At the end the truth wins

What really means the quote "At the end the truth wins? ". Let us analyze one by one each of the words, end, truth, wins. In historical context.

At the end can mean only end of human civilization, for example due to overheated planet earth? Or if taking from example from history, it can mean destruction of Roman empire and its replacement with hundreds of barbaric kingdoms, ruled for 1000 years be mostly illiterate kings (except of Alfred the Great)? Julius Caesar as contrary to it could not only read but also write a history book, quite a valuable one, so could Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, etc. and of course Nero the poet+-)).
Or maybe the end means replacement of Napolean by restored Bourbons? Who were 16 years later replaced by  Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans, himself replaced by Napoleon the third? Or end of WWII, that temporarely ended the European barbaric ideologies of mass murdering at least in the Western Europe. Oops, forgoten, in France and Italy the communistic parties, leaded by Stalinistic communistic spys almost won absolute majority in the democratically elected parliaments? By the way, the Christian Democratic party of Italy, with its mafioso roots was also nothing to be proud of. As to France they had also their Stalinist conspirators in the communistic parties. If to make a prediction, maybe end means the Fukuyamas joke about the end of history, or the Nazi kind of final solution implemented by the Nazis on the Jews. Or maybe the prediction of the end of European civilization due to depopulation from its original European people and its re-population with people from failed African and Muslim States?
As to the truth, we should know that the truth in politics and history is very relative term. Mostly it is the truth of the winners. The real truth is that the most successful leader of twenty century was Josef Stalin. He won all the wars he was involved in, imposed his regime successfully during his lifetime on half of Europe, enlarged the Russian Empire to its largest size, including to Eastern Prussia, and helped to impose his own style communistic régime in China, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.etc. When dying he could say to himself, i have accomplished most of my historical aims. The scientific communism and historical determinism was proven to be right. At the end the truth will win.
So by this i defined and explained not only the meaning of truth, but also of the victory. Who cares that non of the hundred millions murdered directly or indirectly by Stalin did not enjoy his great victories. Who cares that entire communities with rich culture and intellectual significance (like the Jewish communities in whole Europe were annihilated?). Who cares that intellectual developments, that could have taken place, if the intellectuals and their communities were not wiped out, did not happened? Who cares that if not Christianity imposed on Roman empire by Constantine, and the following de-legitimization of Greeco-Roman intellectual achievements by the Christian fanatics, maybe we would have industrial revolution already in fifth or sixth century, and didn't have to wait for it until the eighteenth century.
What is important, that the truth eventually wins.

The worst rule because they are the worst.

EugenR; The worst rule the world, because they are the worst.

GD; Not for long

EugenR; For ever

GD; What about  Non Violent Civil Disobedience ?

EugenR;  At the end the “Non Violent Civil Disobedience” is a human organization, and as such it will either die out, or in worse case will have an organizational structure in which the worst bullies will be on the top. There is nothing new under the sun.

GD; At the end the truth, that at the age of internet is a simple finger click away, will win.

EugenR: At the end the truth wins, the question is when and at what price. In between the lie and cruelty celebrates. Just remember the last century events (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Mugabe i mean Dr Mugabe, etc.). All of them are gone (except the least evil Dr Mugabe). Did you know Pol Pot studied in Paris? Don’t be upset by history but learn from it. And now you have the Islam fundamentalism, that is all about cultural and religious non tolerance, racism (Sudan, Darfur, etc.), legitimization of enslavement of the non Muslims, intellectual degradation of women, death penalty for apostasy (Under current laws in Islamic countries, the actual punishment for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) ranges from execution to prison terms. Islamic nations with sharia courts use civil code to void the Muslim apostate’s marriage and deny child custody rights, as well as his or her inheritance rights for apostasy. Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, additionally covered apostasy in Islam through their criminal laws.), etc.

GD; The real question is do we have less fear because we have more access to knowledge? Or more fear because the media has portrayed fear as the new normal? I am not sure that mass herd mentality works in modern society anymore. And that is how dictators ruled. The new fear is forced acceptance. It is worse. Or should I say financially forced acceptance.

AH; I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. Take the example of Martin Luther King, Jr.

EugenR; Yes, they were in history few good leaders who won. Martin Luther King is among them, others are N.Mandela, M. Gandhi, V. Havel all of them won, but at what personal price. Two of them murdered, two served years in jail. And anyway after them came some scoundrels destroyed anyway their achievements. Still the strife for self evident justice (that’s what these leaders were after) must go on. But who are the new Mendelas, Gandhis, Kings or Havels? Those who came after them are at the best Obamas.

AH; It is a process. In the last 500 years from time of Galileo (who was threatened by his Church for telling the truth about the nature of the planets) to today there has been tremendous progress on a global scale. We with progressive values and committed to the path of love, must remember that darkness is also part of human nature (perhaps an essential part) and remain vigilant — and hopeful.

EugenR; I assume you never lived in a country where the government terrorizes its citizens. Try to express your truth in one of the terror countries, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Try to say there, it is wrong not to let women to have education (about 50% of them are illiterate). Try to say something about freedom of faith. Communism was wiped out only 20 year ago, its leftovers are regimes like the one in N. Korea but also Cuba. You say, ……darkness is also part of human nature…. The question is not if darkness is part……..it definitely is and nobody can deny it, but how do you fight it. In most of the cases the fight is with even more darkness.

