Sucking Up

Napoleon

One of then most outstanding examples of the tendency of media to suck up to power is a series of Newspaper headlines printed in Paris in 1815 about the return to power of Napoleon.

Now after Napoleon was defeated in 1814 he had been exiled to the island of Elba, which is just off the coast of Italy.

Napoleon for various reasons tired of his exile and decided to try to regain power in France. So he left the island of Elba and landed in southern France in early March of 1815. And here are various Headlines from Paris newspapers up to Napoleon's entry into Paris on March 22 1815.

Sources

and “Truth”

France in 1429 C.E.

In a previous posting I took apart the book Conquest by Juliet Barker,1 about the conquest and loss of Normandy during the Hundred Years War. In the posting I criticized Juliet Barker’s book for being “Patriotically Correct”, and frankly biased and anti-French.

Mythical Victory

Relief of Rameses II at Kadesh

In c. 1274 B.C.E., Rameses II, Pharaoh of Egypt engaged in battle with the Hittite King Muwatallis II at the city of Kadesh in modern day Syria. The resulting battle can only be described as a serious defeat for the Egyptian forces. But in an example of propaganda and the use of the big lie Rameses managed to largely successfully portray his defeat has a victory and to throw such dust into people’s critical faculties that still to this day people think of the battle has a tie or a draw at worst.1

What it was, was a serious, indeed disastrous defeat.

The Dark Side

Augustus

The Roman Empire is too this day greatly admired, but a lot of that admiration is based on the fact that it occurred so long ago so that the bruises of everyday knowledge of Roman power are softened by the nostalgia of distance in time. It is also helped by the fact that Greco-Roman culture was and is so widely admired as the foundation of Western Civilization.

The result is a tendency to whitewash the regime of the Emperors and to represent it as a benign institution except of course when “bad” Emperor’s ruled. Of course it is a common shibboleth in classic scholarship that a “bad” Emperor was one disliked by the Senate. The bottom line is that if the institution of Emperorship was so open to be so easily being “misused” then of course the problem wasn’t just with the individual but the institution as well.

Rosenberg Code

The Rosenbergs

On June 19^th 1953 the Rosenberg’s, Julius and Ethel were executed. Still to the last claiming that they were innocent. We now know that those protests were hollow and false yet how and why the Rosenberg’s to the last proclaimed their innocence and convinced so many that they were so is a continuing mystery in many respects.

The Bogyman is Coming

German Communists and the German Middle Class

A Note

German Communist Party
Poster

Between 1918 and 1933 Germany was continually torn apart by crisis after crisis. There was at the centre of German political life a sort of hollowness that generated instability. In fact Germany was experiencing for years on end a sort of great fear.

The Iraq War

10 Years Later

A Personal View

Map of Iraq

Well it is 10 years after the disastrous Iraqi war started and the war pernicious and poisonous effects in the world continue.

The Rosenberg's Guilt

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

In a previous posting1 I discussed the Rosenberg case. In that case Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were found guilty of espionage and both were eventually executed.

What was especially interesting about the case was the refusal of so many for so long to accept that the Rosenberg's were guilty. As of late 2011 it appears that virtually everyone has accepted that Julius Rosenberg engaged in spying and his wife Ethel was well aware of her husband's activities.2 

At the time it was quite clear that the Rosenberg's were likely quite guilty. It was also clear that they could be quite useful as propaganda weapons. Both of the Rosenberg's were Communists and in that time period it meant that they were Stalinists.

Sometimes Lessing is less:

Doris Lessing and the Afghans



Doris Lessing



One of more annoying features of modern life is the writer who becomes involved in a worthwhile cause and then uses it has a platform to pontificate about stuff they know little about. A classic example is Doris Lessing. Now Doris Lessing is a very well known writer who in 2007 won the Nobel Prize for literature. Unfortunately Doris Lessing aside from writing well written books has also shown a less than sterling intellectual sense about certain matters.1

Michael Parenti and Stalin’s Fingers*

Moral Cretinism Part VI

Stalin aka "Koba the Dread"

The writer and “progressive” thinker Michael Parenti is one of the few remaining thinkers who can be described as an apologist for the, now defunct, Soviet Union. In many respects Michael Parenti is like the old style “Fellow Travellers”,1 who were endlessly suspicious of the evil Capitalists of the “West”, but very forgiving of the well meaning(?) rulers of the “East”.

Note on the Rosenberg Case

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in Prison

On June 19, 1953 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed by means of electrocution for the crime of spying for the Soviet Union.1 At the time and later the case generated a great deal of heat and controversy. Many people thought that the Rosenbergs were victims of a government frame up.2 In fact as late as the 1990’s many still thought the Rosenbergs as innocent.3 For example Fred Inglis writes:

Evidence-conscious as we all are now we have to say solemnly at this juncture that we cannot know for sure that Greenglass’s story was all tarradiddle. But Greenglass was a known perjurer who was desperate to climb out of trouble; he was also an extremely low-level lens-grinder for the Los Alamos project. Julius Rosenberg was an honest sap. At the trial Rosenberg doggedly, ingenuously said that he felt the Soviets had made life better for the underdog, had restored the fabric of the country, had helped destroy the “Hitler beast” who destroyed Jewry.

…

Alger Hiss, like the Rosenbergs, still stands in an obscure position between innocence and guilt in the case history of American law.4

"Tough Minded"

Atomic blast at Hiroshima

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945 will remain a bone of contention among historians but it is fascinating how the the decision to drop the bomb is justified. The usual argument, expressed in such books as Thank god for the Atom Bomb by Paul Fussell1 is about how those who gainsay the decision to drop the bomb are foolish sentimentalists, who don't understand war and the then war situation. That they lack the tough mindedness necessary in war and are mired in a sentimental fog.

What of course is absolutely fascinating is how those so called realists and tough minded people are also sentimental in their own way. They refuse to use such words as "massacre" "atrocity" "mass murder" "war crime" "crime against humanity" to describe the bombing. They studiously avoid using such tough minded unsentimental language to describe the bombing.

The fact is the vast majority of the victims were civilians and that the bombs were even more destructive and frankly indiscriminate and hard to escape from than conventional area bombing.

It is remarkable how many people who excuse the bombing use the argument that it helped to end the war don't seem to understand that even if that was the case it still is an atrocity, a mass murder of civilians a violation of the Hague conventions, a war crime and crime against humanity.

As for actually ending the war. Well it should be pointed out that the entry of the Soviets into the war just after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was likely even more important than the dropping of either bomb. Certainly it shook the Japanese leadership. Of course what was also important was that the Emperor intervened decisively (finally!!) to get acceptance of the surrender.

There also were available a few more bombs to be dropped just in case these two didn't work.

What is of interest is also that it appears that before the bomb dropped the Japanese were willing to accept almost any terms, what the Japanese were willing to accept was the retention of the Emperor as a condition and surrender unconditionally aside from that. Of course after the bombs were dropped the Americans accepted that the Emperor would be retained and told the Japanese who then surrendered. So ironically despite the bomb the Japanese did not surrender unconditionally.

In war engaging in atrocity to terrorize the enemy into surrender is an all to frequent tactic. And it is also one that works frequently, although at times it backfires or simply doesn't work. Assuming that the bomb worked to hasten the surrender of Japan. (I frankly doubt the argument that an invasion would have been necessary at all; Japan would have more likely than not surrendered before then.) The argument seems to be that some how that it is justifiable / excusable if dropping the bomb resulted in Japan surrendering. If that is the case than all sorts of atrocities throughout history become justifiable / excusable. In fact even if they don't work they become justifiable / excusable because the intention was to shorten the war and get the enemy to surrender. During the war the Japanese engaged in China in various spectacularly brutal campaigns called the "three alls" meaning burn all, loot all, kill all, during which millions of Chinese civilians were murdered directly and indirectly. The purpose was to terrorize the Chinese into submission. The Nanjing massacre could be viewed in a similar fashion.

