An extensive US propaganda campaign has presented the Spanish elections as a victory for Al Qaeda. But the Spaniards did not cave in to Al Qaeda. Instead they punished the Aznard government for blatantly lying about who did the deed (200 people killed in simultaneous bombings). The Socialists had proposed to pull out of Iraq long before. Aznard, the son of a fascist official, went one lie too far. Why was Aznard lying? To be paid fat fees lecturing in the US? As he is doing?

Insulting people is a slippery slope. The Spaniards, and other Europeans, feeling hurt, may want to better understand what America is trying to tell them by insulting them. Why were powerful circles in the US so agitated about Iraq? Why are the US suddenly so obsessed about democracy? Why, indeed, did the US do nothing as a coalition of fascist armies killed a million Spaniards, their republic, and their democracy? And now we are all supposed to die for democracy in Iraq?

Fascists dislike France, because France invented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1789), something which leaves little room for fascism. Mussolini hated France so much that, in 1934, he persuaded some Spanish neoconservatives to accept weapons, in exchange for future bases in Spain. The neoconservatives recruited General Franco to destroy the republic. His army was African, and the Spanish fleet blockaded it. It was flown to Europe by the Nazis and Italian fascists. The Nazi Luftwaffe became Franco's air force, and an army of more than 50,000 Italian fascists came in handy, complete with tanks. Why did the US do nothing? Why is the US giving the world lessons about democracy, and did nothing when the Spanish republic got attacked by pure bred fascists? Why? Because, at the time, the US had oil, and the US needed to sell that oil, to become richer, and all these fascist armies needed oil. There was also a genuine affection from neoconservative Americans to neofascist Europeans. Neoconservatives, and neofascists: hearts together. So the fascists were fueled by Texaco (now Condoleeza Rice's Chevron) and Standard Oil of New Jersey (also known as Esso, or Exxon; co-owner of "Iraq Petroleum co."). The fascists requiring machines to put that oil into, other American corporations (Ford, GM, Studebaker, etc...) had also been given a "free hand" by the US government to offer their products; the fascists were accorded long term credits without collateral. In the meantime, US corporations were paid with Spanish blood. Before the end of 1938, the fascists, who called themselves "nationalists", had executed 150,000 people in Andalusia alone. The war ended in March 1939. France had initially helped the Spanish republic, but was barred to do more by the British, well known accomplices of the Americans, and all entangled with them in co-owning Iraqi oil companies, among other things. The Spanish people fought alone against the combined might of a fascist army, Hitler's German Nazis, the Italian fascists, and, most crucially, superpowerful corporate Anglo-America. Cutting off American oil would have stopped the fascist machines immediately. For three years, the Spanish people fought desperately. "An army against a people", as the US ambassador observed. "Cowardice" is not a word which describes the Spanish people well.

Of course, later on America played a crucial role in the liberation of Europe. There were nearly as many Americans soldiers on D day, in Normandy, as soldiers from other allied forces. But would not it have been simpler, and more human, to not build up the fascists to start with? Ah, but then the "American Century" would not have become all it could be. America would simply be a great power, among other great powers, not a superpower. We would never have had the delight of the American "neocons" explaining to us how they were going to conquer the world with small high tech armies.

Making fun of France's alleged cowardice, as American "neoconservatives" also do, invites reconsideration of the entire US record over the thirty years of fascism during which the US became a superpower. The French themselves would have loved to be accused of cowardice in the mid thirties, because that would have given them all they needed to march on Berlin, and bring the Nazis to justice. US and British pro Nazi policies prevented the French march on Berlin to happen in a timely manner. At the time, the US-British song and dance was not about invading Iraq, but about France NOT invading Germany. The US and Britain were too busy collaborating with Hitler to describe that as appeasement. It was collaboration of Anglo-America with Nazism, pure and simple. Now has come the time to admit this, as part of a general Anglo-American effort of introspection. Accusations against France have to be welcome: let's speak about history, and put it on trial. After WW2 thousands of French were put on trial in France for their behavior during the war. Among many others, a Head of State, a Prime Minister, and a famous writer were condemned to death. No similar trials were instigated in the US or UK at the same level of responsibility. Inquiries against US corporations and individuals for high treason were initiated in 1942, at a low administrative level, and were quickly squashed by the US executive branch ... Or should we call it the US corporate branch?

