The Bloody Conflict of Ideologies in France

  The middle class, the bourgeoisie, were so distinct from the rest of the French in nineteenth-century France that Karl Marx could point them out in the street by the way they dressed. They studied Latin and used its vocabulary to speak an upper-class Latinized French that peasants and workers could not understand. They took over the French nation politically and economically. They set themselves up as a separate class living by what they considered universal values based on a disciplined, exclusively rational way of life that led to divorce from any direct contact with God and to a devotion to financial success as the only path that anyone worthy of belonging to their class should follow. They reorganized the political and legal structure of France so it could be ruled exclusively by them from Paris. They were openly at war politically and economically against all the French who were not bourgeois like they. Thiers, the bourgeois head of the government in 1871, slaughtered with the army over 20,000 French citizens who had set up a revolutionary commune in Paris.

  Men of the bourgeois class all over Europe always had an eye to pursue wealth globally. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, individuals from this class gained riches in international trade and some imitated the values of the aristocratic classes by becoming patrons of the arts. As the bourgeoisie grew in power, the bourgeois ideology was accepted in all the European nations and empires as a guide to a worthy way of life. Aristocratic culture, Catholic Christianity were all weakened greatly by the ideology’s power based on scientific discoveries, constant innovation in industry using new technologies. and the dominance over all thought using an exclusively rational approach to the question of what was real. Hegel wrote that all of history was an expression throughout various historical periods of an Absolute Spirit that appears partially in concrete rational forms. Hegel’s dictum that “whatever is real is rational” is the most succinct expression of bourgeois thought even though it is manifestly absurd.

  All ideologies when applied forcefully to the real world are destructive but the bourgeois ideology survived and prospered because it produced wealth for the rich efficiently. It is now accepted globally as the only ideology that makes sense even though its science continues to destroy the natural world by creating new technologies for the profit of rich entrepreneurs. The  scientists themselves now warn us that the postmodern global world is employing for its development so massively technologies that science  invented  that as a result the health of the globe is being destroyed.

   All other ideologies have failed and it is impossible to act successfully in the real world globally without becoming a living puppet guided on a personal level by the powerful strings of the universal bourgeois ideology. France, where the bourgeoisie first arose in the eleventh century and where its ideology was refined and exported, has now been the victim of an alien ideology much more cruel and destructive but like the bourgeois ideology one wabbling madly and out of control towards the goal of all ideologies created by logic, the destruction of God’s good living creations.

Daniel McNeill
The website of The United States of the World is: usoftheworld.com
Read the complete book, 12 essays on American history, "The United States of the World" at: usoftheworld.com/history

The Anglo-American Bloc Adopts The Same Foreign Policy

   The foreign policy of the United Kingdom at the end of the Second World War was determined by world conditions and self interest. The British Empire had to be dismantled and the military and economic power of the UK had to be increased. The overriding logic behind dealing with the  new worldwide conditions dictated that former colonies and territories must be freed to become independent states and that it was precisely their new status as nation-states that made them ripe for domination and economic exploitation by London and its ally Washington. The war had joined the United States and the British Empire militarily and politically and the union continued afterwards because the two power centers agreed to continue to keep their military and secret-service institutions united. The anglo-american bloc uniting all the English-speaking countries adopted one and the same foreign policy: create and support nation-states worldwide and exploit any and all wealth within them by making them secure for rich investors and corporations by dominating them with diplomatic and military power.

  The foreign policy of the United States in 1959 with the admission of Hawaii as the 50th state in its union might have continued pointing in its revolutionary direction. It might have freed emerging new nation-states from foreign domination by admitting them also as new states in its union. The United Kingdom did form a Commonwealth of Nations, a voluntary association (at the present time) of 53 independent and sovereign states most of which were former British colonies or dependencies. It has a framework of common values but no real political union. Its common values and goals, while absolutely good in themselves, are also such as would aid a foreign power out to dominate them and exploit them economically: all the Commonwealth nations agree to promote democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism and world peace. It is certain that the British Empire, in spite of its cruel and selfish actions, did unite the world and make it more peaceful and secure. But over five hundred million people in its empire had no political power at all and the millions grouped in the various nation-states of the Commonwealth of Nations possess political institutions incapable of assuring them a just distribution of wealth. Certainly any state in the Commonwealth that joined the American union of states would have had more political power and much greater economic development. But Washington went along with London. It gave up admitting new states and instead supported and dominated nation-states worldwide for its selfish interests instead of continuing to join new  states to its union of sovereign states as it had been doing from 1790 up until 1959.

Daniel McNeill