Posts Tagged ‘war’

NO MILITARY SUPERIORITY, NO REPUBLIC, 30 Centuries of Franco-Gallic History Say

October 26, 2019

This is in answer to the following question:

How has modern France become such a military powerhouse? When did they become more powerful than Britain and Germany?

France did this by having the correct mindset, which has been necessary to the apparition of a large, unified military power where France and its Gallo-Roman predecessor has been for 20 centuries.

Arguably, France is, by far the country most involved in war. Ever. And there are three excellent reasons for that: location, location, location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_France 

France declared war to Hitler on September 3, 1939. The British army was tiny even smaller than the 400,000 men US army. So World War Two, initially was a duel between the French Republic and the unholy alliance of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Japan, and the fascist Soviet Union of Stalin. By 1945, Italy, Japan and Germany had been utterly vanquished, thanks to France and her Allies. They had no more army. However, France had reconstituted the strongest army in the West, behind the US and UK. The USSR had been forced to switch sides.

For reasons I will now expose, France is, first of all, all about her military.

Paul Jamin’s Gallic King Brennus “and his share of the spoils”. He contemplates Roman ladies at the ready. The Battle of the Allia was a battle fought c. 393 BC between the Senones (a Gallic tribe who had invaded northern Italy, who lived at the source of the… Seine, hence the name) allied to the Averni (modern name: “Auvergne”) and the Roman Republic. The battle was fought at the confluence of the Tiber and Allia rivers, eleven Roman miles (16 km, 10 mi) north of Rome. The Romans were routed and Rome was subsequently sacked by the Senones, who were bought out by Roman dictator Camille, to bring them to leave.

France is a Republic built at the crossroads. Some may sneer that it is only a Republic since September 21, 1792… But that’s overlooking the REPUBLICAN way political power in France was built and justified itself. Even before the Romans came, many of the 60 polities in Gaul had senates, and were de facto republic. Each of them struck coinage. After five centuries of Roman unification, invasions broke the unity. The latter, though was quickly rebuilt by the Franks, who were Roman Confederates.

Thus the Frankish army was a Roman army, and beat the Goths at Vouillé (507 CE). Far from being savages, the Franks endeavored to rebuild the State, using the general program of the “Christian Republic”… To understand the “Christian Republic”, one has to backtrack to the Fourth Century, when Christianism was imposed onto the empire: the excuse for that, among intellectuals, was that a “Christian Republic” would be established. The idea goes on, to this day.

The Founding Fathers of the Church” tried to establish the “Christian Republic” after emperor Theodosius I’s death in 395 CE: the bishops were in charge and governed (the Jew-hating bishop of Milan, Ambrose, after excommunicating him, got Theodosius I on his knees, begging forgiveness). That first attempt at establishing a Republic that would be “Christian”turned into a disaster. Indeed Theodosius’ military alliance with the Goths, plus the empire-ruling bishops’ hostility to military force, and funding the latter by force, brought the main Germanic invasions, in 406 CE. The most important thing the Roman Bishops’ government did was to formally put the Franks in charge of defending the three Roman provinces of the north-west: the two Germanias and Gallia.

The mass murdering Catholic fanatic, emperor Theodosius I, had hated the anti-Christian Franks (the Parisians had elected the de-Christianizing “Julian The Apostate” earlier). To the point that the god crazed Theodosius allied himself with the Goths, to defeat Arbogast, head of the mostly Frankish occidental Roman army at the battle of Frigidarius,in 394 CE. This destruction of the Occidental Roman army led, within 12 years, to the fall of the Occidental Roman empire… The catastrophic defeat of the Roman Occidental army at Frigidarius in 394 CE of secularism against Goths allied to fanatical Catholicism should be seen as the real moment the Roman state was mortally wounded in Occident.

The Franks, who were very fierce and free (that’s what their name means) understood, and all could see, that the Republic (Christian or not) could only be established by military force. In 507 CE, they did what Rome had never done before: they beat the Goths, and threw them out of Gaul. In the next three centuries, they would establish, through military force Western Europe as it is today (completed by the conquest of England in 1066 CE). The Franks also did something the rest of Roman power had been unable to do: they repel three invasions of the Muslim raiders between 721 CE (battle of Toulouse, huge Muslim defeat) and 748 CE (battle of Narbonne, another victory of Charles the Hammer, his phalanx and heavy cavalry). The Umayyad Arab Caliphate, based in Damascus, deprived of its army destroyed in France, then fell (750 CE).

In the Ninth Century, two things happened: disunion (think Brexit), leading to the monster (first) battle of Fontenoy, of Franks against the Franks, when the streams ran red (848 CE). Around 50,000 were killed in this fratricide (the second battle of Fontenoy would be of the French against the British, nine centuries later).

Soon enough, left without enough of an army, the “Renovated empire of the Romans” (aka Carolingian empire) was invaded on three fronts: Viking, Hungarians, Muslims. This showed to the collective French mentality, once again, as circa 400 CE, that military weakness led to devastating invasions. Disgusted by the attitude of the emperor, who negotiated with the Viking instead of destroying them during the siege of Paris, the Parisians and then the French, seceded from said empire (“Frexit”; turned out to have been a very bad idea, as it led to 1,150 years of war)… France didn’t secede formally, but by refusing to elect a Roman emperor, preferring to elect a French King “emperor in his own kingdom” as the official formula had it (so the elected French king was equivalent to the elected Roman emperor).

In the next millennium, that means in the thousand years prior to the present times, it would be proven again and again: the key to comfort, health, survival, morality, happiness, let alone sufficient food, was a strong French military. Everything else was secondary. (When the Germans invaded France in WWII, they stole as much food as they could so that the French would still be able to produce food and other stuff for them, Nazis…)

Why is France attacked so much? For the same reason as French is a melting pot, morally and intellectually superior: France is at the crossroads of Europe, it’s how one went conveniently from north to south in the last 12,000 years. If one is in the Mediterranean (thus coming from the Near East, or even further: Indies, Silk Roads, etc.), the way to reach the Atlantic or Northern Europe was through France (one route is to travel north of the Pyrenees, the other two go up the Rhone valley, one branching up right to Germany, the other, straight up to the Northern European plain and Great Britain.

The defeat of May 1940 occurred in a few days, when drugged out Nazis full of amphetamines, broke through where the Second British armored division was supposed to be, and was not, where the Prince of Wales, inspector of the British armed forces, had told his dear friend Hitler, that the French front was the weakest. Indeed, the French Front was held there by just one reserve infantry division, and three elite Panzer divisions attacked, helped by the elite Gross Deutschland regiment, and the entire Luftwaffe, concentrated their assault on a few kilometers. The French Republic had started a nuclear bomb program in January 1938 to drop bombs on Germany (it would take seven and a half year for the first bomb to be ready). The French were the first to bomb Berlin (the Nazis called for execution of the French fliers… although that was in retaliation of the bombing of French cities).

Ultimately British heavy bombers fleets (followed by US ones, years later) wreck havoc with Germany (one million soldiers had to man air defenses and German industry had to be relocated in the woods, underground…) This showed, once again, that if one is the most intelligent civilization, military superiority is all the moral right one needs to crush infamy.

The Romans purchased, for centuries superior Gallic armor and swords. At the battle of Poitiers in 732 CE, superior French steel and superior heavy cavalry on genetically formidable horses, destroyed the Muslim army (Muslim corpses were left to rot, out of contempt). The so-called “100 year war” finished when the Bureau brothers engineered the first battlefield guns. The 75 mm gun was indispensable in WWI. During the French Revolution, superior French artillery, with superior French explosives did much, if not most of the work (in particular at the crucial Battle of Valmy, September 20, 1792). Hot air balloons, invented in France, were militarily used. One of the first planes was also militarily financed, and flew, long before the Wright brothers. The first cars also made in France were the fruit of a military program: what was specified corresponded actually to tanks. The French taught the USA how to mass produce them with the required precision (this is how precision mass engineering was introduced to the USA). So the connection between superior tech and superior military was long ingrained.

The defeat of May 1940 was due in part to the exploitation by the Nazis of a few tricks which took the French military by surprise: amphetamines, good connection between the air force and ground forces, the usage of radios inside tanks… And lack of practice and arrogance of the top commanders. Morality: the Righteous should make war all the time, so as not be surprised by Evil.

All of these Nazi tricks could be fixed quickly, and they were, but not before the Franco-British being defeated in the most major battle of the Western front in WWII (the Franco-British never suffered a major defeat after that). The lesson for the future here was simple: if the French Republic had fought the Nazis in Spain in 1936, as it was asked by the Spanish Republic to do, it would not have been surprised in May 1940, and superior French military might would have done the rest. Why did France not attack the Nazis in 1936? Because the Anglo-Saxons asked France not to attack Hitler, who was, at the time, a source of enormous profit for the most major US corporations. So what is the meta lesson here? In spite of the affectionate parent to child relationship between France, England and the USA, the latter two self-obsessed buffoons should not be taken seriously all the time. France has 30 centuries of institutionalized, partly oral and behavioral tradition, that the UK and the US do not have. Only China or maybe India can reflect as deep upon the errors of history…

After World War Two, which started with the betrayal of the USA, France observed more betrayal, as the US Deep State was firmly intent to replace the French empire by an American one.

So now here we are. The defense of the West is mostly insured by a reconciled France and the US… which are at war in a dozen countries. This is good: in Libya, the French air force demonstrated it could overwhelm Russian air defense using stealthy Rafale fighters (the US is now using the same method in training with the stealthy F35). Recently, in the attack on French and US ally Saudi Arabia, the powerlessness of the most sophisticated US air defenses against drones and cruise missiles was demonstrated: now the US and France are scrambling to find counter-measure (it’s no coincidence, and entirely related, that the laser which blasted rocks on Mars was French made).

France has no oil, no gas, and no more coal. France can have only ideas; it is the only large country with a large economy which produces so little CO2 per capita that, if all countries did it, the CO2 cataclysm would be much delayed (only 4 tons/person/year for France; US is at 16 tons, and Canada and Australia are even worse). Ideas which can create technology enabling military superiority. The USA and Britain long embraced the same credo.

To be a real, thoughtful French citizen, steeped in history (as they used to be) is to learn that the Republic needs to be defended by force, that this is mission number one… of the Republic, something that the cultural ancestors to the French Republic, the Athenian and Roman ones, discovered 25 centuries ago. And just as 25 centuries ago, this superiority has to rest upon military and thus technological superiority.

