Posts Tagged ‘The West’

EMPIRE A MUST

March 24, 2014

It may seems counter-intuitive to laud the concept of empire, just when, for the first time since 1938, a great power has invaded another country, while evoking the same exact reasons as Adolf Hitler.

But who stopped Hitler? The empire of the West (don’t tell me it was Stalin, far from it). So it’s not surprising that extolling empire as the core of civilization is exactly what I will do.

The basic idea of empire is simple: law makes civilization possible, but only force can implement it. Let me repeat, with more details:

The law says what ought to be done, and what cannot be done, so that civilization can survive. As civilization progresses, so does the law. As civilization penetrates every nook and cranny, all the way down to atoms, so does the law.

Frankish Fasces: Twice The Blade

Frankish Fasces: Twice The Blade

However, one cannot just have the law. “Dura Lex, Sed Lex.” Said the Romans: the law is hard, but it is the law. How is law made hard? Through the application of power.

The symbol of the Roman state was the fasces. A bunch of weak rods, representing the People, bound together, around a fearsome axe, representing the lethal power of the state in its application of justice.

In the symbolic of the fasces one finds many ideas: the People makes one of the many (“E Pluribus Unum”), and that makes the People strong, and People’s justice can cut through infamy.

The fasces was adopted as the symbol of both the American and French republics.

To implement the law one needs, ultimately armed force, and that’s directed by “imperium”, the all-encompassing authority top Roman generals were endowed with. In its most frequent original version, the imperium was exerted by a Consul, the top executive and justice officer of the Roman state. The Consul had enormous power, but just for one month (then the power rotated to their colleague, also elected for just one year).

An empire is just a place over which the law can be implemented.

The notion has been much abused. There had been terrible empires. Or empires with terrible episodes: Congo as the heart of darkness, when the king of Belgium treated it as its personal property; Namibia under the crazed, racist Prussians; even South Africa, when the UK went feral on the Boers; the Mongols destroying Kiev, etc..

Yet, without empire, there is no law, and thus no civilization.

Fasces Dwarf Politicians: USA Congress

Fasces Dwarf Politicians: USA Congress

Some of the “politically correct” are sure to howl, when told that empires are a necessity. Howling is what they do best, and why they are “politically correct” to start with.

Intelligence is about mastering many emotions, logics, semantics, data, and distinctions. All too many who present themselves as “progressive”, or “anti-Neo-Cons”, or from the self-proclaimed left, and not just in the USA, have long identified empire, fascism, Nazism, capitalism, Neo-Cons, the West, etc.

Now they have been joined, loud and clear, by full blown plutocrats and Putin himself. Silicon Valley plutocrats scream that their critics, such as yours truly, are Neo-Nazis, and Putin has followed the American tycoons, to claim exactly the same.

(Those familiar with Hitler’s Big Lie technique will recognize it, for what it is. Similarly, Hitler, an agent of the plutocracy, claimed to be against “plutocrats”, for peace, and the rights of minorities. At some point at least half a billion people believe him: the German speakers, the Italians, the Japanese, Spaniards, Soviets, and many others.)

The world is divided nowadays in three major empires: the West, Russia and China. There are also minor powers, such as Pakistan, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran.

There is just one dominant civilization, though, and its instrument of implementation is the United Nations. Even China and Russia are supposed to submit to that (when the USSR refused to take part to the UN, it found itself with the UN intervening in Korea).

What are we going to make of the necessity of empire?

Well, it’s exactly as with nuclear power: if one has to deal with it, one should concentrate not on denial, but on making the situation better.

Lincoln Power Rests On Fasces For All To See

Lincoln Power Rests On Fasces For All To See

The problem with Putin is not that he wants to be part of an empire, but the kind of empire he wants Putin calls what he wants the “Eurasian Union”, a good concept. However, instead of being articulated around the Rights of Man, it’s articulated around the rights of Putin, as perceived by Putin.

The biosphere needs an empire of the Rights of Man. Real progressives ought to embrace it, and nobody else could seriously deny it. The pseudo-left, Putin’s, and plutocracy’s, best friend, cannot brandish fake versions of history, as we brandish the Rights of Man.  Because the Rights of Man trump the past. Especially when the past is fake.

What does this means in the situation at hand? Putin has violated international law by invading a country without any international law fig leaf (as the Bushes and Clinton had when attacking Iraq; or Afghanistan in 2001). The empire of the West is immensely more powerful than Putin’s.

So why did Putin attack? For the same reason as Hitler attacked.

Hitler, just as Putin, came to be persuaded that their friends the plutocrats control the West, and thus that democracy is weak. This is sort-of-true, I can’t deny.

However, in 1939, Hitler underestimated the French Republic and the Polish nation which, in spite of the obvious danger, decided, grimly, to go to war against Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, and the infernal cortege of thousands of American plutocrats and their corporations (who were the creatures Hitler counted on, to conquer the world).

Britain and the Commonwealth courageously followed. By then it was clear that, barring a miracle, Hitler had lost of the war. However, in May-June 1940, such a near-miracle happened: the astounding defeat of France, caused by a confluence of many unexpected and weird circumstances.

In any case the fact remains that France and Britain did not make in 1939 the mistake they had made in 1938: wearily, they finally went to war against Satan (for want of a better word).

On this small planet, this small cosmic spaceship, there is space for just one imperium. The law, the only law compatible with civilization, needs to be imposed, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, to Moscow. One of course needs to be tolerant and lenient.

However, when plutocrats, or their allies (Putin, Hitler) decide that a new regime, a purely diabolical one, can now rule, that democracy is dead, that’s exactly the best time for democracy to be born again from its ashes, and incinerate all those who call the People “Nazi” for refusing to live on its knees.

Humans are minds, and minds can’t live on their knees.

Patrice Ayme

Islam Versus Civilization?

February 12, 2012

WESTERN CIVILIZATION FOUNDED ON REASON, NOT SUPERSTITION.

***

Abstract; Some drastic differences between the West and Islam are explored, and explained. That brings forth reflections on some differences between civilization and superstition.

***

Strident screaming in France from the politically correct. Claude Gueant, one of the ministers of the discombobulated Sarkozy, observed that:

Contrary to what the left’s relativist ideology says, for us, all civilizations are not of equal value. Those which defend humanity seem to us to be more advanced than those that deny it. Those which defend liberty, equality and fraternity, seem to us superior to those which accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred.” Adding the need to “protect our civilization”, he insisted he had not targeted “one culture in particular”.

[Disclosure: I detest Claude Gueant’s immigration policy; but that does not mean I have to detest all his thoughts, especially when they happen to be philosophically correct.]

Islam de France asked Gueant to specify that he did not target Islam. A socialist (related) member of parliament amalgamated Gueant’s observations with Nazism. The French government walked out of the National Assembly, for the first time since 1898.

To progress in the elucidation of things, one has to get where one did not go before. And nothing is best for that than strong emotions. E-motions are called that way, precisely because they move people. Cold logic, per se, is a ship without motion. Logic does not move by itself.

So let me invenominate the debate a bit more. As a public service.

Islam is why the Middle East covered itself with fascist dictatorships.

(Islam is only a proximal cause, however, see below.) OK, let’s roll out Muhammad Himself, Peace Be On Him, He needs it!

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

In other words, obey power, not intelligence, virtue or democracy. I call that Islam’s fascist principle.

The truth can be outrageous. Nothing better than truth to bring rage out. OK, maybe I put the cart, religion, before the donkey, dictatorship. The water crisis in the Middle East forced the establishment of hydraulic dictatorships. As the drought increased, so did the ferocity: the Egyptian religious was softer than Christianism, itself more open minded than Islam.

True, Jesus Christ, a prophet of Islam, ordered to kill non believers. Luke 19:27: “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.”

However Christ’s robust self glorification was not the law in the Imperium Francorum. Probably impressed by what the mighty Franks had done in Occident, emperor Justinian, who reigned 40 years, and reconquered the Mediterranean, ordered to separate the secular and the religious in Roman law.

If a Christian wanted to become a Jew, or a Muslim, it was not a cause for execution.