The dropping of the atom bombs purpose was to terrorize the Japanese by destroying two Japanese cities and massacring large numbers of people in what was then a truly jaw dropping stunning manner. The debate over how much it had to do with Japan finally surrendering will go on with in my opinion no final resolution.

There can be little doubt that if Japan had used a weapon of similar destructiveness on the United States and if they had then still lost the war, those that had authorized the use of such a weapon would have been justifiably tried and found guilty of war crimes.

It is quite grotesque to hear how after the war those involved in the dropping of the atom bombs got so defensive and upset when their acts were described as crimes, atrocities etc. So much for realism, tough mindedness and a lack of sentimentality. About themselves and their decision they seemed to wallow in it.

What will also continue to go on will be those who argue that the bombing was justified will continue to decry their opponents as lacking realism and tough mindedness while avoiding using such tough minded and realistic words to describe the bombing as massacre, atrocity, mass murder, war crime, crime against humanity. They seem to competely lack the realism and tough mindedness to call a spade a spade.

1. Summit Books, New York, 1988. See also Feifer, George, Tennozan, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1992, pp. 566-584, for another example of “tough mindedness”.

Bibliography

Grayling, A.C., Among the Dead Cities, Bloomsbury, London, 2006, pp. 77-79, 113-116, 147-158, 231-234, 250-254.

Katsuichi, Honda, The Nanjing Massacre, An East Gate Book, Armonk NY, 1999.

Calvocoressi, Peter, Wint, Guy, Pritchard, John, The Penguin History of the Second World War, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1989, pp. 1033-1037, 1181-1208.

Pierre Cloutier

Neo-Confederate Crap

Slave Auction

The following is a revised posting I left at the Pharyngula website.1 I have also added references.

This is the post I was replying to: I have added some supplemental commentary to this persons posting it is the non-indented material.

Hit me with your best shot !

I'm still standin yea yea yea !

Come on is that the best you folks can do?

Calling me names truly exposes who is the bigot.

How many ships flying the confederate flag imported slaves? ZERO!

That was the north's doing. Cha Ching $$$$.

The Northern blockade during the Civil War massively reduced trade into the Confederacy and prevented any revival of the slave trade including illegal. The South was heavily involved in the trade while it was legal; after all who was buying the slaves? Southerners were involved in all aspects of the operation of the slave trade.2

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

This is from the Lincoln / Douglas debates. Aside from indicating that racism and racist like beliefs were common in the North as in the South how does this indicate that slavery was not the most important cause of the Civil War? Or that Lincoln shared these beliefs how does this in anyway indicate the preserving slavery was not the most important reason why the South tried to secede. Further racist attitudes towards Blacks did not mean that someone could not be opposed to having them enslaved. Interestingly Lincoln seems to have shared these beliefs less than most people of his time.3

Also in Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Lincoln was still hoping for reunion with the Seceding states seven of which had seceded by the time of his inauguration. Further he did not wish to alienate the border South states. Finally he really did believe that he had no power to interfere with slavery where it existed. In this respect he was entirely correct, in terms of the normal powers of the president in a normal situation. In the future Lincoln would base his interference with slavery entirely on his emergency and war powers. I should however indicate that Lincoln was quite adamant that he and his government would NOT allow the further extension of slavery or the creation of more slave states. And Lincoln was quite adamant that he wanted to stop the expansion of slavery so that the institution would, without new places to expand into, wither and die. Many southerners felt that this was the death knell of slavery and that the institution would be in mortal danger unless the slave states left the union. Certainly the main complaints justifying secession in the Southern Conventions regarding secession was the threat to slavery posed by Lincoln and the Republicans. Finally Lincoln was trying to reassure Southerners that although he and his government would stop the extension of slavery they would not interfere with it where it currently existed. All in hope of reunion.4

So why did Lincoln invade the South if not to free the slaves? If you have an inability to think for yourself, then you stick to repeating the same government lies. But if you are interested in finding the truth, you can again examine Lincoln's very own words. Again from his first inaugural address:

"there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority [...] to collect the duties and imposts"

It seems fairly clear from the actual words of Lincoln that he was a racist (like most Americans in that day) who wanted to invade the South in order to collect the government's taxes from Southerners who no longer wished to remain in the Union. The entire war was initiated and fought by the North in order to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. Likewise, since the North was not threatening to end slavery, the South was most certainly not fighting to preserve slavery. The South fought the war to defend their homes and to break free from a tyrannical government.

Well the author forget that it was the South was the one that opened fire on Fort Sumter and further since the South had no legal right to secede the National government was well within its rights to continue to collect duties and imposts. The author creates a straw man; it is well known that the war was fought to preserve the Union by the North for various reasons, including the idea that Southern secession made a mockery of Democracy and further that allowing secession would destroy the rest of the Union. Nations generally do not allow themselves to be destroyed at what appears to be a whim. In a nation state attempted secession leaves behind a massive array of interlocking disputes making civil war extremely likely. The comment that the North incited the war is simply false. After all it was the Confederacy that opened fire on Fort Sumter. None of this deals with the question of the why the South succeeded, in fact it avoids it. First the Confederacy was formed even before Lincoln and his allegedly “tyrannical” government took power. And what where the “tyrannical” acts threatened? Why the exclusion of slavery from the territories. The refusal to impose a slave code on the territories, regardless of the inhabitants feelings. The base insults to the South consisted of such things as giving fugitive slaves rights to a hearings before being sent back south in some northern states.5

Also, recall that slavery was supported by the US government, not just by the South. Moreover, most of the slave trade went through Northern ports and the North was profiting from slavery just as well as the South through cheap Southern-produced goods and tariffs. So if the media is going to attack all things Southern as racist, should they not been held to do the same for all things US government or all things yankee? The hypocrisy is truly unbelievable. I suspect the true motive for the denigration of the South is really about denouncing secession (by equating it to racism). Government is coercion and secession is the ultimate weapon against government.

The above is an outstanding example of evading the issue which is why did the South secede. It does so my changing the topic to racism in general. The South produced few goods, it manufacturing industries were comparatively weak. What the South produced was masses of cotton and other raw materials, i.e., tobacco, rice etc. The South was a mass importer of manufactured items from the North and Europe. Oh and please note that many Abolitionists knew full well that much of the Northern economy benefited from slavery directly or indirectly and bitterly denounced it. In fact those who in the north directly benefited from slavery (various commercial concerns etc.) where very likely to be pro-Southern and pro-slavery. Besides your defence of the South is to shout your racist too! That of course means that your admitting the South was and is racist. No Historian worth his salt will deny that racism permeated both North and South in the pre Civil War era, what this has to with changing the cause of the Civil War is beyond me. It is obvious that you could be racist and anti-slavery. I also note a slip slide from the past to the present. How does the fact that over a century ago racism permeated the American Republic tell us about racism today. It is a fact that neo-Confederate thinking has traditionally in the South been associated with racism. Neither does any of this change the fact that secession occurred because of Southern fears about slavery being undermined. The fact that the North benefited in many respects from slavery does not change the reasons why the South seceded was because the South feared what might happen to slavery when Lincoln took office.6

As Jefferson Davis said, "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again." Let us hope this is true.

disclaimer: Although I think this is unnecessary, the yankees will slander me if I do not say this. While I support the South and the principle of secession, I am completely against slavery. While we are at it, I am also against murder, rape, pedophilia, and the slaughter of kittens.