The French military is BY FAR, the most interventionist in the world. When Human Rights violations are egregious, France attacks readily, without waiting for the UN, or the US, or a "Higher Father" to give her the go ahead. Katanga, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Chad/Lybia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Ivory Coast are just a few recent examples. The later 3 cases were followed with UN intervention. That policy is not controversial in France, since it is supported both by the right and the left. The UK is also interventionist, but not as much (Bosnia, in cooperation with France, being the only recent British intervention initiated without any UN mandate; but it's the French who fired first on the Serbs to save Sarajevo).

That the French military is highly interventionist is also the view from the top US military (which is pro-French at the highest level, all the more since the top US brass was against the 2003 Iraq war! Both military forces collaborate continually, and there is even a joint French-US thermonuclear weapons program, as sort of simmering Manhattan project of the two of them).

The French are the only ones with offensive ops in Afghanistan, aside from the US (other nations are there to maintain order, although they die too). France's is the second largest contingent there. All special forces. French generals claim they nearly caught bin Laden several times, but lost him because of the terrain.

In 2004 a joint US-France operation discreetly annihilated to the last a Qaeda like terrorist group in the Sahara. The German government had paid ransom to them in the past. It seems the US was the hammer, and 1,000 French troops the anvil. The Islamist terrorists were chased all across Africa, and finished off in the mountains of the Tibesti. Call that an appeasement policy, Roman style.

After the WW1-WW2 fascist fiasco, and now that her strength is back, France will never wait again on the UN or the US, to do something about fascism. And if it means taking on the US big mouth, hungry gut, and treacherous corporations, so be it. The US needs to go on a diet and see a shrink, the French doctor is just trying to help. The US has no lesson to give to France, inasmuch as lessons to be given. The US encouraged German fascism as early as May/June 1914. The US then went on invading Mexico, as her parent, democratic republican France, was fighting alone against the FASCIST Germanoid, war crime committing juggernaut, which was determined to annihilate her as a democracy and a culture, as a preliminary step to even grander things.

That the US helped Hitler and his Nazis, big time, and crucially, before, during (!!!), and after WW2 is already well established, and will one day be as common knowledge as the fact that the blacks used to be oppressed in the US.

The French war ministry started the (later on amusingly called) "Manhattan" project (January 1938), with the idea of appeasing the Nazis with atom bombs (the French were the first to bomb Berlin). Now just one French strategic nuclear submarine could devastate any country in the world. The safety of the US depends upon France, the UK, and Russia being the only ones who can do that. US security is compromised by making the whole planet mad, without doing anything to disarm it. It is as if some in the US hoped that another World War would again be tremendously beneficial to the US. They are sorely mistaken, because not all of the people can be fooled all of the time, time and time again, in the same manner.

The bottom line is that France was the first attempt at a one man-one vote constitution (1792) and has plenty of lessons to give to everybody on this and related subjects. As Lloyd George, British PM, said in 1919, the French revolution was misunderstood for the great progress it was, and this resulted in a 25 year war, which should have been avoided.

To underestimate the aggressiveness and righteousness of the French is even more of a mistake than to underestimate the aggressiveness of the US. France was getting ready to attack Saddam if he did not submit. Simply, the proper threatening procedures making war a LAST resort were not followed by Bush and al. Saddam had actually proposed free elections, and would have gone away quietly under UN supervision, as was done in Indonesia with Timor, and in many other countries in much more delicate situations (Rhodesia, South Africa, etc...; South Africa had nuclear weapons). The invasion and occupation of Iraq was useless to anybody not connected to Halliburton, Bechtel, and company. Since the French do not relate to Halliburton and company, they were out of the loop, and an Anglo-American corporate assault made sure of that. The Iraq war is quite similar to the US corporate assault during the Spanish Civil war, but without a General Franco, and other fascists to hide behind. Hence the interest of not insulting the Spaniards too much: they may suddenly revisit history, and it is unlikely the US would like what they find. The same holds for all of Eastern Europe. Poland, for example, was generously given by the Anglo-Americans to Stalin, a butcher second to none. Roosevelt fell asleep as the crucial paper was written. Churchill called it "the naughty document". The analysis of the motivations of this Anglo-Americans conspiracy has still to be detailed, and should prove instructive. The Romans would have recognized immediately one of their preferred techniques: divide, to reign (as they called it). So half of Europe was given to the butcher, in spite of the fact Patton's Third US Army could have been in Warsaw, let alone Berlin, in no time (the Red Army had used its reserves, and disliked Stalin). And ever since, the US has reigned.