AH; I have never lived in a terrorizing country. I did have terrorizing parents and an entrenched belief in a terrorizing Pentecostal God. I am a racial minority in a world that devalues everything I do because of my skin colour. We all have our challenges. In the end, it is arrogant for me to think you can make (force) people do what I think they should do or feel what I think they should feel. This is exactly the mindset of the dictator and I reject that thinking completely. The best I can do is look at my inner signaling. I seek to elevate my own consciousness and change myself for the better. The next step is the social conversation. I share my thinking and values with others in the hope that they too will be inspired to change themselves for the better.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

― Martin Luther King, Jr.

EugenR; Sorry Alexi, this time M.L.King had it wrong. The Nazis were defeated by Stalin, just because his cruelty did not have limits, while the Nazis limited their cruelty only to the non Germans. Without Stalin the Western powers would never stand against the Nazis.

AH; If you think about it carefully, the darkness of Hitler was replaced by the darkness of Stalin. This was true for the USSR, East Germany, East Berlin and most of East Europe. So Stalin did not drive out darkness, he just replaced it with his own dark shadow.

Alexi: Stalin was in control by 1923, ten years before Hitler (Lenin tried to stop him at the end of his life).

PA: The French started the nuclear bomb program in 1938. Nobel Laureate Irene Curie was certain that a bomb could be made. The program went to Manhattan, in total secret to the Nazis, and total opening to Stalin. Hitler would have been nuclear bombed into submission.

EugenR; If we speak about destiny probably Hitler would survive even the nuclear bomb, as he survived about 30 assassination attempts. If to believe in God here you have him. God is against humanism and humanity, and mainly against his “chosen people”. As he misled His Own People, some Jewish rabies  made a trial of God in some extermination camp, and their verdict was, Death penalty. But then after the verdict they went to the next ceremonial pray. The religion is not about morality (mostly in contrary), not about reality or evidence, not about belief in truth (I know many skeptic believers), not even about tribalism since there are religious newcomers, who did not grow in the tribal tradition.
It is all this about some false answers to questions of eternal life? It can be right for some, but not for everyone. So tell me, what it is all about? The faith in communism did not include even belief in eternal life, and still it has so many followers. It seems religion or faith is a need of the human spices to believe in some fundamental dogma, be it even an obvious lie, all it needs is enough followers, and supporters of a false idea. In a way to be a football club fun is also a religion.

Europe and its Jews

The statehood of Israel is a direct consequence of all the tragedies, the European barbaric militarism brought on the world since the disintegration of the Roman empire. I am not capable to summarize the post Roman European history in few sentences, yet i will try to say some personal view about it.

"European history since the disintegration of the Roman empire is about a trial to re-integrate the fragments of the empire, to bring back its greatness, glory and enlightenment. These politically disintegrated kingdoms, that followed the Roman disintegration, were culturally and religiously intertwined, an in a way represented a one big family, fighting within itself about the heritage, the leftovers of Roman empire.".

Not the Franks, be it Charlemagne or Napoleon, not the Roman catholic church, and not anyone else succeeded to bring back integration. Yet this continuous fight for a glorious goal  made the barbaric militaristic kingships, whose very essence was continuous warfare, to be legitimate. The European militarism had no precedence in the history of the rest of the mankind. If compared with the history of other civilizations like the Chinese or Indian, their civilization look very peaceful compared to the European civilization. Even Islam, with its militaristic foundation, and its continuous internal and external wars, looked like a pussycat if compared to that of the Europeans.

But there is the other side of the same coin. This continuous military warfare brought European civilization to a state of continuous change and renewal of its political structure, and with it also its cultural essence. The result was the philosophical enlightenment, which started in the 16 century and came to full blossom in the 18 century, that made a new start in the human history. With the philosophical enlightenment came the scientific and technological advance, that brought since the nineteen century the industrial revolution. This revolution brought the European militarism to advantages, that no other parts of the world could cope with. It also brought urbanization and unprecedented demographic growth. All this advance in knowledge was according to European traditions immediately exported throughout the whole world by its political leaders, who continued their barbaric militaristic traditions, with the colonialism, that did not change practically until the end of WWI.

If the post Napoleon European intellectuals believed that their political leaders will act according to the newly found wisdom and humanistic principles, they were wrong. It is enough to look at the pictures of all the pre WWI kings, wearing  well designed military uniforms, carrying themselves in a traditional  proud pose, in spite of the fact, that none of them participated even in one war. All their military activity started and ended around the maps representing military maneuvers. Strangely most of the European intellectuals did not find it alarming, that Europe with its dangerous military force is leaded by anachronistic aristocratic clowns, whose roots of ethical and political values lay deep in their middle ages origin, when leadership was all about to conquer and subdue your neighbor.

In this Europe lived people, who were seen as outsiders, in spite of living in Roman empire, where at certain epoch they were a significant minority, (almost 10% of its population). These people had their own culture, beliefs and way of life, that did not change in its essence for 2000 years. More of that out of these people came an unwilling prophet, whom the Europeans adopted as their own, in-spite of his teaching, which was full of love and compassion, so much contradicting the political culture of Europe. Yet the Europeans were not grateful to these people for showing them light to love and compassion, but in contrary. They saw in very existence of these people basic contradiction to the essence of their faith, the divinity of the holy trinity. So they continuously persecuted, abused, humiliated and many times murdered them for no crime from their side. Yet from time to time, due to an opportunistic king, who needed their skills, they thrived, until they were again persecuted and expelled from the territory of their kingdom.

Then with the new philosophical understanding of 19 century Europe stroke out, suddenly the Europeans  realized (even in Spain from where they were expelled more than 300 years before), that their attitude to the Jews was criminal. So they gradually emancipated them and let them in certain parts of the Christendom to integrate to the non Jewish society. And the Jews again thrived, and with them the European society, who suddenly discovered their intellectual capacity (mainly in Germany).

