Defending Anger, Assaulting Infamy

October 16, 2017

In Defense Of Anger? yes, and this is why:

Drinking too much, even water, can kill (by dilution of electrolytes). Drinking indiscriminately can kill too. So it is with anger. Too much anger will kill you (and others). The wrong anger will also kill. But, when it is needed, so will no anger, whatsoever. (Aspects of this reasoning are held by the Buddhist leadership in Myanmar, by the way.)

One has to have the right anger, in the right proportions, both individually and collectively. Too much anger will kill a civilization as surely as none whatsoever.

Oftentimes, those who pontificate, for a fee, from the high chairs of officialdom, preach that We The People shouldn’t get angry: of course, they want that they, and their friends, stay in power. So it seems to be with esteemed philosophers such as Massimo Pigliucci (New York University) and Martha Nussbaum (University of Chicago). Why so simplistic, otherwise?

Yes, anger can be bad, especially when it originates with bad people. Parents should teach children not to get angry for no good reason. Yes, some people go mad, literally, when they get angry, and their madness is part of how we determine that they are bad. But getting angry does not mean one is mad. However, not getting angry often means one is too dumb, too weak, or too immoral to do so: watch the USA turning back to nazi Germany ships full of German Jews. Cuba accepted more. And this happened in part because US Jews didn’t get angry, as they should have.

Bad people shouldn’t get angry, anger should be reserved to those with enough judgment, subtility, and noblesse to distinguish how much anger is needed, about what exactly, and to which purpose anger is uniquely qualified to solve the problem at hand.

Anger against Kaiser Wilhelm II, Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler was amply justified, and only anger enabled to resist, or vanquish them, in the end. Anger is what sustains combat. Refusing anger, ever, always, as a matter of principle, is to refuse combat, and thus accept Auschwitz as a good thing. Or to accept one, and the ones one loves, should become dinner, without rising a fuss. That’s a inhuman as it gets.

Let me repeat this slowly: sometimes there are bad actors, and an entire collectivity can be made of a controlling majority of bad actors. The exhibit number one here is Nazi Germany, but there are plenty of others, even today (North Korea being the fat poster boy of this mental corruption).

Nazi Germany couldn’t be negotiated with: it had to be destroyed. It could have been destroyed from within, enough German generals plotted that way. (However they made the mistake of asking the UK and US to stand by the French Republic, and the UK and US told Hitler of the plot!)

Nazi Germany had to be destroyed. So, after Britain refused to support France and Czechoslovakia, in 1938, and Hitler captured the latter as a result, France stiffened Polish resistance with a treaty, and, after Spain fell to the Nazis and fascist allies, Britain finally accepted to go to war if Hitler moved against Poland. Handicapped by de facto alliance of the USA, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Soviet Union, Japan and Italy, France unexpectedly lost the Battle of France of May-June 1940. However, the Nazi losses were massive, and they were unable to invade Britain.

The point remains that, had the Nazis been left alone, and had France not declared war, the Nazis would have been able to do to Eastern Europe what they thought the Europeans did to the Natives in North America: kill them all, starting with the Jews, the Gypsies, the Slavs, etc.

The firsdt bombing raid on Berlin was French: the Nazis condemned the French air crews to death, in a curious interpretation of the laws of German war.

Nuremberg, sentimental capital of Nazi Germany, reduced to rubble by completely justified, and extremely effective, anger.

Quickly, Germany got systematically destroyed:

“Nobody escapes war service in Germany. Children serve in air-raid squads; women work very hard…The black market flourishes everywhere. More fats are required, as are fruits and vegetables, for the people’s strength is declining. A report I have seen of Health Minister Conti shows that the mortality rate for some diseases rose 49 percent in 1941 – 1942.”
From ”They Saw Hamburg Die” (Collier’s Magazine, 1943). A 1943 article that was cabled from Stockholm, Sweden relaying assorted eyewitness accounts of the Allied bombing campaign over the German city of Hamburg in 1943:

“The people of Germany have now learned, through the terror-filled hours of sleepless nights and days, that air mastery , the annihilating blitz weapon of the Nazis in 1939 and 1940, has been taken over by by the Allies…The most terrible of these punches has been the flood of nitroglycerin and phosphorus that in five days and nights destroyed Hamburg.”

