Time To Destroy The Mythology of Bonapartism

by Jacques Cheminade

Printed in The Executive Intelligence Review, October 18, 1996.

End of Page The "Entente Bestiale" Site Map Overview Page

Make your own free website on Tripod.com
At a summer cadre school sponsored by the Schiller Institute in Oberwesel, Germany on July 27, Lyndon LaRouche called for an international campaign to destroy the new Franco-British ``Entente Cordiale''--or better, the ``Entente Bestiale.'' The British oligarchy, with the willing support of French President Jacques Chirac, is out to destroy the nation-states of the world, particularly the United States, and to impose a UN world government. In order to stop this, it is necessary to examine how it could happen that France, the birthplace of the nation-state, has come to this pass.

Jacques Cheminade's speech at the cadre school on July 28 presented an historical analysis of Bonapartism, under the title ``The Entente Cordiale: From the Pagan Empire of Napoleon I to the Bonapartist Sellout.'' We publish an edited transcript below. Cheminade, who ran for the Presidency of France in 1995, is a longtime associate of LaRouche. He has been subjected to a vicious judicial railroad by the corrupt French elites (see EIR, May 31, 1996, ``Chirac Forges New `Entente Cordiale' with the British,'' and June 21, 1996, ``The Strategic Gambits behind France's `Cheminade Case,' 1990-91'').

A Lesson In Statecraft

Why is it not only necessary, but mandatory, to call your attention to the historical case of Napoleon Bonaparte?

First, because the British-French ``Entente Cordiale'' is, today, the main threat to world history, and my purpose is to show you how it grew out of the ashes of the French nation-state, Louis XI's nation-state, the first nation-state ever. And it is Napoleon who burned the French state to ashes, and his degenerate brothers and descendants, his famiglia, who sold whatever they had to the British. If you want to understand the process of the Entente Cordiale, you have to understand the rise and fall of Napoleon. If you don't get angry about what happened, about what went wrong, in the past, you are not going to intervene into the present.

Second, and more broadly, there is, at present, a move to re-establish the empire concept, moving from hard geopolitics to soft, nostalgia-ridden soap operas, and to destroy the nation-state, in particular the last and weakened nation-state, the United States of America. Napoleon, in his time, accomplished a similar type of destruction; therefore, we have to learn the lesson of how and why it happened.

Let's look back at the period of 1770-1780s: It was a time of hope. The system of oligarchism was going to come to an end. The American Revolution was won, the ``Big One,'' the French Revolution, was in the works, and there was a worldwide network of republicans, actively coordinating their plans, from the United States, to France, to Russia, to Ireland, to Prussia, to India--the emergence of a new, more just axiomatic order, from Tippoo Sahib to Washington to the circles of Lafayette in France. Nevertheless, this great humanist design, as a universal one, failed.

Why? Why? Because things that too many of us brush aside, for pragmatic reasons, are precisely what bring doom upon us and determine history. Look at the Ibero-American generals, look at General Lebed, even Charles de Gaulle: all admirers of Napoleon, all admiring what is against the best part of them, a fake grandeur which is the opposite of real grandeur.

Why? Why? Why did French republicans allow insane Jacobins to run the French Revolution, and then Napoleon to take over as Emperor? Why, today, is the United States allied with the British and French governments, the which are the worst enemies of the United States?

The answer, to which I will try to make a contribution here, is that we have to learn the epistemology and history of European civilization and of Universal History, as Friedrich Schiller advised us to do, instead of falling prey to our rage, or to delusions directed against the wrong targets. We have to learn, clinically, how a nation-state can be destroyed--France was the first case in history--and how an individual, in this case Napoleon, can be brought to madness, the utter madness of self-destruction. You cannot fight the British order, the oligarchical order, the Venetian ``visions,'' if you don't break with their mental control.

Their old recipes are: Divide and conquer, create false issues, and arouse people's petty passions, passions for their own soap-operas and fairy tales. In that sense, let me give you an interesting lead: Napoleon's history is, itself, a fairy tale, created in part--its mythology--to misdirect. Fake grandeur, fake epics, true death cult. There is some truth in the famous cynical British pamphlet, proving that, in terms of formal logic, Napoleon could never have existed, being far too mythological to be true. So let us, therefore, not focus so much on the person of the Emperor, as on the context that created the Empire, that allowed such a sickening disease.

Let's look at ourselves in the mirror of Napoleon's misdeeds, following his tale, ``full of sound and fury,'' to see how he could fall into an absolute cultural pessimism, find enemies in everybody, and jump at everyone's throats, instead of focussing on the destruction of Great Britain, through an alliance with the America of the Founding Fathers.

My purpose is to use the mirror of that history, to teach a lesson of statecraft that is not only relevant today, but mandatory for us to become self-conscious of what we are, of what has produced us, and to escape from the deadly grip of the mythologies, of the imperial families haunting their Olympuses.

Figure 1 is the core of the mythology: Napoleon as a Roman Emperor--or maybe an Olympic Games gold medal winner--painted by professional ass-licker Gérard, the painting having managed to make its way into the Versailles Palace, the monument of Napoleon's twin Roman brother, Louis XIV. Now let's look at the truth (Figure 2), captured in quite a Rabelaisian way in this drawing: The Corsican ogre Napoleon eats, at once, 200,000 men; he farts and shits turd-kings. These are the ``turds'': first the closest ones (Figure 3), products of his first wife Josephine's marriage with West Indies slave-holder Alexandre de Beauharnais. Eugène, viceroy of Italy, married to a princess of Bavaria, and sweet Hortense, married to Napoleon's brother Louis, king of Holland and overcome by syphilis, mentally and physically. It is this ``marriage'' that produced (Figure 4) Louis-Napoleon III (The Turd), Emperor from 1851 to the tragicomic disaster of Sedan, in 1870.

You have here the whole Napoleon family.

Five comments have to be made:

  1. Indeed, he shat kings and queens everywhere, even if his own son--l'Aiglon, the Eaglet--died at a very young age. For sure, he took care of his famiglia, like a good mafia boss.

  2. The origins of the family: 100% Genoese-Venetian. On the side of the father, Charles-Marie Buonaparte, Genoese: Either the family was from Pisa, and protected by the Genoese, or from a Greek family, coming from Greece ca. 1670, and also protected by the Genoese. On the mother's side: his maternal grandmother was a Pietransanta, a Genoese family. Remember, that when asked what part of the family she owned, the Genoese Princess Pallavicini answered: ``La buona parte.''

  3. We notice two main connections as time goes on: the American connection, in the banking-plantation networks of the South (Figure 5), with a particular taste for Charleston and New Orleans--filibusterers, slave-herders, and moneybags--and the British connection, notably on the side of Lucien and Louis-Napoleon, later Napoleon III.

  4. A lead, through Lucien's descendants, to today's Prince Philip, a Battenberg.

  5. A lead through Prince Jerome Bonaparte to Charles-Joseph Bonaparte, U.S. Attorney General in Theodore Roosevelt's Presidency, and founding father of the FBI.

``Un goût très sûr pour le pire''--``an irrepressible taste for the worst''--as perverse oligarchs would enjoy saying.

Let me now, to make the point, quote Princess Marie Bonaparte, a leading psychoanalyst, and sponsor of, and moneybag for, Sigmund Freud, from Lucien's branch of the tree: ``I did love assassins, they looked attractive to me. Was not my grandfather Pierre one of them, when he killed a journalist, Victor Noir? And my great-great uncle, Napoleon, what a monumental assassin!''

The night of the living dead? Well, a good approximation of it: Marie Bonaparte--the last of the Bonapartes--was an ``absolute atheist,'' ``fascinated by death,'' who had frequently discussed that point, with a brilliant young African man brought to her by Bronislaw Malinowski, the very famous British-Polish anthropologist, linked to the Tavistock Institute. His name was Jomo Kenyatta, head of the Mau Mau movement.

Let's now go to a deeper level of truth: What was the basis for the existence and fortune of this nest of vipers? Well, this is it (Figure 6): triangular and quadrangular trade, slave and colonial trade, the oligarchical network of trade and money. To put it simply, the looting of Africa and the two Americas (Figure 7), against which the revolutions in the Americas were fought! This was the ideological and financial cradle in which the political Napoleon was born, to which, as a young man and probably half-honest revolutionary, he sold his soul, or whatever soul he still had left.

Figure 8 shows the exact opposite combination of forces to those we talked about at the beginning, the humanist forces from India, the Americas, and the European revolutionaries.

All the king-turds and queen-turds farted by Napoleon were the product of this sellout of a young revolutionary, who became a pirate for the oligarchs. Let's look at something funny, to give you an idea (Figure 9). This is the true self of Napoleon, a lackey of Paul Barras, the dirty financier who ousted Lazare Carnot and his faction from power in 1797, after Thermidor. [fn1] Napoleon is watching Josephine and Mme. Tallien dancing naked for Barras. Mme. Tallien was a Venetian prostitute, so influential that her nickname was ``Our lady of Thermidor.'' Josephine, also Barras's mistress, was given to Napoleon as a wife, and he accepted the gift. There he is, his true self: a little Peeping Tom, enraged and obsessive, fully dominated by his erotic impulses.

Let's go back to the legend.

You have first (Figure 10) the great Napoleon crossing the Alps, during the second Italian campaign, in 1800, painted by professional ass-licker Jacques-Louis David. Look at the rocks under the horse: We are far from Barras's boudoir; the names we can read are: Bonaparte, Annibal [Hannibal], Karolus Magnus [Charlemagne], Chapeau. Next comes the follow-up of the story: ``The Shadows of French Warriors Lead to Odin,'' by Girodet--another professional ass-licker (Figure 11). This is inspired by Ossian's legend, the fake concoction of the Scottish oligarch MacPherson, in 1760, who did more for romantic irrationality than anything else. The French rooster chases away the Austrian eagle, but this is a paradise for the dead warriors, mainly blond ones. Let's look more carefully at the warriors: Desaix, Kleber, Marceau, and Hoche--all brilliant, young, and determined revolutionaries, who died at the right moment, in various ways, to open the way for Napoleon.

Now, let's see the result of the continued wars of the Empire, against anybody and everybody, to plunder, plunder, and plunder. The legend becomes dark (Figures 12 and 13): It is estimated that more than 500,000 Frenchmen died in those wars, and probably at least four times more foreign mercenaries, enlisted by force in the French armies. It was common, in those times, to portray Napoleon as a cannibal (Figure 14). Look at the sky: the war against Spain, the campaign against Moscow. Let me add that in the campaign in Russia, out of the 500,000 soldiers enlisted, fewer than 80,000 were French. So much for the ``popular armies'' of the empire! But Napoleon was not only involved in military expeditions; in Figure 15 he is shown selecting paintings to be looted and brought to France, like a vulgar Dr. Goebbels or Dr. Göring. The general on his horse, and the little man stealing paintings: the outer image and the inner self.

But was Napoleon, at least, a courageous man and a great general? He was certainly a brilliant commander in the field--a field tactician; but all his inspiration was taken from Carnot and the brilliant Guibert. Nothing was original with him.

Let's now look at the first wars against Italy, in 1796-97, that made his fame and fortune. The weakness of the adversary Napoleon faces is much more impressive than his own force--as was usually the case, until the Russian campaign.

Listen to Bismarck: ``The Austrian Army was invented to allow the French to win all their battles.''

Indeed, it was to the astonishment of many, that not only were the Austrian oligarchs stupid, but that Venice mobilized no troops whatsoever, and very poorly financed the Austrians. It is true that the curious Venetian refusal to act, came at a time when a powerful republican faction existed there, favorable to Napoleon, and headed by mathematician Mascheroni. But when Napoleon won, their admiration turned into disgust. Poet Ugo Foscolo, part of Mascheroni's circles, and a lieutenant in the French Army, revised his ``Ode to Bonaparte Liberatore'' to eliminate the name of Napoleon; he rededicated the work to a fallen soldier.

Venetian interests sponsored Napoleon, betting on his weakness of character. They had spies in his immediate entourage, and Alvise Mocenigo paints a precise picture of the paranoid young Napoleon, prey for experienced manipulators: ``The commander in chief, Bonaparte, is a youth of 28. He feels, to the highest degree, the passion of pride. Every happening, no matter how innocent, that he thinks raises even slight opposition to his intentions, makes him, in an instant, turn to ferocity and threats.''

In the estimation of military historian Jomini, a Venetian mobilization of even 20,000 troops, eminently feasible for the Serene Republic, together with stiffened resistance in the rest of Italy, would have easily sufficed, to drive the French Army out of the country, and no one might ever have heard of Napoleon.

To further show how Napoleon was sponsored, let's look at what happened when he launched his first ``coup,'' the coup of 18th Brumaire commented upon by Marx, Nov. 9, 1799. When he was to address the Parliament, he could not even talk, and was about to leave. It was only the brilliant intervention of his brother Lucien and his two brothers-in-law, Murat and Leclerc, with their soldiers, that made the coup succeed. As later, at Waterloo, Napoleon could not react to the unexpected, to a new paradigm. Similarly, when he had to massacre the monarchists, on behalf of Barras--the Vendemiaire free-fire--he intervened almost too late.

Napoleon was a well-trained mathematician and physicist, but he did not make the connection between his own political power and technological development.

For example, in 1807 a device was proposed to him, that would reduce the interval required between each firing of guns, a decisive advantage in warfare. To the great surprise of his collaborators, he discarded the invention, with the comment: ``I will always have enough soldiers to fire; therefore, I don't need each of them to fire faster.''

An impeccable logic that led to his defeats, even if he mobilized, at the end of his campaign of France, in 1814, adolescents aged 15 and 16--les Marie-Louise.''

In economics, Napoleon was an absolute ignoramus. He was only convinced that ``good finances are necessary to make a good administration,'' and that one should never borrow and never devalue the currency. He only considered the flow of money coming in, and was not interested in the economic or social effects of taxation. For him, technology was one thing, economics another, and military affairs a third.

``Economy,'' therefore, was defined by the necessity to get money, and if borrowing or investing daringly in technological ventures was discarded, there only remained one thing: looting.

He therefore organized a military and administrative machine to carry out such looting. Let's listen to him, speaking with his adviser Mollien, just before the campaign against Russia:

``If I am declaring a new war, it is, of course, for some great political interest, but it is also in the interest of my finances, and precisely because they look weak. Is it not by war that I have always managed to balance them? Is it not in the same way that Rome conquered all the world's wealth?

``Victory is always the best guarantee against bankruptcy.''

This money from looting was recycled permanently into military ventures, secret funds, and funds for bribery. Bribery was part of the administration, and every man had a precise price--as had every official position.

When the empire started to lose its wars, the ``good finances,'' of course, evaporated, for lack of looting, but, in the meantime, the financiers had become immensely rich and sponsored the counterrevolution, with money made thanks to the bleeding of France and Europe.

Such an idiocy is really pathological, in an otherwise sharp man. It is at this point, that the question of ideology has to be raised: How can you conquer all of Europe, and, at the same time, stay in a mental cage?

Blinded by the Enlightenment

The answer is that Napoleon is a pure product of the Enlightenment, the French disciples of Hobbes and Locke. His ideology was a combination of Condillac's ``sensualism'' and Helvetius's ``materialism,'' the lower gutters of Aristotelianism. Let's quote the figurehead of that current, Dr. Pierre Cabanis: ``The brain produces thinking the same way as the stomach and the intestines organize digestion.'' Speaking of turds: Cabanis's counterpart in the United States was the French-exiled Destutt de Tracy, Thomas Jefferson's ideologue.

A human being caught in that conception, if he has a strong character like Napoleon, ends up with a totally divided--and therefore highly vulnerable--self: One side is a bureaucratic machine, an algebraic equation; and the other side is a romantic irrational fit.

In normal circumstances, you manage to handle things like a machine, inducing, deducing, and extrapolating--and this, Napoleon did at the speed of a systems-analysis device. Quite perceptively, the poet Alphonse de Lamartine commented about those times: ``Only number ruled, only he was allowed, honored, protected, and paid. Because the number does not think, the militaries of these times did not want a priest other than number.'' But when you face an anomaly, you go into a wild crisis, blaming everybody except your own mind, because it is empty of human notions. You are the rooster next to Odin, you are Napoleon! Your action is based, like Hamlet's, on the fear to go, mentally, toward the world beyond, but, at the same time, you are fascinated by the ghosts of the world beyond, by the confrontation with death. Prisoner in a world of percussive interactions, you need ``conflicts'' to exist, percussions, percussions, and more percussions. You leave behind you a trail of self-destruction, prisoner as you are in a system not defined by creation, by ideas, but by an unbounded emotional endlessness. You are doomed; there can be no creative thinking. You move in the res extensa of a simple four-dimensional space-time, an encyclopedic universe of right-left, up-down, back-and-forth, and before-after, where you can't generate hypotheses. You cannot change the universe, others, or yourself for the common good; you can only throw an endless fit: That's Napoleon Bonaparte. You cannot open a new door into the intelligible, you are the prisoner of Venice's Paolo Sarpi. There is no agapic conception possible; it is the death-ridden world of paganism, Cabanis's stomach.

Yes, the words ``love for humanity'' are present, but merely as a factor to be added to your balance-sheet, the general synthesis. Yes, social interest or social welfare can be taken into account, but as another ``factor.''

You cannot love, because, as Pierre-Simon Laplace said of Napoleon, you are a ``chef d'état mathématicien,'' you cannot be a true historical personality, because you cannot lay the foundation for future history, even if you move all the stones of the world around.

A "New" Pagan Religion

Let's go a step further, and look into Napoleon's conception of religion. He says: ``There is no state without a ritual, a religion, and priests.'' What does he mean by that? A sort of Roman cult to repress anarchy, a bureaucracy of the souls. According to him:

  1. Religion should serve his regime, the heavens be put at the service of earthly principalities and powers; the state supersedes religion, which is accepted only insofar as it serves the state.

  2. The Emperor is personally head of the Gallican Church, successor to Louis XIV.

  3. He allows freedom of conscience, but only if all religions pledge obedience to him.

This is nothing but an extreme case of a pagan church, under a Roman Catholic or other disguise.

Napoleon, together with his director of churches Portalis and his uncle Cardinal Fesch, in liaison with Talleyrand, was quite aware of building a ``new Church.''

Well, not so new.

It is the Church of the Emperor Constantine's heresy, when Constantine converted to Catholicism, on the condition that the Church agreed to be under the Emperor.

It is also the Church of Constantine's heir, the French ``Roman'' King Louis XIV, the Sun King. It is the Gallican Church, the Church of England, or Ivan Grozny's Church.

To establish that Church, Bonaparte inspired the 1801 Concordat to the pope (Figure 16), which makes Mussolini's Concordat appear nice and soft. Let's read what the Organic Articles of the Concordat had to say:

To this was added on, over time, that the Bulletins of the Great Army--brainwashing--had not only to be read in all schools, but also in churches, during mass.

An imperial catechism, which Rome refused to approve, but which Nuncio Caprara authorized, describes the duties of the ``subject believers'' toward their government. Under the Fourth Command, regarding duties toward parents and state bodies, Portalis put 15 lines on duties toward Her Majesty--the parent of all parents--and 10 lines on the particular motives to be attached to Napoleon I, our Emperor.

Here are extracts of the imperial catechism:

``The Christians owe to the Princes that govern them, and in particular we owe to Napoleon I, our Emperor, love, respect, obedience, faithfulness, military service, tributes ordered for the conservation and defense of the Empire and its throne; we owe also fervent prayers for its salvation and for the spiritual and temporal prosperity of the state.

``Question: What should we think of those who refuse to fulfill their duties toward the Emperor?

``Answer: According to the Apostle St. Paul, they resist the order established by God Himself, and they make themselves worthy of eternal damnation.

``Question: Why are we compelled by all these duties toward our Emperor?

``Answer: It is, first, because God, Who creates Empires and makes them according to His will ... has established the Emperor as our sovereign, has made him Vicar of His Holy power on earth. Therefore, to honor and serve our Emperor is to honor and serve God Himself.''

Napoleon also ordered the Protestant and Jewish Churches (Great Sanhedrin) to be organized in the same way, as servants of the empire.

Around this, all kinds of mythologies developed about the Emperor. The most significant one was a sun cult: the sun of the Battle of Austerlitz was never going to set, and Napoleon was going to follow it toward the east, to become the Emperor of the Two Worlds. Remember that Louis XIV had established a similar cult, was called the ``Sun King'' and had built a ``Temple of Apollo'' next to the Versailles Palace, on the model of Tiberius' temple at Capri--a direct challenge to Christianity. There is, indeed, something weird and rotten in the kingdom of France.

Napoleon, who wanted his power over the Catholic Church to be felt and acknowledged, called the pope to Paris in December 1804, to crown him Emperor. But at the last moment, he took the imperial crown out of the hands of the pope, and crowned himself (Figure 17), becoming the ``King of the Enlightenment.''

The Role of the Freemasons

A step further along that track, we find Napoleon's connections with the Freemasonry. We arrive at a very interesting point, where the map of the slave trade that I showed before, links up with ``spiritual matters.''

During the French Revolution, the Freemasons, as secret societies, were not particularly well-treated. They went underground. But look what happened: Napoleon's older brother, Joseph, had joined--on Oct. 8, 1793--Marseilles's lodge of ``Perfect Sincerity,'' Scottish Rite, under portraits of Jean-Paul Marat and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with the protection of Robespierre's brother, Bon-Bon. Louis, another of Napoleon's brothers, had also joined a Scottish Rite lodge. Both of Napoleon's brothers were members of the Scottish Rite, and although there is no definite proof, it seems that Napoleon himself was also a ``brother,'' because his son, the Eaglet, appears in various documents as the loweton, the son of a mason.

But, there is something much more interesting: Admiral de Grasse Tilly, son of Admiral de Grasse, whom Valéry Giscard d'Estaing claimed to be a descendant of, was initiated into the Lodge St. John of Scotland, of the Social Contract, in Paris. He was later caught by the British, brought to Jamaica, then released in the United States, and came back to France, with the title of Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite, delivered by the Supreme Council of Charleston. Charleston, the cradle of the Scottish Rite U.S.A., the B'nai B'rith, and the ``Confederate Masonry''! He founded, then, the Grand Scottish Lodge of France, and became Venerable of the Saint Napoleon Lodge in Paris! A lot of lodges were then named after Napoleon or Josephine (la Reale Giuseppina).

In early 1804, Joseph became Grand Master of the Grand Orient, the French masonic discipline.

In November 1804, Louis, the other syphilitic brother, became Grand Master of the Scottish Rite, even if he was, by then, Vice-Grand Master of the Grand Orient.

But Napoleon liked order, and on Jan. 6, 1806, the two lodges--the Grand Orient and the Scottish Lodge--united, with Prince Joseph as Grand Master and Prince Louis as Vice-Grand Master! Murat, on his side, was proclaimed Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Naples, in 1809. He started an intensive relation with his ``brother'' Metternich and his friend (and ``brother'') Fouché, Napoleon's policeman.