As the ice caps melt, great wars are coming… And if they don’t happen this will be simply because potential aggressors understand they can’t win (as they do now). And the climate catastrophe is a war too, and only superior technology can win it. Same old, same old: if one wants a better existence, or existence at all, one has to fight for it.

Patrice Ayme 

***

P/S: Although the preceding is centered around France, it fully applies to her child, the USA. We have peace now because the relatively better guys (France, US, UK) have had military superiority, and the bad guys (Russia, China) aren’t that bad (although Putin engaged in invasion lately) and other guys surrended (Japan) to what passes for democracy, and the rest of the world is pretty powerless…

World peace depends upon the military might of that trio, another reason to look at Brexit with fear and suspicion…

 

80 Years Ago, France Declared War To Hitler

September 3, 2019

September 3, 1939. Hitler had invaded Poland two days before, and had been served by an ultimatum from France and the UK:”Get out of Poland, or we declare war!” Yes, Great Britain declared war too. But the UK had just a few divisions, and France more than 104 divisions… on the north-east front, ALONE (2.25 million soldiers on that frontier)! France would engage 11 armored divisions in May 1940, one more than Germany… Britain would engage just one armored division; the absence of the Second Armored British division at Sedan, enabled the Nazi “Sickle Cut“… With its superior Matilda tanks, and highly trained professional soldiers, there is little doubt that the British Second Armored division could have held up the Nazi army long enough until the main French formations could have maneuvered to back it up… And crush the Nazi snakes.

In 1939, Germany mobilized some 7 % of her population, France 12.5 %. French public opinion was grim in 1939, but determined: one had to do away with Hitler. Both in Britain, and France, all believed that, because of their gigantic empires, the Franco-British victory was unavoidable, and would follow the same pattern as during 1914-1918: a successful blockade, and blocking, followed by revolution in Germany.

However, France had lost more than 1.4 million soldiers killed, fighting German fascists, just 20 years earlier…  And now, France was facing a conspiracy and alliance of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Even for the combative French. that was a bit much. And then there were snakes like Sweden, arming Hitler to the hilt, with the “Iron Road”…. We are still waiting for Swedish collective psychoanalysis.

I followed a documentary of WW2, to commemorate September 3, 1939, on the Franco-German channel Arte. The writers didn’t find anything better than extensively quoting Simone De Beauvoir, who, sure enough, claimed nobody knew why WW1 was fought… Well it was fought because the fascists attacked…. Now, for De Beauvoir the concept of “fascists attacking” doesn’t exist. By 1944, De Beauvoir would pursue a career of collaboration at Radio Vichy, tight with one of the worst collabo… who was executed by the Resistance in 1944 (De Beauvoir being smart, she was able to put the mask of a feminst and leftist later).  

Bombing of Warsaw, September 1939, Luftwaffe picture… Zentralbild
II. Weltkrieg 1939-45 Überfall der faschistischen deutschen Wehrmacht auf Polen am 1.9.1939.UBz: Flugzeugaufnahme des brennenden Warschaus, das am 27. September 1939 kapitulieren mußte.
3250-40

Hitler’s ally, Stalin, attacked Poland jointly with the Nazis, and then attacked Finland late in 1939 (with the idea of grabbing all of Finland; Stalin would end with smaller, yet crucial parts). The French government then outlawed the French Communist Party and stripped of French citizenship those who fled to the USSR. It was then decided to attack Hitler’s crucial ally, Sweden, to come to the rescue of Finland. France was really fighting over all fronts, including an internal one.

This outlawing of Communist Party is not an anecdote but the cause why many French fighter aircraft were armed too late in Spring 1940 (smart politicians were afraid of French communist workers seizing weapons). By 1940, the French government of PM Daladier was losing its smarts, often freaking out about the hundreds of thousands of German refugees in France (who were of course all anti-Nazis, but that the French government suspected nevertheless…)

Attacking Poland from west (Nazis) and east (Stalin) was no accident: German generals, now Nazis, had trained in the USSR, secretly, in violation of the Versailles Treaty, for years… Poland capitulated in 4 weeks. France would be attacked later, by tanks fueled with Soviet oil….

Bravely, the US, after first condemning and punishing France and the UK, finally instituted “cash and carry”. The grim determination of the French and British navies may have helped. Although out gunned (280 mm against 200 mm), the Royal Navy destroyed the battleship Graf Spee in Rio Della Plata…

The destruction of the Graf Spee clearly showed that France and Britain were going to strangle Germany.. as long as they could separate it from Stalin…

A major problem was that Belgium was “neutral”. It means that the French army entered Belgium only after Hitler invaded Belgium. Worse: it means that, when two-thirds of the entire German army entered Belgium… Belgium did NOT notice! The French High Command was not told. Had it been told, huge French forces, like the unstoppable Super Heavy Third French armored division, just north of Sedan, could have been fueled and move south and block, or, better cut from behind, the Nazi armor thrust. Also forces could have been moved from the Maginot Line and long range guns thereof got ready (they didn’t in the few hours they could have been effective).

9 April 1940, Hitler attacks Denmark, Norway:  they are neutral, but Hitler and the Nazis were aware of a secret alliance between Norway and France to produce heavy water, as part of the French nuclear weapon program (somehow the Nazis could tell when the heavy water was transported to France, and intercepted the aircraft… However, by then the French had substituted on the airfield the heavy water for granite; the heavy water made to France, and, later, Buckingham Palace’s deepest and most secure cellar… With the Corwon Jewels…).

Even more worrisome for Hitler, France and Britain were getting ready to attack Sweden, Hitler’s ally (yeah, I know, the Swedes claimed, claim, to be neutral… they were not. Not at all. Sweden enabled Hitler in a crucial way, with the 88mm gun, and all that high quality iron ore to make hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes with…) 

Even before invading Poland, Hitler had given a (very) secret discourse to his top commanders, explaining that speed and brutality would win the war in Poland. Hitler explained that the “SS units with death heads” would kill all the Jews and Poles to enable the Germans to acquire the “Lebensraum” (life space, vital space) they needed. Accordingly, Hitler displaced 600,000 Germans of German ancestry, to settle them into West Poland. There they created the Warthegau, nicknamed, the “Blonde Province” (Himmler:”I am going to create here a blonde province!” … funny neither he, nor Hitler or Goebels were blonde… And lots of Poles were blonde… such blonde kids were taken from their parents, and “germanized”. We know of 30,000 such cases. There were more.) 

When the Nazis killed the Poles, they killed some secretly, but they also killed dozens of thousands, very publicly… To scare the rest. 

10,000 assassinated in the first few weeks in the Warthegau alone, for all to see, 10,000 leading Poles, typically intellectuals, doctors, etc…

Between 12 November 1939 (first attempted attack, stopped by weather), Hitler gave 20 orders of attack of France. However his generals were not keen… and resisted The generals knew that they were going to be defeated. But then they had no choice: time was working against them. The Manstein plan finally selected had a low probability of success. But, at least, it had some. The other plans (dully anticipated by the French) had none. The Prince of Wales, Inspector General of the British army, helped, telling his friend Adolf where to strike. Gott mit Uns did the rest…

Finally, the USA relented a bit, and established the “Cash and Carry” program, enabling France and Britain, and only them to use the USA to help arm themselves (as the Nazis were locked out of the Atlantic, by the French and British navies, they couldn’t carry anything…), to buy weapons in the USA (one such weapon ordered by Brits and French was what became the famous “Mustang” fighter aircraft, later the main long range superiority fighter of the US Air Force!)

The Nazis expelled the Jews from Germany, threw them in Poland, and in ghettos, but then those became unmanageable. Then a propaganda operation over Germany claimed the Germans had build lots of western Poland, just to see it invaded, starting in the 17 century by eastern ethnicities (the Jews).

The US Americans finally clicked morally in a correct way later in the war (after Hitler declared war to the US, Dec 11, 1941). By then they reacted similarly to the French in 1939, 1940…

Detailed Nazi plans had anticipated to kill all the Jews, and then march to death, towards the Urals, 50 million Slavs. Then German colonization could proceed, in axes of cities, towards Leningrad, Crimea…

Why the USA didn’t move immediately to help its parents, France and Britain, against Nazism, stays a mystery as US intelligentsia refuses to consider the subject [1]. Ah, you may say, there is not such a thing,as a US intelligentsia… Yes, but then loom at French intelligentsia: De Beauvoir, the collabo, is a towering figure there, so low have the expectations sunk…

Madness of the crowds need to be analyzed… So that, for example, one can steer better as in crises such as Hong Kong, Brexit, or biosphere collapse. That is why the US American attitude astoundingly inhuman at the beginning of WW2 will have to be answered… Only by effecting such analyses will things turn out for the best (often, they don’t, but now we have no choice)

Anyway, that was just a little memorandum, a community service… Remembering that France and Britain did the right thing on September 3, 1939. Not only they end up losing their empires, replace by the US empire, but, together, they suffered more than three million killed… The French empire alone suffered nearly three million killed (worst estimates) most of these losses in French Indochina… Such losses are hard to understand to Anglo-Saxons: the UK (451 K) and the US (419 K) suffered together around as many killed as metropolitan France.

World War Two end up killing 85 millions (at least; latest evaluations, 2019; for political reasons, massive underestimates were long presented)… That’s 3% of world population… Killed, by the Second World War. If the USA had come to the help of its parents, France and Britain, in 1939 or 1940, it would have kept losses at a fraction of that. No Jewish holocaust

Had the US intervened in the first half of 1940, there would have been an anti-Nazi coup… German fanatical support for Hitler paradoxically augmented later in the war, not really because it was nice to see German cities burn, like the Jews, but because too many military personnel and authorities, let alone simple Germans, had helped the Nazis with their crimes

Weirdly, the Allies were kind with many of the top Nazis. For example Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein was capable of exerting his evil Nazi influence on the German army in the 1950s, 1960s and beyond. Never mind that he ordered all Jews to be killed at some point: he couldn’t quite recall… Manstein became militärische Kult- und Leitfigur… who made sure that those who organized the coup against Hitler were NOT honored (German policy has changed since Von Manstein died in 1973… Weeks before the last Nazi Feldmarshall, another condemned war criminal).

To learn to analyze madness of the crowds, one needs to study particular cases. All the more, as much worse is potentially around the corner

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] My well known position is that the US Deep State and US plutocracy had empire envy, and felt Hitler was a good enough tool to grab the European empires. So US media and Plutos and Deep State all collaborated with their C in C, FDR…

Homo, Naturally Born Capitalist

April 19, 2019

And WARRIOR!… WAR & CAPITAL ARE THE FORCES THAT GAVE US LIFE!

