Napoleon

I suppose that I should see the movie Napoleon before I begin to criticize it, but I don’t think I shall.

I shall not see the movie because I prefer not to acquiesce to the British assault on Napoleon and his legacy.

The British have never understood Napoleon and what he represents.

Or maybe they do.

So they have sent their hitman, Ridley Scott, out to once again conduct another Waterloo.

Scott’s vision is of a diseased, mentally ill, megalomaniacal, sexually frustrated, lovesick child frantically scurrying about, conducting mayhem without purpose in order to satiate his unslaked insecurities.

The British do love their monarchy.

And they think they have won the battle.

Well, perhaps they have.

Their rotten parasitic monarchy persists, and it has many admirers here in the United States especially the social climbers at Harvard University.

And unfortunately, Harvard along with the criminals at Oxford have much power in this world.

Not content with conducting their criminality throughout the centuries against various weaker peoples of the world, the British and the American elite occupy much of their time rewriting history to suit their own needs.

Thus Napoleon by Ridley Scott.

As I watch the many negative reviews of the movie, and there are many – I have not yet seen one positive review – I have to wonder where is the Napoleon that I read about in the Andrew Roberts tome.

Where is the Napoleon who gave opportunities to regular working class people through his Napoleonic code?

Where is the Napoleon who broke the back of feudalism in Europe?

Where is Napoleon the man of letters?

Where is Napoleon who read voraciously?

Where is Napoleon who hauled his library of books behind him in his caravan on his various campaigns?

Where is Napoleon the scientist?

Where is Napoleon the conciliator who brought together in one room Jacobins and Royalists to hash out a new beginning for France?

Where is Napoleon, the master interpreter of the battlefield who could see where others could not?

Apparently, he does not exist in Ridley Scott’s Napoleon.

Perhaps Scott should have read Andrew Robert’s’ book.

Now, there is a Brit who gets Napoleon.

Napoleon was a great man not because he won battles, but because he laid the foundation of modern Europe.

There is no modern Europe without Napoleon.

He was the first in the modern age to conceive of a continental system, an early day European Union.

The British stood against this – just as they do today.

The British stand for a regressive feudalism which they are attempting to impose once again upon the world through their lackeys in the United States led by the troglodytes and financial cancer cells who sit on the board of Harvard University.

It is a new feudalism they desire, a rentier society, where we all men and women once again live upon the King’s land and operate by his permission.

This is what Napoleon fought against.

This is the snobbery he encountered as a young boy at Brienne.

He learned at an early age what many choose not to see, that talent rests within all men, that it is bottled up, unused and cast away frivolously by the ruling elite in order to maintain the luxuriant lifestyle of the idiot rich.

His battle, which the lord entrusted to him, was to lay bare this stultifying snobbery and destroy it.

Napoleon was not battling the British, the Spaniards, the Austrians, the Prussians, and the Russians.

He was battling what their leaders represented.

It was a battle worth fighting.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2023 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved