Intent of French Rush to War Remains Unclear
Little has changed in Europe since the last century, once dragging the planet into world war, now despite industrial overpopulation and refugee influx threatening to sink below the share of world population a political party there needs to reach to enter parliament. In the rush to war of a betrayed generation fleeing its militarist consumerism for the false idealism of capitalist militarism, the tragedy of the last century stages itself as Marxian farce: In Paris, the military is hiring, and just like a century ago certain people are jumping the meat grinder of the war machine like mad. After the 20th century world war, after every wave thereof, all who had followed the signals of the "from bad to worse" course were no longer there. Now, what Lenin´s biographer said about the European problem, that when a president declares an opinion, the other day every street brush worker will boost it, seems more up to date than the military air show.
In historical review, it may appear as one of the greatest jokes of the young century that France took the North American lie about the purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq so serious that it dramatically opposed it for the grotesque fear it might actually be fulfilled: The dismantling of nuclear weapons. The then head of state´s bonmot of the missed opportunity to abstain from military aggression now is backfiring on Nato´s problem child: Had De Gaulle sought the capacity of mass destruction as emotional compensation for having become an Anglo-American asset in the conventional world war, so did every French politician from thereon stick to it as an expression of insufficient decolonisation.
France, squeezed down to the size Napoleon had finally imposed on the great powers of the Thirty Years War, did not accept the natural consequences of its wrongdoing, and played around with its lethal toys in the Pacific, peaking in the New Zealand port bombing of 1986, when it used conventional bomb terrorism as a means to escalate its solicitation of nuclear war. But then, in the 21st century, the same sclerotic Mr. Chirac who had just been collectively dragged away from the temptation of a comeback of the Pacific terrorism, was opposing the then American president Bush´s proclaimed clean-up war, and be it only for a bogus reserve currency speculation - that the Palestinians would be foolish enough to drag the Saudis into the European central bank, like the Israelis had done for the Americans in the collapse of the British empire two generations earlier.
Born out of the geopolitical confusion there appeared the linguistic masterpiece of the Coming Insurrection, and come it did. Contained by the then still intact insurance market bubble, the increase of car fires that came about as a blowback against the official repression was reflected in election politics bringing a representative of the repressive apparatus into political office. The insurrection went on in the ex-colonies where heads of state made way for it, making Sarkozy so resentful that he turned against Gaddafi, who had taken up the responsibility to coach the French and give them an example how to give up nuclear weapons at the peak of the 2003 war.
Sarkozy presented a superficial clean-up only good for manufacturing consent while engaging in aggression against these handling their toxic assets right - though Gaddafi might be called naive for swallowing a bilateral deal with the Americans, to remain a precedent for other nation states. Sarkozy´s resentment represented the colonialist scum that develops when a nation solves its overpopulation problem by exporting second-rate characters as colonialists, and it cost him his position. The spoiling of his aspired comeback by the alternative nationalism benefiting of the current official hate sermons was programmed.
He was followed by a business whore that is a playball of the so-called security services. Had Napoleon inside Europe been a progressive force, a military man though but like Assad one overwhelming all the established figures of the apparatus, so would it be his role in Syria alone that international jurisprudence, if in effect, had to weigh as a matter of compensation claims. One could say France´s rush with military war planes and warships to the Syrian border follows Russia´s intervention on the side of the republic, or the American meddling in the janissary mask at the Saudi court table, or drop it there, they don´t feel too dumb playing this after the world understood what the Islamic State said about the bomber pilots of the Gulf Emirates under American command - no offence intended, but the theatrics of Unitedstates ambassador to Unitednations really is that ridiculous.
That the war planes are supplemented with mid-air refuelling aircraft is an operational detail experts underline as alarming - in short distance to the Syrian border, the only situation where such technically precarious equipment would be used would be a shooting war between rivalling air forces. Since the Islamic State does not have such a thing, it can only mean the Syrian air force, but that is so outmatched by the European gunboat diplomacy that the presence of mid-air refuelling capacities can be read as an expectation that soon the various allied air forces besieging Syria could turn against each other. Only when there is a background risk of military aircraft being shot down and taking longer flight paths to avoid it, the accident-rich mid-air refuelling technique is preferred to ground-based refuelling in the airbase or on the carrier ship.