The reunification of the two lodges appears, on the surface, as a submission of the Scottish Rite Lodge to the Grand Orient, but, at a deeper level, it is a penetration of the Scottish Rite into the Grand Orient: from London, to Charleston, to the Grand Orient--a great venereal disease!

It is these lodges that were organized as the military network of the Empire, to celebrate victories and looting. All prominent French generals were members--Murat, Bernadotte, Massena--and this disgusted both Schiller and Beethoven, while Goethe politely joined for some time.

The key operative in all this, together with Fouché--formerly promoter and executor of Robespierre--was Jean-Jacques Cambacérès, Napoleon's justice minister, who had originated in the Scottish Rite, and was the most notorious sodomite in Paris.

Napoleon, despite all his arrangements and efforts, was probably not above this masonic network, but under it. According to Copin-Albancelli, in his preface to Benjamin Fabre's An Initiate in the Highest Secret Societies, Franciscus Equus, a Capite Galeato: ``Napoleon thought that secret societies were under his control. He had the power, he was initiated, his name was Napoleon, but it was he who was controlled, without being aware of it!'' Venice, London, Charleston, when the spoils of defeated Napoleon were shared at the Congress of Vienna, all were oligarchs, all masons, all thought that they had destroyed, forever, the French nation-state: Nesselrode, Castlereagh, Talleyrand, Metternich, Capodistria, Pozzo di Borgo.

Let's go one step deeper in our research: What appears under the veneer of the Imperial Gallican state religion and Freemasonry is something else, of historically great importance: It is the pagan project of Emperor Julian the Apostate.

Julian, Roman Emperor from 360 to 363, was called the Apostate, because he had written a famous treatise ``Contra Galileos,'' an ``imprecation against Christianity.'' Born Christian at the court of Constantine, he was shocked by the brutal use of the new state-religion, and reverted to paganism. His book locates itself in a current of pagan revival in the middle of the fourth century A.D., sponsored by so-called ``neo-Platonic'' philosophers Porphyrius and Jamblicus. Why am I mentioning that? Because, none other than Voltaire rediscovered this current in the middle of the eighteenth century, and calls Julian ``the greatest man that ever was.''

It was the Marquis d'Argens, an anti-clerical polemicist, chamberlain to Frederick II, and great friend of Voltaire, who had first published ``Contra Galileos'' in Berlin, in 1764, with the title: ``Defense of Paganism by Emperor Julian, in Greek and in French.'' Voltaire re-edited the book in Berlin in 1769 (the year that Napoleon was born), and wrote an article in the Encyclopedia called ``Julian the Emperor'' and another, ``Julian the philosopher,'' in his philosophical dictionary (London 1767). We know that Napoleon was an enthusiastic reader of both.

Therefore, beyond the destruction of the French nation-state, what comes clearly to the light of day, is the second historical role assigned to Napoleon: the promotion of paganism, to destroy the humanist world liberation project. Against such a project, Napoleon was the dangerous but useful idiot of the oligarchs.

Julian is quite tricky: He uses Plato's Timaeus, misrepresenting the passage on the ``soul of the world''--yes, dear Hegel--to attack the Book of Genesis as reducing God to an organizer of matter. On the contrary, we pagans, he says, believe in a God of the Gods, creator of both the visible and invisible--corporal and not-corporal entities--with a hierarchy of gods, which corresponds to a hierarchy on earth. Julian conceives himself as the Emperor of the Emperors and Kings, reflecting on earth the will of God and ruling over a set of pluralistic satrapies. He blames the Jewish God for being jealous, non-universal, and petty, and Jesus Christ for being an anarchist, creating disorder among the lower classes. Julian's ``pagan empire'' is not really hellenistic; it presages Byzantium and the penetration of Christianity by the hierarchical--oligarchical--principle of Emperor Justinian and his Codex.

So, what Voltaire has dug out is a rehash of Byzantium--Diocletian plus Justinian--with a philosophical Greek cover. More interestingly, Julian sees as the demiurge, the ontological creater of the soul of the world, Helios, the Sun, and comes himself from a family of sun worshippers, worshippers of the ``Sol Invictus.'' Here is Louis XIV--the Sun King--and Napoleon's never-setting sun of Austerlitz! And the whole Napoleon cult was rewritten by the British, including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as a ``sun'' who had to set, because there is only one sun that never sets--that of the British Empire! Julian himself wrote a book on the Helios King, where he says that the invisible sun is the real sun behind the visible--which apparently Napoleon never quite figured out: A rooster is not quite an eagle.

Assault on science and art

Having thus destroyed the nation-state, and engaged the fight against Christianity from within, it is lawful that Napoleon dealt a terrible blow to French science, then the most advanced in the world.

The Ecole Polytechnique, the most advanced center for scientific education and research, was not destroyed in 1815, but under Napoleon: 1815 was, for sure, the final stab, but before that, Napoleon had strangled it.

First ideologically, by letting that venereal disease called Laplace run the place, with his ultra-reductionist ``system of the universe,'' prevailing against Gaspard Monge, who was much closer to the Emperor, but a bit too humble. What Laplace destroyed was the seminal and unique quality of the Ecole Polytechnique, a place where hypotheses and ideas were generated. Not only hypotheses and ideas on science per se, but on social and political matters as well. Laplace killed that quality of self-reflexive Socratic dialogue; he banned the rediscovery of the creative process, and set the terms for the insanities of positivism and the turdishness of Augustin Cauchy, the man for whom the world is asymptotic; the pole could never be reached, and machines would never fly. Remember Napoleon's rejection of a new military technology to improve the intensity and mobility of fire and save the lives of his soldiers, because he had too many? See the oligarchical mentality? Its name in science is Laplace and Cauchy, the killers of Polytechnique, the murderers of French science, who compelled Carnot to exile himself to Göttingen after 1815.

Second, Napoleon destroyed the Ecole Polytechnique physically, by turning Polytechnique graduates, not into scientists and teachers, but into military officers slaughtered on the battlefields of Europe.

Another key point in Bonapartism, is the even worse destruction of the arts. What ``great works'' did Napoleon achieve, what monuments, what buildings? Arches of Triumph and pagan temples, sometimes called churches, sometimes something else.

Figure 18 shows an archetype of ugliness, pretentiousness, and the Roman Mithra cult, the Paris Arc de Triomphe, so admired by Adolf Hitler. If you don't find that ugly, you have missed something about human dignity and true Christian values.

Then the small Arch of Triumph (Figure 19), the Carroussel one, next to the Louvre. This one is copied from the Septimus Severus model. Originally, the ``quadrigium,'' Apollo on his chariot with his four horses, was the one from Venice, stolen by the Napoleonic armies from Venice, which had stolen it in Byzantium. After the Emperor's fall, the four horses had to be returned to the Venice Basilica--a church, if you please--and replaced by a new quadrigium--this one to the right of the ass in the foreground--by French sculptor Bosio, a disciple of Canova, the pre-Mussolinian neo-classicist.

Then, the Vendôme column (Figure 20), an imitation of one with Louis XIV on top--now it is Napoleon--in turn an imitation of Trajan's column in Rome. Trajan, because of his military victories, was very much appreciated by Napoleon, who in 1807 also ordered composer Lesueur--an official ass-licker--to write a new opera, The Triumph of Trajan, after the battles of Eylau and Friedland. Otherwise, Lesueur had written The Bards, an opera about Ossian, a masterpiece of constipated romanticism.

Then, the Paris Stock Market (Figure 21), copied from Vespasian's temple (in French, a vespasienne is a public pissoir). This place today urinates derivatives.

