Every fairy tale – like every state lie, and every religion for that matter – rests on a well-defined moral principle. An apparently logical concept, able to satisfy the most curious as well as the most ignorant, since we are asked to “believe” in an infinite number of improbabilities often qualified as miracles, divine fatalities, chances, and other “incomprehensible” decisions…
In two words, a lie able to satisfy the curiosity of the People, must be based on a dramaturgical principle that everyone can all the more easily adopt as it is nebulous.

Now, what are the two fundamental principles? The good and the bad.

The problem is that they have to be defined.

As far as this second world conflict is concerned, we therefore choose to oppose “democracy and dictatorship”, which can be understood, provided however that we do not rule out the fact that the second of these concepts was common to two apparently opposite ideologies: “ communism” and “fascism”.

And if so, what is the meaning of these two words?

As for communism, it is commonly accepted that it would be based on the idea of ​​solidarity: We put everything in common, so that no one is left behind. Either apparently the republican principle of fraternity.
On the contrary, fascism proposes that everyone has a chance in a world that he will have organized to serve his own interests. Or the imperialist logic par excellence of “everyone for himself and may the best win”. This even if, at their beginning, Italian fascism and Nazism were able to adorn themselves with socialist colors. Republican claims of solidarity quickly abandoned to serve only an authoritarian logic based on force.

The second question remains: What is the value commonly attributed to the word “democracy”?

Infinitely delicate question nowadays, because bringing us back to the British Empire, whose astonishing cohesion for centuries results from its ability to adapt to upheavals, since it managed to unite its colonies and dominions around a total absence of political principles.

In fact, unlike republican democracies, England has never clearly expressed the ideal towards which it is tending by drafting a Constitution, contenting itself with claiming that a series of decrees having modified the balance of power between the King, the Parliament and the People from the year 1215 to the present day would be more than enough to express his conception of the world.

Small arrangement with political logic, which was not going to be without consequences…

England, a kingdom with fluctuating morals

It all began in 1649, when the English nobles and bourgeois cut off the head of King Charles I, then restored royalty, thus inventing a kind of very special democracy: The king would be no more than a screen, the military, religious powers , and money effectively taking control of the country.

Thus, in ultimately safeguarding the role of the king, the guiding principle remained that of the Monarchy by divine right: “God is my right”, implying that to be born rich or poor would be a divine will that must be respected, without seek to change the established order.
This made it possible, over the centuries, to forget to write any constitution that would morally bind the political system, if only by clearly defining the principles supposed to be applied.

It is therefore in this hybrid assembly aimed at involving the People in the decisions of a Parliament legitimized by the person of the king, therefore by God, that it was decided to enlarge the circle of the powerful in order to further strengthen the executive power. .
According to this principle, as soon as a person, whatever his origins, contributed in one way or another to the fortune or the fame of the Empire, he found himself ennobled, then integrated into the elite. On a more modest scale, he was given access to a few very closed clubs, or to certain networks such as Freemasonry.

Nowadays, this mode of government is maintained by what the British claim as a “tradition”, a respect for the past and other populist arguments. In reality, a way of their own not to bind themselves to any principle other than the immediate interest, since the Parliament legally retains the power to modify by a simple law the institutions of the kingdom as well as the fundamental rights of the subjects, without being compelled to respect a clearly established constitution.

In other words, what is commonly called today, in a more flowery way, the imperatives of “real politic” which would give him the moral pretext necessary for the construction of an Empire.

An Empire essential to the development of the country since Great Britain owed its prosperity only to its ability to enrich itself at the expense of others. Without this windfall, its populations were reduced to starvation or exodus.

The fact of living on an island without great resources had therefore first pushed the English to invade France during the Hundred Years War, then to build a fleet which would finally give them unlimited access to these riches which they lacked. so much.
It should therefore never be forgotten that England was, and remains, an aggressive monarchy. The fact that it has become over time a parliamentary monarchy and that its sovereign no longer has the power to decide its destiny alone does not change anything in the spirit of its government, since on the eve of the Second World War II the parliamentarians of the two Chambers were still, for the most part, either aristocrats of old stock, or industrialists or financiers ennobled, or distinguished by their rank of fortune.
This even if the Parliament Act, adopted in 1911, significantly reduced the power of the House of Lords to grant legislative power to the House of Commons – whose members each representing a constituency are always elected by universal suffrage – since in reality the Access to politics remained, if not in principle at least in practice, forbidden to the common people, in any case without great resources, because they had to pay heavy charges to be able to stand for elections.

Anglo-Saxon society on both sides of the Atlantic therefore functioned, and still functions, on what is known as “meritocracy”. In other words: Only he who, by his talents whatever they are, can strengthen the system survives. And too bad for the others!

