Log in

No account? Create an account
eyes black and white

Being Frank / Soyons Francs

I'm François from France. My name is Old French for "Frenchy", back from the time when "French" used to mean "German". Are you confused yet?

The Franks were a coalition of german tribes that conquered Roman Gaul, killing, plundering and raping all around. The name "Frank" itself possibly comes from old german "frankon", the throwing axe, a european tomahawk, their token weapon (seemingly an indo-european cognate of the latin "fracture" and the English "fuck") — It's as if the Axe Gang had taken over China and the chinese word for "Chinese" were now "Axe". This Axis of Evil bandits sealed its victory when the warlord of the german stormtroopers H'l'dw'gh (nowadays worshipped under the deceiving name Clovis or Louis) allied with the Catholic Church to permanently enslave the population, instead of having to re-conquer it every time. They conquered Gaul from heirs of the collapsed Roman Empire, most notably the lenient Wisigoth, who had refused to play the mind-control game of the catholic church, that totalitarian administration of the late Roman Empire.

In the kingdom of the Franks, "Frank" came to mean "free" (more precisely what we'd nowadays call "first class citizen") as opposed to "roman" which came to mean "slave" ("slave" itself similarly comes from the slavs, a favorite race to enslave, though "slav" in slavic seems to be related to "sloboda" — freedom — no doubt for the same reason why "frank" is related to it in French and in English after it). Then came centuries of domination by the Master Race, during which people started calling their sons "Frank" to signal their being part of the ruling class — especially if they weren't. For the same reasons, "Frank" also came to mean someone sincere and honest who dares to speak his mind, unlike those wretched disarmed creatures who'll say just anything, anything to take advantage of you and avoid your just wrath. After a few centuries, everyone would claim to be a Frank, or French: not just germans from tribes that weren't originally part of the Franchise, but even people of mostly or completely gallic origin. Of course, it is for the very same reason that people were calling themselves "romans" before they called themselves "franks" — they weren't particularly roman either. And they probably were neither "gauls" nor "celts" before it was trendy to call oneself so, if it ever was.

But despite words being slowly corrupted by constant lies, at each and every period, in each and every place, whether or not you were one of the conquerors or one of the conquered would still be very obvious: free men possess and exercise the right to keep and bear arms, the conquered don't.

Only with the revolution was race-based aristocracy definitely uprooted, to make place for an aristocracy directly based on the ability to lie and cheat, as robbery and murder were displaced by fraud at the top of the hierarchy of profitable crimes, thanks to social and technological progress. The slave-morality of lies thus replaced the master-morality of force. It was not a uniform progress.


Je m'appelle François, je viens de France. Mon nom est un mot en Vieux Français pour dire "Français", du temps où "Français" signifiait "Allemand". Hein?

Les Francs étaient une coalition de tribus germaniques qui a conquis la Gaule Romaine, par le meurtre, le pillage et le viol généralisés. Le nom "Franc" lui-même vient sans doute du Vieil Allemand "frankon", la hâche de jet, ou francisque, pendant européen du tomahawk, arme qui les identifiait (mot qui semble partager la même étymologie que le français "fracasser" ou l'anglais "fuck") — C'est comme si le Gang de la Hâche s'était emparé de la Chine, et que le mot chinois pour "Chinois" était maintenant "Hâche". Cet Axe du Mal a rendu sa victoire complète quand le chef de guerre des troupes de choc germaniques H'l'dw'gh (vénéré de nos jours sous le nom trompeur de Clovis ou Louis) s'est allié avec l'église catholique pour asservir la population de façon permanente, plutôt que d'avoir à la reconquérir à chaque fois. Les Francs arrachèrent la Gaule aux héritiers de la chute de l'Empire Romain, notamment les tolérants Wisigoths, qui avaient refusé de jouer le jeu de contrôle des esprits de l'église catholique, cette administration totalitaire du bas Empire Romain.

Au royaume des Francs, "Franc" devint synonyme de "libre" (ou plus précisément ce que l'on appelerait aujourd'hui "citoyen de première classe"), par contraste avec "romain" qui devint synonyme d'"esclave" (le mot "esclave" lui-même venant des slaves, une race favorite où puiser des esclaves, même si le mot "slave" en slavique semble apparenté à "sloboda" — liberté — sans doute pour la même raison que "franc" s'y apparente en français). Alors vinrent plusieurs siècles de domination par la Race des Maîtres, durant lesquels les gens commencèrent à appeler leurs enfants "Frank" ou "François" pour montrer qu'ils étaient membres de la classe dirigeante — surtout quand ce n'était pas le cas. De même, "Franc" devint aussi un mot pour signifier quelqu'un de sincère, honnête, qui dit tout haut ce qu'il pense tout bas, à l'opposé des ces fourbes créatures désarmées prêtes à dire tout et n'importe quoi pour tenter de tirer profit de vous et d'éviter votre juste colère. Après quelques siècles, tout le monde prétendait être Franc, ou Français: non pas seulement les allemands de tribus qui n'avait pas fait initialement partie de la Franchise, mais aussi des gens d'origine ethnique largement ou complètement gauloise. Bien sûr, c'est par le même mécanisme que ce même tout le monde (ou leurs ancêtres) s'étaient proclamés "romains" avant de se dire "francs". Ils n'étaient pas plus romains que francs, et n'avaient sans doute été "gaulois" ou "celtes" que quand le titre avait été convoité (s'il l'a jamais été).