Confederate Constitution:

"Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."

I will deal with the slave trade below. After the Civil War Jefferson Davis produced an appologia7 which claimed the Civil War was not about slavery. He did so by massive messaging of the truth and out and out lying.

The evasions above of the Southern history of disenfranchisement and racism are obvious and clear. Also obvious is a deliberate ignoring of the interconnection between nostalgia for the Confederacy and racism. The re-imposition of “white” rule in the South was accompanied by much Confederate nostalgia along with terror. Further this “white” reconstruction of the South was accompanied by a Northern acceptance of the myth of the innocent South and the wicked Reconstruction and a tacit allowance of the imposition of a quasi servitude on Blacks again. Our author, although he is against slavery, seems to not be aware that it is tyrannical. Certainly he does not seem to be terribly upset by it. At least compared to the Lincoln’s unacceptable tyranny, which consisted of nothing he did because he wasn’t in office yet. The tyranny that our author finds unacceptable boils down to a government refusing to allow the further territorial expansion of the tyranny of slavery and further the perfectly legal collection of taxes etc.; also the national government resisting the illegal seizure by violence of its property.8

Below is my posting.

You do realize that the reason that the Confederate constitution outlawed the Slave trade was because if they legalized it it would have guaranteed European opposition to the New Confederate states. Despite this there was a significant push to re-legalize the slave trade by some Southerners at the time. This was rejected as political suicide.9 You do realize that that the U.S. had abolished the Slave trade more than 50 years earlier.10 You do realize that people continued to illegally import slaves into the south for profit. You do realize that Southerners were heavily involved in this traffic and that there were court cases in the South in which those who were tried for this were routinely acquitted.11

You do realize that the confederate constitution strengthened slavery and made it much more difficult to abolish.12 You do realize that that at the state State Conventions considering succession slavery was talked about ad nauseum and that that in the papers and other documents justifying succession slavery was the most prominently given reason for succession.13 You do realize that after the election of Lincoln large sections of the South were filled with spasms of rage and fear over what his election meant in terms of the survival of slavery.14

You do realize that even before Lincoln was inaugurated seven states had seceded from the Union and the confederacy formed.15 You do realize that the Southern states were ceasing federal property all over the place. You do realize that attacking Fort Sumter was an act of war. You do realize that the American president has emergency powers to deal with insurrection, which this was indisputably.16

You do realize that the Confederates absolutely refused to recognize the right to succeed of parts of the Southern States that didn't want to go along with succession. You do realize that mass arrests and in some places executions happened in those areas. Say parts of Texas, Eastern Tennessee, with mass arrests suspension of Habeas corpus etc.17

During the War the Confederacy in terms of centralizing the state etc, went the same way as the Union. Oh and the Confederacy invaded neutral Kentucky.18

Oh and Andrew Jackson, a Southerners said during the nullification crisis in 1832 that succession was treason and that he would hang the ringleaders as traitors.19

In 1860 most people in the United States did not think that there was a legal right to secede. Most American supported the right to revolution, which was a different thing.20 In this case the simple fact that Lincoln was elected as President was not deemed by most northerners and by a lot of Southerners sufficient excuse to secede.21 After all Lincoln had been elected by 40% of the vote and the republicans had less than half the seats in the new Congress.22 Lincoln's ability to adversely affect the South would have been severely limited. Oh and Stephen Douglas a very pro-Southern Northern politician and second in the popular vote in the election of 1860 swore up and down that succession was illegal and that he would help crush it.23

Oh and at the same time Arkansas seceded from the Union the state introduced laws that made manumission of slaves illegal and tried to re-enslave the states free black population. Much of South Carolina’s free Black population fled in the face of greatly increased persecution.24

Succession was not a legal act but a revolutionary act and has such had a high chance of causing a Civil War. The Southern politicians made a disastrous mistake. Oh and many were hoping for the election of Lincoln and helped to generate the hysteria and panic in the months preceding the election in order for succession to happen.25

And do I have to point out that during the constitutional convention Southerners lobbied for their human property to be included as part of the full population when it came to appropriating representation etc. at the same time they wanted their human property excluded from the rights of the constitution etc. A compromise was reached the infamous 3/5th clause. At the same time Southern slave owners resisted any effort to lessen their tyrannical control over their slave property. Allowing slaves to get legally married would have been a good start.26

The South fully supported coercion against slaves to keep them in that status and those who didn't want secession.

The political leaders of the South made what could only be described as an irresponsible gamble and lost completely.

1. Here

2. Thomas Hugh, The Slave Trade, Papermac, London, 1997, pp. 543-546, 566-570, 739-741., McPherson, James M., Battle Cry of Freedom, Ballantine Books, New York, 1988, pp. 378-388.

3. McPherson, pp. 184-187.

4. Stampp, Kenneth M., And the War Came, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1950, pp. 179-203.

5. IBID, pp. 1-45, 239-286, McPherson, 234-307, Potter, David M., The Impending Crisis, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1976, pp. 485-583.

6. McPherson, 91-103, 116-144.

7. Davis Jefferson, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 2 vols., Thomas Yoseloff, (rept.) New York, 1958. The Vice-President of the Confederacy also wrote an apologia, Stephens, Alexander Hamilton, A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, 2 volumes, National Publishing Company, Philadelphia PA, 1868-1870.

8. See McPherson, pp.234-275.

9. McPherson, pp. 102-103, Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007, pp. 177-184, 502-504.

10. Cooper, William J., Liberty and Slavery, Alfred AQ. Knopf, New York, 1983, pp. 50-52, 70-72, 98-99.

11. McPherson, pp. 102-103.

12. See Avalon Project, Here, for the Confederate Constitution. The following sections massively strengthened and defended slavery.

Article 1 Sec. 9 (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

…

Article 4 Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

…

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

…

Sec. 3 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

The American Constitution by comparison goes to strenuous lengths to avoid the words slave, and slavery.

13. See Dew, Charles B., Apostles of Disunion, University Press of Virginia, London, 2001.

14. McPherson, pp. 234-275, Channing, Steven A., Crisis of Fear, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1974, pp. 229-293, Freehling, 2007, pp. 323-444, Potter, David M., The Impending Crisis, Harper and Row, London, 1976, pp. 485-514.

15. McPherson, pp. 257-259.

16. McPherson, pp. 267-275, Potter, pp. 555-583.

17. McPherson, pp. 305-306, Lowen, James W., Lies Across America, The New Press, New York, 1999, pp. 177-179.

18. McPherson, p. 296, pp. 428-437.

19. Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990, p. 278.

20, See Stampp, Kenneth M., The Imperiled Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980, pp. 3-36, (Essay The Concept of a Perpetual Union).

21. McPherson, pp. 257-275, Stampp, 1980.

22, Stampp, 1980, pp. 238-239.

23. McPherson, pp. 231-232.

24. Freehling, 2007, pp. 199-200.

25. Channing, pp. 229-293, Freehling, pp. 323-341, Potter, 448-484.

26. Stampp, pp. 232-234.

Pierre Cloutier.