It is the vassal regime in Madrid which covers up the drastic consequences of such accident since two generations, but just like electronic missile defence, when inserted into a symmetric conflict, the technique can bring about political unreliability much worse than the immediate technical risk alone. After nuclear deterrents turned into friendly dirty bombs in a bomber refuelling accident, due to the quantity and energy-intensity of the burning kerosene, the accident caused what professionals looking at the Trade Towers attack later came to describe as the oven-house effect. Imagine a burning house had a giant damper built in that could be turned between vertical and horizontal positions, and take the point in the time line of the fire when you would turn it, and you have an idea what a fuel splash does in no time.
It should be added for comparison that the Russian war plane shot down by Turkey was comparatively harmless an incident, since it did not carry very much fuel, and Moscow can make a credible argument that it only took the shortest way back and forth, and would not have had the capacity left to fly a stint straight against Ankara to drop a rotten apple into the front yard of an internet corporation branch office which betrayed the people to the national security state. But if someone shoots down the refuelling provocation over Turkish territory, Erdogan only has himself to blame.
It is sad irony - while the fascists are attempting to green-wash themselves in climate conferences, chewing one lame promise after another dished up by their public relations staff what they might do if only their leading opponents were to vote for them, the militaries of these very same regimes that claim to clean others the way are bragging about setting oil wells on fire and smashing the clumsy equipment of a toxic industry. The environmental damage of war alone deprecates any words spoken in a Paris conference room. But unlike a fascist government, the climate can be positively changed or negative change thereof avoided by a change of behaviour.
Yet if you believe the behaviour of the government would change when it notices you voting for it, then you do not know which political adviser walked away from his boss with the proverb of the pilot leaving the ship, and were to believe almost anyone. Back to France, which is now again grabbing for West Asia, flanked by the same EU-3 that had to be discarded for P5+1 in the nuclear negotiations to get beyond the failed Paris agreement of 2003. It turned out that the term "suspension" of a nuclear program did not carry any unequivocal diplomatic meaning. It was this deprecated diplomacy that was hit in the Paris attack of Friday the 13th, like a city council has a car wreck removed after a while if the owner does not care for himself.
But there are these people in Paris who still do not understand why Muslim warriors in their reciprocation use them as props of their air shows - people who do not understand how the military works and stand in front of what they perceive as a terrorist attack like an ape in front of a mirror. Or they look at Wikileaks and think it was a loner on steroids when it in fact is the ambassador of unknown numbers of people adapting their lives to avoid harassment contact by agents, and who are honestly convinced that it is not their obligation to kick and scream in public. It is the military which is on steroids. They look at the youth culture bombings, and do not understand that they see a mirror of the military menace going on behind their backs. What happened in Paris depicted the effect of American agents flooding an European city where a target has left an anonymous signal - they will be looking around and into private data of a large number of people coming somehow close to their expectation of the target, and if the covert Assange does not show up then these collaterals are the actual targets of an overheated apparatus at the brink of breakdown under the load of its internal pressure.
Yes, France is wavering and its fraudulent allies let it happen as if they wanted the Islamic State to do the same in green. Effectively, the dead of Paris were killed by the pathetic destroyer of himself, Hollande, with his own hands, when he knowingly and willingly decorated the American false flag agents a few months earlier, which he would not have done would he have cast an open ballot over it among the one-hundred-something who went for a cultural substitute of death, and got real death as if they had been Africans encountering French soldiers. Had the vassal not betrayed his own people, the bombers would not have had an inspiration. The rumour that guns would have come from the nut belt of an American military base in Germany are to be put into the same category as these concerning the false flag train incident. Likewise, would not the oil price be the actual climate bomb, which climate conferences are too cowardly to mention, and would not every crackpot dictator around the world carefully observe how devastating the disinformation warfare of the fascist democracies is, Mr. Assad would have no inspiration for any barrel bombs.
But then the presidential business whore rages against its equal competitor as if the Thirty Years War had never happened and the failure of the one state idea - to which Napoleon significantly contributed - was not permanent. And there still is that bizarre propaganda that France was fighting for some form of freedom - yet the only real freedom can be achieved when the state ceases to control and everyone could prepare some terror but no one is interested to - because there is no monopoly on terror any more that needs to be dismantled, as there currently is. The Paris series of attacks would not have occurred, would it not mirror what is going on behind the backs of a society betrayed by its government. Any finger the military or the police state does move can only be part of the treason. If France does not like to be hurt like an American-pimped show prop, maybe it ought to become sovereign by finally giving up the nukes? Oui, on peut demolir.
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion