racist and vicious “legal” crackdown on the Jews started in 1815, after French rule was terminated (and Europe broken by an economic system that benefited Britain).

(That Germany did not really exist in 1815, is besides the point: German speaking areas existed, and Metternich, in cooperation with Prussia, set up the anti-Jewish (Nazi) laws.)

If I am correct and Germany was Nazi from 1815 until 1945, refusing to talk about Nazism is refusing to talk about Germany, from 1815 to 1945. How to buttress my case?

Bismarck had a strong socialist bend. He imposed national health care on Germany in 1863. He was also an expansionary nationalist successfully attacking Denmark, Austria, France, while keeping Poland under the Prussian boot. The German dictatorship lived very well while treating the Jews badly.

By 1900 CE, the principle of mistreating people for their (alleged or not) race had been generalized to a holocaust in South-West Africa, of a type never seen before. How come? Maybe the cult of Kant explains much. Kant was, in practice a racist and an enslaver. That was Kant’s most practical impact: he advised European and American politicians to enslave inferior races. : “The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people.”

In 1914, the Germans launched a world war outright, thus committing the exact crime which condemned the rich wine merchant (and foreign minister) Von Ribbentrop to hang slowly at Nuremberg. Germans also committed, during their blunt attack many other war crimes. Enough to hang most of the top German generals, at the same justice been applied in 1919 as in 1945. The worst crimes were thoroughly documented.

A two year old Belgian girl who was bathing in a river was killed deliberately by German soldiers. That was thoroughly documented, as were the cold blooded killing of 160 civilians in the same area that day. Why? The Germans, in this third week of August, in this war they had launched, had been unnerved by a violent French counter offensive. That day 27,000 (twenty-seven THOUSANDS) FRENCH soldiers died in combat. How did the Germans react? By killing two year old little Belgian girls.

The big mistake the allies made in 1919 was not to find out, judge and hang, enough of these criminals. Instead, they were let go, and were basically told it was cool to be monstrous, when one is German. So they did it again, even more blatantly, twenty years later.

A lot of the commanders of 1939 already commanded in 1918 (Goering led the Von Richthofen squadron, after the death of the Red Baron; in 1939 Goering, son of his father the war criminal, commanded the entire German airforce, and, naturally enough, engaged in war crimes).

The deliberate, conspiratorial attack of August 1914, was certainly nationalistic: the initial mission was to destroy the French Republic, to make space for German plutocracy. Moreover the German Socialist Party, the SPD, some of whose principals made a show of their ignorant hatred for the Greeks, fully cooperated. In two words: National-Socialism again.

Adolf Hitler and his Nazis in all this? Just a bouquet final for German Nazism. This is the mood which resurfaced in the anger against the Greeks. Make no mistake: anger can be very good. But only when directed to the real culprits, not the innocent bystanders. In the Greek crisis, the real culprits were banks, plutocrats, Goldman Sachs, German regulators (who allowed the Drachma in at twice its rate). But the average Greek?

Tribal German madness started way back. Way before Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) applied the (ill-defined) concept of “race” to nationalist theory, thereby inventing ethnic nationalism. Bad German philosophy, widely admired, all the way back to the ill-fated Teutons, and the ill-fated Arminius (“Hermann”).

Germany was unified by the German Franks, precisely because the Confederation of the Franks rejected primitive tribalism, and embraced tolerance. It’s never too late to remember the past.

The moods at the root of Nazism, tribalism, and the social instinct, are strong, and can be excellent, given the appropriate circumstances. That, per se, makes it not just very important, and always a temptation, but also very dangerous. It needs to be counterbalanced with a strong will to disorder.

Meanwhile BMW recalled discreetly two million cars (because they could be taken over at a distance). Skynet, the taking over by the machines, will be ineluctable, if what we prefer is order. What’s more ordered than a machine?

Patrice Ayme’

PLUTOCRACY IMPLIES SLAVERY

June 22, 2015

SLAVERY FOR 99%, THAT IS. It’s much more general than color of the skin, or money buying anything and everything.