The witnesses were all escaped Scandinavian laborers who had been working in that city.

It was an Englishman nicknamed “Bomber Harris” who planned and organized the nightly raids over Nazi Germany. It worked extremely well: more than one million soldiers served in air defense of Germany against the British bombers, roughly a third of the number of German soldiers trying to subjugate the USSR! Later, when the US joined, the entire fuel industry of Germany got annihilated. Germany produced thousands of thanks and planes each month, but they couldn’t move. Cattle was dragging Nazi jet fighters on the runways…

Only combat, thus anger, works against the worst infamy. When the Roman empire fell, in the period 379 CE-406 CE (according to me), it was essentially a psychological failure due to Christianity, which, not only had augmented the fascism (the emperor being fascist in chief, under fascist god), but had also augmented the sheep behavior, centered around stoicism and lack of anger.

When Nussbaum and Pigliucci fire broadsides against anger, they fire broadsides for the established order. That insure their income and the respect they enjoy. Tellingly, they laud Seneca, the worst of the worst. The one who taught wisdom, so he could foster himself, at the cost of the worst infamy, having learned to talk honey and distribute death.

To reset the world right, now, the world needs lots of calm, but considerable, anger against our masters. Philosophers who claim the opposite, just like Seneca, serve masters who live from infamy, clinging to the abyss they feast on.

Patrice Ayme  



October 13, 2017

People are not just led politically by self-described “leaders” such as Obama. People are not just led emotionally by self-described “leaders” such as Obama. People are led psychologically, philosophically, neurologically by those “leaders”. People are also led by the whole galaxy of influence those leaders are supported by, and that they support in turn. Movie producers such as Harvey Weinstein, with their extremely fake vision of history, are crucial to the institution of the subjugated minds their rule depend upon. And what other sins did Weinstein institute? Objectifying women into sex devices, and imposing his will abjectly upon them, among other aspects of vigorous sexism. That made him popular with the abusing elite:

One of the pseudo-intellectuals who gravitate in the highest US “Democratic” circles, Harvey Weinstein wants all daughters to be prostitutes, and it turns out the top “Democrats” knew this very well, and played right along! Proof below! It gets better all the time! Past formal police accusations against Weinstein include four rapes. In spite of admission of sexual aggression (in the case of the Italian model, see below), to the New York police, years ago, Weinstein was left free to proceed, and the Obamas couldn’t have enough of him. 

One can tell who people are, by looking at whom they socialize with. The song “family” of the Rolling Stones is relevant to recent happenings in the highest reaches of the “Democratic” Party, finally revealed, for all to see.

California’s Napa and Sonoma valleys, in the northern San Francisco Bay Area are burning. The region on fire is 80 kilometers by 40 kilometers (50 X 25 miles). One hundred kilometers south, in the core of the San Francisco area, it has been hard to breathe, for five days. When we said the greenhouse was going to be a problem, that’s what we were talking about: expect devastating fires. All over. That’s how climate changes. Fast.

For years our great leaders have done nothing much, when much could be done (see Angela Merkel and her ridiculous “Energiewende“, energy change, which sees Germany emitting ever more CO2!). President Obama’s highest philosophical principle was, at least as he presented it in his “memoirs”, personal “navigation”. A distinguished lawyer visiting me this week, who knew Obama as a teenager, told me two days ago laughing in derision, that “Obama is busy turning anything he touches into gold”. Let’s teach that to the youth, we rats and roaches of the lowest gutters, much cheese to be had, by navigating well, all lights out!

The Harvey Weinstein scandal is growing (and it’s not just Weinstein, many pillars of the US establishment do just the same, rolling all over the law; after all, Obama admitted using cocaine in his memoirs: the law is for lesser beings! Amazon just fired the head of its studio, alleging sexual harassment against employees). Weinstein was a pillar of PC clamoring, and funding (see below where the Great Leader’s daughter found her first job!). All his best friends, including his wife, are distancing themselves from him. Best friends of Weinstein incorporate the entire upper establishment of the so-called Democratic Party. Clinton got millions from Weinstein.