Capitalism presided to the evolution of the genus Homo. First, apes are territorial. They have to be to survive: land and its resources do not reproduce at will, yet species do. But species can’t survive without land or resources. So, unfortunately, survivors exist, because they have defended successfully land and resources.

As a study by top experts put it in Nature: Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts.

Chimps On War Patrol. The species can’t survive without war. Or then, in a zoo!

The apparition of tools and weapons extended the notion of property crucial to survival to other capital. That coincided with a bigger brain and the rise of the genus Homo.

During those millions of years of human evolution, some limits to inequality were intrinsic, because the group could only survive if all worked for it, and that could only be done willingly. Force was not an option to ensure collaboration, because force was needed against outside threats and enemies.

Civilization threw these evolutionary conditions off, as the increasing powers it yielded enabled the apparition of a superior class capable of fighting enemies, foreign and domestic.

The monopolization of the means of production by these superior types included intellectual capital, which, in turn, brought superior weapons. However, intellectual capital grew the more, the more intellectuals, scientists and engineers were at work. Thus oligarchic regimes, by monopolizing those mental powers found themselves less militarily inventive than democracies, which unleashed those mental creative powers (hence developed better weapons).

Therefrom, the old struggle between  oligarchies and democracies.

How to create democracies? By outlawing runaway oligarchies. Thus the Roman Republic put an absolute limit on wealth. Enforcing equality is the fundamental reason for taxation.

Continually, the naive arise, and ask for an end to war and capital. When they get better organized, those plaintiffs succeed to hold ultimate power for a while. Spartacus, the Paris Commune, and Lenino-Stalinism are examples. However, that very organization, which put them on top, is itself from superior capital and war capability (however ephemeral). For example the Kaiser, and later Trotsky (head of the Red Army) took the military actions necessary for success.

Capitalism, war, democracy, oligarchy and plutocracy all belong to the same space. One can’t leave it. It, and only it, provides the human experience. Thus simplistic slogans have to be put to rest. It’s the correct analysis of subtlety which should rule, not this, or that idea, let alone person…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

From the Nature article about the killing of chimps by chimps in the wild:

“Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing… Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates1,2,3,4,5

…Several robust patterns emerge from these data. Killing was most common in eastern chimpanzees and least common among bonobos. Among chimpanzees, killings increased with more males and higher population density, whereas none of the three human impact variables had an obvious effect. Male chimpanzees killed more often than females, and killed mainly male victims; attackers most frequently killed unweaned infants; victims were mainly members of other communities (and thus unlikely to be close kin); and intercommunity killings typically occurred when attackers had an overwhelming numerical advantage. The most important predictors of violence were thus variables related to adaptive strategies: species; age–sex class of attackers and victims; community membership; numerical asymmetries; and demography. We conclude that patterns of lethal aggression in Pan show little correlation with human impacts, but are instead better explained by the adaptive hypothesis that killing is a means to eliminate rivals when the costs of killing are low.”

 

War The Architect: Who Unified Italy? Basically France! Thus, No Brexit…

December 6, 2018

France is heading toward civil war, the war of We The People against Banque Rothschild (which employed the corrupt official who rules France as a monarch presently). In the USA, starting under Obama, life expectancy is collapsing… and indication of war of the powers that be against We The People. A war is needed there (to install Medicare For All). In Great Britain, We The People got manipulated into Brexit, a trick to make Europe more friendly to global plutocracy. Time, there, again, to make war to those who led the British people astray.

Who created Italy as a unified country, for the first time in 16 centuries?… France and Savoy! How? War! War, violence is how serious things in need of seriously moving, finally move. Just ask Jesus. Let alone Muhammad.

(The sort-of-French and certainly Gallic) Piedmont (from the Duchy of Savoy) in alliance with France, defeated Austria-Hungary at Magenta (Austrian losses: 7,000) and the mass butchery of Solferino in 1859. At Solferino, 300,000 soldiers met. The French suffered more than 3,000 dead, Savoy/Piedmont, 2,000 dead, and the defeated Austro-Hungarian 12,000 killed (for total Austro-Hungarian losses of 23,000 soldiers).

French commanders commanding. The carnage was so great at Solferino, that a young, wealthy, influential Swiss who saw the battle (a few hours from Switzerland), was aghast from the massacre, and decided to found the Red Cross… Napoleon III, initially also a Swiss, and extremely involved in Italian revolutionary circles, was also shocked by the butchery (which he personally commanded…) He ended up with a weakened French army, easy prey for Prussia, 11 years later…

Twenty-one years earlier, a purely Savoy-Italian war against Austria had miserably failed, after losing several battles, during the so-called First War Of Independence. Thus the military intervention of France was crucial in creating Italy. Italy had not been independent and whole, since the 400s (except, technically, when Charlemagne was Roman emperor, and Italy was notionally united, except, and including the Republic of Venice, a vassal state with special prerogatives and a huge navy). In any case, the point is, war makes the difference. One way, here independence and unification, or the opposite (when Italy was ravaged in several military campaigns launched by Roman emperor Justinian, in the mid Sixth Century, when he was hell-bent to reconquer Italy from the Ostrogoths… A drastic crime.)

One could go on like that. Athens in her most famous period, the Fifth Century BCE, was created, ironically enough, by a war of Sparta against the Athenian dictatorship… War doesn’t just destroy for the worst, it can create, for the best.

Modern Greece was (partly) liberated in the early 19C, by fighting the Ottomans (who had conquered Greek speaking lands over 5 centuries, just after they made Islam, a war religion, their religion…) Perversely, the present Algerian dictatorship controls the gas and oil of the Sahara, let alone Kabilya, thanks to the war France fought there to acquire control (one-third of Kabiles live in France now, though) …

***

The entire world was forged in, and by war.

Some claimed history stopped 25 years ago, and made lots of money and reputation, with that absurd thesis, which added, of course, that “neoliberalism” had established world peace (no less), and that’s why history stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

Verily, Fukuyama, a student and disciple of French Theory Heideggerian philosopher Derrida, was the “Last man”, meaning the basest, as far as a modern intellectuals can go (forgetting Saint Augustine, Saint Louis, Heidegger, Carl Schmidt, and other Nazi “thinkers”)

The folly of that thesis was fully revealed by the obvious instauration of world, global plutocracy, for all to see, with the biggest actors (GAFAM, major plutocrats) going untaxed, and ever more powerful, buying “representative” politicians as if they were pets (confer the Obamas’ getting 60 millions to describe how they toasted peanut sandwiches, once… and other symptoms of what Michelle Obama herself calls the “Impostor Syndrome“: all politicians, like Clintons and Obamas, bought by plutocrats and their subsidiaries, are, indeed “impostors”… But they rule the world…)

The future will be forged in, and by war…

Except if a world empire keeps order.

Don’t laugh. There is, de facto, already, a world empire. And that’s a good thing. Because it’s mostly a good empire (as long as it sticks to its main charter that of Human Rights). 

Indeed, that world empire already exists: the United Nations. And a reason: the mightiest nations on Earth are themselves vast empires, which have everything to fear in a war. Certainly gigantic Brazil is not going to attack any country around: Brazil has natural boundaries (except in the jungle bordering Peru and Bolivia, extremely remote and relatively narrow…) Certainly Russia will not attack China, and reciprocally, they would endanger their vast territories. And so on. If the USA invaded Canada, nobody would notice, and the US certainly doesn’t want Mexico.

One exception? Pakistan versus India. There the borders are not natural, not historic, and the protagonists are nuclear armed. That Pakistan is an Islamist state is a further risk… A calming factor is that India is a representative democracy. World safety rests in the other nuclear armed superpowers containing the problem, avoiding propagation, should local nuclear war break out….

***

Advice going forward?

Reverse Brexit, by a second referendum. The first Brexit referendum was illegal (it was announced as “consultative”). A referendum on the British EU membership that is announced to have force of law will terminated the stupidity of Brexit (that doesn’t mean the existing EU system is tolerable: it’s not, we need British help to make it right).

What does Brexit have to do with the preceding?

Germany has proven, once again, a bad actor. OK, not as bad as in Namibia, more than a century ago, and not as bad as in 1914-1945. However, it looks as if Germany has learning difficulties. Germany used the EU as a boosting mechanism, forbidding constructive debt, and constructive construction in southern Europe, reducing the Untermenschen there to poverty and depopulation.

***

Mein Herr, Ich liebe dich nicht:

A personal example you will not find in plutocratic media? In the huge Alpine valley where I live, the potential for solar energy is huge: 300 days of high altitude sun, every year. However the French state, strangled by German fiscal strangling, has cancelled subventions for solar energy, years ago. So, basically, not one new solar panel.  

However, there are plenty of brand new tractors for agriculture. Mountain agriculture is not profitable, so it’s highly subsidized by the governments. Yes, governments, with an s. The French government gives heavy subsidies for mountain agriculture… So does Brussels, that is, the EU government. The result? I saw fields, tended in full forest, with an angle so steep, only skiing looked appropriate. Ah, and what is that flood of subsidies for? Buying tractors from Liebherr, and originally German family business, now partly ensconced in Bulle, Switzerland. Liebherr family members are billionaires. They sold for dozens of millions of Euros of equipment in my Alpine valley, in the last few years.

Twenty years ago, there was not one Liebherr tractor in the entire valley (which is 300 kilometers long; Hannibal used it, to cross the Alps… And when he left it, he was ambushed…)

How do Liebherr profits profit France? Not all. But they profit Bad Wurttemberg and Switzerland… It’s the same all over Europe: a locality in Greece was the one with the highest density of Porsches… in the world. Some will cackle that this was a Greek problem: not just so. The freedom of European governments is restricted, in all sorts of ways. Meanwhile German industry, subsidized by small bankrupt German banks, profits.

Meanwhile, a German minster, one of Merkel’s minions, suggested that France should give up her permanent UN Security Council seat to… the European Union (namely, in the present state of affairs, Germany!)

Similarly, if Brexit happened (it won’t, I always said, because it’s way too insane), Great Britain would have broken apart (Northern Ireland and Scotland, which voted against Brexit, would secede). Thus, exit the UK permanent seat at the UNSC, too. Hence the pressure for France to abandon hers… from Germany. Funny: is Germany behind Brexit too? (Of course and in more ways than one.)

This sort of instabilities is worse than the ones that many fear Trump is causing. Notice that much of the instability comes from Europe, not the USA. The funny part is that the USA is often acting more like the United Federal Europe one needs… than Europe itself….