The “Unbearable” Treaty

Germany after the Treaty of Versailles

Shows land lost

It is sometimes stated that the Treaty of Versailles, (1919) was the cause of World War II, because it was brutal and that it inspired Hitler, because of its brutality to avenge Germany. This is to put it politely a myth.1

If you read Mein Kampf, the part were Hitler describes his life altering decision to enter politics and avenge a "betrayed" Germany he talks about when he learned Germany had been defeated, i.e., requested an armistice. Hitler indulges in some purple prose polemics there. This is many months before the treaty of Versailles. The fact is even before the Treaty the ultra-nationalist press was screaming about "betrayal". Hitler says the following about what happened after he was informed on November 10, 1918 of Germany's defeat:

As for myself, I broke down completely when the old gentleman tried to resume his story by informing us that we must now end this long war, because the war was lost, he said, and we were at the mercy of the victor. The Fatherland would have to bear heavy burdens in the future. We were to accept the terms of the Armistice and trust to the magnanimity of our former enemies. It was impossible for me to stay and listen any longer. Darkness surrounded me as I staggered and stumbled back to my ward and buried my aching head between the blankets and pillow. 

I had not cried since the day that I stood beside my mother's grave. Whenever Fate dealt cruelly with me in my young days the spirit of determination within me grew stronger and stronger. During all those long years of war, when Death claimed many a true friend and comrade from our ranks, to me it would have appeared sinful to have uttered a word of complaint. Did they not die for Germany? And, finally, almost in the last few days of that titanic struggle, when the waves of poison gas enveloped me and began to penetrate my eyes, the thought of becoming permanently blind unnerved me; but the voice of conscience cried out immediately: Poor miserable fellow, will you start howling when there are thousands of others whose lot is a hundred times worse than yours? And so I accepted my misfortune in silence, realizing that this was the only thing to be done and that personal suffering was nothing when compared with the misfortune of one's country.

…

What a gang of despicable and depraved criminals!

The more I tried then to glean some definite information of the terrible events that had happened the more my head became afire with rage and shame. What was all the pain I suffered in my eyes compared with this tragedy?

The following days were terrible to bear, and the nights still worse. To depend on the mercy of the enemy was a precept which only fools or criminal liars could recommend. During those nights my hatred increased--hatred for the originators of this dastardly crime.

During the following days my own fate became clear to me. I was forced now to scoff at the thought of my personal future, which hitherto had been the cause of so much worry to me. Was it not ludicrous to think of building up anything on such a foundation? Finally, it also became clear to me that it was the inevitable that had happened, something which I had feared for a long time, though I really did not have the heart to believe it.

Emperor William II was the first German Emperor to offer the hand of friendship to the Marxist leaders, not suspecting that they were scoundrels without any sense of honour. While they held the imperial hand in theirs, the other hand was already feeling for the dagger.

There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with the Jews. It must be the hard-and-fast 'Either-Or.'

For my part I then decided that I would take up political work.2

Further when you read Mein Kampf Hitler's aims were NOT just a revision of the injustices of Versailles but getting hegemony over Europe and turning Eastern Europe into a vast colonial empire with a subject serf population. As for democracy Hitler hated it on principle. Versailles was good propaganda for Hitler but it was not what he was angry about. What made his blood boil, (aside from his anti-Semitic ravings) was that Germany was not in its naturally dominant position. The far greater brutality of the treaty of Brest Litovsk didn't bother Hitler because it was nothingless than what "inferior" Slavs deserved.3

So some still believe that the Treaty was uniquely harsh and terrible; despite the fact it left Germany the most powerful, (economically speaking) state in Europe, and in some way improved its position because the war caused the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.4

Aside from the reparations part of the Treaty, (which were carried out in a very limited fashion in reality), the Treaty was not the horrible Carthaginian peace it was made out to be. Many of its provisions were actually quite reasonable. I note many critics also ignore the context of the Treaty in terms of allied aims and needs, and also the context of German war aims. The allies were perfectly aware of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Treaty of Bucharest, both of which were vastly harsher than Versailles. It did not make them inclined to be generous.5

It is also heavily documented that ultra-nationalists made much hay from the Treaty of Versailles by wild exaggeration, lying and other flagrant tactics. For example the parts of the Treaty that awarded parts of Eastern Germany to the new Polish state and called for referendums in some places, were bitterly resented by the ultra-nationalists, for reasons that can only be called racist. The fact that Posen and the Polish corridor region were over 80% Polish made no difference. The idea of "German" land being given to @$%^^&&**$ Poles infuriated them. Ditto for Danish areas returned to Denmark, (by referendum). And of course the return of Alsace/Lorraine to France bothered them despite the fact the inhabitants had since 1871 wanted to be back in France. All this was greeted by the ultra-nationalists with, what at times, can be described as hysterical fury.6

Regarding what the ultra-nationalists and pan-Germans wanted during the war, Fritz Fischer's Germany's War Aims in the First World War, goes into great detail about war aims of these rather foolish men. Described are plans to annex Belgium, large areas of France, along with huge reparations. And Fischer describes the savage, punitive nature of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and its lesser known companion the treaty of Bucharest. Both savage and ruthless. There also described are the plans to create a vast colonial empire in eastern Europe. There are also described in detail how the Germans violated Brest-Litovsk soon after signing it and forced the Russians to sign further subsequent treaties.7

These extremists played a powerful role in aiding Germany to defeat, by antagonizing their enemies and chaining German policy to unrealistic aims.

It is simply true that after the war the same ultra-Nationalists and pan German fools who propagated unrealistic aims during the war did in fact blame the treaty of Versailles for all Germany's woes and did mightily help to propagate the myth of the stab in the back.8

In the fall of 1919 the Reichstag held hearing about what happened in October - November 1918. In one of the most shameful abdications of responsibility, Ludendorf and Hindenburg stated in their testimony that the German army had been undefeated but had been stabbed in the back. Given that they knew the real story this blatant lying can only condemned.9

On the German right it became de-rigure to condemn the treaty and to blame, liberals, socialists etc., for the "stab in the back". The judiciary during the Weimar years covered itself with disgrace by its tendency to whitewash and excuse right wing violence. For example its treatment of the Kapp coup. Also their treatment of Hitler during his trial in 1924 was disgracefully lenient and the sentence a joke.10

During the period 1919-1922 there were almost 400 political assassinations in Germany of those 354 with right wing and 22 left wing. The victims came from all walks of life. Of the 354 right wing murders 326 were unpunished / unsolved. Of those right wing assassins convicted they got an average of 4 months in jail. Of the left wing assassins 10 were executed and those jailed got an average of 15 years in jail. I could here mention also the murder of Rathenau, a patriotic German, by a right wing death squad for being soft on Versailles and being a Jew. The assassins were treated by large elements of the ultra-Nationalist right wing as heroes.11

In point of fact the post war environment was economically very bad, From Portugal to Romania, authoritarian movements flourished, it wasn't just Germany. The Great Depression pushed many societies over the edge. If Italy, one of the victorious allies, could turn Fascist shortly after the war it is not surprising that authoritarian movements sprung up through out Europe. (In 1926 Poland became a Dictatorship for example).

It was to a large extent a matter of perception, the extremist right-wing chattering classes never tired of blaming the Treaty for just about every problem Germany had, which was false, while at the same time promoting the "stab in the back" lie. This continual propaganda campaign certainly was very effective, but it was based on a deliberate misperception of the Treaty and events. Finally it is a fact that the Nazi party had 2.6% of the popular vote in the last election before the Great Depression. Considering the rapid rise in voting power the Nazi's had during the early part of the Great Depression (in 1930 18.3%, in 1932, 37.4% then 33.1%), I would say the depression was the great factor in getting the Nazi's to power, but even so it was not a certainty and relied on good deal of backroom intrigue. If there had been no great depression there would have been no out of control fire. As it was by the time Hitler got into power much of the Treaty of Versailles had ceased to have any real world applicability.12

That the ultra-Nationalists led Germany to disaster in World War I is amply documented by Fischer among others. That they refused to take responsibility is also amply documented. Let me give one example of their foolishness, the declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 which brought the US into the war, owed a lot to ultra nationalist nonsense and the decisive persons pushing for it were Ludendorf and Hindenburg. At the time the decision was foolish has anyone looking at US economic production figures could see. After this some of the ultra nationalists dreamed of reparations from the US!13

In the end a irresponsible set of Nationalist fools peddling myths combined with bad luck brought the Nazis to power. The results are too well known.