Hillary Clinton Left, hilariously revealing that she can’t Get Her Hands Off Producer & suspected Sex Criminal Harvey Weinstein, Right. With lovers like that, who needs democracy?

Weinstein was a pillar of the Hollywood establishment with movies such as “The King’s Speech,” “The Artist,” “Shakespeare in Love,” “Silver Linings Playbook,” “Django Unchained,” and “Good Will Hunting.” (For a total of 1400 Oscar nominations, and 81 received Oscars…). Weinstein was rumored to have fled to France (for “rehab”). Then he resurfaced in LA, and conferred onto himself:”Second Chance!

The “King’s Speech” was total BS to mask the fact that the preceding king and his partisans, were Nazis foaming at the mouth, who signed a Treaty with Hitler in 1935, to violate the Versailles Treaty. So now a whole new generation of young morons think speech difficulties is what made Britain interesting then. Thanks Mr. Weinstein. In truth, in my book, what made Britain interesting in 1936 was that her forcefully ejected king was a Nazi.

That entire US pseudo-Democratic establishment spent lots of political capital pointing at Trump as immoral and crazy, while themselves indulging with relish in the very practices they conferred to Trump (this observation shouldn’t be construed as a support for Trump). This sort of accusations of crimes by those who indulge in them is a human characteristic. For example Louis XIV accused more than 10% of the population of his kingdom, France, the  Protestants, of the very crimes he himself committed with gusto. Ditto Hitler,and other anti-Jews with the Jews. Or, for that matter, Nero with the Christians. Or the Inquisition with the heretics: who was cavorting with the Devil? The Vatican, or its victims?

What, me worry? Life is a blast. Sexual Criminals provide me the employment, and overlordship. Malia Obama: to Harvard, like her dad and her grand-father (a Kenyan politician the CIA found convenient as a potential strongman). But first internship with the world’s most famous sex aggressor was a must (see “The Weinstein Company” logo behind): learning from this master of propaganda how to navigate to domesticate We The People, the police, judges, etc.

Malia Obama worked for Harvey Weinstein. Yes, you read that right: the first job her Great Leader Dad found for her was with the world’s most famous serial, notorious, mass sex abuser Harvey Weinstein! Reality writes better scripts than fiction. And certainly better than Obama or Weinstein can.

Malia Obama, 19, landed an internship at the Weinstein Company right after her dad left the US Presidency earlier this year, see The Hollywood Reporter. Working in the New York City office,TMZ reported that Malia Obama was “ensconced in the production/development department,” tasked with “reading through scripts and deciding which ones move on to Weinstein brass.”

A genius, we tell you. Malia’s well connected internship has come under sudden scrutiny by the Mainstream Media (MSM) in the wake of a New York Times investigation that revealed Harvey Weinstein paid off at least eight women who accused him of sexual harassment in quid pro quo for promises that he would help further their entertainment careers. Since then the scandal has blossomed enormously: all sort of actresses came saying it happened to them to. In other words, they were OK with humoring Mr. Weinstein until they were in danger of being exposed.

Senator Obama was great buddy of rich pig Harvey Weinstein (right). So were Senator Lautenberg and Senator Schumer from New York (the later presently the Democratic head of the US Senate). Yes, they all knew. Life is a blast. Why should they worry?

Frank Rich, who used to be the most interesting writer at the New York Times, before he left it, and now executive producer for Veep and a New York writer, has done a bit of thinking. Mr. Rich revealed that Weinstein’s sexual transgressions were not a secret.

“Biggest mystery of @nytimes Weinstein story: How exemplary parents like Obamas let their daughter work there. The stories were out there,” Rich wrote on Twitter.

In what is Obama exemplary, exactly? The quest for power at any cost? To quote the Rolling Stones in the 1968 song “Family: “Her ambition is to be a prostitute, But the breaks just weren’t right. What exactly is gonna happen, tell me?

When her father finds out That his virgin daughter has bordello dreams And that he’s the one she wants to try out. Yeah. There’s ma, she’s living dangerously It’s a cinch she’ll try it anything twice She thinks she can run right to the whirlpool’s edge And stop herself just in time.

What exactly is gonna happen?”

All in the family. Film producer,  studio executive, suspected serial mass sex criminal Harvey Weinstein laughs at remarks directed at him by U.S. first lady Michelle Obama as she hosts a workshop at the White House for high school students about careers in film in Washington November 8, 2013. At right is actress Whoopi Goldberg. Wealthy clowns giving sexism and exploitation a happy, friendly face.

What exactly is going to happen is the question Rich is asking after the richer got more rich under Obama than they ever had been before. What is exactly going to happen is that we are getting all F… up, and the planet too. Indeed, guys like Weinstein made the breaks right. They were all on it. They all knew. A few years back a curvaceous Italian model accused Weinstein of sexual attack, ran to the police. Weinstein’s office dismissed Ambra Battilana, a 22-year-old who testified in the sex scandal case of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, as an opportunist with a sketchy past (but Weinstein didn’t deny having attacked her to the police! Never mind, that’s new York, we will overlook an admission of sexual assault when a Pluto does it!)

The establishment is very cynical: it was even ready to disingenuously denounce Weinstein, sounding indignant, to paint itself all over with an aura of morality. There is an upper class out there, roaming the planet, organizing it for themselves.

It’s all very simple: politics, as it is, is not about taking care of civilization, or the planet. It’s the domain of greedsters who learn to navigate in a sea of prostitution, and dazzlingly smile about it, to convince you all they are good guys.

A few days ago, I interviewed a janitor in a San Francisco skyscraper. He was cleaning a carpet with obviously dangerous chemicals. He removed his mask. His name was Abdullah, from Yemen. He had been doing this for 22 years. He had to flee Yemen because of war. It was the fault of the Saudis, with the Americans pulling the strings, circulating the oil money back to Wall Street, he said. (He even confided much more that I will not reproduce here lest he and me run in trouble)

I know plutocrats and quasi-plutocrats: I could never have such a conversation with them. I know, I tried, many times: they just look down, say they don’t believe in conspiracy theories, and politely excuse themselves. Then they unfriend and start a Twitter campaign against the would-be offending conspiracy theorist, namely yours truly…

Yes, Abdullah also knew the UN Security Council decided last week an inquiry on the situation in Yemen. He told me that was just because Saudi Arabia had decided to buy SA 400 aerial defense missiles from Russia, to put a bit of pressure on them…

Their ambitions were to be prostitutes: how can we unsettle them psychologically? Well, we can’t: they indulge in what they condemn. We may as well try to make Stalin feel guilty of killing millions (once a self-congratulatory Stalin, in an orgasm of sincerity, cocktail in hand, boasted to Winston Churchill that he killed even more Russians than Hitler did…)

We can’t unsettle them, but we can ooze towards a more democratic system, and that means there shouldn’t not been so much money around in politics. Also mandates could be limited to one year, as they were in the Roman Republic, or Switzerland, and the real direct democracy re-introduced, after 23 centuries of eclipse.

Another old friend of Obama, who knew him already nearly half a century ago is pretty persuaded that guys like Harvey Weinstein are kept as potential distractions, when real serious stuff is coming down.

It happened before: the connection between the US government, the Italian Mafia, the United Fruit style Mafia, the Kennedys, the Banana Republics, was kept out of sight, although the most prominent general of the US Marine Corps, Smedley Butler mentioned it vociferously.  There and then, in the 1930s.

Out of sight, in plain sight: this is what the Plutocratically owned media knows how to do very well, and it has got way worse with the Internet. Hence a general stupidification.

Ignorant folks will scoff. But that’s how Auschwitz happened: the news were there, but people preferred to read fake news. At least in the USA. Thus the USA and the countries it influenced (Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and of course fascist Italy) refused to collaborate with the French Republic in a timely manner. Poland and France were left alone to face the spectacular coalition of the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and smaller murderous clowns.