Now look at Figures 22 and 23), and take a guess: Which one is a church, and which one is the National Assembly? Both smell of the same cult--La Madeleine Church and the House of Commons--sorry, the Chamber of Deputies.

After such a display of neurosis and cultish ugliness, it is about time for an excursion into psychoanalysis: the intellectual matter that drips after a multiplicity of percussions. Marie Bonaparte, with her obsessions about death and murder, was, as the true family heir, in a good position to join Freud's yin-yang erotic lunacies, between Roman frigidity and the Egyptologist's esotericisms. This is no joke; it is reality, and you should understand how it works, in order to intervene in present-day history. If you don't, you are doomed for the serrement de nez (Figure 24). This gentleman is Marshal Ney, and his name means ``nose''; he has put his nose in Napoleon's derrière. Because he can't understand what is happening to him, he has to pretend: ``I swear that it smells like a violet,'' he says.

If you don't want to smell shit, pretending that it is violet, let us continue.

The cult of Napoleon

Napoleon is true as an image; he was set to be the image of the romantic superman who failed, the ``beautiful loser.''

Let's listen to a few of those who have been proclaimed the kernel of modern philosophy.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Oct. 13, 1806: ``I have seen the Emperor, the soul of the world. It is a marvellous feeling to see such a man, who, concentrated here, on a single point, sitting on his horse, extends himself over the world and dominates it all.''

Schopenhauer: ``Napoleon is the most beautiful manifestation of human will.''

Nietzsche: ``Napoleon represents the cult of the individual force, the super-hero of pure willpower.''

Raskolnikov, in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment: ``I wanted to become Napoleon, that's why I committed murder.''

A sour, disgusting fairy tale.

One more thing: Just like Jacques Chirac, all the Bonapartes hated music. They all found it ``too slow''--these people always do everything with the haste of a beast in its cage--but some of them, like Napoleon and Chirac, make an exception, for military marches. This is an absolute denial of mental processes associated with creative thinking, denial of ideas, denial of life, because life is a process. It is not only to be a donkey, but to promote donkeyishness, as Goya drew it.

Fouché And The Empire Of Looting

At this point, to exemplify socially what I have said, let's look to the historical forces that supported Napoleon, the pillars of the empire, and later, let's revisit the key colonial question, to draw out its implications.

Napoleon's social base was a coalition of looters transformed into landowners, a coalition of generals, bureaucrats, and policemen--looting and the administration of looting.

First the landowners: Napoleon believed strongly in Bernard Mandeville's 1705 ``Fable of the Bees,'' that ``private vices'' make ``public prosperity.'' His policy was to protect the ``private vices,'' if they obeyed him, and then to organize the ``public prosperity'' to be further obeyed by the whitewashed vices.

His key allies were the landowners, or happy looters:

To please this base, Napoleon created and drafted the cadastre, the tax assessment of all French land registered in a single book, the Napoleonic version of the Domesday Book. The purpose of it was to secure ``fair'' taxing for the happy looters, and it is according to the cadastre and taxes paid that he picked up an elite of ``notables''--local barons--to be the voters in national and regional Assemblies, Senate, Legislative Corps, and General Councils. This was nothing but the Diocletian model, coherent socially with the neo-pagan cults.

To protect the looting, at home and abroad, Napoleon, convinced that men are guided by their instincts and appetites, created a Leviathan to check and balance them all.

At the top, abroad, were the ``kings'' and ``satraps'' to rationally organize the looting. Then, bureaucrats to check the looters: Army, administration, and police. The Army, we know and we have seen; there is no need for further comment.

The financial bureaucracy was a nest of ``capitalists'' organized in financial consortiums, such as négociants réunis and banquiers du Trésor public, state parasites, admitted to be such. The archetype of these was Gabriel-Julien Ouvrard, a pirate. On top of such pirates and filibusterers, sat administrators, such as Mollien and Gaudin, playing the role of godfathers in a gambling casino.

The police were, of course, key in this arrangement, both to promote and to punish the ``private vices.'' This was the domain of the evil Joseph Fouché de Rouzerolles, duke of Otrante, inspirer of Charles-Joseph Bonaparte and of the FBI. Who were Fouché's police? A co-opted mafia, based on the control of evil and spread of fear. In that sense, Fouché was the first modern Orwellian, the Minister of Fear.

His principles are based on imperial pessimism, which Helga Zepp LaRouche has a legitimate and absolute hatred for:

  1. Create a controlled environment in a systematic way, a ``context'' where particular vices can be checked. Fouché himself had made his career as ``controller of the games''--a key position from which to gather information and create blackmail potential. One of his paid agents was Barras's mistress, and later Napoleon's wife, Josephine. His favorite ``controlling centers'' were gambling houses, bordellos, esoteric societies, and banks;

  2. Profile everybody and keep systematically cross-checking the profiles;

  3. Control people's instincts and passions; unleash the beast in them. If they don't have a beast within them, create one;

  4. Always play on both sides, ``toujours plusieurs fers au feu'' (``always have a few irons in the fire'');

  5. Follow the precept that to gather information beforehand is the best way to control an action;

  6. ``Action'' should be rare, but always merciless. Preemptive action against an innocent man is always more efficient and dissuasive than to jail a guilty one, because it frightens everyone more;

  7. Pay agents from all layers of society; use bribery as a principle, knowing that thieves and murderers caught in the act are the best agents, because of their total vulnerability to blackmail;

  8. Always report upstairs; never lie, but keep a piece of the puzzle to yourself, so as to be able always to surprise and cheat your master.

Is this original? Not in principle: It is the Venetian method, as explained in Schiller's The Ghost-Seer. But what is original in Fouché, as everything else in Napoleon's Empire, is not the imagination, but the obsessive systematization, and its result, the machine put in place.

With such a ``catechism of the cops,'' the police had to employ many, and became a key pillar of the oligarchy as such, attached more to the oligarchical principle than to any particular names. It was the domestic equivalent of Talleyrand's Foreign Affairs administration, and this still works to control today's France. We were told, for example, by a prominent French general, that even he cannot have access to his former friend Chirac, because Chirac is surrounded by a guard of Foreign Affairs and Interior Ministry officials who ``shape his world.''

Fouché himself was what Americans would call a ``weirdo.'' He was minister, like Talleyrand, under all the regimes, in the same way as painter David was the official painter under all the regimes.

Let's look at Fouché in his early years. There he is, in the city of Nevers, briefing one crazy Anaxagoras Chaumette on a ``plan of de-Christianization'' that, says Fouché, ``I am in the best position to launch, as a former Oratorian.'' Selling himself in such a way, is a habit; he participates in the looting of Nevers Cathedral, burning holy crosses, breaking statues, tearing apart the veils of the nuns, dancing an insane dance dressed in religious clothes. He participates in the free-fire massacres at Lyons, in the Place des Brotteaux, where the Jacobins massacred and cut into pieces alleged ``anti-revolutionaries,'' the revolutionary youth of the city, and a few priests.

But is he a bloodthirsty madman, such as British agent Marat? No; he always kept his head ``cold,'' and at the same time that he participates in the massacres, he also hides in his home some priests and counter-revolutionaries. ``He had,'' said a contemporary, ``the best nose to detect the new winds! And as soon as they were blowing, he would betray all his former friends to make new ones.'' It is also recorded that ``Fouché the Venetian'' always had ``an incomprehensible protection over his head,'' being, for example, always in contact with the two Corsican brothers-turned-enemies, Napoleon Buonaparte and Pozzo di Borgo, who later became the Russian Czar's ambassador to France in 1815, and thus de facto regent of the country after Napoleon's collapse. In a word, Fouché was one of the most eminent lackeys of the European oligarchical families, a perverse ``go between.''