Which leads us to sum up this very particular form of government as the clearly stated desire to maintain the privileges of the “strongest”, those who “have succeeded”.

In a word: A plutocracy.

Religions, democracies, republics

• Another nuance completely blurred by the media forming single thought: The difference, not to say the total lack of correspondence, between what they commonly call the “Protestant countries”, mixing in a deliberate misinterpretation the Reformed Lutheran Protestant religion or Calvinist, resulting from a contestation of the excesses of the Catholic Church at the time of the Renaissance; and Anglicanism, whose origin dates back to the decision of King Henry VIII of England to separate his country from the Catholic Church and to make the King the supreme head of the Church of England, following the refusal of the Pope to grant him a divorce from his wife Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne Boleyn.
  In reality, this schism with the Catholic Church allowed him above all to confiscate the property of the Church of Rome – which at that time owned almost a third of the land – and to significantly reduce its political power, without however recognizing for his own the Reformed Protestant Church which he also condemned in no uncertain terms.

In fact, it was above all a question of strengthening his personal power by getting rid of the religious counter-power, a subtle form of dictatorship.

To fully understand the scope of this decision by Henry VIII, it should be remembered that, just as the Senate of Republican Rome relied on the priests to legitimize the advent of the imperial system and the divination of the person of the Emperor, therefore the end of the Republic, the Christian society had brought the same perversion of the system in order to despoil the Peoples of their legitimate rights to democracy.

Indeed, if we are willing to remember that the essential principles of government of human societies were, since the beginning of humanity, based on three powers: that of the King, that of the People and finally the religious power supposed to serve as impartial arbiter, the fact of uniting royalty and religion in the long term by a convergence of interests was not innocent, because the fact of leaving face to face two powers, – on the one hand Royalty and Religion and of the other the People – systematically brings about a confrontation in which the latter is rarely victorious…

However, Henry VIII by instituting a state religion, therefore being entirely subject to it, went even further in his quest for absolute power and undivided domination over his people.

And we note that with the “Lutheran” Protestant reform it is a question, in opposition to this sort of “coup d’etat” of Henry VIII, of a questioning of this deviation which was the alliance of catholic church, in theory only spiritual power, with a material power such as royalty.
Let us not forget that this notion of hereditary royalty “by divine right” did not exist in the original political organization of the peoples of Europe. Prior to this deviation, as in the days of the Roman Republic, the leader was elected.

And no one will be surprised that this reform has seen the light of day in the ancient pagan countries called “barbarians” of all times opposed to imperialist Rome…

Because in history, everything is linked. Non-stop.

Let us therefore retain from its lessons that having only the appearances of reformed Protestantism – since the essentially Catholic idea of ​​”divine right” and predestination is preserved – this Protestantism of circumstance established by Henry VIII – then further developed by Queen Elisabeth 1st which will carefully balance the contributions of the Reformation and the Catholic principles so as not to harm the principles of hereditary monarchy – must be considered as another essential difference between the Anglo-Saxon countries and the truly Protestant reformist countries in majority of Northern Europe , since even if the founders of the movement such as Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, only partially questioned the idea of ​​divine legitimacy, their successors, after the Thirty Years War, brought the concept of equality of each person with regard to God and between men.

Or a gradual, but unequivocal, questioning of the idea of ​​predestination, therefore of the right of monarchical succession, and the foundation of republican principles.

Then came the 18th century, known as the “Enlightenment”, during which the Kings granted more and more powers to the representatives of the Peoples.

At the end of this profound change, the Declaration of Independence of the United States was drafted in 1776 and then, with the French Revolution of 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Moment in the history of civilizations, when two conceptions of the world began to clash:

– On the one hand, that of Republican Democracy based on a principle of solidarity: “Liberty, equality, fraternity” and on human rights.

Model of thought involving the idea, of Protestant influence but also followed by an important category of Catholics, according to which man is responsible for his neighbor and cannot rely solely on the will of God. That there is no “fatality” or divine punishment, and that his duty is to lift others up to bring them to an equal footing. Principles of solidarity followed in its beginnings by the very young American Republic.
– And on the other the royalist conceptions, according to which God, as an enlightened steward, would have given to each according to his merits: To the King a throne, to the Wretched his office, and to the Powerful fortune. And that there would be nothing to change in this rule of “Each for himself and God for all”.

This essential difference in the very conception of politics and human relations was, in large part, at the origin of the wars of the 20th century because the Anglo-Saxon logic which ended up imposing itself in the United States, based on the Darwinist and eugenicist according to which “only the strongest survives”, but also on the divine legitimacy also granted by extension to the so-called “democratic” governments, could only oppose the notions of solidarity and secularism proposed by the Republics.