Since then many more conspiracies and occultations occurred.  The “Terror” war is one consequence. Just one of them. Past leading ideas of the USA are exposed for what they are: prone to scheming hypocrisy, pushing us into the abyss, dragging us all.

This is true not just on the lofty level: in the Bay Area fires, plenty of ways to avoid them were neglected, in part because “pot”, the well-being of geese, and the obsession with the scores of sport teams were deemed to be much more important issues. A few measures would have avoided the fire calamity, for examples replacing overhead power wires with underground ones, stucco plastered houses (as in Paris, 1660 CE), and faster mobilization of firemen… Right now, the madness of Kim of North Korea, who threatened explicitly nuclear strikes, is also a very practical and direct matter. As entire neighborhoods of the San Francisco Bay now look as if they were atom-bombed, this should be meditated.

One prominent hypocrisy is that sexism is strong out there, and everybody affecting gravitas does as if it flourished only in Saudi Arabia. Watch the non-noble Nobel Prizes: one more year, and no woman laureate. No wonder: when women try to have a career, they are made completely different propositions, and that’s viewed as acceptable. And the pseudo-left leadership of the USA not only knew it, knows it, but also makes careers out of it, and can’t find a better place for their daughters to go to. I guess when one is a successful prostitute, as so many of our pseudo-leaders are, it’s probably tempting to feel one should prepare one’s child for such a career. Thus the evil sentiments which support evil groups procreate, from parent to child.

Civilization doesn’t just progress: it lurches, from time to time, as past behaviors are found intolerable. For sexism, it is high time to realize that what the political leaders found acceptable and alluring (see the pictures above) is intolerable and condemnable.

Courageous individuals, such as Rose McGowan, who denounced Weinstein, in spite of getting $100,000 to stay silent about her rape twenty years ago, and launched the campaign against him, are needed. Those are the true leaders. The narcissistic ones, obsessed by navigating their precious selves towards all they can turn into gold, were already, rightly, excoriated in the Bible.

Unfortunately, in so-called “representative democracy” (a contradiction in adjecto, if there ever was one!), the ambition of our so-called “representatives” and politicians, is to be prostitutes.

Culture wars have to be engaged, and won by the good guys, if one is to be spared real wars. Right now, the bad guys have had all the powers. And having all the powers make them worse. Why? Because, deep down in human psychobiology (= human ethology) is anchored the will to Armageddon. Why? Because when there are too many people, and one can get away with anything, the ultimate crime is committed, the crime of the holocaust of the very environment which supports the species (this is Patrice’s Evil Theory, in a nutshell). That has to be avoided at any cost. And that’s when all values get inverted.

Patrice Ayme’

Watch This Ocean Of Galaxies, And Tremble!

October 10, 2017


Observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the local universe accounted for only 10% of the “normal” particle, baryon content inferred from measurements of the cosmic microwave background and from nuclear reactions in the early Universe. Locating the remaining 90% of baryons has been one of the major challenges in modern cosmology. Cosmological simulations predict that the ‘missing baryons’ are spread throughout filamentary structures in the cosmic web, forming a low density gas with temperatures of 10^5−10^7 Kelvins.

Using the acceleration of photons by very hot plasma (“Inverse Compton Scattering”), The estimated gas density in these 15 Megaparsec-long filaments (that’s around 50 light years) is approximately 6 times the mean universal baryon density, and overall this can account for ∼ 30% of the (Big Bang hypothesized, thus deduced) total baryon content of the Universe. This result establishes the presence of ionised gas in large-scale filaments, and suggests that the missing baryon problem may be resolved via observations of the cosmic web.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field: Galaxies forever. Something very simple and deep here: where is everybody? More galaxies have been seen than there are grains of sand on Earth. But any civilization in our style would show up very quickly, thanks to the large structures it would build, none of which are observed… So tremble: all the imaginable explanations are rather ominous…

Think of it: there are probably there may be 40 billion Earths in our galaxy alone! Then remember that 10^12 galaxies loom out there…

That partly solves the missing mass problem for normal matter. It has nothing to do with the missing mass problem for Dark Matter, or Dark Energy. I suggest both arise from a (Sub-)Quantum Effect, a prediction from a theory more general than Quantum Physics as we know it today. The basic idea is that there is something one should know as the “Quantum Interaction”, and it proceeds at a finite speed.

he “Quantum Interaction” would be the Entanglement speed and the Collapse speed. Over cosmological distances, it leaves remnants: Dark Matter. It also weakens gravitation over cosmic distances, accelerating the universe.