1. The works that peddle this myth are legion. One could start with the works of J.F.C. Fuller. See for example his The Conduct of War, Da Capo Press, New York, 1961, pp. 217-225.

2. Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, pp. 175-176, from a Internet pdf. copy. Last two pages of chapter called Chapter 7: The Revolution.

3. IBID, pp. 61-111, (chapter 3), 521-541, (chapter 14).

4. Weinberg, Gerhard L., Germany Hitler & World War II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 11-22.

5. IBID. Watt, Richard M., The Kings Depart, Penguin Books, London, 1968, pp. 555-588, Evans, Richard J., The Coming of the Third Reich, Penguin Books, London, 2003, pp. 62-76, 148, 179, Craig, Gordon A., Germany 1866 – 1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, pp. 424-432, Fischer, Fritz, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York, 1967, pp. 247-279, 475-638.

6. Footnote 4, Craig, pp. 488-495, Weiss, Ideology of Death, Elephant Paperbacks, Chicago, 1996, pp. 206-225.

7. Footnote 5, Fischer.

8. IBID, pp. 636-638, Weiss, 222-238, Weinberg, pp. 11-22, Watt, Footnote 5.

9. Fischer, p. 637.

10. I'm not overstating the right wing sympathies of the Weimar judiciary see Hitler's Justice, by Ingo Muller, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 1991, pp. 10-24.

11. Jones, Nigel, The Birth of the Nazis, Robinson, London, 1987, p. 228, and 203-229.

12. Evans, p. 446 and 156-230, Watt, pp. 515-517. 

13. Fischer, pp. 280-309.

Pierre Cloutier

Libertarian Absurdities

The following is a long Blog posting I made at another Blog.1

No.15

I'm beginning to understand why some leftists loathe libertarians despite the latter's supposed irrelevance: Libertarians can actually defend the morality of their position quite easily; leftists cannot despite their identity as the most moral and enlightened.

The mere existence of libertarians is a painful reminder that there are those who actually stick to moral principle. This causes some leftists much pain, hence the use of strawmen and distortions. Their unwillingness to confront libertarianism as it actually is reflects the bankruptcy of their arguments.

The idea that Libertarians stick to moral principle is shall we say debatable. As for the use of strawmen and distortions that of course is a very familiar Libertarian technique.

To get to strawmen and distortions first, go to any libertarian website say Mies or Cato and you will find them replent with strawmen and distortions. For example perhaps the most flea dog of all the distortions is the notion that government is generally evil, (and in some libertarian language all evil). This is pure agit-prop relying for its effect on pure polemic and also based on the tired and simple-minded binary notion of an absolute distinction between private and public. I.E., private production goods etc., are good public (i.e., Government) is bad. This is coupled with the notion that collective action is by definition bad and individuals must act as individuals as much as possible. Coupled with this is the notion that individuals should not be coerced. The assumption usually implicit but sometimes explicit is that the only "real" source of coercion is public or government power.

Now it is clear to me that many libertarians are not the slightest opposed to private power, utterly unaware about how that easily blends into public or governmental power. Thus many Libertarians are absolutely incapable of seeing Corporations as governmental like bureaucracies of power. They also seem to have a great deal trouble recognizing private power as in reality often coercive. Often they live in a dream world that the only real coercive power is governmental. They also live in the dream world of everyone being responsible for themselves and a desire to reduce the ability of individuals to act collectively on the grounds that it is coercive. Yet when large private authoritarian institutions act coercively they ignore these limits on individuals freedom by talking as if individuals are free to leave / choose.

A particularly hilarious piece about this nonsense is a series of articles about how great Somalia is without government, ignoring that Somalia may have no formal government, but it is run by a series of clan based bureaucratic like systems which regiment and control life in a very authoritarian way.

What is further amusing is the solution that Libertarians suggest to if private power screws you, (i.e., pollutes your water); well just sue!? Thats right litigate, litigate litigate! After gutting governmental power to an absolute minimum if a big holder of private power screws you just go to the courts and sue. No doubt the fact that one side as vastly greater power than you in terms of wealth etc., will make no difference in how long it takes or what sort of decision the courts make. Yeah right! Of course the courts will also receive the massive and huge funding that will be necessary to deal with the vast increase of cases they will have to deal with. And of course this won't represent a vast increase in judicial power and the influence of lawyers in our society.

Sarcasm aside it is also obvious to me that a Libertarian society will see the growth of corporations into the gap left by government in effect replacing government with something that in present day North America is even more authoritarian.

Of course one of the more interesting features of Libertarianism is its implicit and at times explicit contempt for democracy. Basically contempt for people acting collectively. Democracy is characterized as hopelessly corrupt and well "evil", because it could lead to a individuals rights being abridged in a fundamental way.

Now I realize that the above doesn't characterize all Libertarians but I've seen it in far too many.

As for the moral argument. You really think they can easily defend their position morally? Well since a certain species of Libertarianism seems to think that individuals are atomized and entirely separate from all others and should act in their own (hopefully) enlightened self interest. Ah but self interest might require collective action and even worst coercion! Of course frequently this atomized view of human relations leads to a celebration of the ideal Libertarian society as all against all. Of course since humans form groups this view of basic human nature is false. Of course the biggest moral problem with Libertarianism in this form is that all to many Libertarians have no problem and no awareness of private power and coercion, (aside from the fact that this Manichean duality is an illusion). It appears that the exercise of such private power to screw people over, so long as it doesn't involve the evil of government, raises no problems with many Libertarians. Thus a wealthy merchant during a famine using his private power to hoard grain during a famine in hopes that prices will go up raises no moral problem in this singularly blinkered view.

Further it is of interest that to many Libertarians the liberty that matters is the ability to make money, own property etc., and that restrictions on that ability, like unions, child labour laws pollution controls etc., are unacceptable restrictions on liberty. Translated their liberty to screw others for their advantage. Basically the right to manage, property and make money trump everything else. Thus we get many Libertarians voting for the Republicans because they lower taxes, sacrificing other liberties for that. Also given this tendency of so many Libertarians to vote Republican; so much for sticking to moral principles. Of course of the most embarrassing examples of Libertarian sellout is Penn Jillette's paling around with Glen Beck, wingnut for quite a while. Yep standing up for real moral principles there.

As for other moral principles we get the following nonsense from some Libertarians, i.e., that a starving mob looting a train load of someone else's grain during a famine is utterly morally reprehensible and they have no moral problems with the person in question not just hoarding and moving the grain but shipping it out of the famine area if he can get a higher price elsewhere. Doesn't that at least raise a moral issue? But of course the right to manage and control ones own property trumps everything else and if it screws you over just sue and wait years, if it come at all, for the settlement.

Thus we read in Libertarian screeds stuff about personal responsibility. Thus I have read how about during famines feeding the starving with free or cheap food, would destroy the price mechanism and interfere with the magic invisible hand and besides people must learn to prioritize and be rational and giving them food might just encourage them to continue to be lazy and irrational. Yes nothing like having a few of your nearest and dearest starve to death in front of you to encourage rational sensible behavior. Either that or rely on completely voluntary agencies which might or might not, depending on if your cause is fashionable at the time, have the resources to help you. But at all costs any sort of coercion to help others is to be avoided. Meanwhile coercion must be employed to enable people to enjoy to the full their property rights.