Obama and others have woken up to the fact that “300 years of slavery” have left a mark in the USA. “The legacy of slavery… discrimination in almost every institution of our lives… casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on,” the president said“We’re not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not.”

Yes, indeed. It goes much further than that, all the way to the root of human ethology. Slavery itself has roots in the organization of English AMERICAN society. It appeared there exactly in 1619. Slavery had been unlawful in Europe, per Frankish law nearly a thousand year old.

The mentality of masters and slaves is all over the USA. To this day. This is why the USA is different from Europe.

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road not taken: New France was supposed to offer civilization to the Natives. What for? said the Masters. And the Masters proceeded to exterminate all those who could not master them, including the French.

Yes, masters and slaves were all over Europe too, and a war was fought about that from April 1792 (general attack by all European plutocrats against the French Constitutional Monarchy) until June 1815 (Waterloo). Superficially the plutocrats won. But there were a number of revolutions in the Nineteenth Century, and the French Republic got re-established. In the end, anti-plutocratic principles of 1789 came to rule the United Nations after 1944.

So what is the Plutocratic Principle?

That the best way to organize society is for the haves to rule, and exploit, no holds barred, and sky is the limit.

The idea that Plutocratic Rule is best, is already found in Aristotle. Thanks to his intimacy with the world’s mightiest men, that’s how Aristotle destroyed democracy. Aristotle thought monarchy was the best organizing principle of society. He conveyed that idea authoritatively to a number of very close friends and students. Among them the Macedonians Antipater, Alexander and Craterus, who were like family.

As a result, Direct Democracy has been buried for 23 centuries, and counting.

The liberty for the haves to exploit was optimal for the quick conquest of the Americas. It’s a success story. Who can argue with success? Philosophers? Deep thought? That’s why they are not welcome, in Plutocratic quarters.

The conquest of the Americas, fundamentally, was a military operation.

The French tried to make it into something else, an ethical operation, helped with a bit of fair trade. This moral calling arose from the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier. The next attitude the French explorer and commander found, to his dismay, was that many American Natives were actually hostile to the invasion of their land by Frenchmen. So it was decided, and it became a tradition, to use a light touch for the colonization of North America by France: it had to be made with the approval of the Natives, in particular the Hurons.

It worked splendidly.

The Hurons got civilized, Christianized, they built farms, grew and prospered. French “Coureurs de Bois” established fair trade all over Canada and the West, to Colorado, and beyond. They fraternized with the Natives, married them, had children.

It worked splendidly, until English plutocrats showed up, the “West Country Men“.

Those investors (including the English King) had refined the Plutocratic Principle in Ireland. It involved lining up roads with human skulls, to enlighten the Natives about what resistance untailed.

Against the Plutocratic Principle, Civilization contend in vain, if it does not go to war.

The French state insisted that only individuals of the highest morality be allowed to visit Canada. And that was with a return trip in mind. Women were carefully interrogated and inspected to make sure that they would not use their charms liberally.

The English plutocrats and their agents (the Iroquois) defeated the French, and annihilated the Iroquois.

Even before this, it became clear that Native Americans and Africans made excellent robots to help conquer the land, so, propped by the Plutocratic Principle, they introduced slavery. And soon there were much more slaves in some states than white masters.

Slavery was defeated by Lincoln.

But its root has not been. It has not even been detected, let alone condemned.

The Plutocratic Principle is better at war. To win a war, an army, a country, needs to act as one large body with just one brain. This is why the Fascist Instinct is crucial to a world conquering primate such as the genus Homo: E Pluribus Unum. The Plutocratic Principle is a generalization, to society, of the Fascist Instinct.

At some point, the human tendency to over-exploit the land has to be kept in check: thus the Dark Side. In the Americas, as anywhere in the world, this involved massacring people, to keep the numbers down.

But genocide is still something else: it reduces cultural diversity.

The Interest of the Dark Side has been, ultimately, sustainability. There is goodness in the Dark Side, on the level of the genus Homo. It protects against termination of the genus.

However, nowadays, the technological powers at our disposal are so great, that one cannot give free rein to the Dark Side. Let’s suppose that American Natives had nuclear bombs instead of horse and tomahawks: trying to massacre them may have been counter-productive to the English Colony.

Similarly, all out war against the biosphere through “climate change” and acid ocean, will turn out just as good as it did for the dinosaurs.

The Dark Side, the very success of the Plutocratic Principle in the USA, are leading us to a collision course with reality. We are now at war with physics.

Thus the Plutocratic Principle has to be jettisoned now. That means that the USA should strive to be more like Europe, and less like its old exploitative self. In turn, that may teach some emerging superpowers, such as China, that the Plutocratic Principle is counterproductive.

Patrice Ayme’

WHOSE WATERLOO WAS IT?

June 19, 2015

WATERLOO WAS A VICTORY FOR RACISM, BANKSTERISM, And Other Unsung Horrors

This is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. History is our teacher, it’s more instructive, and surprising, than fiction.

Napoleon, at some point, turned into a tyrant, and, just as Roman emperor Augustus, buried the Republic. Or, at least, just as Augustus, much of it. Thus many celebrate Napoleon’s defeat.

However, who won that war? Arguably, Europe’s worst plutocrats, racists, and their banksters. At Waterloo, plutocracy, racism, and banksterism (let alone anti-French sentiment) won. We are living with the consequences. Yet, ultimately, how Napoleon started his career, the Revolution, is winning over civilization. As it has to.

Revolutionary General Napoleon On His Way To Free Italy From Outrageous Plutocracy & Occupation

Revolutionary General Napoleon On His Way To Free Italy From Outrageous Plutocracy & Occupation

Not so coincidentally, a white blonde supremacist youth went to a church in the USA , sat quietly for an hour, and then killed nine people there, just because he did not like their color. He probably did not know his own white skin was a recently acquired trait of darker skin ancestors.

What does racism have to do with Waterloo? Everything. The French Revolution had “black” generals, and so did Napoleon (an excellent example being Alexandre Dumas Senior, a top general). French anti-racism was also defeated at Waterloo.

In 1815, after Napoleon’s defeat, Prussian racist laws were extended to all of Germany. If one were of the wrong race, one could not be a lawyer, a doctor, etc. Karl Marx’s father, who was a doctor, was prevented to exercise as a consequence of anti-racism’s defeat at Waterloo.

Poles, in particular, were the object of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism from the Prussian (that is, “German”) empire. Poland was occupied, dismembered, treated worse than most African nations would be treated later under colonialism.

Napoleon went to military school under king Louis XVI, at age nine. He and his elder brother, did not see Corsica again, nor their family, for six years. After it was checked that the Buonaparte family belonged to the Corsican nobility, Napoleon and Joseph attended for free. Napoleon came out as an artillery officer. He stayed in the army as the Revolution happened.

In April 1792, all the plutocrats of Europe attacked France, although France was still, nominally, a Constitutional Monarchy headed by Louis XVI. In that period, Napoleon found himself in Corsica, trying to control Pasquale Paoli, the “dictator” of Corsica, who had led the ephemeral Republic there, before it had been expelled by Louis XVI’s army. Paoli had gone to live in England, handsomely paid by the British government. Twenty years later, the Revolution allowed Paoli to come back. Napoleon, an active Jacobin, organized elections which Paoli president. However, soon enough, Paoli was heading a weird “British Corsican” kingdom.

In July 1792, unbelievably the Duke of Brunswick, who led the plutocratic coalition against Revolutionary France, threatened to “execute” and submit to horrible “supplices” the entire population of Paris.

This is why Auschwitz was not an accident. Nor was the attack on Paris of Kaiser Wilhelm II in August 1914. Threatening publicly to torture to death Europe’s largest city, just because it enjoyed a revolution, was clearly the official launch of the Prussian Will to Genocide. (This did not come out of the blue: the initial invasion of Pagan Prussia by the Christian Teutonic Knights, the Prussian Crusade, was an extremely bloody affair, capped by a genocide of the natives.)