Some will scoff. However, basic ideas in physics can be simple.  Often the simpler, the deeper.

If I am right about Sub Quantum Physics, all our physics establishment looks rather pathetic… All the more as experiments could be made…

Back in 1969 the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich paper predicting the effect of hot plasma on Cosmic Background light came out, The interaction of matter and radiation in a hot-model universe. It would be decades before the effect was first detected. The paper was written almost entirely by Sunyaev, with the famous Zel’dovich (“Cosmic Inflation”) merely adding in how difficult the effect would be to detect. Nearly 50 years later, it has been used it to detect the missing normal matter in the Universe. However the fundamental idea is just Inverse Compton Scattering. Nothing new.

Prizes such as the Nobel lionize, erroneously, a few people misleading us in how the achievements of humanities in the matter of science are achieved (even Scientific American agrees a bit with me now). The nearly dozen scientists mentioned in the present story related here, however meritorious, were eminently replaceable, but their discovery was not.

Science needs to be supported by all (taxes! redistribution!), and can rise, only if shared and appreciated by all. Modesty, when looking up at this immense universe, is of the essence. It may well be full of life, but empty of any advanced intelligence. Why? Hubris. Hubris is mostly to be suspected there. Even our most advanced thinkers are just monkeys on a beach, looking at pretty shells. They should admit it, and to themselves first of all… (Thanks to Isaac Newton for the basic idea here: he said he was just a boy on a beach, picking up pretty shells…)  

Watch this ocean of galaxies, and tremble!

Patrice Ayme’

Munich 1938, Or: Britain Helped Hitler

October 9, 2017

Munich 1938, Or When France (or more exactly Britain) betrayed Czechoslovakia

I am for Catalonia becoming more independent. However, there has been a historical problem with smaller states. Smaller states tend to extremes: Serbia was very aggressive many times in its history, all the more as it was justified! Most often, though, rampant Pacifism, anti imperial sentiment, added to the treachery weakness leads to makes small states a problem for international security (North Korea is an example).

Small states played a crucial role in the empowering Hitler (I have mentioned this, in details, many times). Mostly, and hidden behind Hitler, was the USA (for the USA, Germany was a small state, easy to manipulate as a tool against mightier France…) This is nothing new: Sparta was the tool of Persia against Athens (it backfired on all concerned as the end result was Macedonian dictatorship, and, ultimately the subjugation of the Hellenic world by Rome).

However there was a spectacular case of the opposite, where great powers betrayed a small one: Czechoslovakia, 1938.

Czechoslovakia had been subjugated by German-speaking people for a while. In 1919, the Germanophones were forced, by France (mostly) to let the eastern European nations go free, something the vicious, racist Lord Keynes of Britain bemoaned.

The house the Anglo-Saxons built

Czechoslovakia had a completely different language and culture from Germany. However, Hitler argued that an oppressed German-speaking minority, the “Sudetes”, lived all along the natural mountainous border between Germany and the Czech.

In the “Sudeten Crisis“, Hitler got France and Britain to concede the Sudetenland with most of the Czechoslovak border fortifications in the 1938 Munich Agreement. That left the remainder of Czechoslovakia shorn of its natural borders and, literally, defenseless. Finally the country was invaded by Germany in March 1939. Much of the region was redesignated as the Reichsgau Sudetenland (a way to tell the Czech they were in German territory, newly designated that way at least; on the totem pole of ethnicities to exterminate, the Slavs were nearly as high as the Jews).