In the end much Libertarianism is simple selfishness. I have / want mine and to keep it all for myself without feeling any guilt about others.

Now of course the central hypocrisy of Libertarian hatred of coercion is their general lack of interest in private power or coercion as they separate that from public coercion i.e., government.

Now a consistent Libertarian position must at a minimum be against private power / institution of coercion that restrict peoples freedom. I would suggest that a consistent Libertarian position must be against the Corporation and must be against those private power institutions that inhibit peoples ability to choose. And if they really believe that suing as a solution to private power screwing you. I would like to see a comprehensive and detailed description of how such a system would work especially about how its decisions would be enforced. Of course a thoroughly consistent Libertarian position is not much different from Anarchism.

Finally I would like to see a lot less of the Manichean bullshit / lies Libertarians spout when they talk about government.

Some people might object that I'm creating a caricature of a Libertarian position above. Sorry to say but its all stuff I've read about or heard in the last year.

1. See Dispatches From the Culture Wars Here

Pierre Cloutier

Stolen Fantasy

The Pyramids of Giza

The following is an old posting I did years ago in reply to a posting at the Website In the Hall of Maat concerning the Book Stolen Legacy by G. M. James.1 The posting can be fond at the In the Hall of Maat website.2 The posting is by Ra Hotep Amen and he posted in its entirety a review by Femi Akomolafe called Review of George G. M. James Stolen Legacy. All quotes from the review in italics.

I notice that the author, of the review posted, very carefully avoids mentioning that G. M. James in his book says that Aristotle stole Egyptian books from the Library of Alexandria. A truly remarkable feat given that the library did not exist until after his death.3 Has for the rest of the piece please find below some comments on selected excerpts.

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.- Ancient Egyptian saying, wrongly credited to the Christian bible.

Is it or is it not in the Bible and if it is how can it be "falsely" attributed to the Bible?

Question: To what country do we owe our Civilization, Philosophy, the Arts and the Sciences? Answer: Greece.

Who is this "We" and who the hell says this?

Question: Who is the wisest man the world has ever seen?

Answer: Aristotle

Says Who?

Question: Name the world three greatest thinker of all times?

Answer: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?

Says Who? and what about Jesus, the Buddha and Confucius.

Question: Who is the world greatest mathematician of all times, the [person] who invented the theorem of the Square of the Hypotenuse?
Answer: Pythagoras

Says Who?

All in all a collection of Agitation Propaganda points and assertions designed to generate much heat and little light.

I have quoted from an encyclopedia, which is often defined as 'volumes containing collections of human knowledge.' You don't argue with an encyclopedia, do you?

Why Not? and I certainly do!

You will be adjudged CORRECT and RIGHT if you give the above answers in an examination. But actually, none of the answers are TRUE. Based on what we know of history, they are FALSE.

Pure Agitation propaganda.

The greatest crime Europe committed against the world is the intellectual theft of Africa's heritage. Empires could be stolen, whole countries snatched and named after pirates rapists and swindlers. Palaces and monumental edifices destroyed could be rebuild. But when you steal a people's cultural patrimony, and used it to enslaved and insult them, you have committed unforgivable acts that border on the sacrilege.

I can think a few things more serious than alleged "theft" of intellectual ideas like, the slave trade and colonialism. Of course how can intellectual property be the collective property of a group and that use of it, borrowing it or being influenced by it can be theft?

That Greece invented philosophy, the Arts and the Sciences is the only basis on which the arrogance of Europe stands.It is those things credited to the Greek that made every European believed himself superior to other peoples\races. Conversely, it is the awe with which the other races view these grand ancient achievements, which made them cringe at the altar of supposed European superiority.

Again more agitation propaganda, the belief in European superiority rested mainly on the rather unpleasant fact that Europeans were able too by force impose themselves on most of the world and this lead to the belief in European superiority. Not just the idea that the Greeks invented philosophy, but also the idea that since the Europeans had steamships, the telegraph, etc., etc., a great many foolish Europeans thought they were superior to everyone else. This argument that European belief in their superiority rests entirely on a set of beliefs about the Greek achievements is hopelessly simple-minded. Besides it ignores the European belief in some sort of superiority based on the Christian tradition.

What course would the history of the world had taken if the European scholars[?] had not FALSELY claim for the Greeks what is certainly not theirs? Would the arrogance of Europeans not have been diminished if the truth about the contribution of Africa to human civilization have been correctly stated and interpreted? Would Africans have held themselves in such self-contempt if they have tried sooner to uncover the truth about their past? Would Africans be cringing at the altar of westernism if they know that almost every idea Europeans are using today was brazenly stolen from us? Would we be supplicating to a supposed son of an imaginary god if we knew that we gave RELIGION to the world?

So you are openly stating that your purpose is political and not a disinterested search for the truth. Some more agitation propaganda about "brazenly Stolen" ideas, again with the notion that ideas are collective property of a group and no other group may use them. Guess what no one society or people invented "religion" it is a universal.

Every European hold 'Greek Civilization' as an inspiration.

More agitation propaganda and besides it is not true.

They go around the world with volumes upon volumes celebrating Greek this, Greek that. From their original abode in Europe to the real estate they stole from other people, they shouted on top-voice about how they single-handedly invented and sustained human civilization! Sororities are created at institutions of higher learning. 'Great thinkers' waxed lyrical and sentimental about 'Greek Civilization.'

More useless polemics, designed to create heat and not light.

"The term Greek philosophy, to begin with is a misnomer, for there is no such philosophy in existence. The ancient Egyptians had developed a very complex religious system, called the Mysteries, which was also the first system of salvation." That was the opening statement from Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy, by George G.M. James.

Some Greeks did "philosophy", since some Greeks did Philosophy there is Greek Philosophy. QED. But then this is a insult to the Greeks arguing that they contributed very little. G.M. James Mysteries are very strange in that he tells us very little about the mysteries except that they were secret but he is sure that the Greeks ripped them off even though they were secret and little can be said about them.4

George James began his book by informing us that the Egyptian Mystery System was the oldest in the world and was 'also a Secret Order, and membership was gained by initiation and a pledge to secrecy. The teaching was graded and delivered orally to the Neophyte; and under these circumstances of secrecy, the Egyptians developed secret systems of writing and teaching, and forbade their Initiates from writing what they had learn.' - p.1

Thus G.M. James can avoid telling us much about it because it was secret. It removes the need to supply evidence on the part of G.M. James. This does not prevent him from pontificating about theft. Needless to say the Greeks are given no credit for getting these ideas into the light of day rather than being secret knowledge available only to a few.

The Egyptians have developed their systems and taught same to Initiates around the world long before the Greeks were allowed into the temples. It was only after the invasion of Alexander the Destructor (called the Great by western mythorians) when the temples and the libraries were plundered, that the Greek gained access to all the ancient books, on which Aristotle built his own school and his reputation as the wisest man that ever lived!

Lots of assertions and nonsense. Aristotle had established his own school more than twenty years before the conquest of Egypt by Alexander. And regarding the ideas that Alexander "ripped off", How he could have gotten his Politics, (a discussion of overwhelmingly Greek political systems) or his The Athenian Constitution from Egypt is beyond me. Most of Aristotle's writing are prior to Alexander conquering Egypt and of course there is little to no evidence that Aristotle ever went to Egypt. (he died in 322 B.C.E.)5

In the first chapter of his book, James masterfully destroyed the myth of a Greek philosophy. Pythagoras, the oldest of the so-called Greek-thinkers was a student in Egypt for several years. He was exiled when he started to teach what he had learned. Socrates was executed for teaching 'foreign ideas.' Plato was sold into slavery. Aristotle was also exiled. What we are asked to believed by western scholars was that these ancient Greeks were persecuted in a society that is sufficiently advanced in philosophy.