In Fall 1793, British and Spanish forces had seized Toulon. Napoleon, then a 24 year old captain, insisted that the two preceding generals be fired. His battle plan was finally implemented. It worked superbly. The British commanding general was captured, the British and Spanish fleets had to flee under the fire of red hot cannon balls (balls were heated in special ovens so that, when they landed inside a ship, they would set it on fire; many British boats exploded during the attack, some scuttled so that the French could not seize the munitions; the Brits had brought enough explosives to destroy everything on their way to Paris).

Napoleon was severely wounded during the assault by a British bayonet which went through his thigh. He kept on fighting.

After the victory and healing, Napoleon was convoked by the top generals. Wines, and a great meal were served. Laughing, the high command told the Corsican youth to change first to his brand new general’s uniform.

Often the Brits gloat that they saved the world against tyranny, by defeating Napoleon. Well, on the face of what happened in the following 130 years, not so. Prussia, Britain’s pet monster, came back to bite everybody. But not just that. The truth? British armed forces were on the side, of racism, fascism, plutocracy, imperialism, banksterism and exploitation. And this is what launched Napoleon.

Another lie, by the way, is that the Netherlands and Belgium were freed of France… by defeating the French.

Indeed, the Belgiae were always part of Gallia, Gaul, and the Franks were Dutch. Not just this, but, in an eighty year war, France around 1600, freed the Netherlands from Spain (before that the most powerful land army). If France had not been around to intervene each time the Spanish army attacked the Netherlands, the Dutch would be speaking Spanish.

As a telling aside, Edward III of England (grandson of Philippe IV Le Bel of France) launched the so-called 100 year war, at the urging of the count of Artois, who used to fight in a bright red costume and armor, just to make sure his combative nature was fully in evidence. He had been deprived of his land by the King of France. Artois’ land were fully in present day Belgium. Belgium was created, after Napoleon’s defeat, just to weaken France. The obvious truth, in the fullness of history, considering the jurisdiction given to the Francks in 400 CE by the Roman government, the entire west bank of the Rhine is clearly French.

The creation of the Netherlands and Belgium, to a great extent correspond to the attempt of creating a British controlled Provence in 1793.

The inheritance of Napoleon is mixed. Napoleon’s own younger brother Lucien, when he was 17, wrote prescient words about the danger his brother could become. However flawed, his unification of Europe worked in more ways than one. Germany found itself united, and liked it. Poland found itself sort of free, and certainly not grievously racially discriminated against, and loved it. Italy was united, and loved it too (Napoleon III would throw the Austrian plutocrats out at the battles of Magenta and Solferino, in 1856, making, Italy free and whole again).

The invasion of Russia was made necessary by Alexander III’s behavior, and on-going British interference. It failed for similar reason as Athens’ war with Sparta failed: a plague (of unknown nature for Athens, typhus for the Grande Armee). Napoleon’s greatest mistake, was to bend over backwards to integrate the old European nobility plutocracy inside his supranational state. He may as well have tried to cohabit with snakes in his bed.

“It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.” the Duke of Wellington, speaking of the battle of Waterloo (which was lost because Marshall Grouchy and his 30,000 man army got lost, and the Prussian Blucher 50,000 men intervened instead).

“Waterloo is not a battle; it is the changing face of the universe.” Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables.

And the universe did not change for the best. The idea of European supranational state was defeated at Waterloo, and replaced by racism, plutocracy, banksterism, etc. It made both Great Britain and the USA superpowers, while greatly dismantling France, as the War of the Spanish Succession finishing in 1713 already had .

Guess what? The supranational European state is back. Prussia and its racism were been annihilated in 1945. Instead, the German Republic became exactly what the French revolutionaries of 1792 wanted to see next door. And Napoleon was one of these French Revolutionaries. What Napoleon and Grouchy did not succeed to do in 1815, was done by other as Allies and extensions of the French Republic, in 1945.

Now, having saved the ruling banksters, we are being told by the dictators who govern us, that the Greeks need to be punished some more.  And the Republic of South Africa let the war criminal heading Sudan escape (in violation of the International Criminal Court, something undermined by the refusal of the USA to participate, an apparent admission that the policy of the USA is firmly committed to war criminality, looking forward…).