Slavery Restored

From this psychological standpoint, let us go back to the colonial question, as the context defining the set of particulars, including the earthly ``particular of the particulars,'' Napoleon himself!

Brutally and cynically, Napoleon promoted colonial trade and slavery, because he was always in great need of money, and was willing to do anything to get more, and more, and more.

As the story goes, under the pressure of slave revolts in the western, French part of Santo Domingo, and, following a demand of Abbé Grégoire and the Society for the Friends of the Negroes, France abolished slavery in 1793. Then, General Toussaint-L'Ouverture--himself a black--drafted, with his black advisers, the Constitution of the French Colony of Santo Domingo, a text which has been virtually ignored, but is of immense historical importance. In 1796, he kicked out the British who had landed on the island, and established a de facto independent state.

This could not be accepted by the Venetian-Swiss colonial lobby that had financed Napoleon, and to whom belonged, in particular, his wife, Josephine, and the infamous Fouché, whose family had property in Santo Domingo and was ruined by the slave uprising there. In those days, Santo Domingo produced 55% of the world's sugar.

To get back control of the colonial trade, Napoleon sent a colonial expedition to Santo Domingo at the end of 1801, under the command of his brother-in-law, General Leclerc, the husband of Pauline.

Leclerc smashed the revolt in May 1802, and Toussaint surrendered on June 7. Slavery was restored by Napoleon, in a decree dated May 27, 1802, typical of the Bonapartes: It does not say that slavery is re-established, which would contradict the abolition of 1793, but it claims that slavery ``is maintained in accordance with all the laws and rulings preceding 1789.'' On this fundamental issue, Napoleon, King of the Revolution, shows how he conceived himself as the heir of the Ancien Régime--a parvenu aspiring to be an oligarch. This was confirmed when he was crowned Emperor on Dec. 2, 1804; created the first imperial titles of nobility in 1807; and officially introduced the ridiculous ``noblesse d'Empire'' on March 1, 1808. He not only spoke of the ``negroes'' with contempt, but called the French people ``my subjects.''

Toussaint-L'Ouverture was captured by Bonaparte, arrested, and promptly died on April 7, 1803, at the Fort de Joux.

As always for Bonaparte's insane adventures, what followed was a disaster. In July 1802, when the reestablishment of slavery was announced, the fighting resumed on the island. French troops were decimated by yellow fever, and Leclerc himself died. The rule of the French creoles was no longer tolerated, and a lieutenant of Toussaint, Dessalines, took over. But Dessalines was not Toussaint, and his racist proclivities were encouraged by the British: He massacred mulattos and mestizos, proclaimed the superiority of the blacks, and brutally expropriated the whites--slave-herders and settlers alike. Dessalines was then threatened by his generals, and the history of Haiti became a nightmare of blood and tears, continuing up to today: a mixture of French Jacobin insanity and British racism, of all against all. The worst is reached with ``le roi Christophe,'' a black who proclaimed himself ``tropical Emperor'' on the model of Napoleon, and imposed a new form of slavery, an organized serfdom of blacks over blacks.

So much for Napoleon's ``enlightened'' conceptions, celebrated by Goethe. With cynicism, and always blaming somebody else for his own mistakes, the Emperor said at the end of his life: ``The expedition to Santo Domingo was one of my worse mistakes; it was under pressure from Josephine that I committed it.'' In fact, this is a big lie. Let us say first that Napoleon III committed the same mistake again in sponsoring Emperor Maximilian in Mexico, against the American party, and he would have intervened in favor of the Confederate South, if it had not been for the pressure put on him by Russian Czar Alexander II, the friend of the American party.

Such repeated mistakes cannot be mere ``mistakes of opportunity.'' They are the fingerprints of a more general pattern, a higher order. This directly involves the connections of the Bonapartes with not only the interests of colonial trade and the American South, but the very nature of their power and identity. This is a fundamental point that cannot be made as such, but brings us back to the question of state religion and paganism, this key issue on which the Bonapartes failed--they did not manage to establish a viable Bonapartist cult--but succeeded in infecting the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the way the British wanted. The Bonapartes, as the ``losing supermen,'' paved the way for the horrors of twentieth-century Fascism and Nazism, something directly linked to the colonial and racial issue, the conception of men as ``masses'' of beasts.

From this emerges a ``culture of death,'' a pagan culture of death wrapped under both a degenerated version of all monotheistic religions and freemasonries, Isis and Odin cults. Look at the paintings of David, Girodet, and Gros, listen to the music of Lesueur, all the professional lackeys of the empire: it is death, death, death--from the death of Marat to the death of Attala, to human beings eating each other in Géricault's Radeau de la Méduse. This is the root of what Pope John Paul II referred to as a ``culture of death,'' which is, together with its social Darwinist appendix, its social Darwinist tail, what infected and infects our historical times.

Origins of the Entente Cordiale

We are now equipped to go back to the first matter of our inquiry, the Entente Cordiale question.

Wouldn't a practical person say: Despite everything, was not Napoleon the arch-enemy of the British Empire? Did he not try to fight England on the seas? Did he not even try to invade England? How could it be, that he was the source of the Entente Cordiale?

The first layer of the answer, is that both France and Britain were empires, and that if we put our nose far from where it stinks, we can see how syphilis-1 (or Venetian-1) can relate to syphilis-2 (or Venetian-2).

Indeed, Napoleon, like Hitler, was first promoted by the British, as were the Jacobins before them, to destroy France, and to prevent a truly republican option. Remember that, in the early phase of Napoleon's power, the Peace of Amiens (1802) was signed with the British king, under the ``appeasement party'' of British politicians Fox and Addington, the Neville Chamberlains of that time.

Figure 25 is a very interesting cartoon reflecting that phase, from the very gifted James Gillray. This is Napoleon and Pitt taking a petit souper of State Epicures, and sharing the plum pudding: the oceans for me, Europe for you.

Syphilis-1, the British Empire, is commercial, financial, and oceanic: the merchant, the trader, the banker, the broker, and the Navy.

Syphilis-2, the French Empire, is administrative, military, and continental: the bureaucrat, the mercenary, the Roman Legion, undoubtedly produced by Napoleon to provide scripts for Hollywood film-makers; the bureaucrat, the mercenary, and the crooked army supplier.

The Entente Cordiale flows from that pattern of the twin empires, the Hanoverian-British and the Corsican-French models, the Southern plantation and the Hitler models.

Did they work in common ventures? The answer is yes, when money was involved, and this brings us back to the infamous triangle London-Charleston-Paris.

The two empires had in common:

A concrete example of their collaboration? Well, in the full midst of the Napoleonic wars, between 1806 and 1811, crooked Napoleonic banker Ouvrard was able to bring over $50 million in Spanish silver, sitting in Mexico, to Europe, by making a deal with the British, through the Dutch mercantile company of Hope and Co., and their British partners, Baring Brothers. Under the French-Spanish Treaty of 1804, Charles IV of Spain had agreed to pay to Napoleon, an annual war subsidy of $36 million. There existed no means, in Spain, of paying it, but in then-Spanish Mexico, an abundant output of mines and mints had accumulated, a greater amount than the subsidy. The deal was that the British allowed American merchant ships, hired by Hope and Baring agent David Parish, to carry the silver from the Mexican port of Vera Cruz to, first, New Orleans (later to Philadelphia, New York, or Boston), and then to a French port, while the British ships picked up a share of the silver at Vera Cruz, bringing it directly to Britain. Thus, both Napoleon and the British got their hands on the Spanish silver, to continue their continental and oceanic war. This ``sharing of the pudding'' is, already, the ``logic'' of the Entente Cordiale, involving the colonial and slave-trading ``triangle.''