***

Some may scoff. However, mentalities are inherited. France and Britain, initially the same polity for several centuries, have been at the forefront of civilization for most of the last millennium. France did more, not surprisingly, being central to Europe, geographically, historically technologically, ethically, demographically, economically, politically and militarily. Europe is pretty much what the Franks fabricated (they even invented the word “Europe” in the sense it is used now).

The Franks opposed at the outset Christian fanaticism (Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Century; popes surrendered in the Eighth Century), unifying Europe, and pushing the Islamists out. The Normans (Franks) and Angevins (Franks) pushed Byzance and especially the Muslims out of Italy and Sicily. This how France got into Italy.

Meanwhile, Trump is having fun. After diagnosing  3 weeks ago that Macron’s problem was his lack of popularity, he now adds:

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

I am glad that my friend @EmmanuelMacron and the protestors in Paris have agreed with the conclusion I reached two years ago. The Paris Agreement is fatally flawed because it raises the price of energy for responsible countries while whitewashing some of the worst polluters….

Yes, well… Facts are facts, Trump us not, they do. The Paris Accords made no sense in all ways. Now everybody can see they didn’t work: world CO2 emissions augmented by 1.6% in 2016, 2.7% in 2017. (They are diminishing in the USA, not in France or Germany; OK, from a much higher basis…) In France, unbelievably, non transportation diesel fuel was supposed to rise by 50% in January, according to Macron’s insane, economy and life killing proposal (he put a “moratorium” on that insanity today… while warning of “killers” coming to Paris this weekend… thus demonstrating he, Macron, is still insane).  

In France, only the president can propose a referendum: that’s of course outrageous (it takes just 100,000 Swiss…) Let’s make a war to change that.

Wars happen between nations, but they also can happen inside, that’s always the only way to progress.  The USA, the UK, not just France, had gigantic inner wars, civil wars… Often for the best… Even for the bloodiest…

The Climate Catastrophe will bring formidable wars.  And they won’t be wars of unification… At least, at first. War is best, when it confers civilization meaning. At this very moment, it means war in France to try to break this insufferable unilateral world plutocratic order. The French government just announced it would tax the GAFAM world monopolies on its own in 2019, even if Germany disagrees.

It was high time.

The wonders burning a few cars among the wealthy bring…

Patrice Ayme

 

NEW IDEAS: NOT FROM CROWD HOWLING TOGETHER. CREATIVITY: WAR AGAINST CROWDS, Yesterday’s Culture…

November 10, 2018

DARK IMPULSES ENABLE INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY, HENCE CURIOSITY, COLONIZATION, THUS HOMO. AS LOVE IS A GIVEN, THIS HYPER AGGRESSIVITY, AT THE ROOT OF HOMO, CAUSES AN AMBIVALENCE…

Evolution is not Politically Correct. Evolution just is. But evolution is our creator. Some have said: we are not evolution. Yes we are not just evolution, we are also the culture ourselves and our predecessors, evolved. But still, we have to understand this evolutive part we are entangled with… and which gave birth to our cultural capability, if not directly, our culture.  

New Ideas, wisdom, or even the love of wisdom, never come from a crowd howling together. However, we now live in times of crowds howling together on social networks, sharing silliness, superficial love and “likes”. But, even more enthusiastically, those crowds share hatred towards those they don’t want to understand, so that they can hate some more. Genuine creators have to make war to those brutish crowds, otherwise they won’t be able to create anew, that is above and superior.

Can’t escape War: war is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity.War is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity: that’s not really a problem, it’s tied in with Homo (or then Homo itself is viewed as a problem, and that’s nihilism). However, it’s a problem if, as “humanism” so far did, it’s ignored. Christianism viewed evil of curiosity, the original sin, tellingly contradicting Zoroastrianism.

***

Stupid people howling with relish didn’t start yesterday: just look at the way Christianism took over the Greco-Roman empire, one burned library at a time. More recent examples: generations ago, philosophy was heavily contaminated by so-called brainless structuralism, or “French Theory”, a medieval harking back to the times of no-thinking (which lasted more than a millennium before that, thanks to Bible). Before structuralism it was Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism which destroyed debate, and replaced it by lethal mob rule. Now, things are getting worse: increasing plutocratization depends upon stupidification (and thus the push towards controlled social networks, Communitarianism, Islamization, etc.). Wisdom, and its love, are on the wane.

Communitarianism is an enemy of wisdom and mental creativity. It categories people, and make these categories what’s most primordial about people. Instead of categorizing people, one should categorize ideas. If an idea is good, wherever it comes from, it’s a good idea. Roughly all thinkers have had some good ideas at some point, even Hitler or Saint Augustine! Thinking is about ideas, not howling together.

John Michael Gartland commented: “Thank You. One of the most astute observations I have seen in a long time. The insane fanaticism of the tribal political party narrative with no deviation from the party scriptures permitted no matter how fantastically fictional and politically convenient, steeped in the fantasy of something masquerading as the common good and self-righteousness has become a worldwide contagion.”

***

A dirty little secret of humanity is that, absent friendship, one can always befriend hatred itself. As social networks, paradoxically, have increased loneliness, they incite more individuals to partake in hatred and pack attacks. Hence the increasing venom in said social media!

***

In the Spanish Civil War, Republican forces arguably had more losses fighting each other than the devastation that they suffered from the Nazi and Italian fascist armies and Franco’s rebel army. The entire take-over of Spain by mass murdering lethal, church allied fascism, was financed by US plutocrats and corporations (many car companies and oil companies such as Texaco, which provided the Nazi air force in Spain all the fuel it needed to transport Franco’s army…

By allying itself with Islamists now, the left is making the error it did then, allying itself with Stalinists! Stalin and his goons ordered the killing of all the left. At the time, Stalin was secretly in a crucial military alliance… with the Nazis, on Russian soil.

Actually, the present alliance with Islamists is even worse than the alliance with Stalinists: the Soviets could claim to foster a new system of thought. A new man, let alone a new woman. Attacking the USSR in 1941, Italian tankers were amazed to find female Soviet tank officers, killed in action.

Instead, Islam was a new ideology… In 632 CE, in savage and primitive Meccan Arabia, which had been kept away from the major civilizing influences from all around (to the north, Rome, north-west, Egypt, north-east, Persia, west in Ethiopia, south in Yemen, and east in India). The Muslim prophet, speaking in the name of the great vegetable in the sky, ordered men to change in such a way it led to a demographic explosion, most militarily profitable (for example it was suggested not to kill girls, and have sex with slave girls…)

The success of Islam long baffled top Christians, such as this Byzantine emperor who debated an old Muslim scholar. In 1391 CE Manuel II Palaiologos debated a Persian scholar and recorded the exchanges in a book he authored (See dialogue 7 of “Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian”) in which the Roman Emperor stated: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Right, the whole point!

Many Muslims were offended by this characterisation of Muhammad, and protested against it. For others it may simply have been false indignation or the assumption that non-Muslims had been offended by it, and they had to look outraged, to keep the reputation of Islam as peace.

In his book, Manuel II, apparently a personal acquaintance of “god”, continues: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”

Well, we know better. Our creator is biological evolution and our creator used war to conquer the world, and shape up our genetic and epigenetic. War made us, not just love. Islam understood that perfectly well, hence its success.

War, hatred and extermination have propelled humanity through evolutionary gauntlets (leaving lots of genocides behind). Evolution intelligently selected those strategies, from the first ape who braved the savanna, and forged human neurology with them. Ignoring them is ignoring not just wisdom, but incoming fate!

Humanity is more complex, and more perverse, than humanitarianism has imagined so far. Ignoring that complexity ignores the opportunity new technology (“social networks”) offers for old fashion hatred. There is an architecture an evil, and humanity was built with it.

To demonstrate here the aggressivity of advancing wisdom, let’s victimize Albert Einstein a bit. Einstein famously said:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” (One could call this definition, “Einstein Insanity”). Guess what? Nonlocality predicts that, indeed, doing the same thing all over again, will lead to different results. And that’s how the universe work, experiences & logic show. So Einstein was as wrong as wrong can be. He missed the point entirely, by assuming the veracity of its opposite, which is false. And Einstein was clever enough to realize that what he called “spooky action at a distance”… could be true, by just evoking its possible existence.

Tying evil, strife and mental creativity exaggerated? No. Unavoidable. Morality and the principle of precaution have to admit it.

So I was just nasty to Einstein, in a sense (after all, I’m saying I see something that could be seen in Einstein’s day and age… And Bohr saw some of it…). I can do better: I can spite all mathematicians between Euclid and Bolyai. Gauss made a point to spite Bolyai, daring to say that recognizing and flattering Bolyai’s work would be to flatter himself… as he had, he claimed, secretly got the same results (but didn’t reveal them as he “feared the cries of Boeotians”, a classic allusion to Athens northern neighbors… whom Athenians thought honorable to view as stupid). Here is Gauss, in full nastiness mode: “To praise it would amount to praising myself. For the entire content of the work…coincides almost exactly with my own meditations which have occupied my mind for the past thirty or thirty-five years.” In 1848 CE Bolyai discovered that Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky had published a similar piece of work in 1829 (but only on hyperbolic geometry). Discouraged by Gauss, Bolyai published only 24 pages, ever, out of the 20,000 pages of math he wrote…

In reality, after Euclid, mathematicians forgot that there was a wheel, a sphere, or even a cushion: Aristotle’s works contain SIX (6) theorems of non-Euclidean geometry (one hyperbolic, the rest elliptic). For all to see! Thereafter, in spite of these demonstrated theorems, an idiotic debate on the parallel axiom unfolded, for 21 centuries . Even worse, Non-Euclidean geometry had been used to measure Earth with great precision, around 300 BCE, in Marseilles, by Pytheas!

In the same vein, I have dared to stand all of mathematics on its head, and shake, by pointing out the infinity axiom makes no sense.

Any debate, in a sense, is a fight. Refusing all and any fighting, is refusing all and any debate. Hence, refusing us, the essence of what made us. It shouldn’t be a debate…

Patrice Ayme

Existence Means War: the Case of France, Western Civilization

June 25, 2018

No country, arguably, has a fiercer and longer military history than France. Only China compares…However, not really since China, like India was composed of several very different ethnicities, until very recent times (whereas France was all united under the Romans for centuries, before she went from “Gallia” to “Francia”… even then, the language, the lingua Franca, didn’t change; France had one language, Latin, and three underlying Celtic languages; China had around 100, although with one writing system… India, several, of both).