Napoleon started his career fighting for independence, freedom, and against plutocracy. But one does not fight hell with flowers. Napoleon vastly overshot on the Dark Side. In 1815, human rights were defeated, and the way to Auschwitz, cleared. However, the tide has turned in 1945 (after much French sacrifice, and more than 100 million killed in the 1914-45 war).

It’s time for the right side to win more Waterloos. Not only do we need a European Supranational state, but we need a World Supranational state. And it needs to be led by the best ideals of Revolutionary France. The rest is hopeless babble heading irresistibly to humanity’s Waterloo.

Patrice Ayme’

Nota Bene: .17% of the Chinese (PRC) population is incarcerated. 3% of the population of the USA is either incarcerated, or on probation. The world’s highest rate. Plutocracy financed by banksters, also translates as incarceration violence.

Multicultural PC Racism

January 13, 2015

When thinking about Americanization in Europe, many think of McDonald. I rather think about hidden plutocratization and tax cheating by encroaching American corporations to such an industrial scale that European states have been weakened.

(So the European schools, integration, police, defense have been going down, with the complicity of their dumb, corrupt, or inept leadership; as I explained in How Plutocracy Fosters Islamism; the only question is whether the plot is conscious, or not; in some individuals, assuredly, it is the former).

Beyond this obvious colonization by tax free capital, one should not forget that the USA is racially obsessed. One would expect that, the European colony in North America having established official racial based slavery for 246 years. The culture of the USA is still endowed with a racial ideology.

The masters of the USA has been trying to export their notion of race, worldwide: its profitable aspects extend beyond just using whips and chains. It is good way of binding victims’ minds.

The slavery thought system uses religion to do so. And so-called “Multiculturalism” to foster religious fanaticism. This is why Obama, subconsciously or not, did not show up in Paris for Freedom of Expression.

To this day Americans are asked by the authorities of the USA to declare their “race”.

“Race”, since 1619 CE has been big business in the USA. 1619: the year when the first people “of color” were enslaved in Jamestown, Virginia. Some “races” could be readily enslaved, thus bring big profits.

Buying the present American thought systems wholesale, is adopting American ideas on race.

Some will finagle about my use of the word “buying”; yet, when Europeans accept global corporations of the USA NOT to pay tax, they are actually paying TWICE to have them around. They pay that Smart Phone twice: first by purchasing it, secondly by accepting that those who profited from the sale, will pay no tax… Whereas everybody else does.

Considering the history of the USA, buying its ideology should cause pause.

I decided to enquire on the ground. That’s called experimental philosophy (Socrates already practiced it, by debating various ruffians).

Diversity” is fashionable. So I went to a “diversity meeting” to meet my prey, the object of my little experiment, in its natural environment. Somebody from the Stanford staff was talking, very well, I must admit. I should not say that she was “articulate” because she was a self-declared “black”, and, we were told, by her, to call somebody “of color” (as she put it) “articulate” was a racist offense. Somebody as herself (That was a bit confusing, as her color was, hmm, white… Although she had braided her hair like the late Bob Marley.)

Thus, according to diversity specialists, when using an adjective, we have to carefully consider what they believe is their race. If the person is “of color” as the speaker put it, we have to hold back our adjectives. Which ones? While we think about this, we cannot have a conversation. Therefore we cannot have a conversation with people “of color”. This what diversity specialists recommend.

It gets worse.

The speaker was white, optically speaking. But she had always lived in a “black” community, she informed us, until she got to Stanford, as an undergraduate. I wondered if that was a “black” community where everybody was optically white.

However the Stanford speaker applied the “one drop rule”. In old parlance, that means “one drop of sub-Saharan African blood”.

Now here is the clincher:

DNA analysis has shown that about 30% of self-identified White Americans have recent sub-Saharan African ancestry.

Consequence: one cannot use adjectives with any American, lest they be “of color”, even when they are white. It’s probably why the Titans of Tax Evasion in Silicon Valley only use the adjective “cool”.