Mais par delà ces mots qui sont lentement corrompus par des mensonges constants, à chaque instant, et en tout lieu, il a toujours été d'une totale évidence de distinguer conquérants et conquis: les hommes libres possèdent et exercent le droit de porter les armes, les conquis en sont dépouillés.

Ce n'est qu'avec la révolution que cette aristocratie raciale fut renversée une fois pour toute, pour laisser place à une aristocratie directement basée sur la capacité à mentir et tromper, le vol et le meurtre ayant laissé place à l'escroquerie au premier rang des crimes qui profitent, grâce au progrès social et technologique. La morale des esclaves basée sur le mensonge a ainsi remplacé la morale des maîtres basée sur la force. Le progrès ne fut pas uniforme.



Over time, I developed serious doubts about our ability to understand how people in earlier ages self-identified. This particular issue has been subjected to so much intentional disinformation (including both destruction and fabrication of evidence) that the truth may well have been lost for all practical purposes.

Another very interesting and relevant phenomenon affecting the confusion in this area is the well-documented feature of the human mind called Stockholm-syndrome. The most amazing characteristic of it being that in most cases it is entirely honest and sincere on the subjective level. First, people have one loyalty, then a bit later they have the opposite loyalty and also sincerely believe that they have always had the loyalties that they currently have. We are quite capable of retroactively re-construing our enthusiastic and loyal service in the past as reluctant submission or even skillful deception. The evolutionary pressures that resulted in this behavior are not very difficult to identify and they are quite strong.

Case in point: what looks like being a turn-coat from the outside might have a very different subjective perception.

Thus, when asked about past tribal loyalties, people are not only prone to lie, but what they believe to be true might also not be correct. And that's just one person's lifetime. Over generations, it's even more muddled up. Asking people about the tribal loyalties of their parents and grandparents is an absolutely pointless exercise.

Then you can add to that mix the constant pressure from tribes for the incorrect use of the plural first-person (and second-person) pronoun and all the emotional and moral mishaps that result from it: most demand that you refer to members of the same tribe -- past, present and future -- as "we", even if the past is a myth and the future is fiction (both full of wishful thinking). It is always entertaining to listen to young Americans (especially 1st-gen immigrant kids) enthuse about how "they" kicked British ass in the late eighteenth century. This is by no means innocent: this same mechanism is essential in getting people all worked up for a good ethnic cleansing or even outright genocide.

a resemblance does not an etymology make

The Germanic cognate of fracture is break.
"The"? You mean a word is allowed only one cognate allowed, ever, between two languages? Break is clearly related to fracture and the latin verb frangere, and very likely so to old german fra[n][g]k. From GCIDE:

frank \frank\ (fr[a^][ng]k), a. [Compar. {franker}
(fr[a^][ng]k"[~e]r); superl. {frankest}.] [F. franc free,
frank, L. Francus a Frank, fr. OHG. Franko the name of a
Germanic people on the Rhine, who afterward founded the
French monarchy; cf. AS. franca javelin, Icel. frakka. Cf.
{Franc}, {French}, a., {Franchise}, n.]

Break \Break\ (br[=a]k), v. t. [imp. {broke} (br[=o]k), (Obs.
{Brake}); p. p. {Broken} (br[=o]"k'n), (Obs. {Broke}); p. pr.
& vb. n. {Breaking}.] [OE. breken, AS. brecan; akin to OS.
brekan, D. breken, OHG. brehhan, G. brechen, Icel. braka to
creak, Sw. braka, br[aum]kka to crack, Dan. br[ae]kke to
break, Goth. brikan to break, L. frangere. Cf. {Bray} to
pound, {Breach}, {Fragile}.]
I'll rephrase that. The Proto-Indo-European root bhreg became Latin frag (whence English fragment, fracture, frangible etc) and Germanic brek (whence English break).

If Frank is a Germanic root, rather than a borrowing from some other branch of IE, then by Grimm's Law its Latin cognate would begin with p not f.
Oh, it's entirely possible that franko/frakka, a word with few related words in old german, was itself being borrowed from latin, or derived from a mispronounciation, pun, or whatever. It seems to me a probable derivation, though indeed not one that follows the usual route. I suppose my point is to dispel the sacred nature of the name of the tribe, and trace it back to its violent and bloody origins.
Another potential cognate is Varangian -- the later coalition of scandinavian bandits who extended their conquest and destruction all over Eastern Europe and beyond.
My friend Denis M. tells me that Slav seems to be related to slovo "word" (i.e. people who can speak, as opposed to barbarians) and slava "glory, worship" (i.e., people who worship the correct gods), both of which are indeed names that people who won the wars that matter would use for themselves; whereas Svoboda seems to be related with Schwaben, Suebi, Sabines, Semnones, etc — self-owners.

But as he also says, slav meaning both free and slave is more satisfying for literary reasons.
Also, the history of first names tells us that often a name is adopted because it sounds like an earlier name. It's very possible that people who started as merely free men who own themselves swa-bod (or some other word that sounded similar) when victorious over other tribes let her name be reinterpreted as meaning "glorious" as the pronunciation shifted from contact with other tribes. (It's bad policy to promote freedom when you're yourself the enslaving conqueror.)

Edited at 2017-05-29 10:46 pm (UTC)
eyes black and white

January 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com