But the European history did not stop there (no end to history). The demographic growth, with the new urban centers, full with uprooted peasants, who had no skills for urban life, so they became degraded to second class citizens started to look around. They ceased to look anymore with adoration on the kings, wearing their clown uniforms. What's worse, they were less and less ready to give automatic legitimacy of their leadership. It was not enough for them anymore to tell them the ancient stories about the heroism of their barbarian ancestors. So they started to look for other form of identity and found it in new political entities. Either those who wrapped themselves in packing of equality for all, or those who wrapped themselves in packs of ancient glory. Both these political movements did not like the old aristocrats (the descendents of the barbarian barons), but some of the aristocrats understood, the old political structures are unsustainable, and they have to become part of the new structures. So obviously they had chosen the glory of the past and opposed the alternative of equality for all. And as it happened many representatives of this political movement for equality happened to be descendents of Jewish communities, who just recently were freed from their ghettoes, with it from the Jewish communities and old believes, that originating from middle ages and even before.

Eventually the European kings continued to live in their fairy-tale world of false heroism, glory and high self-appreciation, and started to take seriously their costumes as if they represented some real value and not just a clowns disguise. So they caused a earthquake (WWI), that was followed by a tsunami (communistic and fascistic regimes) that one of their main agenda was to finish with continuous existence of this annoying nation, the Jews, who lately in their arrogance started to be involved not only in European intellectual activities but also in politics. It may be, God forbid,  that in the future they may ask even for positions in the military establishment.

The result is well known. The Jews were annihilated in Europe and some leftover wretched refugees, concentrated their last hope in establishing a Jewish state in the only place, that could draw them, the ancient homeland of Israel, where their cultural heritage and faith was created. It was a crazy idea, but a normal response to a crazy situation caused by insanity of European events. After all, who would believe before WWI, that ausgerechnet out of all this scientific, philosophical and technological progress will come these monstrous regimes and ideologise as Nazism and Communism. If someone would tell to anybody in July 1914 what is expected to happen to the Europeans and the world in the twenties century, no-one would believe him.

But unfortunately the Jewish solution of creating a Jewish state ausgerechnet in the ancient land of Israel, surrounded by Muslim population with Islamic military tradition of Dar al Harb   (Dar al-Harb (Arabic: دار الحرب "house of war"; also referred to as Dar al-Garb "house of the West" in later Ottoman sources; a person from "Dar al-Harb" is a "harbi" (Arabic:حربي). Dar al-Harb is a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis.[6] It is unclean by definition, and will not become clean until annexed to the House of Peace. Its denizens are either to be converted, killed[7] or, if people of the book, tolerated as long as they pay the jizya.) was not a happy one.

So the newly established Jewish state had to fought war in average every 5 years since its 66 years of existence, and could not lose even one, because it would mean immediate implementation of enforcement of Islam law, which as we know is "not very tolerant" to the non Muslims, or those whom they call unbelievers.

The result is all what we see in these days, a new generation of Israelis, who were born and grow up to a statehood, that economically and culturally is thriving in-spite of all these wars. Israel is also trying to project to the world that it is a normal country with normal citizens with normal expectations from the life, without to feel everyday threat on their life. This they try to achieve in spite of its Arab Muslim neighbors (living in neighborhood or in far lands), who even when in peace among themselves, express a totalitarian animosity towards the Jews, that were not heard since WWII. But they don't stop with the words, but also express military activism in spite of being not a match to the Israeli military might. And when retaliated they expose to the world their suffering, expecting from the "merciful Europeans" support. And the European, full of regret for the crimes they committed to the world, but mainly to the Jews, (not to the Arabs)  are suddenly merciful, even if it is on account of the Jews, or maybe due to it, according to their historical tradition of hatred to the Jews, that many of European in a way did not abandoned, just wrapped to a new packing.

Myths and not the ratio are the substance of morality

A comment to:

https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/ancient-vs-modern-ethics-a-comparison/

All this ethical ideas don't speak about the real essence of human ethics, the tribal ethos. All the experiments to neglect the faith and the beliefs behind all the ethics brought only disaster. The truth is, the myths run our life and desires, even in our modern times.

What are all the marketing tools like, brands, Hollywood stars, false kings and princesses (like princes Diana, probably a very bad mother and wife, lets not mention her other follies), presidents and governors, fashion channel, Formula 1's heroes and all the magazines around it that fill the airports, if not modern myths? Should we be surprised if the reality, mainly the scientific one, that is full of prediction about future, and nothing to put on the shelf of malls, real or virtual, is not a subject of public interest? They can alarm the world with warnings about global warming, that will have catastrophic consequences in the future, these people, full of modern myths will never listen to them?  After all future is not our world. Who cares about the cultural and scientific wonders, created by committed individuals, who piece after piece accumulated the human knowledge, that enables the life of luxury in the modern world, most of the individuals enjoy. It is subject of interest of only very few freaks.

Then there is the other world of faith in ancient myths, sacred texts, sacred prophets, (mentioning their name improperly can bring masses of people to deadly rage), etc. Beliefs in sacredness of physical items, some that bring luck others curse. And what about belief in power of spells, pray, the whispers, abracadabra, etc.? Adding to it the spirits of the ancients, the died loved heroes and hated enemies, the spirits and the taboos.

To the ancient spirits believe systems we have to add the and newly recycled ones, the New Age phenomena, with the UFOs, the time travelers, the ex-terrestrial beings who visited us in their "Chariots of Gods", built the pyramids, and left in hurry, etc.