Thus, even if one can argue that “Protestant” England was the “cradle of Democracy” because in recent history it was the first to have cut off the head of its sovereign to impose the authority of a Parliament, it never became a Republic in the French sense of the term, since it always abstained from deciding on the essential questions of “Brotherhood” and therefore of solidarity, but also of “Equality” between men and races before the Law, to return very quickly to Catholic conceptions of divine right and hereditary power, but also imperialist conceptions of “white supremacy” under the guise of Christianity and the “duty” to civilize.

Indeed, the only common concept adopted was that of “Freedom” because, as we have seen, this is adaptable to all sauces, notably when it comes to waging war on a country, or to foment a revolution there, in the name of “entrepreneurial freedom”.

Besides, how could England have adopted principles of equality, or abandoned the excuse of a so-called Christian “civilizing mission”, since she entered with Oliver Cromwell, great apostle of this “democracy”? circumstance, in the era of its colonial conquests, therefore of slavery?
A conception of colonialism that the French right did not deny, just as anti-republican and royalist as the British.

And we have in this community of imperial interests the genesis of the future alliance of European right-wing parties, when it comes to getting Hitler to declare war on the USSR. And therefore the reasons why it was absolutely necessary to avoid seeing his weak army destroyed from the Battle of France. But let’s not anticipate.

Let us rather see how the philosophers succeeded in translating this fundamental opposition into the minds of the Peoples, because it will have been well understood that, without a perfectly orchestrated propaganda around a defined ideology, it is difficult to make oneself obey it.

Intellectuals take a stand

As far as the Anglo-Saxon Democracies are concerned, the idea therefore very logically imposed itself according to which the interest of all would be the addition of particular interests.

Thesis based on the writings of the 18th century philosopher and economist Adam Smith arguing that Man, being essentially motivated by the prospect of improving his own lot above all, would ultimately act for the good of society as a whole. , since humans are dependent on each other, each is useful to all.

Which amounts to saying that the colonialist or the slaveholder ends up in any case, at the end of the day, by causing the subject peoples to evolve in the right direction, or that the powerful, even if he keeps his workers in misery, the done for their own good, since it offers them the possibility of working, and therefore of surviving.

Or, there again, the imperialist logic in its most beautiful conception.

A conception contradicted by the Republican Democracy of continental Europe, defended at the same time by Jean Jacques Rousseau, for which the general interest takes precedence over the individual.
This is one of the founding ideas of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which in its article six specifies: “The Law is the expression of the general will. »

Which obviously implies a consensus around a well-defined morality prohibiting going against the general interest, and brings back to its article two: “The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. »

Text obviously complementary to the declaration of independence of the United States: “We hold as self-evident the following truths: all men are created equal; they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are established among men to secure these rights, and their just power emanates from the consent of the governed. »

It is therefore on these principles, affirming that the citizen is at the service of a State, itself the guarantor of the Constitution, that the great republican democratic movement, having enthused the United States and Europe by carrying high the humanist ideas of universal peace, social justice, equal rights and respect for the rights of Peoples – therefore anti-slavery and anti-imperialist – animated by idealists powerfully supported by their public opinion, but also by the great national capital, was founded .
And one will not be surprised that it displeased so much – and still displeases despite appearances – the Stateless Big International Capital much more partisan of the principles: “God is my right”, “Me first” “the strongest is right” and all that we are beginning to know so well, at the start of the 21st century, of Anglo-Saxon morality.

To sum up: The concept of Democracy does not have, for the Anglo-Saxons, the same meaning as that which we give to it in France, and more broadly in our old European societies: An Englishman or an American, will reason according to the Darwinian principle of natural selection and divine will, while in our conception, largely influenced by the republican idea of ​​equality and fraternity, but also in the spirit of the Protestant democracies of the Nordic countries, even monarchical, or even of certain Republics , even with a Catholic majority, it was appropriate, and it is still true today because too many have forgotten it, to help the weakest by educating and raising them. To show solidarity, in order to allow him to be your equal.

All this while respecting the part of the spiritual power as independent of the two others, since concerning only the conscience of the People supposed to have a right to vote freed from any “divine” influence. This principle of secularism, enshrined in the Constitution, therefore replaces the political power of a Church deemed too invested in the safeguarding of monarchical principles.

The principle of “divine right monarchy”, according to which God would order the world according to His will, that the wealth as well as the poverty of the subjects would depend on His unique authority and that there would be no reason to oppose it, disappeared.
Thus the Catholic Church, as a support of the monarchy and of the “divine order”, lost its power in the French Revolution, and General Bonaparte, propagator of this new ideology in Europe, was immediately considered the enemy to be destroyed by the supporters of monarchical principles.

In any case, until he is crowned Emperor by the Pope…”

End of quote The Great Lie of the 20th Century Volume 2 Controversies on some “forgotten” betrayals