But the Qur’an is more specific: “And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief– surely their oaths are nothing– so that they may desist.” (Qur’an, S 9, v 12) Passages abound in the Hadith (the second sacred book of Islam, full of sayings attributed to Muhammad) of murderous narrow mindedness:

Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”—BukhariSahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17

Some with leftist pretentions will erupt:”How dare you? Is not religion good? Do you have something against Islam? Are you an incredible racist?”

No, I am not an incredible racist. Just the opposite. It is precisely because I respect the victims of an all too fascist friendly religion that I intervene.

I spent the essential of my childhood in Muslim countries, and I nearly always respected the individuals I met, and loved the mosques, and the architecture. I even respect several injunctions of Islam: for example no alcohol whatsoever (I am silly enough already on my own to not need adjuvants). However Islam is a system of thought, and thinking is what I eat.

A particular problem with Islam is the way it treats women. As women educate small children, mentally underperforming women means mentally underperforming children, and thus mentally underperforming adults, hence mentally underperforming societies.

So Islam becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. There is no senility like senility, and stupidity is its prophet.

Some with leftist pretentions will hammer their war drums, the way they have been taught is supposed to be correct:”We don’t see you criticizing the West, the Christian civilization!”

Well, you should read me more. I enjoy dogfights with Christianism. My answer is that there is not such a thing as Christian civilization. “Christian civilization” is an oxymoron, except in the most primitive places. 

By definition of what a civilization is, civilization cannot be just a religion, especially not a superstitious religion. And, historically, the West was not founded by the Franks as a religion, but as a reaction against the superstitious organization of society by Catholic bishops.

Contrarily to a commonly accepted myth, the West, the synergetic civilizational aggregate imagined by the Franks, was not founded on a particular superstition, or even a particular nation or language. Quite the opposite. It was intrinsically omnirole, and even anti-plutocratic. (The multivaried nature of the empire of the Franks make it closer to the present European Union, than to a conventional empire; the Imperium Francorum was a sort of European Union in its time, but with the world’s mightiest army.)

In the Imperium Francorum, Christians could become Jews, and they did, and, no, they did not have fewer rights, and no, they did not have to wear signs on their clothing warning of their particular superstition.

Whereas in Islam, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, although had lived there for centuries, when not millennia, were discriminated against by the heavily armed newbies. Non-Muslims had to wear special clothing to warn of their presence, they did not have equal rights, and enjoyed special supplementary taxes. To this day it is forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non Muslim. 25% of Lebanese weddings happen in Cyprus, to turn around that interdiction.

According to the Qur’an believers are suppose to kill Pagans and Non Believers:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” [Qur’an, Surah al-Tawbah: verse 5]

Taken at face value in the short, 80,000 words Qur’an, this verse is as clear as it gets. Some Islamists try to wiggle out of it, see Islam Tomorrow.(I enjoy reading Islamists.)

So why such a huge difference between Christian Francia and the contemporaneous first Islamist Caliphate? At first sight, this is strange, because Christianism and Islamism are variants of the same religion of Abraham. (Maybe I should call that mother religion Abrahamism, to rhyme with Shamanism.)

Islam, by promoting jihad, interpreted by Muhammad Himself as a war effort against the West allowed to build the world’s largest empire in one generation. That immense succession of battles was launched from just one city, Medina (where Muhammad is buried).

Muhammad admonished Roman authorities to convert, while telling his followers that, for the first time in 1,000 years, the Greco-Romans and their successor regimes (such as the Persian Sassanids) were weak (from a terrible war between them, and the civil war of the Christians against the Pagans and Thinkers inside the Greco-Roman empire). And it was the time to attack.

In the Orient, jihadist rage, lots of luck, and tremendous overconfidence and incompetence in one major battle by the Roman army high command, led the Arabs to the gates of Constantinople. There they were defeated by a high tech weapon, Grecian fire. Grecian fire, secret to this day, was used successfully against Muslims for centuries. Even in Saint Tropez in the Tenth century when a combined effort of the Frankish army and the Roman navy threw the Islamist armies out of Francia.

Blocked by the enormous walls of Constantinople and its fire spitting navy, the Islamists conceived to go around, and catch Constantinople from behind.