The history of the world is the history of victories, military or philosophical. Countries such as the Central State, China, exists, because they didn’t lose crucial battles, or when China did lose to Genghis Khan, and then Ogedei, China awed the Khan enough for him to spare it (it had been proposed by Mongol generals, after the crushing Mongol victory, to eradicate China’s population and ecology, solving the Chinese problems many Mongols thought they had).

The Mongols did annihilate several highly original civilizations. And mauled others beyond recognition; for example the Mongols eradicated the Republican spirit in Russia, along with all its independence, for three centuries.

France is the successor state of Rome: the first king of the Franks was Roman imperator (he had the “imperium”), and Roman Consul. France could only exist through a long string of victories.

Most notably against the Muslims; considering what the Muslim invaders and their Islamist ideology did in North Africa, a total eradication not just of history, but of the will to civilization, the defeat of Islam was the defining moment of Western history. As the great historian of Rome Edward Gibbon put it:, had the Muslims won at Poitiers in 732 CE (or Toulouse, in 721 CE or Narbonne in 737 CE, the city itself being evacuated by the Islamists in 759 CE):

“the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

Instead, as I have alleged, the repeated Muslim exterminations in France brought the collapse of the Arab Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE (destroying the myth of the Arab Caliphate just then: after that the influence of Iran was overwhelming…)

But for Russia and Ukraine, which were abandoned to their sad fate when the Mongol “Golden Horde” invaded them in the 13C, pretty much all of Europe was molded by Francia. (Including more or less directly Scandinavia, as the kingdom of Denmark waged a long war against France, starting under Charlemagne when it refused to return Saxon refugees and lords.)

From there on, Russia resented Western Europe, for child abandonment… Hence the jostling for power with France in the Middle East, which brought the Crimean War. (To some extent, Putin is repeating the pattern…)

Capture of Crucial Tower During the Siege of Sevastopol, Crimea, 1855. Notice the pretty red pants of the French army. From a Provence plant. German gunners found those scarlet pants most practical for target practice in 1914, when the French army suffered up to 23,000 killed in one day during unsuccessful counterattack (before successfully counterattacking 2 weeks later). This a painting by French painter Vernet, not plutocratic-we-own-the-world-because-we-say-so  thug like “Getty”…

The military might of France, driven by her central position, history and demography, was considerable: not only the French invaded England, creating the UK we have now, but at Bouvine in 1214 CE, a grand coalition including England and the Roman-German empire, was defeated by Philippe Auguste. And on it went: fascist Catholic Spain was ultimately broken by France, creating the Netherlands in the process.

The war of Spain against France lasted two centuries. Its initial aim was for some Spaniards to capture the French possessions in Southern Italy and Sicily which had been wrestled from the Muslims, centuries prior.

The war of France with ultra-militaristic, fascist and racist Prussia started in the mid 18C. Prussia was financed by Britain, and things didn’t go well for France, which lost the 1756-1763 world war (7 year war, “Indian and French war” in Americanese). Ultimately, though, Prussia and its thought system (racism, anti-Judaism, anti-Slavism, ultra militarization, etc.) were annihilated in 1945, in ALL ways.

Animated by a spirit of vengeance, France created the American Republic (king Louis XVI was warned that he was creating a republic in America; he shrugged that off). France won that war against the UK, but the financial cost was so great, that the French Revolution ensued (not only French agents contributed to the insurrection, but France provided more than 90% of the ammunition used by the American rebels. The war finished with two French armies (generals Rochambeau, Lafayette) converging on the besieged British army blockaded by the French fleet (admiral D’Estaing).

Since the Napoleonic era, or, rather, the Napoleonic error, France won many victories. Some were military, some philosophical (but with major military consequences). The military victories enabled France to keep on existing (Europe too). The philosophical ones, well, as Chou En Lai said, when asked to evaluate the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell how much impact they will have on humanity.

 

France defeated the pirates and potentates of Algeria (1830), then occupied and modernized this enormous country (half of my family is from, so I guess I am a French victory too!).

French and British armies and fleets defeated China, which had to make a number of treaties, opening up to trade and the world (1856-1860;1884-1885; UK got a tiny help from the USA).

France and Britain, mostly France, defeated Russia in Crimea (in many ways reminiscent of today’s demons.).

 

France crushed the Austrian empire at the battles of Magenta and Solferino (24 June 1859). That freed Italy from Austria, creating Italy as a state. And even a nation. Ironically, later the dictator Benito Mussolini would force Northern Italians to speak “Italian” (whereas before they often spoke other languages closer to French, or German…)

 

France lost the war of 1870–1871 with Prussia. However, when Prussia, now the German empire attacked to finish the French Republic in August 1914, it nearly lost its entire army six weeks later (First battle of the Marne). Ultimately, after enormous losses, and thanks to delayed but considerable British help, France won, and had won even before the USA came fully to the rescue of victory (France had cut off the German food supply in the south, and the entry of the USA in the war had cut off Germany from crucial US help through the hypocritical Netherlands!)

France declared war to the Nazis (September 3, 1939). Victory was delayed several years by the stupendous and improbable loss of the Battle of France (deadliest battle on the western front in WWII). That was lost through a combination of bad luck, treason (Duke of Wales told Hitler of the Allied weak point), major incompetence of the French commander (who was warned by his second in command of exactly what happened), fighting Germans battle hardened in Spain for four years (thus superior tactics and training in the first week, when the battle was lost).

***

The next crucial French victory was Bir Hakeim, a modern Thermopylae, but with a much lethal, yet positive outcome (June 1942). The French were around 3,300 men (and one woman!) Those heroes resisted incredible pounding, preventing Rommel’s Afrika Korps from encircling the defeated British Eighth army, by stopping him for weeks. Half of the force was evacuated in the end, half died on the spot.

The French Republic won the Algerian war, militarily (using torture, true, but so did the other side, which was also in terrorist bombing against innocent civilians). However, De Gaulle was an epistolary racist and wanted Algeria cut off from France. France was also getting enormous pressure from the USSR and the USA to become a secondary power (“decolonization”), so he treacherously gave Algeria to a party of thugs, the FNL (which still has it, complete with the last surviving character from the 1950s as dictator).

There were other French victories, of a more subtle type: the leaders of Communist China and Vietnam were instructed, not to say indoctrinated by French Communists in Paris. When negotiating with them, French Socialists gave them half of Vietnam. Many in France viewed the “defeat” in Vietnam as a victory (of French Communism!).

The greatest French victory of all was the establishment of the United Nations (the SDN, prototype of the UN in which the US refused to partake, was actually a French idea from 1916, later captured by US racist president Wilson, the guy who operated a U-turn in World War One, when he saw that the Franco-British victory was in the cards… said victory was delayed by the collapse of Russia, itself due to the Kaiser allying himself with Lenin and his henchmen…)

***

Conclusion: The history of the West, post-Rome is pretty much the history of France. By 800 CE, Francia had officially “renovated the Roman empire”… And the Eastern Roman empire, saved by the annihilation of three successive Islamist invasions of France (721 CE to 748 CE) could only agree. In 846 CE several Frankish army  annihilated the Muslims who had raided Rome, burned the Vatican.(one army was headed by Frankish Dux Guy… often Guy is presented as a “Lombard” because the Franks decided they were Lombards… after, and because having defeated the Lombards. Actually Charlemagne proudly wore their Iron Crown; the Lombards, Long Beards, had come into Italy from Northern Germany, and occupied it for two centuries before the Franks consented to submit them to stop the whining of the Popes, who the Franks tortured… through the Lombards…)

And what of China? China, by my own reckoning, spent 6 centuries under foreign occupation, most of it under the “Jurchen” later self-relabelled as “Manchus”. However the Mongol invasions and occupation were a near-death experience. China is mightier than ever

***

Morality: Sometimes, war should give peace a chance. Yet, without war, by those states most advanced in matters philosophical, not only peace has no chance, but nor does civilization. Philosophical correctness means you can’t have your dictator and eat it. If you want to eat it, you have to make war. That’s French lesson number one.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: I allude above to one of the scariest moment of history. The most capable and efficient general Subotai was put in charge of the assault against the Jin in their emergency capital of Kaifeng. Subotai wished to massacre the whole of the population, and change the ecology (from agricultural to pastoral, Mongol style). But fortunately for the North Chinese, general Yelu Chucai was more humane, wiser, and under his advice Ogodei rejected the cruel suggestion of eradication which had befallen many civilizations which opposed the Mongols, including the longest existing and mightiest Buddhist empire of the Xiaxia.

***

Note 2: The preceding essay was motivated by an impudent, ignorant, dumb and offensive (“troll-like”) question in Quora: Did France have any major combat victories since the Napoleonic era?”

 

We War, Or We Are Not: Chimpanzees On Patrol

June 29, 2017

WAR AS “COLLECTIVE INTENTIONALITY” IN CHIMPANZEES, And HOW:

Most advanced animals are territorial. (It’s also true at sea: that was discovered with Orcas, Killer Whales, recently: the high sea races don’t mix genetically and culturally with the land-hugging races!)

Where does this territoriality come from? Researchers have no guesses. I do: it’s as simple as supposing that animals are smart. I run through the woods all the time among dangerous animals, and I can see them thinking fast, across many species, and adjusting their attitude accordingly.

It’s easy to see why, economically speaking, territoriality should arise. Economy means: environmental management. At this point many feel like writing a few equations that would justify everything, and such equations have been written, and those who wrote them achieved fame.

Equations tie concepts together. Concepts which can be measured. However, one has to be careful. The case of gravitation is famous. The master equation, call it Einstein’s equation, says:

Curvature = Mass-Energy

As Einstein himself pointed out, the right hand-side is not well-defined. However, one can still draw non-trivial consequences from it. But do those “prove” the equation? No.

Posing With That Special Attitude Can Speak Louder Than Words!

Researchers used 20 years of data from Ngogo in Uganda to explore collective action in chimpanzees.

When male chimpanzees patrol the boundaries of their territories they walk silently in single file.

Normally chimps are noisy: it’s a deliberate tactic to scare everybody. But on patrol they’re like silent death. They sniff the ground and stop to listen for sounds. Their cortisol and testosterone levels are jacked 25 percent higher than normal. Chances of contacting conspecific enemies are high: 30 percent.

Ten percent of patrols result in violent fights where they hold victims down and bite, tear, hit, kick and stomp them to death. It has been observed that a chimpanzee tribe could completely annihilate one next door.

The result of these savage acts of war? A large, safe territory rich with food, longer lives, and new young females wandering into the group.

Territorial boundary patrolling by chimpanzees is one of the most dramatic forms of collective action in mammals. Patrolling, and killing, together benefits the group, whether individual chimps took part in the action, or not.

Some Chimps In The ASU Study, While On Patrol

A team — led by Arizona State University Assistant Professor Kevin Langergraber of the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Institute of Human Origins — examined 20 years of data on who participated in patrols in a 200-member-strong Ngogo community of chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda.

Males joined 33 percent of patrols that occurred when they were in the group and young enough to take part. Young females have been observed to join patrols.

The behavior is evidence of what’s called group augmentation theory. What is good for the group is ultimately good for the individual. Some sacrifice from each member translates into a larger, safer group. By 2009, the Ngogo chimpanzees expanded their territory by 22 percent over the previous decade.

“Free riders may increase their short-term reproductive success by avoiding the costs of collective action,” Langergraber’s team wrote, “but they do so at the cost of decreasing the long-term survival of the group if it fails to grow or maintain its size; nonparticipants suffer this cost alongside the individuals they had cheated.”

“Cost” though, is a human concept tied to record keeping.

Chimpanzees are one of the few mammals in which inter-group warfare is a major source of mortality. Chimps in large groups have been reported to kill most or all of the males in smaller groups over periods of months or even many years, acquiring territory in the process. Territorial expansion can lead to the acquisition of females who bear multiple infants. It also increases the amount of food available to females in the winning group, increasing their fertility.

The researchers found no consequences for those chimpanzees that did not join patrols (but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist). Most studies have focused on short term benefits of cooperation, said lead researcher Kevin Langergraber, “but our study shows the benefit of long-term data collection, and also that we still have a lot to learn from these chimpanzees.”

Male chimpanzees remain in the group they were born in their entire lives (females wander to settle somewhere else). Because they can live for more than 50 years, patrolling when they’re young produces personal future benefits.

However, if they don’t patrol, there aren’t any consequences — no sidelong glances, snubs or being chased out of the group, claims anthropologist David Watts of Yale University, who worked with Langergraber on the study.

“We know from a lot of theoretical and empirical work in humans and in some other specialized, highly cooperative societies — like eusocial insects — that punishment by third parties can help cooperation evolve,” Watts said. “But it doesn’t seem to us that chimpanzees punish individuals who do not patrol. Sometimes individuals will be present when a patrol starts, and thus have the opportunity to join the patrol but fail to do so. As far as we can see, these individuals do not receive any sort of punishment when this occurs.”

Chimpanzees are extremely intelligent, but usually they aren’t considered to be capable of what’s called “collective intentionality,” which allows humans to have mutual understanding and agreement on social conventions and norms.

“They undoubtedly have expectations about how others will behave and, presumably, about how they should behave in particular circumstances, but these expectations presumably are on an individual basis,” Watts said. “They don’t have collectively established and agreed-on social norms.”

What Watts seems to want to say is that he didn’t see punishment. Thus, he says, there is no enforcement of norms. Thus there are no norms. Thus norms were not collectively established.

There are several problems with this reasoning. First all is not stick: there is also the carrot. A chimp may not be punished, but them he may lost opportunity. One opportunity lost? The pleasure of the hunt of the biggest game, fellow chimp, the pleasure of killing.

To expects animals establish norms as we do is, with all due respect, a bit silly. They do it, as we do when we don’t have language at our disposal.

“… this tendency of humans to cooperate in large groups and with unrelated individuals must have started somewhere,” Watts said. “The Ngogo group is very large (about 200 individuals), and the males in it are only slightly more related to one another than to the males in the groups with which they are competing. Perhaps the mechanisms that allow collective action in such circumstances among chimpanzees served as building blocks for the subsequent evolution of even more sophisticated mechanisms later in human evolution.”

Yes, sure. And what are these mechanisms? Can we imagine them?

We know how WE do it in civilization, and the million of years before that: we talk. We talk digitally, enabling us to communicate extremely precise information: this is the interest of equations.

What did we do before digital speech? Well we could whistle and do other sounds… which animals readily understand: a whining sound in humans of the sort my seven-year old daughter is expert at when she wants cake, is readily understood by a dog from 100 feet away. And by another 500 species besides.

There are other languages: action, gestures… They can vary. Most animals though, understand man is the top dog. I have been charged by bull elks, weighing 1,000 pounds, horns down, until they realized I was no mountain lion. Similarly, a bear or lion will immediately be reminded of human supremacy, from just the proper attitude. Then they instantaneously deduce they should moderate their rage, hunger, and other animals spirits inhabiting them.

The point is that they reason. They fear humans not “instinctively”, but because they were taught, by parents, or circumstances. Chimpanzees are also taught. From their first months on Earth. Then they deduce, in particular, friend from foe. Friends are in the tribe, foes are not in the tribe.

When I run in a National Park, all the dangerous animals out there, even the dangerous snakes, not just the bears, lions and various ungulates, know who I am, even before meeting me in person. They also know what a creature such as me is expected to do: left alone, I, and my ilk, will leave them alone.

So the missing link is that animals spent a lot of time thinking: their lives depend upon it.

“Collective Intentionality” results from all this collective thinking out of the same initial conditions. Chimps, from the earliest ager, learn that defending their traditional fruit trees enable them to survive, because they need to eat, to survive. And so on… It’s basic neurogenesis…

Patrice Ayme’

Cracking Down On Literal Islam

November 25, 2016

Europe is finally waking up to the danger of Literal Islam. “Literal Islam” means reading the fundamental texts of Islam as what they are supposed to be, according to Literal Islam itself: as the word of God. For me, Literal Islam, Salafism and Wahhabism are roughly synonymous.

Says The Economist:”In the very loosest of senses, all Muslims are Salafi. The word literally describes those who emulate and revere both the prophet Muhammad and the earliest generations of Muslims, the first three generations in particular. There is no Muslim who does not do that.”

So what did these three generations of Muslims do? They conquered, by the Sword, the greatest empire which the world had ever been. In a century. If You Think The Sword Is True, Islam Is True. If you think there are higher values than The Sword, Islam of the first three generations, is just an invasion by the most bellicose fanatics The world had ever seen. Have a look at this map, showing the brutality, the violence of the most significant Islamist attacks and invasions between 622 CE and 750 CE:

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Pure Arab Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

Tremendous civilizations were wiped out by the Islamist invasions, such as those of Mesopotamia and Iran, and the Mother of all Indo-European religions, Zoroastrianism. Not content with wiping out millennia of common civilizations, Islam tried to wipe out millions of years of human evolution itself, by making women half, or less, of men. (Whereas the human species has low sexual dimorphism.)

Thus, celebrating the Fundamentals of Islam is celebrating the fundamentals of a dramatic, extremely brutal invasion. The Economist however, pretends moronically that: “…there are Salafi mosques whose preachers are theologically conservative but are far from terrorists…”

You mean they are not making bombs? Sorry, The Economist: that makes no sense. The lethal violence in Literal Islam is overwhelmingly present in the texts, maximally nasty, boringly repetitive, and extremely scary. Yes, scary, like in phobia. As in Islamophobia. Can one not be a terrorist, when one teaches that terror is what God wants, and orders?

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

There is nothing subtle about Islamic violence as found in the Fundamental texts of Islam: vast categories of (most) people are supposed to be killed (either by God, or the Believers, or both). Apostates, Non-Believers, Gays etc. Those who kill in the name of God will go directly to paradise: they will not be submitted to the last Judgment: hence the great success of the Islamic invasions. The Islamist warriors were persuaded that death would bring them eternal happiness, life, and being on the right of God.

The Last Judgment will happen only after the last Jew has been killed.  (Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”. That Hadith is repeated a lot, and is part of the Hamas Charter.)

Some will say: no problem we will keep an eye on those who read Fundamental Islamic texts literally, make a terror watch. Propped by Saudi and other Medieval types, oil money, those people are already millions. Is surveillance to become the most important industry? Or is it easier to strictly outlaw all Literal Islam?

A few days ago, more than half a dozen Salafists were arrested in France. They were all unknown of security services (which track more than 10,000 Islamists already!). The Islamists had planned murderous attacks throughout France. One of them taught in a public school. Nobody suspected him (they hide among ourselves, like the crocs below the murky waters, ready to strike, causing ambient paranoia, as intended).

When is someone who does not follow Islam literally not a Muslim anymore? That is a simple question pregnant with a dreadful answer: those who do not believe in Islam anymore, apostates, are to be put to death.

At this point, Politically Correct demoncrats generally lash out, from their tiny knowledge base learned by rote, that Christianism is just as bad as Islamism, so we are racist to implicitly claim a difference, etc., etc.  (Never mind that most of those who lash out at Islam don’t believe in Christianism either.) Well not quite. There is not a symmetry between Islamism and Christianism. Christianism was worse, in the sense it came first, and got the ball rolling, by terrorizing first. But then Islam copied it, but it was worse, because Islam is the state, whereas the relationship between state and Christianism was much looser (except in the periods from 386 CE to ~450 CE and again, for two long periods in the late Middle Ages/Renaissance; in both cases, state terror got enacted under the guise of the Faith.

Yes, Roman officials launched condemnations to death for heresy. In 380 CE, the Edict of Thessalonica of Roman emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. By this edict the state’s authority and the Church officially overlapped. Thus the state enforced religious terror, whenever convenient. Thus church leaders executed (some) heretics. Within six years of the official criminalization of heresy by the Roman Emperor, the first Christian heretic to be executed, Priscillian, was condemned in 386 CE by Roman secular officials for sorcery. He was put to death with four or five followers. The edict of emperor Theodosius II (435 CE) provided severe punishments for spreading Nestorianism (a Christianism found all the way to Mongolia). Possessing writings of Arius brought the death penalty (Arius influenced the Coptic church, hence Islam).

So the Christians, more exactly the Roman Catholics, were anti-civilizational savages. Guess what? The empire of savage fanatics soon collapsed. It was replaced by the fresh Confederation of the Franks, which reinvented Christianism from scratch, complete with plenty of newly created saints. The Franks viewed Christianism, or, more exactly, Catholicism, as a help, a secular help, to rule over dozens of millions of Roman subjects throughout much of what is presently the Eurozone (Netherlands, Germany, Eastern Europe, Italy, Gaul). But all religions were allowed, including Paganism, Judaism, islam, etc.