It is possible that Pythagoras went to Egypt although not likely. Regarding Plato he was not sold into slavery. Also Pythagoras was not the oldest of Greek thinkers that honour was given to Thales of Militus. What does the Greek persecution of Philosophers have to do with where the Greeks got their philosophy. The comment about persecution is pure polemics what does that have to do with anything? The French Philosophers of the Enlightenment were often persecuted and harassed also.6

On what basis do western scholars claim philosophy for Greece? Because the literature were written in Greece. As is still in existence unto today, most Orders prohibit their members from writing down what they learn. This explains why Socrates, as even the Encyclopedia Britannica admitted, did not commit anything to writing! The Babylonians and the Chaldeans, who also studied under the Egyptian Masters, also refused to publish those teachings. It is usurpers like Plato and Aristotle that brought into book forms all the secret teachings of Egyptian and claim authorship!

Mere assertion. Evidence please. Note the polemical flourish of describing Plato and Aristotle has "usurpers". I note that the touch that it was all oral saves the need to provide evidence.

George James pointed out the absurdity of this stance. The Hebrew scriptures, called the Septuagint, the Gospels and the Epistles were also written in Greek, why are the Greek not claiming authorship of them? 'It is only the unwritten philosophy of the Egyptians translated into Greek that has met such an unhappy fate: a legacy stolen by the Greeks.'

Maybe because specific works were specifically claimed to be the work of Plato, Aristotle etc. And maybe they wrote them! I note that Plato wrote dialogues about conversations that various people he knew allegedly had. I note that since the Greeks did not claim to have written the Septuagint it was because they didn't write it so that if they claimed they wrote something (i.e., a Greek wrote it) maybe they did.

This is not the only absurdities James pointed out in the book. Another instance: The number of books whose authorship is credited to Aristotle is simply impossible to be the work of one single man, even in our age when word-processing software makes writing a lot easier.

We know that a lot of Aristotle's books were lecture notes and he had students help him with projects. I note that Isaac Asimov wrote over 500 books.7

We also have to keep in mind that Aristotle was purported to have been taught by Plato. Plato, as the books, show was a philosopher. Aristotle is still regarded as the greatest scientist of antiquity. The question thus beggared is how could Plato taught Aristotle what he didn't know himself?

Plato did teach Aristotle any evidence otherwise (i.e., that someone else taught him?) Excuse me but can't Aristotle have found things for himself?

The truth of the matter was that Aristotle, aided by Alexander the Destroyer (some called him the Great), secured the books from the Egyptian Royal Libraries and Temples. 'In spite however of such great intellectual treasure, the death of Aristotle marked the death of philosophy among the Greeks, who did not seem to possess the natural abilities to advance these sciences.' p. 3

Aside from if the Egyptian knowledge was oral how could Aristotle find it in written form, what evidence that Aristotle pillaged Royal libraries in Egypt. The statement about Greek philosophy ending with Aristotle is completely false. The purest form of drivel.8

'The aim of this book is to establish better race relations in the world, by revealing a fundamental truth concerning the contribution of the African Continent to civilization. It must be borne in mind that the first lesson in the Humanities is to make a people aware of their contribution to civilization; and the second lesson is to teach them about other civilizations. By this dissemination of the truth about the civilization of individual peoples, a better understanding among them, and a proper appraisal of each other should follow. This notion is based upon the notion of the Great Master Mind: Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' Consequently, the book is an attempt to show that the true authors of Greek philosophy were not the Greeks; but the people of North Africa, commonly called the Egyptians; and the praise and honor falsely given to the Greeks for centuries belong to the people of North Africa, and therefore to the African Continent. Consequently this theft of the African legacy by the Greeks led to the erroneous world opinion that the African Continent has made no contribution to civilization, and that its people are naturally backward. This is the misrepresentation that has become the basis of race prejudice, which has affected all people of color.

How falsehoods and disparaging the Greeks will do this is beyond me.

To leave no one in doubt about the cogency of his impressive arguments, chapter one (Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy) opens with an examination of the stories of the so- called 'Greek Philosophers. Pythagoras, after receiving his training in Egypt, went back to his native Samos and established an Order as was the custom in those days. Anaximander and Anaximenes, native, Parmenides, Zeno and Melissus were all native of Ionia and they taught nothing but Egyptian mysteries. Ditto, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus. What we have to remember here is that Ionia was a colony of Egypt (readers are directed to Martin Bernal's, Black Athena, published by Vintage, especially vol. I, ISBN 0 09 988780 0). At the apex of its glory, Egypt held sway over much of the known world. The Ionians would later become Persian subjects after the fall of Egypt, before they even became Greek citizens.

Lots of assertions backed by no evidence. Pythagoras went to Italy, not to Samos, to establish his school. Ionia was never a part of Egypt.9

All of these Ionians did not claim for themselves the glory of philosophy or the sciences. The Persians and the Chaldeans were also introduced to the Ancient Mystery Systems, yet they did not claim authorship. It was the Athenians - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who usurped this African legacy and thereby distorted the reality of human history. What is quite clear was that it was Athens that those who taught the mysteries were persecuted the most until Alexander's time. We know with certainty that these philosophers were roundly persecuted by the Athenian Government for teaching foreign doctrines.

Any evidence? of course not.10

What is incredible about these 'Great Philosopher' is the total lack of any knowledge about their early lives. The world is asked to believe that these men who possessed all the super-natural abilities attributed to them had no education, no training, philosophy, mathematics and the sciences just came to them!

Again mere polemical assertion and agit-prop. Who says that they had no education after all Plato was a disciple of Socrates and Aristotle was a student of Plato and besides they could read the Ionian philosophers.

The only evidence adduced for this fraud was that the books were written by the Orders founded by the Athenian impostors. But as James repeatedly reminded us, the ancient Egyptians forbade their pupils from writing, and this injunction was obeyed by all but the Athenians. We have to excuse Socrates, whom James believed to be the only properly trained Initiate. Instead of divulging the secrets he had learned, he drank a poison. Both Plato and Aristotle fled. Yet they came back and claim the credits!

"Athenian impostors", let the useless, polemical insults fly! Has for not allowing them to write how convenient for G.M. James but of course our impostors get no credit for saving knowledge from obliteration. The stuff about Socrates is nonsense Socrates drank poison because he was tried and convicted for corrupting the youth, not to avoid telling secrets.12

The crucial question of how Aristotle got all the books that bore his credit is easily answered by the simple historical fact that he went with his friend, Alexander, in the latter campaign and conquest. After Egypt was conquered and destroyed, the Royal Library and the Temples were looted by Aristotle. It was with these books that he established his own school and, aided by his pupils, Theophrastus, Andronicus of Rhodes and Eudemus, started to copy the books. These men were also credited with the authorship of several books, and it was them who formed the organization of 'The Learned study of Aristotle Writings.' 'It would certainly appear that the object of the Learned Association was to beat Aristotle's own drum and dance. It was Aristotle's idea to compile a history of philosophy, and it was Aristotle's school and its alumni that carried out the idea, we are told." (p.19)

A collection of assertions and insults about Aristotle. The "simple historical fact" is that there is NO evidence that Aristoltle was ever in Egypt or that he looted libraries (of written down information that was supposidly only past down oraly!?).13

Chapter II, 'So-Called Greek Philosophy was Alien to the Greeks And their Conditions of Life.' Here James drew for us the conditions under which the Greeks were living at this period in history. According to the western mythorians, the period of 'Greek Philosophy' was located 640-322 BC.

The statement Greek philosophy was confined to the period 640-322 B.C.E. is simply false.14

'The period of Greek philosophy (640-322 BC was a period of internal and external wars, and was therefore unsuitable for producing philosophers. History supports the fact that from the time of Thales to the time of Aristotle, The Greeks were victims of internal disunion, on the one hand, while on the other, they lived in constant fear of invasion from the Persians who were a common enemy to the city states.

This is mere assertion Philosophy seems to have flourished in Europer in the past few centuries despite constant wars. I could also give China in the Era of warring states (c. 600-221 B.C.E.)15

When Western mythorians roll out Aristotle, Plato and Socrates, they fail to tell their audience how these guys were persecuted by their own government.

The Death of Socrates is one of the Cliches of the western tradition.16

These 'philosophers' were persecuted for the exactly the same reason - 'introducing strange divinities.' Socrates charge sheet read, in part, 'Socrates commit a crime by not believing in the Gods of the city, and by introducing other new divinities. He also commit a crime by corrupting the youth.' He was further accused of 'busying himself with investigating things beneath the earth and in the sky,a nd who makes the worse appear the better reason, and who teaches others the same thing.' Whereas astronomy was part of the required study in the Egyptian schools, the Athenian government was persecuting its citizens for pursuing such studies. Who, now, is the father of what?

More Agit-prop and so what how does this prove that Greek scholars did not write the books or make the discoveries atributed to them? Also Socrates new god was his personal "daemon" not a Egyptian deity. Oh and the story of Athens presecuting philosophers seems to be seriously exagerated. After all Athens attracted thinkers from all over the Greek speaking world.

The conquest of Alexander and the destruction of the Lodges and the libraries plus the edicts of Theodosius and Justinian suppressed the Egyptian mystery systems and the Greek philosophy schools alike, paving the way for christianity which is nothing but a badly mis-understood Egyptian religion.

After insulting the Greeks lets insult Christians.

In Chapter five through chapter seven, George James analyzed the doctrines of the so-called Greek philosophers and convincingly show their Egyptian origin. From pre-Socratic 'Philosophers' like Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Pythagoras to Eleatic 'philosophers' like Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno and Melissus, to the Ionian school of Heraclitus, Anaxagoras and Democritus, he showed that what history has attributed to these impostors were nothing but what they copied from the Egyptians.

"Impostors", more insults. Besides perviously our Author had said the Ionians were good guys unlike the evil Athenian three (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle). G.M. James shows no such thing except very vague alleged similarities.17

In these, the most important chapters, James concluded that the Greeks were guilty of plagiarism of the highest order.

Once again ideas are property of one particular group and of course the Greeks are guilty of "plagiarism", basically by mere assertion.

Chapter eight dealt with the Memphite Theology which 'is an inscription on a stone, now kept in the British Museum. It contains the theological, cosmological and philosophical views of the Egyptians. It has already been referred to in my treatment of Plato's doctrines; but it must be repeated here to show its full importance as the basis of the entire field of Greek philosophy.' p. 139. Here James show how portions of the philosophy of the Memphite Theology were assigned to the Greeks. This is a very important chapter as it throws enough light, not only on the whole argument of where the Greek got the ideas credited to them, but also about the true source of modern scientific knowledge.'

G.M. James chapter fails quite competly to show any influence on the Greeks of this theology or even that the Greeks were aware of it.

If the modern Nebular hypothesis credited to Laplace which holds that our present solar system was once a molten gaseous nebula is ever proven right, credit should go to the ancient Egyptians. Their cosmology is strikingly similar. They knew that the universe was created from fire. The Egyptian God Atum (Atom) together with his eight Created Gods that composed the Ennead or Godhead of nine, this correspond with our nine major planets. Atom, the sun God, was the Unmoved Mover, a doctrine which has been falsely attributed to Aristotle. Likewise, the injunction, 'Know Thyself,' was wrongly attributed to Socrates. As James pointed out, it was an inscription found on every Egyptian Temple. The Cardinal virtues, justice, wisdom, temperance and courage which was falsely credited to Plato owed their origin to the Egyptian Masters.

The idea that the world emerged out of swerling chaos is quite common. Again more vague similarities that G.M. James interprets as consistant with Greek thought, with little thought to providing a link to Greek thought. Oh and is our author asserting that the Egyptians knew of nine planets, (now eight since Pluto as been demoted)? If so our author as a serious case of woo.

In the concluding chapter nine, 'Social Reformation through the New Philosophy of African Redemption,' James wrote: 'Now that it has been shown that philosophy, and the arts and sciences were bequeathed to civilization by the people of North Africa and not by the people of Greece; the pendulum of praise and honor is due to shift from the people of Greece to the people of the African continent who are the rightful heirs of such praise and honor.

Open admission that this is designed to "steal the heritage" how revealing.

No one, IMO, should be allowed to teach African history who has not read Stolen Legacy. No one should call himself educated who has not read Stolen Legacy. The next time anyone brandishes a Ph.D in your face, your question should be, 'Have you read Stolen Legacy?'

Yes I have and it is very bad book full of distorions, falsehoods and insults all for a very clear political purpose to which honesty and accuracy and simple good scholarly etiquite are sacrificied.18

Aristotle

1. James, G. M., Stolen Legacy, Philosophical Library, New York, 1954.

2. In the Hall of Maat at Here.

3. Snowden, Frank M. Jr., Bernal’s “Blacks” and the Afrocentrists, in Black Athena Revisted, Ed. Lefkowitz, Mary R., & Rogers, Guy, Mclean, The University of Noth Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC, 1996, pp. 112-128, p. 121.

4. For early Greek philosophy see Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., & Schofield, M., The Presocratics, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983, Waterfield, Robin, The First Philosophers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, Barnes, Jonathan, Early Greek Philosophers, Second Revised Edition, Penguin Books, 2001. The above books contain the surviving fragments of the pre-Socratics with commentary.

5. See Aristotle, The Politics, Penguin Books, London, 1962, and his The Athenian Constitution, Penguin Books, London, 1984.

6. See Footnote 4 for more detail on Pythagoras.

7. See Wikipedia Bibliography of Isaac Asimov Here

8. For Greek Philosophy after Aristotle see Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N., The Hellenistic Philosophers, v. 1 & 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987. See also Walbank, F. W., The Hellenistic World, Fontana Press, London, 1992, pp. 176-199.

9. Footnote 9.

10. For an evaluation of the idea idea that Athens routinely prsecuted philosophers and how very dubious the whole idea is see Stone, I. F., The Trial of Socrates, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1988, pp. 231-247.

11. Footnote 3.

12. Footnote 10.

13. Footnote 3.

14. Footnote 8.

15. Nivison, David Shepherd, The Classical Philosophical Writings, in Loewe, Michael & Shaughnessy, Edward L., The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 745-789, Harper, Donald, Warring States, Natural Philosophy and Occult Thought, in Loewe, pp. 790-884.

16. Footnote 10.

17. For more about these Ionian Philosophers see Footnote 4.

18. For more about Afrocentrism see Howe, Stephen, Afrocentrism, Verso, London, 1999. See also the essays in Black Athena Revisted and Lefkowitz, Mary, Stolen Legacy ( or Mythical History): Did the Greeks Steal Philosophy From the Egyptians? In Skeptic, v. 2 No. 4, 1994, pp. 98-103, Appiah, Kwane Anthony, Beyond Race: Fallacies of Reactive Afrocentrism, in Skeptic, v. 2 No. 4, 1994, pp. 104-107. For Why people believe strange stuff see Shermer, Michael, Why People Believe Weird Things, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1997.

Pierre Cloutier