After quickly overrunning Gothic Iberia, massacring 20% of its natives, the armies of Islam met the Franks, in Francia. Not only the franks had defeated the Goths, two centuries prior, but they had sent spies to figure out the Muslims, as soon as Islam swept Palestine and Egypt. The Franks represented legal Roman power, and applied Roman law, with an addition, Salic law, initially written in Latin by Roman jurists around 300CE (it was amended enormously in the following millennium). No religious law for the Franks. Zilcht.

In a succession of three terrible invasions (721-750 CE), the Arab and Berber armies and navies tried to break through Francia, and, instead, were the ones broken to smithereens. Not only were the obnoxious invaders thrown out, bones rotting in the sun, but, exhausted, the Caliphate in Damascus fell (750 CE).

Civilian Muslims left behind were left alone and not discriminated against. They reproduced in peace, as genetics studies on the French population have shown.

The Franks were not fighting in the name of Christianity. They viewed the Sarah-sin as a type of Christian, originating from the Bible’s Sarah. The Franks had a long tradition of fighting fanatical Christians. That is why the Franks organized a succession of coups, wars and elected several scholars as emperors, to break the Christian theocracy in Constantinople. They finally captured Francia in 476 CE (and Constantinople in 1204 CE, vengeance is best cold!)

The Franks viewed in Islam more of the same they knew all too well, and they had fought for five centuries, ever since they were the Free, the Franks.

The Frank Reich had always been multinational and multilingual. They spoke old Dutch, Latin, German…By the time the Islamists invaded, the Franks called themselves “EUROPEANS.

There was their fundamental religion, what bound them together again: Europe.

Thus, contrarily to the Islamist empire, the West was founded on tolerance and reason, and the secular law. The west of the Franks was not founded on the adoration of the would be child killer, adulator of his boss, Abraham his name. Just the opposite.

A demonstration of this occurred unwittingly when Christianism was unleashed to help reconquer the Middle East. What happened? Christianism soon re-engaged in what it does best, namely plutocratization. Plutocratization, the instauration of the Dark Side. In contrast to civilization.

Why are Christianism and Islam so prone to plutocratization? It is not an accident.

The myth of Abraham is the very foundation of Christianism and Islam. And what do we observe?

The religion of Abraham is founded on the most insane torturous obsession imaginable, the killing of the child by his parent, to please the boss. Worse than that cannot be found. Think about it. That’s what Islamist regimes are founded on.

The Aztec philosophers viewed their own superstition as more humane than Abraham’s pedophobic obsession, and contradicted the Christian theologians point by point.

Remark: the clueless Vatican wonders why so thousands of obsessed priests tortured children. May I remind them of Abraham? Torturing children is what their god does. See what happened to David’s son, according to their little book of horrors.

So what is civilization? The term appeared around 1600 CE in France, after seven religious civil wars in quick succession (instigated by the Catholic fanatic Spanish emperor, son of his French father, Charles V!).

Henri IV built on the tremendous work of his great predecessor Henri III (assassinated by a Catholic fanatic). He put his war marshal the duke of Sully in charge of the economy. The new society was a welfare state (“a chicken in every pot!”), a stimulus program, and a planification of the economy was introduced, with an accent on high tech.

When the protestant Henri de Navarre was told it would be better if he became catholic to sit on the throne of France, he scoffed:”Paris vaut bien une messe!” (“Paris is worth a mass!”)

Civilization is not religion. Civilization is a process, a progress towards a more civil society. Civilization lives in its time (that’s what “secular” means), and on the ground (it’s not standing-over, which is what super-stition means).

Religion is an old, wet rat clinging to an old branch sinking in the middle of the ocean. A superstitious religion is just a revelation. Some guy in the desert, way back, walking on the water, making fish out of wine, listening to archangels in his head, threatening to kill whoever he is unwilling to “believe” in him, and venerate those ready to kill a child, if the boss says so.

Henri III and Henri IV were both assassinated by religious fanatics (after several dozens attempts!). Their crime? Pushing forcefully for a more civil society. For civilization.

Let’s remember that, next time we are told that a religion can be a civilization.

***

Patrice Ayme