Things changed just at the time the Frankish emperor in Paris decided he was king of France, and it was high time to submit the giant County of Toulouse. “Philippe Auguste” allied himself to the Pope, killed a million Cathars, grabbed their lands. Thereupon, Christian terror was back, as it was so profitable. The Enlightenment would put an end to that Christian terror.

Islamist terror had been profitable all along. Still is.

A further problem is that Literal Islam is not just an incitement to ultimate violence. It is also an incitement to unreason, and violating the most basic standards of what makes humanity, humanity.

Amusingly, The Economist, propelled by the anxiety of sounding indiscriminate, contradicts itself: “It’s important to understand that of the various forms of Salafism described, there is one, the unreconstructed kind, which can (though does not always) morph into terrorism.” Well, real Salafism is “unreconstructed”. By definition.

We need clarity. Go read all the basic texts of Islam, then report. Stop parsing red herrings, please go to the meat of the matter. Religious terror was extirpated from Europe during the Enlightenment, it is high time to bring some light to all this darkness. So, instead of leaving Islam as a darkness which cannot, and should not, be explored, please visit it.

It’s instructive. The basic texts reveal that Muhammad actually ordered women’s faces NOT to be covered. So why the contemporary insistence, now, that they should be? Because it’s a way for Islamist dictators (like the various kings, emirs, ayatollahs and what not) to terrorize the Republics.

Or, at least, to put them on the defensive:’Oh, you see you don’t respect freedom of religion!’

The French Republic installed a law outlawing face covering. Islamists howled to the Moon, naturally, that’s all old tradition of Mecca, older than Islam, but the French Constitutional Court upheld the law as it was explicitly made for security reasons.

I would advise Donald Trump to have such a law passed ASAP in the USA. Every time a woman goes fully veiled in the streets she attacks civilization, human ethology, the Republic, public order, and helps convert the Enlightened West into the incomparable messes that all countries ruled by, and with Islam have become (yes, from Morocco, where Islamists are in power, to Indonesia, where the governor of Djakarta is prosecuted for “blasphemy”, because the Islamist god is that weak little simple-minded creature that needs very much to be protected, by killing lots of insulting people, lest that fragile entity wilts away…)

Just do like France, Donald: after all, it is a question of security (veiled women were used massively in the Franco-Algerian civil war, to carry explosives, allowing a tiny minority to seize power and keep it to this day, while leading Algeria through another civil war which killed at least 200,000). Outlawing Islamist veils will help to change the mood: no more blatant tolerance for the nefarious ways of the enemies of reason.

It will be interesting to hear the devilish ones preaching that Islam is perfect for the countries they, themselves exploit. And it also means the rather drastic observation: Whenever, pretty soon, burning hydrocarbons is made unlawful, Islam will disappear. Because the main reason for its modern existence will be gone. As simple as that.

Patrice Ayme’

CONQUEST Of England, 950 Years Ago: End of Slavery, Birth of Modern Democracy

October 16, 2016

The BATTLE OF HASTINGS, WON By The FRANKS 950 YEARS AGO: Outlawing Slavery, Jump Starting Democracy

How did British democracy arise? With the exact opposite maneuver from Brexit. What is the opposite of Brit-exit? Frank-in. And when William the Conqueror, came in, conquered-in, he did not just bring, but enforced a more advanced civilization, and much more, a process to self-feed democracy.

The ascent of Britain, blossoming into the edge of world civilization is a long story which started well before Caesar’s two landings in England. The mighty, yet disorganized Celtic civilization had been divided into a diversity of a bewildering obfuscation (fostered by the Druids) of countless small units: Gaul had 60 nations, with 60 central banks, senates and three languages. Roman organization put an end to that non-sense, and Gaul came out much stronger, wealthier and more intelligent (the Druids cultivated stupidity, by outlawing written expression, except among themselves).

The collapse of the Roman state brought an even greater mess to Britain, while the continent got reorganized under the Franks’ Lex Salica (see chapter inside the essay on Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood). The reconquest of England by the Franks under the command of a Roman duke of Normandy added a whole new layer of complexity in the subtilty of government. It is William’s Conquest, a conquest by a plurality, and the most advanced principles, which instigated the rise of the world’s most advanced democracy, protected, as it was thereafter, by the insular nature of Britain (whereas the rest of the Roman empire, on the other side of the Channel, fell in ever worse divisions sheared from ever mightier armies).

After its conquest under Claudius, a Roman emperor born in Lyon (Lugdunum), Britannia was unified and pacified for more than four centuries. However budget cuts by the theologically minded plutocrats who ruled Rome around 400 CE, led to the withdrawal of the legions (which constituted the core of the crack field armies of the empire). Local Roman militia was unable to repel waves of invasion of determined Angles and Saxons in the next two centuries. Finally British forces retreated towards Wales or took refuge in what came to be known as Brittany (formerly Armorica, the large western peninsula of France advancing in the Atlantic). Then the Viking came, overrunning much of England, and all of Ireland.

By the Eleventh Century, the king ruling England, Edward the Confessor, had no direct descendant. (His earlier life had been astoundingly full of battles and unlikely events; suffices to say he was the seventh son of his father, from his second wife, Emma of Normandy who ended up marrying a Viking invader, Cnut, who conveniently executed some of Edward’s half brothers. Edward spent many years in exile in Normandy (and acted accordingly: Edward could see that Frankish civilization was superior). 

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of Some Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue (Poitou, Anjou, Flanders) or Green (Bretagne)

The Reconquista Of Britannia By A Dux Of The Roman Empire:

The reconquest of Britannia by a Roman Dux was no accident: five centuries after being overrun by the Angles and Saxons, the British Isles were more of a wasteland than ever, as waves of Viking sloshed all over. It was high time for re-establishing civilization. Only force can re-establish civilization (a theme of mine). William would apply overwhelming force, in the service of the most advanced civilization anywhere. And it worked splendidly: the progress he launched became self-feeding, and promoted peace. Indeed, after William’s conquest, except for a victorious Dutch invasion in 1688 CE (with the objective of defeating France’s dictator, Louis XIV), England would never be conquered again. 

The closest relative of king Edward the Confessor was the Norman Dux (“Dux”, Duc, Duke, was a Roman military title of the Late Empire: a Dux was the superior military officer of a large province, only subject to command from the Emperor himself). More exactly, Edward was the grandson of the maternal uncle of William the Conqueror. The accession of William to the ducal throne had been difficult because his father had died in Nicea (Anatolia), when William was seven years old. William’s mother was his father’s mistress, an independent business woman who then married somebody else. However, Dukes of Normandy were often “illegitimate”, and there is no doubt that his father intended William to be Duke (he made his vassals take an oath of obedience to his son, before leaving for the crusade, over his family’s objections).

By the age of 23, the battle tested William was the uncontested Duke of Normandy, and Edward was back, overlording an English realm streaked by Viking raids. Thus, in 1051 CE, Edward selected William as heir (no doubt feeling that Britain needed to be reintegrated in the Roman ensemble, for its own good as it indeed turned out). In 1064 CE, a top officer of Edward, Harold, showed up in Normandy, helped William wage war in Brittany, and told him that he, Harold, would support his claim to the throne (at least that is what Normand discrediting propaganda claimed at the time).

On January 5, 1066, Edward died and Harold, treacherously, took power as king of England. Many other claimants and grandees were not happy, and a complicated war started, with four parties involved.

However William was an official Duke of the Roman empire, had been named future king 15 years prior, and thus William was the only one with real legitimacy, and enormous clout (but making William king meant that Britain was reintegrating the Roman empire! And thus who thrived from the mess were going to suffer). Indeed, consent of Pope Alexander II for the invasion was obtained, and a Papal banner was flown by William. The Roman emperor also gave consent. On top of this, William was an extremely experienced military leader, used to command in the Roman imperator tradition (namely ready to execute miscreants as needed). William had been at war since age 8. And he was now 38 years old.

An enormous fleet was built, 3,000 ships it has been said. It sailed from the Somme river, once intelligence informed William that Harold’s army had been removed from the Channel and was battling in the north.

William led an army greatly composed of contingents under the direct command of many French barons who were not his vassals. In particular William’s forces comprised Breton, Anjou, Poitou armies (which made the left wing at the Hastings battle, commanded by Alan the Red, a relative of the Comte de Bretagne) and a French, Picardy, Flanders army (which made the right wing at Hastings, and was commanded by the Count of Boulogne, who was severely wounded in the pursuit of the Anglo-Saxon forces).

***

That two-third of William’s army was made of Frankish allies not his vassals was of great consequence: his non-vassal allies would shortly enforce upon the king the MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM, the Great Charter of Liberty.

During the battle, William’s left wing, the Breton army at some point cracked and fled, and was pursued by Harold’s forces, led by two of his brothers. That stretching of the enemy in the open enabled William’s cavalry to surprise and destroy them. The Normans feigned retreat twice more, to expose Harold’s army to cavalry (Harold had no cavalry, and no archers, William had both). William engineered attacks after attacks, changing strategy repeatedly, and had several horses killed under him. In the end, Harold was killed, some say by William himself (that Harold was killed by an arrow is apparently a later legend which arose when the Bayeux tapestry was misinterpreted).

The war was not finished.  English clergy and aristocrat nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king to replace Howard (whose body William had ordered thrown in the sea). To win the war, William instigated reforms right away.

William changed England in many ways. For example he was partly financed by Jewish financiers and brought rich Jews from Rouen to foster lending in England (an activity forbidden to Christians with Christians, but allowed from Jews to Christians). Thus William introduced Judaism to England (so Jews were not always victimized by it did not exist prior to that there).

William had made church reforms in Normandy. He extended them to England, and replaced English clergy by Normand clergy. William also enforced all the laws passed by Edward the Confessor (the preceding English king, who had spent most of his formative years in Normandy, thanks to William’s family, and much of his life, and had made his relative William his heir). Some laws protected especially the “Frenchmen who had come with William to England”, as one would expect after a conquest. But William went much further.

***

William The Conqueror’s Laws Created A New Polity And New Civilization:

William introduced ten major new laws. The first made Christianism the official religion (exit the pagan gods).

William’s second law made all Englishmen take a direct, personal oath of loyalty to the king, as if they were soldiers in the Roman army. Those who did not take the oath would not be considered to be freemen. The oath had to be witnessed by many. That was a very significant advance: prior to this, citizens did not have to take an oath of loyalty (only the Roman soldiers had to, except for a few years under Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius around 308 CE).

All problems have to be solved in court, ordered William. Non-attendees were heavily fined, up to the amount of the charge against them.