So the ``twin empires'' concept is the matrix of the Entente Cordiale, but where it does address the relation of the two empires to the rest of the world, it does not yet address the question of the historical relative superiority of the British, as far as imperial matters are concerned, the proverbial sodomite-catamite erotic affair, defined by oligarch-watcher and -fighter Lyndon LaRouche.

The point is that, from the very beginning, the British had profiled the compulsive psychology of Napoleon, and knew that under stress he would be induced to destroy himself.

The British understand that these artificially created Leviathan monsters are time bombs for their own populations, and that they run toward their own death, taking all their underlords with them, all except the outright traitors. A merchant-financial oligarchy is, hence, smarter than a land-based oligarchy, its twin brother: It uses the underlords to destroy all republican ferment, and then drops them.

This supposes two things :

First, a psychological understanding of their enemy, and a well-timed manipulation;

Second, the infiltration of the enemy by a nest of agents of all sorts, such as the Cambacérès, Fouchés, or Talleyrands.

I am going to prove the first point with a few more cartoons by James Gillray.

Figure 26 shows the destruction of the French gunboats or ``little Boney and friend Talley in high Glee.'' Gillray captures here, the self-destructive self of Napoleon, which makes his fits very dangerous, but, at the same time, controllable by the British--like the fits of Adolf Hitler. Napoleon is shown, very happy to see his gunboats destroyed by the British fleet. Why? Because ``we have given John Bull a great fear, and he is destroying a hundred thousand of those Frenchmen that I fear the most. What a power to rule the life and death of men.''

Figure 27: Brobdingnag--George III laughs at the attempts of the French fleet to cross the channel, in 1803-04. Napoleon is, of course, Gulliver, a dwarf (from Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, written in 1726).

In Figure 28, Napoleon is compared to Sophocles' Philoctetus. ``Has never crossed the Channel'' is his doom (the Channel, la Manche, in French also means ``the sleeve'' and the pun is that Napoleon has a bare arm, with no sleeve).

In Figure 29, it gets more vicious. The British see Napoleon as a fox--the favorite prey of a Brutish oligarch--that they have captured. The dogs are Nelson, Cornwallis, Saint Vincent, and Sydney Smith, the winners of the sea battles in Egypt, and, of course, Trafalgar.

Figure 30 is even more explicit: Napoleon under oligarchical control, a little toy of the Allies--a badminton birdie.

Figure 31 could be called, ``Why Napoleon was controllable.'' A true fit of rage, a Corsican macho babbling about ``world rule.''

So the British profiled Napoleon quite effectively, as they do today when they profile the nasty parvenu Chirac (Napoleon V, or better Chirapoleon, as some would call him).

The second condition, the infiltration of the enemy by agents of all sorts, is clear since Jeremy Bentham's operations in France during the Revolution: He was sending speeches, written in London, to his agents in the French Convention, who read them, calling for blood, for chopping off the heads of French scientists.

In the Bonaparte era, it took the form of permanent sabotage of France's Grand Design: the ``great disembarkation'' in England of the French Republican armies. This came very close to coming true, many times.

The plans had been prepared under the monarchy at the camp of Boulogne, in the 1770s. Then the most serious trials went on, in 1796, 1797, and 1798, until Barras kicked out Lazare Carnot, with the help of Napoleon, and even in 1803-04, under Napoleon.

It was very close to succeeding, in 1796 and in 1797, with the Bantry Bay expedition, which celebrates its 200th anniversary this year.

The plan was drafted by Irish republican patriot Theobald Wolfe Tone, and supported on the French side by Carnot, General Clarke, the head of Carnot's Military Topography Bureau, and the 26-year-old General Hoche, the most brilliant French general and an admirer of Rabelais.

Their target was Ireland, where Hoche expected to land 16-20,000 crack troops of his own Army, stirring up a revolt by the Irish against British oppression, organized by Wolfe Tone: an absolutely brilliant flanking maneuver.

It failed in 1796, due to the temporizing of French bureaucrats and naval officers. It failed again in 1797 and 1798, when French ships were swept away by terrible storms, and about 5,000 French soldiers were lost. Wolfe Tone was captured and killed in his cell, and the opportunity was lost. Wolfe Tone was an admirer of Thomas Paine and denounced Locke's social contract theories as a ``veil for autocracy.''

Then in 1803-04, Napoleon also failed in his landing attempts, and the British were only finally relieved after the naval battle of Trafalgar, when Nelson smashed the French and Spanish fleets.

Let us hear what Robert Garnier had to say about the 1796 and 1797 attempts, in his biography of Hoche: ``But weather was not the worst of the problem. Though led by General Hoche in person, the plot was sabotaged by ministerial offices ... infiltrated by counter-revolutionary friends of England, since the emigrants had been allowed to return from that country, and were well placed to block the relevant dossiers and choke off the credits; this led to terrible delays in recruiting men, in arming the fleet and bringing it together.''

This is what happens when you depend upon a Bonapartist bureaucracy: You are infiltrated by traitors and constantly delayed by incompetence. By the way, the Battle of Trafalgar was a similar set-up, aggravated by a macho fit of then-Emperor Napoleon I.

If you don't believe what I said, look at the results: By the end of his empire, Napoleon, that Venetian-Genoese jock and British time-bomb, had caused France to explode. The nation-state was destroyed, the country was bled white of its men and money, and found itself with all Europe against it, whereas at the end of the eighteenth century, it had only one enemy: England. And England had realized her dream of the eighteenth century: Smash France and take away from Spain and Portugal their American possessions, thanks to Napoleon's occupation of the Iberian Peninsula and Britain's absolute control of the seas.

Let me add one more thing: Just recently, a letter was found in the French Foreign Affairs archives, in which Talleyrand tells his friends in the Unholy Alliance that he has encouraged Napoleon to come back from his exile on the island of Elba, because he needs to be taught a lesson, and France has to be, not partially, but totally smashed. Strange words for a French foreign minister. Then, Napoleon did come back for 100 days, and the final kill took place at Waterloo, a battle where it is proven today that French General Grouchy conspired to arrive too late and let Blucher and Wellington win, making a fortune for the Rothschilds.

The Faded Glory of Napoleon III

So much for Napoleon's empire. The later history of his family is one of a simple sellout to the British--the junior empire pledging full allegiance to the senior empire in Lord Palmerston's zoo. I will briefly sum up the story, because it is much more obvious, and the degenerated xerox copies are far less exotic than the originals.

See Napoleon III (Figure 32), imitating the famous gesture of his ancestor--but what a poor replica. Then, the Roman medal, to complete the profile.

Napoleon the ``Turd'' was nothing but a filibusterer, an errand boy controlled by Lord Palmerston and his gang, in such an obvious way, that even Queen Victoria was shocked by the ``lack of understatement in such an affair.''

Napoleon III spent part of his youth in England, and his takeover of 1848-1851 was sponsored by British courtesan Harriet Howard, duchess of Hamilton, who was a conveyor-belt for the British Court. He had also made frequent trips to Italy, conspired with the Carbonari, and always contributed to the destabilization of Europe. The key event proving his British colors, even for the blind, is his signature of the 1859 free trade treaty with England, called the Michel Chevalier-Cobden Treaty, a French remake of the 1786 Turgot free-trade treaty with England, with the same disastrous results.

Let's read what he had to say in 1847, about his ancestor Napoleon I:

``Why was I not born to participate in the glory of such heroic times? But after all, it is better like this.

``What a shameful spectacle, to see the two greatest civilized nations of the world destroying each other, two nations that, in my view, should be friends and allies, and only rival in the pacific arts.

``Let's hope that the day is going to come when I can turn into acts, my uncle's intentions and unify the interests and policies of England and France, and this in an everlasting alliance. This hope gladdens and encourages me.''

Even more interesting is that this quote appears in Philippe Séguin's biography of Napoleon III, with the following comment: ``He was the admirable inventor of the 1904 Entente Cordiale.''