All this is the tribal ethos, that justifies the old traditions and modern customes, that has nothing to do with rationality and scientifically understood reality. Yet if someone things that the majority of people are more interested in rationality than in the myths, i suggest him to compare the number of views in both kind of clips, and then judge who are the normative ones, and who are the freaks.

In the European history few times the people of reason tried to create moral codes based on reason, and then disregarded the myths as old-fashioned, primitive, irrelevant, disappearing, until the myths, the ancient or the new ones stroke back with ferocity. The first were the Greek-Romans, who supported cultural plurality and scientific thinking. In the first century before and after Jesus crucifixion many of the leading elites were Epicureans (as it appears including father in law of Julius Caesar) and followers of Stoicism, but then they were swept away by the Christianity. Also in eighteen and nineteen century Western Europe the belief in rationality went on. It ended with WWI, that was the victory of belief in German mythology of victimized superior nation. Then this myth was upgraded by Hitler and the Nazis and on the eastern side of Europe Stalin based its political morality on "communistic" mythology. After the disastrous 80 years war of 1914-1992 years,  which almost was won by the regimes guided by newly created mythology, seemed as if finally the reason won upon the myths. (Viz. the famous, but incorrect essay of Francis Fukuyama first published in haste at 1989). But this illusion was swiftly swept away at September 11, 2001, if not few years before it, when unsuccessfully Muslim fundamentalist myth believers tried to crash a plane to Eiffel tower at 24 December 1994.

Nation is its epic

This article is a response to the following link:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/only-philosophy-can-reverse-civilization-collapse/#comment-48986

EugenR Says: 
August 13, 2015 at 6:36 pm | Reply

I meditated and asked myself, can a short term onetime event like a battle, change the world history?
The answer is not so obvious as it may seem. Let’s take some historical examples, and I will try to do it chronologically.
The most important battle from the ancient times that comes to my mind is the battle of Kadesh, fought between Ramses II and the King Muwatalli II of the Hittite Empire, dated between 1274-1290 b.c. The battle was the most important one fought between the two superpowers of the ancient world, and ended actually in draw. Thanks to this result, the young Egyptian pharaoh understood the limits of military power, and agreed to sign peace treaty with the Hittites that lasted for the remaining of his whole long reign of at least 60. And still surprisingly nothing is written about this battle, not in Greek historical sources and not in Bible, which is even more interesting, since in the Bible is mentioned the name of Ramses as a city built by the Hebrews. Also according to the bible chronology, presumably the epoch of the judges and Joshua is very close to the epoch of reign of Ramses, and Kadesh is very close to the northern borders of Israel. But i will rather not comment on the historical genuineness of the Bible, which get it’s written form about a half millennium later.
If not “Napoleon’s” Egyptologists, nobody would remember the battle of Kadesh. So this is a historical event, that had no importance what so ever for the future historical developments.

On the other hand the Greek victories upon the Persians at Marathon, did have a long term influence, seen even today. Why it is so? It definitely is not because this battle ended with clear victory of the Greeks against the Persians, and this happened contrary to all the odds. I would say the reason this victory is so well remembered and penetrated even the contemporary consciousness is it becoming part of Classical Greek epical memory, its influence on human consciousness is profound. So not with the battle itself won the Greeks the war, but turning it to an iconic cultural event.
There is another battle of historical consequences  of different category, the battle of Hastings, in which William the conqueror won against Harold a relatively small battle, with less than 15,000 fighting participants, that changed the future of England and France. If not this battle, England would remain probably Saxon, without Norman influence and Norman Kings. Since the Normans ruled also in parts of France, this victory paved the road to claim of English kings to French territories. It may sound strange, but the whole regional but also European history would be very different, if this battle would end differently or would never happened.

Patrice Ayme Says: 
August 13, 2015 at 7:54 pm | Reply

Can a battle change world history? It depends which battle. But yes. Marathon is the obvious example.

The battle of Kadesh is known in detail (Ramses saved the day, in the end, barely). However, frankly, I doubt it would have changed anything: Egyptians and Hittites were not dissimilar. The alphabet arose around Tyr, Phoenicia (a few minutes flight time from Kadesh). The People of the Sea wiped out the Hittites, but then they were defeated and enslaved by the Egyptians (once again, barely).

Kadesh was mild plutocracy against mild plutocracy.

Marathon was Direct Democracy (Athens) versus invasive giant plutocracy (Persia). The Persian defeat was crushing. Democracy gained nearly two centuries. I warn you against falling in the same sort of mood as Michel Foucault (the medium is the message, as the equally clueless Marcuse proposed, in a bleating echo of “French Theory”).

The Normans did NOT rule part of France. Guillaume’s army was full of French barons. The Normans; had accepted the king of France as suzerain in the early tenth century. Claims of English kings on French territories never happened. It was more like claims of French on French. For example Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine married the king of France, had 3 daughters, then married the king of England, had 5 children, including 3 sons. One of those Richard Coeur de Lion (Lion Heart), is in front of Westminster (Whom his mother vastly improved). However, in his entire life, he spent less than 3 years in England. Richard was a French king, mostly.

The Duchy of Aquitaine was bestowed originally as a division of the late Roman empire (before the Frankish Renovation)…. So its infeodation to Paris was not clear.

Edward III of England (who launched the 100/485 years war between France and England) was the grandson of Philippe Le Bel. His mother, the queen of England, was also nicknamed the “SHE WOLF OF FRANCE”, and, legally speaking, OUGHT to have been made Queen of France.

It’s flattering the Brits to call the wars with France the way they are usually called. Actually they were Franco-French wars.