The final two laws passed by William were stunning:

No man is allowed to sell another man. Anyone breaking this law will pay a fine to the king.” This law outlawed slavery in England. 20% of the population had been enslaved under Harold. William, as a Roman Dux, had to implement the Lex Salica’s most prominent feature, the one that distinguished it more saillantly from Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman Law, was the interdiction of slavery. It is also on that law that the prosperity of the “Renovated Roman Empire” rested. Britain had been reunited with the empire (although, it was implicitly intimated that it never left).

No one shall be executed for crimes they have committed; but if they are guilty of a crime, they will be blinded and castrated. This law is not to be challenged.” Outlawing the death penalty was very much a world first. (Although the EU has outlawed the death penalty, the USA still uses it, 950 years later.)

***

Outlawing Slavery Was Not Just Frankish Law, But An Essential Part of William’s Power Grab

As a Dux of the Roman empire, William had to implement (Franco-)Roman law. Slavery had been made unlawful by the (English-born) Queen Bathilde of the Franks in 650 CE. Later the Franks conquered most of Western Europe, including the British isles and the part of Iberian and Italian peninsulas still held by the Muslims. The outlawing of slavery by the Franks was extended to these liberated territories where Roman rule was re-imposed.

In turn, the outlawing of slavery no doubt facilitated this Roman reconquest. For example, the 20% of Englishmen who found themselves to be “freemen” as long as they took a loyalty oath to William were no doubt enthusiastic supporters of William.

***

Frenchmen, and French

In the following centuries, many powerful French characters and adventurers in England, would try to preserve their power, or try to seize power, and would push for various democratic reforms limiting the power of the king. Out of that came the Magna Carta Libertatum (the descendants of the allies of William wanted to keep the powers William had conferred to them, that of allies, not vassals), the power of Parliament (Lancastre hoped to be elected king through Parliament, so he boosted its power; Lancastre was killed on the battlefield, but his reforms stayed). And so on.

Ever since William’s conquest, France and England have been entangled (although intellectual life on both sides of the Channel had been entangled for two millennia already: Druids would study in Wales, Saint Patrick was educated in Cannes, Anti-slavery queen of the Franks Bathide was from Kent, Alcuin, Charlemagne’s main PM and philosopher was English).

The reason for thinking otherwise, that England and France have serious differences (instead of being family), was the dictatorial drift under the fanatical Jihadist tyrant Louis XIV, while England went the other way, towards more democracy. Democracy brings power, dictatorship, weakness. The result was that France became weaker and England blossomed into a superpower. In the (world) wars of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Year War, and the Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars, a haggard France was defeated and more subtly plutocratic England became a world empire.  

It is the mess of more distributed power which rendered England ever more democratic. Whereas in France, the emperor-in-his-own-kingdom (that was the official expression!) Philippe-Auguste (literally: the lover of horses who augments!) colluded with the Pope to destroy the (quasi-republican) giant County of Toulouse (which was ruled under a Count, but mostly by Parliament).

However, moods perdure. Lancastre, one of those who exploited Toulouse got there the idea of using Parliament as a weapon against the king, and implemented the idea in England.

Intelligence is greater, the greater the ability to detect, distinguish, identify & imagine (knowledge, distinctions, equations & allusions).

Contemplating history shows that reason is not linear, but a web. And guess what? Quantum Theory says the same, and it has a name, entanglement. This is an entangled world, and to reveal it, one has to reveal its implicit order. It arises from occurrences. By building one’s neurology while missing the most important occurrences in the world pertaining to it, one risks becoming stupid. 

Patrice Ayme’.   

 

Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre

October 7, 2016

Ultimately, & practically, the Syrian Civil War’s primary cause is not even Islam, or the plutocratic effect, but European impotence (except for the French Republic, which is engaged in half a dozen wars… but financially and diplomatically hobbled by most other European powers… and, of course, its occasionally ingrate progeny, the US). Europeans, Merkel, and especially European youth, talk big about peace, human rights, freedom. Yet, what good is talk when it is not followed by enforcement? Replacing action by the dream?

Refugees, you say? Millions of them? Well, six hundred million Africans and Middle Orientalists want to enter Europe. For starters. Any questions?

I guess not. Shall we reinstate European colonialism, so that Africans want to stay in Africa, as they used to?

Here are further observations of mine: Europeans (semi-) intellectuals talked big about imperialism, decolonization, peace, flowers, bad-mouthed the strong-arm of the USA. So who did they enable? Assad. Assad is smoother talking than Saddam Hussein. But as far as killing his own people, he is much better. Connection with the plutocrats in London made the British Parliament friendly to him. And his kind.

Obama refused, at the last moment, to strike Assad, in collaboration with France. French pilots were in their seats, ready to go unleash Scalp missiles on Assad’s palace, but The One in the White House changed his mind. Annihilating weddings, or Americans on the beach with drones in Yemen, OK. Hitting big bad dictator, whose family holds billions in assets in the West, not OK.

Those Who Do Not Defend Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of This: Europe and Obama

Alep, August 2016. Those “Leaders” Who Do Not Defend Humanity Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of Leading The Wrong Way: European Peaceniks and Obama

What happened next? Putin saw the green light from Obama. Putin is an opportunist (see below). A much encouraged Putin invaded Ukraine, grabbing Crimea… which had been Ukrainian for eleven centuries. Now Putin is in Syria, training his army, extending his empire, and helping his fellow dictator Assad re-establish his rule (of terror). (Putin had seized parts of Georgia earlier. However Sarkozy intervened in various spastic ways, and Bush put a few hundreds US troops in the way of Russian tanks, persuading Putin to back off…)

Cynics will observe that the USA is the world’s number one producer of fossil fuels… Followed by Russia. Do those two have interest to see fossil fuel prices go too low for their own comfort? As long as there is a total war mess in the Middle East, most of the oil production out of Turkey, Syria, and especially Iraq, is shut down (by some measure, Iraq has the world’s second largest reserve of conventional oil). That lack of production keeps the prices up much better than the conspiracies from (a much weakened) OPEC.

In this light, Canada, which is trying to build a new giant pipeline, to exfiltrate the planet’s dirtiest hydrocarbons has also interest to extend the mess in the Middle East as long as possible. And sure enough PM Trudeau, that dashing ecologist in words alone, pulled the Canadian Air Force out of the Middle East.

Some will say Canada acted in a spirit of peace, alleluia, let’s save lives from horrid bombardment. By the same token, the Jihadists are all for eternal peace too. One does make peace with those who organize Auschwitz. Aleppo, right now is pretty much Auschwitz for all to see. Aerial bombardment is no panacea, but it remains the ultimate weapon. Who controls the sky and bombs from it has won more than half the war.

History will not be kind to Obama and those Europeans who pay only lip service to humanity, Socrates’ style (See Socrates on the lake of selfishness). To defend the position that one should not defend humanity and humanism is beyond vile, it is also illogical… if one is not a plutocrat of the most ferocious type.  

Trump accused Obama to have founded the Islamist State, ISIS, or words to this effect. Then he explained this happened through Clinton and Obama’s lack of action. Of military action. I agree, and said so at the time. Now I am making the same charge about the Syrian war. I have been making it for several years, if anything Trump is parroting me, and not the other way around.

These are symptoms of the White Flag Syndrome.

Obama maybe vile, from a humanitarian point of view, by refusing to strike a mass-murdering dictator, but, he is in the best American tradition: the US has helped many a dictator during the Twentieth Century, starting with Kaiser Wilhelm II (from 1914 to 1917). Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, countless bananas dictators, and many others more recently (Nasser, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Saudis, etc.)

America first, make America ever greater is a policy which has been most profitable. President Franklin Roosevelt in World War Two, following President Wilson in  World War One, refused to come to the help of the French Republic in a timely manner, after being begged to do so. That did not work very well for humanity, but it worked very well for America.

Roosevelt’s refusal to help France in 1939 and 1940 against Hitler, although Auschwitz had just been opened for business by the Nazis, for all to see, was despicable, anti-humanitarian. However, it brought the death of 50 million Europeans, the loss of the European empires, and, not the least, the coming of the so-called “American Century”.

Europeans, though, do not seem to have learned history as well as US think tanks did. Weakness in front of fascism and its associated plutocrats (Yesterday Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler, Franco, now, Assad, Putin, etc.) brought calamity to Europe. Syria, like Libya, should be part of the European empire of justice and peace, because it is the neighborhood of Europe. Actually, Syria was, until it was devastated by the brutal Muslim assault, the richest part of the Roman empire.

The king of Jordan believes World War Three has started. What is sure is that, for World War Three to start, the surest strategy is weakness in the face of infamy. It is known that many in the Russian chain of command believe that a surgical nuclear strike would intimidate the Western Europeans into abject surrender. Whomever the next US president is, Trump, Clinton, Kaynes or Pence, I would not bet on it. Indeed any of these four is clearly more aggressive than Obama. And the US chain of command is very deep.

Here is an example:
Low key and calmly cerebral, four star Admiral Haney, whom some would probably insist to call an “Afro-American” is Commander, United States Strategic Command (four star is the greatest number of stars, aside from times of world war). As such he would be the one talking directly to the president in case of nuclear war, real or potential. Haney commands  not only this country’s nuclear forces but its cyber weapons and space satellites as well.

David Martin, “60 Minutes”: Is it riskier today?

Cecil Haney: Well I think today we’re at a time and place that I don’t think we’ve been to before.

It is Haney’s job to convince Vladimir Putin that resorting to nuclear weapons would be the worst mistake he could possibly make.

David Martin: When you look at what would work to deter Russia, do you have to get inside Putin’s head?

Cecil Haney: You have to have a deep, deep, deep understanding of any adversary you want to deter, including Mr. Putin.

David Martin: So how would you describe him psychologically?

Cecil Haney: Well, one I would say I’m not a psychologist. But I would just say he is clearly an individual that is an opportunist.

[Sell, most politicians are opportunists. The job selects for opportunists. This is the major problem of representative democracy. Any politician is going to be a variant on Trump or Clinton, just those two make it more blatant. However, in the case of Putin and the nationalist mood in Russia, the sky seems to be the same limit as it was for the Nazis.]

David Martin, loaded question: Does it concern you that an opportunist has a nuclear arsenal?

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

Well the psychological scenario for the use of nuclear weapons is in place. It came from weakness. No force, no moral. Only a perspective of great ferocity and fury, in defense of democracy, the republic and optimal human ethology will convince those seduced by the most devilish and oligarchic instincts to refrain from acting up.

Patrice Ayme’.