Let us only add that Napoleon was to launch the colonial expedition to Mexico with the British, collaborating with Theodore Roosevelt's mentor, James D. Bulloch, while trying to make money on the side with the help of the duke of Morny, Talleyrand's illegitimate grandson and Louis Napoleon's illegitimate half-brother.

By that time, there was not much of anything ``legitimate'' left about the Bonapartes, so little that the rest of the family is not even of legitimate descent: Napolleyrand IV, the Venetian Tonton, and Chirapoleon V, the disoriented agent of London, whose only invention is the chiraquette, a special motorcycle for eating up the dog-poop on the streets of Paris.

The point here is that Philippe Séguin, a shark close to Chirac and president of the French National Assembly, tries, in his biography of Napoleon III, to compare ``Badinguet'' [fn2] to Charles de Gaulle. His only honest comment is that de Gaulle would have been disgusted by such a comparison. Séguin bases his argument on the fact that Napoleon III wanted to reorganize Europe into a continent-wide confederation, based on the ``principle of nationalities'' and not on the dynasties upheld at the Congress of Vienna. He claims that this was the forerunner of de Gaulle's concept of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals!

Now, I expect the followers of Chirapoleon to say that de Gaulle was a British asset because he fled to London in 1940. To rule, these people divide their own minds into pieces!

Let's end our images with Napoleon III's work of art, the Paris Opera (Figure 33). This is the ugliest version of a Venetian theater ever built, which became a center of European mundane prostitution with the corps de ballet, its ballet dancers.

Was this the end of the Napoleonic ``trip''? Not quite. One day, in the twentieth century, a European head of state decided to repatriate to France the ashes of Napoleon's son, l'Aiglon, the Eaglet. He did it, and a Franco-German commemoration was organized in Paris. The year? 1941. The head of state for whom Napoleon was a model? You guessed it: Adolf Hitler.

Now, for those among you who have been puzzled or troubled by this story of doom and destruction, let me remind you of what Lyndon LaRouche had to say yesterday: It is through crises, through the collapse of empires, that humanity progresses, and, under the shock, calls into question the wrong axiomatic assumptions which were, until then, its beliefs.

Let me add another point, which is a challenge to all of us. Napoleons, like all other human beings, do die, and empires, like all synthetic constructs, do die, and we should celebrate their funerals with well-deserved outbursts of laughter. But an idea, and even more so the generating principles of ideas, the hypothesis of the higher hypothesis, never dies. Universal culture is our identity and never dies.

Once born, a nation-state concept never dies; it only waits for courageous and sane human beings to come to its defense, to perfect it as a process.

The nation-state is a work of art, self-transforming, self-perfecting in history through the contributions of scientists, poets, and discoverers, not commands carried out by house lackeys. The nation-state cannot be locked into a bureaucrat's accounts. It is an institution for changing space-time geometry; not to go back to ``tradition,'' as Napoleon impotently did, but to build a new geometry, sets of new geometries. Napoleon followed the pagan gods of the oligarchy and destroyed his nation, his soldiers, and himself, by clinging to his beliefs, to his respect for the dead culture of the oligarchy.

Napoleon, the so-called ``modern Hannibal'' or ``Alexander,'' who had won so many battles, miserably lost the war. The mystery of the Corsican superman is that he was, as the British well knew, nothing but ``Boney,'' a dwarf.

He was a puppet who thought he was an Emperor, the puppet of his own mind and his own empire, the puppet of those family funds, old Genoese and Venetian family funds, which pulled his strings. He was brought in by Venetian oligarchs and British gamblers, by the Capodistrias, Pozzo di Borgos, Talleyrands, and others, to destroy France and Europe. He was the Maastricht Treaty of the time, on four legs.

Final doom was cast upon his brothers, nephews, and great-nephews when they all became dependable tools of the British Empire, the other empire, the senior empire. The doom of Napoleon's heirs was to end as lackeys of their ancestor's torturers, as British kleenex.

Napoleon was unable to think of a new universe freed from chains, and moved instead, like an enraged beast, in the cage of his illusions, a Raskolnikov axing whomever he could reach.

Let us rather welcome today, once again in world history, that unique moment when a whole class of opinions is falling apart, along with the axioms of an evil universe. It is a great opportunity for us, if we fight to ennoble people's character, if we love the creative spark in ourselves and them. It is a great opportunity for us, if we foster the creative powers of our fellow human beings, to assimilate, implement, and transmit discovery, and participate in the general progress of history.

It is a great opportunity, if we mobilize human beings to be human, and not cannon fodder or down-bred cattle, to do things that they would never believe they could do before. Agapë, ``love of thy neighbor,'' is what morally sick and mentally frigid Napoleon lacked the most. For him, as for Emperors Diocletian and Constantine or Louis XIV, humans were only domesticated beasts, trained apes, or, at best, a calculable factor in national accounting.

A grand design, as opposed to the fake Roman grandeur of the Bonapartist zoo, is a thing of beauty; respect for the sovereign personality of each human being, is hope. The new world, the coming world defined by a higher order, a higher purpose, the future as opposed to eagles soaring up from the past, the future so defined is our world, our historical personality.

Napoleon's life was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, because it was determined by the everlasting nightmare of the past. On the contrary, a true, joyful human being, acts today to plan tomorrow, today under the light of tomorrow, and that is beauty.


  1. See Dino de Paoli, ``Lazare Carnot's Grand Strategy for Political Victory,'' EIR, Sept. 20, 1996.

  2. Badinguet was the pejorative nickname given to Napoleon III.

Figures' Captions

Napoleon as a Roman Emperor.

The Corsican ogre devours Europe.

[Flowchart - Family Tree of Napoleon I]

[Flowchart of Charles-Marie Buonaparte]

[Flowchart of Bonaparte Family Tree -- Caroline and Jerome]

[Map - The oligarchical network of trade and money]

[Map -- Looting of the Colonial Americas]

[Map -- World Commerce in the 18th Century]

Cartoon - Napoleon as a Peeping Tom.

Napoleon crossing the Alps, by Jacques-Louis David.

``The Shadows of French Warriors Lead to Odin,'' by Girodet.

Cartoon - Napoleon the plunderer.

Cartoon -- Napoleon with his armies -- "The Two Kings of Terror" Napoleon Seated with Death.

Cartoon - Bonaparte the cannibal.

Looting the artwork of Europe.

Ratification of the Concordat of 1801, placing the French Catholic Church under imperial control.

Napoleon crowns himself Emperor.

The Arc de Triomphe in Paris.

The Carroussel Arch of Triumph, next to the Louvre.

The Vendôme column.

The Paris Stock Market.

La Madeleine Church.

The Chamber of Deputies.

Marshal Ney with Napoleon: the pinching of the nose.

Napoleon and Pitt share the plum pudding of Europe. By James Gillray.

Destruction of the French gunboats, by James Gillray.

Napoleon as Gulliver, crossing the English Channel.

Napoleon as Sophocles' Philoctetus.

The British portray Napoleon as a fox that they have captured.

Napoleon as a badminton birdie, played by the Allies.

Napoleon babbles about ``world rule.''

Napoleon III imitates the gesture of his uncle.

The Paris Opera.

Top of Page Napoleon - The "Entente Bestiale" Site Map Overview Page

The preceding article is a rough version of the article that appeared in The American Almanac. It is made available here with the permission of The New Federalist Newspaper. Any use of, or quotations from, this article must attribute them to The New Federalist, and The American Almanac.

Publications and Subscriptions for sale.

EIR Issue, October 18, 1996. Time To Destroy the Myth of Napoleon Bonaparte, extensive illustrations. $10.00

Readings from the American Almanac. Contact us at: american_almanac@yahoo.com.