A little more on the period, my way:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/joan-of-arc-roasted-too-late/

EugenR Says: 
August 15, 2015 at 4:10 am | Reply

Thanks for the addition information about the antiques. You are right that the People of the Sea destroyed the Egypto-Hittite world. Not Egypt and not the Levant will be the same after them. The Phoenician, the Hebrews, the Philistins, Phoenicians the Greeks and many other nation appeared as new nations after the People of the Sea invasion. Most of the new nations were Semitic, as contrary to the Egyptians and the Hittites, out of them the Assyrians came out as leading force, who subdued not only the Levant, Iraq and Persia, but also Egypt. The Assyrians, Babylonians where nations that survived the invasion, and after destruction of the Hittite empire their turn came to rule the region. The Persian empire was the direct continuation of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Interestingly Assyrians and the Babylonians were Semitic origin, while the Persians were not. In a way they developed as a ” Nation”, in the edges of the region close to the Caspian sea.
Anyway to judge the rules and their identity in today’s terms like French, English etc., is absurd. These early medieval kings looked on themselves as family or clan members, first in the rank due to heritage rules, who possess territories, on which live people, who are also their family possession. ( they even were not tribe leaders, like the Arab sheiks).
The fact, that they all spoke French, did not make them French in the modern terms.
The Vikings invaded northern France and England from the 9 century. England they took over very soon, and if not Alfred the Great, probably would not be Saxons in England at all. Then in beginning of eleventh century Harald and then Canute the Great (great is my addition) created a new Viking dynasty, after Canute adapted English manners and Christianity.

By the way, Vikings were ordinary pirates, who invaded foreign countries for robbery. Then they discovered that no one can militarily oppose them, then why not to rule a whole territory.
In France the Vikings occupied Normandy and established there their kingdom. Against the Franks they were not as successful as against the Saxons, and later culturally integrated with them. By the way, William the conqueror is a direct descended from Rollo, the establisher of the Duchy of Normandy.
The early middle age was more a Mafioso style territory under "protection" of common criminals, who decided to call themselves kings, barons, duchess, noble man, you call the rest, than a statehood.

Patrice Ayme Says: 
August 15, 2015 at 1:22 pm | Reply

Got to run, just read an interview from a top mafioso who now studies philosophy and history. He reached the exact same conclusion… And that’s why I prefer to call them “PLUTOCRATS” rather than “nobles” or “aristocrats”, titles which are too good for them. Exactly as what the top mafioso is screaming as loudly as possible

Patrice Ayme Says: 
August 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm | Reply

I agree with lots of your early historical analysis, except:
1) I did not know that Assyrians and Babylonians were “Semitic”
2) I don’t know what a “Semite” is. Arabs sure are. Yet I read the Jews may have been originally from the Kurdish area… OK, there are “Semitic” languages (Arab, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.)
3) The Achaemenid Persian empire was truly plutocratic multi-ethnic. The Pars/Iranians had their own fortress to live in, the giant Persian Plateau a sort of low elevation Tibet…

France as Francia existed and made sense. Then the Lingua Franca was actually degenerated Latin. Later the kingdom of France, stricto sensu, was a tiny fraction of both Francia, and today’s France. History has shown that Francia’s territory is natural, but any smaller entity is not, and is unstable. Hence the EU, and the Euro. Amen.

EugenR Says: August 15, 2015 at 7:59 pm | Reply

You wrote
1) I did not know that were “Semitic”
2) I don’t know what a “Semite” is. Arabs sure are. Yet I read the Jews may have been originally from the Kurdish area… OK, there are “Semitic” languages (Arab, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.)

My answer is of course the Assyrians and Babylonians spoke Semitic languages as most of the people east of Egypt. Babylonians and the Assyrians spoke Aramaic and Akkad, as do the modern Assyrians. These are Semitic languages close to Hebrew and Arabic. The population of Mesopotamia and the Levant were originally Semitic, then the Hittite took over the region, Their origin was from modern Turkey or even north of it. They spoke Indo-European language as do the Persians. Semitic group of languages in the antics had many branches and dialects, even if not so much diversified as the Indo-European Languages. I am not a linguist, but to my judgment (i speak at least one language in each group), the similarity between Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, is more like the similarity of the Slavic or German language group.

I don’t know from where you got the information, that the Hebrews originate from the Kurdish region. If to take the Bible as the source, it clearly points to two cities. One from where Abraham originate, Ur-Kasdim, where he was born, and it is close to the region of delta of Euphrates, Ur was uncovered, and is close to modern Al Basra. Then before moving to Kennan, Abraham’s family moved to Haran, which is in modern Turkey, in the Kurdish area. Yet, according to the modern scholars and archaeological studies, the Hebrews were not outsiders to Israel, but the original Canaan population, who revolted against the aristocracy in their cities, like Hazor, Megido, etc. Then they left the fertile low lands and moved to the mountains of Judea and Sumeria, where they adopted a new religion, faith in one God. The story of Abraham is a mythology. There is no scientific evidence, that anything of this kind ever happened.

The Phoenician Qart-ḥadasht meaning “New City”.
Aramaic: קרתא חדתא‎ Qarta Ḥdatha;
Hebrew: קרת חדשה‎ Qeret Ḥadashah) or in modern Hebrew New City is Qiria Hadasha.

The Romans completely twisted the name to Cartago.

Patrice Ayme Says: August 15, 2015 at 8:10 pm | Reply

Another story I read is that Israel started as one of the fellow traveler tribes of the “People of the Sea”… Thus the enslavement by the Egyptians, and the plausible origin from the Kurdish area. But I am the first to admit that’s all on fumes. However, Egyptian monotheism, and the People of the Sea happened just prior to the apparition of Israel. And Egypt did not keep slaves which I know of, except after the People of the Sea capture.