France is on a collision course with the US due to the fact that the US persists into wanting to own and overlord the European unification project. France, on the other hand, views European unification as the way to prevent any future European civil war. The 1871-1945 European civil war followed the overall pattern of a democracy, France, attacked by fascists (as said above the Spanish civil war became a part and a consequence) . As France sees it, democracy has to reign in Europe. Only democracy. In particular, it is not the US which should reign in Europe. The US finds this notion most disappointing, not to say childish, and outright French. To complicate matters, the EU uses and elaborates constitutional means more advanced than anything the US seems capable of imagining. Maybe it's a way to escape control by taxing the US IQ. France experienced a deficit of her population of at least 50% due to stupid European wars in the last 2 centuries. The European Union is a matter of the basic survival of French civilization. So France is a big part of the determined soul behind the European construction, and will not flinch, even if it means confronting her own overgrown brat with teenage issues, the USA, in a world wide shouting match. Since France created the US, in more way than one, France is more relax at putting the US back in its proper place. OK, the US is not ready to join the EU: too large a deficit, we can understand the frustration of being momentarily excluded... The US "neoconservative" imperial project of bombing everybody into submission is beyond America's capabilities, be they moral, economic, or military. Whereas the European project of talking everybody into cooperation is well within European capability.

Being a superpower is not just an industrial, economic, or military concept. It is first of all a CIVILIZATIONAL concept, and that means more intelligence, and that boils down to more introspection. Preferring to insult other people is not conducive to the refined study of "what went wrong". The transfer, by the US army, after the defeat of the Nazis, of payments for the lease of IBM equipment to the Nazis, in all the extermination camps including Auschwitz and Dachau, deserves to be studied more, because it was very wrong. It is a marker of a US pathology, and even more so is the fact that these things were covered up, and the US government still goes around the world to give lessons on human rights. Non extirpated evil, evil which goes on because it was left alone, will recur and flourish.

Please feel encouraged to transmit this essay to other people who have been getting slights and jokes about the European opposition to the present US administration ... One wants to be careful about the "jokes" one exposes children to. And those who know little are like children. They could be imprinted on jokes without any truth in them. Anti-Semitism started with jokes, but it ended up as reality. Dimwits believed the jokes about the Jews, and before one knew it, they had become the truth. The orchestrated anti French campaign in the US is no laughing matter: I have seen some so called "friends" disappear like snow in the Sahara. Jokes can hurt, even kill.

But the French are not old fashion Jews: they will fight back, and they can hurt in turn. Looking at history, the argument can be easily made that the Franks/French were the most aggressive nation ever. Actually the liberation of so much of the Mediterranean from Islam's yoke, was mostly their work. France can teach a lot to the naive US in how to fight dictatorial Islam. Charlemagne negotiated with the Emirs of Spain more than 12 centuries ago, and that helped civilization to flourish. France is also the closest friend and ally the US ever had, a 230 year ally, aside from being the progenitor of the US, so the US is actually shooting itself in the head by attacking France, both figuratively, and literally.

Now, of course, good point, bushmen do not need much head as they beat around the bush for oil. Some would say that it is rude to rewrite history the way it was, rather than how a superpower and its servants wrote it. But appearances are not reality, or the truth. Only the latter two can teach us durably. We need to learn a lot, and we have very little time to do it. Only fools cling to appearances as if they were the truth. And foolishness is now immorality number one.

Frankly yours,
Patrice Ayme'
May 21, 2004.