I intervened on the question of color: I pointed out that once, when I was a very small child, and we were going to Black Africa, my mom reminded me not to call Africans “Blacks”. In Africa, calling people “Black” is calling attention to the color of skin to define them. Thus, logically enough, it is perceived as racist. Although some tribes tend to be black like charcoal, others can be very light (for example the Peuls of the Sahel). I was found to be very articulate.

The speaker put herself in orbit around the concept of racism. A French member of the audience tried to interject that the concept of “race” was not clear. Then the speaker made the pirouette of saying that the black race was about identifying with the black community.

She now admitted that “race” was a psychological phenomenon, a psychological choice she had made. Then she told us we had to teach children about race, etc. We absolutely had to, we could not ignore race. The audience was in rapt attention about the alleged errors of its ways.

However is not racism bad? And is not racism about race? Is not racism a psychosis? Now she wanted us to teach our children about her psychosis: “Talk to your children about race! Yes, talk about race! It’s something we all have to do! It’s like teaching children that it is not a stork who brought the baby! You have to do it! Race! Talk to children about it!”

Imagine a Nazi telling us to teach our children about “race!” People would walk out. Instead, here was the “black” woman, who was nearly as white as Hillary Clinton, telling us to teach about “race” to children, and people were sitting in awe.

The mentally “black” and optically white speaker had admitted race was a psychological construct (Adolf Hitler, by the way, admitted exactly as much, and I understand very well what’s at work here).

I had enough of this racist ideology, and the capture of the audience with the artifact of the race we are supposed to revere. I rose, philosophical fangs fully deployed.

I told the audience that the USA is a racist country because it asks about “race”, it expects race, it imposes “race” on We The People, by requiring We The People to identify with a race. All those who went along that scheme are actually racist. OK, I did not mention the last point explicitly. I had already made plenty of enemies by pointing out the obvious.

All this was all the more shocking, that it was in a French Bilingual School. One would expect that the values of the French Republic would be defended. But they are not. I suspect that this is mostly from ignorance.

When I go to the science class, I see quotes from Einstein, a German Jew who was generously attributed the work of Henri Poincare’ by Max Planck (Planck paid the heaviest prize for his support of Prussian nationalism: both his sons died from fascism). This is weird, in a French school: Einstein was little, scientifically speaking, relative to Emilie du Chatelet, discoverer of Energy, Infrared, and a first class philosopher.

Why are the French ignoring French culture? Have they been swallowed by the blob?

French law forbid to distinguish race and religion. Both are supposed to be in the private sphere. It turns out that “race” cannot be distinguished biologically.

Early on, the Stanford propagandist had asserted that “race” was a matter of “phenotype”. That sounds scientific, hence plausible. That was before I blasted her, informing her this was incorrect. Phenotype is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment (in other words: Darwin + Lamarck). Then she retreated, and contradicted herself mightily as she re-defined “race” as “psychological”.

French law was prescient, not just biologically, but militarily.

When the Nazis took control of Western Europe, they tried to kill all the Jews. They used IBM to ferret the Jews. This was highly successful in some countries. In the Netherlands, the state had required Jews to register. IBM had their names. Their addresses.

80% of the Jews in the Netherlands were thus exterminated: the Jewish community went from 140,000 in 1940 down to less than 30,000 in 1946.

By contrast, in France most French Jews disappeared into the general population, and were never found. Although 75,000 Jews were assassinated, most of them were Jewish refugees from Central Europe (that the USA had refused to accept). As many had no papers, and did not speak French well, they could be easily tracked down.

How come the French cannot step forward, and defend their law, let alone their civilization?

Racial prejudice starts with racial discrimination. And racial discrimination is not just an injustice, but a lie (as races don’t really exist: there are Neanderthal genes all the way down to South Africa, it turns out).

It should not be tolerated by the French that the USA teach its racism to a real melting pot such as France. (Most of the French population has part Jewish or Muslim ancestry. Jews started to live in France before Christians and Franks did; willing Muslims were allowed to stay after the failed invasions of the Eight Century.)

And what of the role of Stanford University in this? Stanford is all about money. If slavery was the law, Stanford would teach slavery. In a way, by teaching race, thus racism, that’s exactly what it does.

Patrice Ayme’