I believe we will know more in the future… For example now we have a fair idea of the origin of Chinese characters with the Chang empire, 3,600 years ago… Thanks to archaeology. Also a writing from the builder of the pyramids was recently discovered, giving us important data.

EugenR Says: August 15, 2015 at 8:47 pm | Reply

This theory of connecting the People of the Sea to the Bible sounds very unreliable. The only thing we know about them is that they came from the sea and destroyed the civilized regions. The Hebrews were definitely inland people. Their mythology speaks about shepherds, living in mountainous regions on the edge of the dessert. Except of it the sea people also attacked the Greek islands, and drew the local population to the mountains. Nothing of this kind exists in the Hebrew mythology. The most probable candidate for the people of the sea, seem to me the Greeks. In Iliad and Odyssey they definitely speak about invasion to Northern Turkey through the sea. Also the timing is perfect. And they also appeared in the region in the right time.

Patrice Ayme Says: August 15, 2015 at 9:04 pm | Reply

The “People of the Sea” expression is an Egyptian artifact. Recent archaeology shows that the invasion involved many people, some extremely inland, all the way from the Kurdish area to… Greece. BTW, the Etruscans, one of the “Sea People” settled in Northern Syria, before shipping themselves to the iron area of northern Italy, and I doubt they were welcomed with open arms… Lots of Hollywood epics to be written…

EugenR Says: August 16, 2015 at 4:48 am |Reply

Yes, you are right. The difficulty to point on certain nation as the People of the Sea, directed the historians to conclusion that the Sea People were rather people of very low rank, probably slaves, who rouse up against the ruling elites. These could be people of many nationalities and enough of one authentic leader as it happen in case of Spartacus, to create a huge turmoil and destruction. The Egyptians successfully opposed them, but were impoverished and the total destruction of Hittite empire damaged them economically. At the end of tenth century b.c. a new pharaoh Shishik tried to conquer the Levant, caused a lot of destruction to the Israeli cities like Hazor, which the early archeologists interpreted as the invasion of the Israelites lead by Joshua. Modern archeologists dated the event to end of tenth century b.c.

Maybe the revolt of suppressed people (called by the Egyptians "people of the Sea") influenced also the Israelites, or the subordinated Keenan people, who rouse against their city elites, the kind of destruction found in archeological sites of the time points toward intentional destruction of this kind. Then, when the rebels were opposed by the army of the elites, they just moved to the mountain region on the edge of the desert sparsely populated, mainly by shepherds. Someone or somehow it became the epic story of exodus, that repeated itself several times. Exodus of Abraham from Haran, exodus of Jacob to Egypt and finally exodus of Moses from Egypt.

As I wrote in the past, I strongly believe, nations are creation of their epical stories. This is why Jews in spite of all the acts of annihilation they experienced in the past are still here, while the ancient Romans or Greeks are not after they have abandoned their unique epical stories and adopted instead Christianity. The Europeans in the last two centuries abandoned their epic, the Christianity, tried to adopt a new one, Communism and Nazism, with disastrous consequences, lately abandoned these also completely, and now are helpless against the Islamic people, who as contrary to them do have their epical story, that leads them in their acts and intentions. In the US tried from the fifties until the collapse of USSR, to introduce a new epical story, a modern scientifically based epic, (superman, All the science fiction moves and serials, etc.), not very successfully. I don’t know to much about movements like Scientology, etc. but seems to me, they are failed experiments to create this kind of new epic.
My question to you and anyone who my read me, can be created a rational epical story, that would supplement the old, not relevant anymore epical story of the Western Civilization?

Patrice AymeSays: 
August 16, 2015 at 6:30 am

1) I believe that Athenians and Romans lost their own stories of direct democracy by plutocracy overall, yet, for proximally different mechanisms: Athens was defeated by the students of Aristotle (Alexander, Antipater, Craterus):
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/aristotle-destroyed-democracy/

Rome imploded under its own plutocracy, MORE than FOUR centuries before emperor Constantine imposed Christianism, and actually more than FIVE CENTURIES before general/emperor/Spaniard Theodosius transformed Rome into a ferocious theocracy (381 CE).

So in my book, my epic, Christianism is more consequence than cause: I differ from Gibbons there.

2) The West has somewhat lost its epic, because of a clash between Enlightenment and Empire. Mercantilism (Britain) instead won. That’s an enormous subject, not even on the radar of common intellectuals. Voltaire played a nefarious role, unbeknownst to philosophical critics…. Sade may.

Sade may have been much more subtle (Voltaire was boyfriend so to speak of Louis XV, and advised him not to save Canada, or go all out to win the Seventh Year War… or maybe that was also because an oligarchic plutocracy (UK) is more democratic, hence stronger than a monarchical plutocracy (Ancient Regime France); Sade was perhaps the most important personage of the French Revolution, tactically and strategically, short of Louis XVI himself; normal history ignores him totally: too embarrassing, Sade as Saint…).

So yes, I agree with you, epics are important. Yet, the Franks’ epic, that of “EUROPE” (their concept) is alive and strong, see the UN Charter. And just defeated German hyper tribalism, on the question of the Euro… Greece has no intention of paying its debt (nor should it, because it’s not really “its” debt)

EugenR Says: 
August 16, 2015 at 8:25 am | Reply

One more thing on the subject. I wrote ........"Jews in spite of all the annihilation they experienced in the past are still here, while the ancient Romans or Greeks had disappeared, after they abandoned their unique epical stories and adopted instead Christianity".

I must comment myself on this. The Greeks as a nation did not disappear, they are still here, but they are a different nation, even if they  continue to speak the Greek language. They may learn about the Greek mythology but Achilles is not anymore their hero, and they are not praying to classical Gods and Goddesses. They may study Plato as anybody else, but it is not theirs more than it is ours.

With the Jews it is very different. Even a secular Jew as me, feels and strongly connected to the Jewish epics, which has many layers and is still continuing to created new stories and heroes, or anti heroes. Just one example, the Holocaust. This became very strongly a dominant layer of the Jewish epical story and culture. The Jewish epics  is not only a well known, a well documented, and intellectually studied subject, but it is part of Jewish emotions and feelings, and by ceremonies and rituals, it became part of the everyday life.

Europe!!! Where too?

Europe!!! Where too?

Due to Greek tragedy that it unfolding in front of as i have to publish some of the articles i published in the past about the subject.

A lot of talk went through the media about the Greek crisis. Yet most of it is how to solve, or not to solve the problem of Greek debt, which is in its essence a monetary problem, that can be solved relatively easily by monetary tools, that as were shown can be very effective if implemented correctly. But as it happens to be, monetary policy influences the physical scenery too, mainly if it is all about greed, deception and theft, and for very long time, like in the case of Greece. The mounts of loans that the Greek politicians took, since they entered the Eurozone based on false statistics, where used mainly to enrich the Greek plutocracy. To be able to do so undisturbed, they corrupted the whole Greek nation by enabling to them standard of living of Germany, without to be productive like Germany. This policy not only did not prepared the Greek economy for the D-day, when eventually the creditors will ask for loan repayments, but in contrary. The wages, the pension system, the business environment, were all formed not on economic achievements but on protective incorporation of employment associations, to protect those who are members of the incorporation from those who are not. These incorporations could be workers or profession unions or association of drivers, etc. When the hangover day came, all this associations and their members, will stuck together even more tightly than ever before. 50% youth unemployment is direct result of this situation.
These phenomena evolved in decades and there is no monetary policy, which can resolve it. So even if most of the Greek debts would be erased it couldn’t help to create a long term sustainable Greek economy.
Economics is not just about curves and numbers. It is also about people, their intentions and their acts within an economic, political and social system. If certain senior employees created in an organization where they are employed an union, which prevents from more talented new employees to bring positive changes to the organization (and I am not against the unions as principle, only if it fights for self destructive policy ) its damage to economy can’t be quantified. If certain entity becomes a monopoly and increases the prices of the products, it’s negative influence is also not measurable in the GDP. If highly educated young Greeks can’t get jobs, because the senior less educated and less effective Greeks are protected by laws, unions, professional guilds, etc. the negative impact of this state on the GDP is also not measurable.
So if Greece wants to overcome its problems, reduction of its debts is not enough. Somehow this economic train has to be relocated to a different track.
—————————————–
There are commentaries in the media, where “professional economists” pointed out, that at 2008, Greece debt was “only” 100% out of the GDP, and now with the shrink of the GDP, even after its reduction it became 170%. This claim is worse than a lie, it is professional deception, done intentionally our out of ignorance. Before the crisis, the Greek GDP per capita was close to that of Germany, mostly financed by loans. The GDP can be sometime a very sleazy measure instrument, since it measures the short term economic performance calculated out of national income. Out of definition General Domestic Product equals to General Domestic Income. But this income doesn’t makes difference between income generated out of merchandise or service production an the income created by financial operation which creates indebtedness. So the Greek GDP did not represent real values, but values generated by debts, which became the very core of all the economic problems of Greece.
he “Greek problem”, is just a symptom of a much larger system problem common in Europe and US. I would call this problem, “The limits of democracy to solve long term problems”.
We come in contact on daily basis with the problems created by political decisions made 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years.
Some examples,
– Destruction of world environment, that people became aware of already at 1930 after the catastrophe in the Meuse Valley, Belgium .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_Meuse_Valley_fog
-The French and latter whole European immigration policy of sixties.
– The welfare state, that disconnected the European population from the natural realities of hardship.
– Running economies on debt, what means in practical terms, that when the economy will stop to grow, the mutual guaranty economic system of obligations to the less capable, like old people or one parent families with children will have to be decreased or abolished.
– Creating an education system, where parents and the children have all the rights, while nothing is left for teachers.
– Under the flag of plurality and democracy, letting to certain social groups to establish communities, that clearly oppose the humanistic values that prevail in Europe since WWII.
In Greece the symptom, of not to take responsibility for its acts, reached a national level. In other countries still the problem is only on individual level and sometime of certain social groups. But there is no political force to stop this trend of adopting stand point of “After me let the floods come”. How could it be otherwise, if the politicians themselves act according to this slogan?

The German guilt

15/07/2015

WWII and WWI was brought on us, human beings, by the German nation. To the question, why so, some tend to give psychological explanation and they.mean because of the German feelings of frustration with the French, who in spite of military and economic inferiority, continued to hold cultural superiority as leaders of the European cultural scenery. Others (geographical explanation) say because the Germany was geographically squeezed between Russia and France. Some may say because the Germans were racists in their culture and nature. You can find even Marxists, who continue to claim that the Great 80 year German War (1914-1992) happened due to economic reason. I personally couldn’t find any rational explanation satisfactory to explain the German aggression towards its neighbors,  and co-citizens.
As to the consequences of this war, it is obvious, Europe lost due the wars Germany caused its dominant political position in the world, and good that so it happened. What’s bad is, that the Europeans dug and covered their feelings of cultural superiority, and with it let it be influenced and be leaded by US, Oriental and lately also Muslim cultures. The problem is, while the Oriental and US cultural influence came peacefully and as such it has integrated to European culture, the Muslim culture came with historical  animosity towards the European culture, and with even greater animosity towards its modern secularism. The Muslim aims in Europe are with no tendency for peaceful integration, but separation and conquest. This couldn’t happened if in Post 80 Years German War, the European mood wasn’t so defensive as its post-colonial, post-fascistic, post-communistic political mood is today. This mood of cheap consumerism enabled to the political elites to make all the mistakes they had made, with their shortsighted political vision, without to pay until now any political price for it.

Conclusion:  The world wars initiated by Germany do have far more catastrophic consequences than people usually are ready to think or admit. If European culture is doomed, and maybe it is, it will be a direct result of The 80 Years German War.

Other issue is the Greek tragedy, that from historical point of view is small scale representation of what will happen, when plutocratic elites, to secure their  hold of the reign at any price, corrupt the people-their electors, who are just happy to be corrupted. They leave the people just to enjoy the golden calf and not any of the teaching of the responsibilities, that have to be taken. The Greeks then moralize, as if they were the only one who suffered the consequences of the 80 Years German Wars. Yet this is far from truth. There are others, like the Polish people, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbians and many others who suffered even more than the Greeks during WWII.
To change this trend of European self destruction, responsibilities has to be taken by all those, to whom European cultural identity and European way of life is dear. There are too many out there who want to infiltrate Europe just to destroy it and it is nearsightedness not to see it.

Napoleon and all the rest

15/05/2015

Response to the essay:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/a-truth-france-outlawed-slavery-1355-years-ago/

where is writen, "..... Napoleon was a criminal against humanity ought to be taught."

To my opinion Napoleon was much more than that. First he was child of the French revolution, and as such he was penetrated by the ideas of the Revolution. French revolution was not only about politics of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and was more than Robespierre, Marat, Fouche and other murderers, it was also about letting new scientific ideas to enter the major stage of the history. Why would Napoleon invade Egypt, if not because of his intellectual interest in antics. The result of his invasion was establishing Egyptology, a whole new science and of course the Rosetta Stone. Also his attitude towards statehood management and military was rational and modern for his time, full of new initiations, courage, charisma and military skill. He was in a way unlucky that the steam power was developed ausgerechnet in Great Britain and not in France. If opposite, most probably he would recognize the great potential of this media and utilize it.
If to characterize Napoleon, he was in first place a military adventurer, who was ready always to risk all, to try to achieve a victory. His victory in Austerlitz has lot to do with his extraordinary skill to have a right perspective of the battle field, but also with luck and incompetence of the old style military leadership.
He changed for ever how wars are fought, what it means military power and how a state should be governed. After Napoleon the statehood couldn’t remain to be a private estate of few aristocrats, who for generations inherited their Plutocratic position, without any contribution to the society. He brought ideology of nationalism, (for good and for bad), as an idea that can recruit people under one flag and as a force to be reckon with. Also it is important to mention that Naploen is after all man of his time, and of eighteen, beginning of nineteen century, and couldn’t resists the temptation of entering the human history on the waves of fairytales.
Europe and consequently the world would be very different without Napoleon. What Napoleon did not know, is that political power corrupts, and absolute political power absolutely corrupts. (or maybe he knew, but felt to be above it).
Napoleons fall started with his coronation by the pope, which was in a way act of his attachment to the history. He in a way saw himself as the modern Charlemagne. Ironically his downfall started with the great victory in Austerlitz. There he started to see himself as a being destined to govern the world. Or maybe it was earlier? Maybe with his coronation? Hard to say. Anyway he had the chance to do it right path but he has chosen the wrong one.
Of course he was as inhumanly criminal as anybody else in his position at that time. And after Austerlitz he thought that nothing can stop him. This is when he lost his right tactical but also strategic vision and made many unfortunate mistakes. His focusing in trying to decimate GB as competing superpower, his invasion to Spain, and finally of course his invasion to Russia were huge mistakes and devastating. Not to speak about selling Luisiana to Jefferson for nuts, and enabling him to fix the slavery as a wide spread economic tool in the southern states of US.
You can say, it is easy to criticize him now from the perspective of 200 years. But i think, if he would be more attentive to the advise from other people, let them freely speak out, like Talleyrand, some of his main strategic mistakes wouldn’t have to happen.
His continuous urge to be involved in new wars, could have been satisfied with a different strategy. For example, if he could focus his efforts in Balkans and freeing the Greeks, the Bulgarians and Serbs from the Ottoman rule. These nation would adore him for it. He could weaken the Ottoman empire, and threaten this way the British, if he had such a big urge to do it. He could even occupy the eastern and northern parts of modern Turkey, (including Constantinople- Byzantine- Istambul), at the time with great Christian Greek and Armenian population. This would probably change the curse of history for better. This could unite Europe. Balkans was at the time, very much as in these days too, sphere of Russian interest. The Russians saw themselves as patrons of the Eastern Christians in their essence. Maybe they would even agree to strake a deal with the Russians to let Poland to be part of Bonapartic European Union, and not part of the Russian Eastern-Byzantine kingdom. Of course all this is only speculation about alternative history. What if. (Wenn das Wörtchen wenn nicht wär wär mein Vater Millionär). Yes, i was swept away with my fantasy. Napoleon could have done the world to a better place, but instead he made it to a worst place. Hitler, Stalin and even the rise of militaristic Islam are all results of his strategic mistakes.