Anglo-Saxon Treachery:

Much of the world, and certainly North America was obtained through traditional, well-honed Anglo-Saxon treachery. Why tinker with what works? The method profits mostly the strongest, and the strongest, by 1914, was not Britain, but the USA. However, most British leadership kept on clinging to that hope (and still does today, as it’s one of the main arguments for Brexit).

In World War One, clearly, the British could see the USA feeding fascist, invading Germany with material to make ammunition with. France and Britain protested strenuously to Washington, for years. Without US help, the fascist, crime-against-humanity Kaiser regime, the so-called “Second Reich” would have collapsed quickly, and the democracies would have won. But those democracies, mostly Britain and France, had giant empire, and the USA wanted to acquire those empires.

Indeed it’s actually Britain who betrayed. Britain was headed by a newish PM, Chamberlain, who was trying to gain time to build an Air Force with new planes (Churchill had suggested to mass produce old planes, and that would have been a grievous error).

So Chamberlain had a proximal excuse (building an Air Force). However, Great Britain had none.  As the French Republic was trying to remove Britain from its natural inclination to be nice to, and constructive with, the Nazis. That inclination was perfidiously encouraged by the USA, which was keen to see Europe self destroyed. Fascism, injustice, plutocracy, racism, greed Uber Alles had all been inheritance and constructive ingredients of the British empire.  

I am aware that there are countless books on “Munich”. One I own is 1,000 pages or more. What I am writing here is the philosophical absolute essence of what happened.

Actually Britain had signed a military and economic treaty with the Nazis in 1935, which grossly violated the Versailles Treaty.

It was a complicated game: the Anglo-Americans, under the guidance of American plutocrats such as President FDR, were obsessed with destroying the French empire, but the French had not really noticed, although the relationship with Washington was frankly hostile since 1934. The British, in their arrogance, noticed too late they were been squeezed between the Nazis, and their de facto world imperialist allies, the Americans.

So France threaded carefully with Britain: the pro-Nazis there were thrown out, including the king. In winter 1939, the SPANISH Republic fell to the Nazis (represented by general Franco). At that point Great britain went fully on the french side, and accepted to be included in the addendum of the franco-Polish defense treaty.

But in summer 1938, it was too early, and British PM Chamberlain could not be persuaded by French PM Daladier (the Nazis, though, conceived then a great hatred for Daladier; my family sheltered his son from the Gestapo during the occupation; one of the rare non-Jews, out of the more than 100 people they saved the life of!).   

The French Republic, one should say in retrospect, should have gone to war alone with the Czechoslovak Republic in 1938. Indeed, in retrospect, the British army was worse than useless in 1940. In September 1939, the French started a lonely attack against the nazi “West Wall” (Siegfried line), with 40 divisions. It would take another month for the first British soldier to reach the continent.

Why do I say that Britain worse than useless in May 1940? The Second British armored division was supposed to stand in reserve behind the front, where the nazis broke through. As it was, it was not there. The only French B (Reserve, second rate) division which held the front at Sedan held back two Panzer Divisions. The third one broke through, after a bombing of the French division by the entire Luftwaffe, and suicide charges by Nazis engineers. There is little doubt that, had the british been where they were supposed to be, the front would not have broken (then, after a few days and the full might of the French and British armies and air force, they would have been destroyed like fishes in a barrel).

Anyway long story short: France should have given an ultimatum to Hitler in 1938. Militarily, France and Czechoslovakia could have handled Nazi Germany: The Czech fortifications were immensely strong. In 1940, half of the Nazi tanks were captured Czech tanks (1,000 out of 2,000).

The Nazis used more than 1,400 of these Czech tanks, and moreover derived a highly successful Panzerjagdt from it (a tank destroyer)

It’s not clear what the Anglo-Saxon would have decided to do: the US never gave an ultimatum to Hitler. However, by 1938, the Brits had understood they had to go to war with the Nazis.  

The French made two tragic mistakes, both of them having to do with being afraid not with war, but of what the rest of the world would think about the French Republic going to war and giving ultimatums.  

The first mistake was not going all out to war, when the Spanish Republic asked for help against the Nazis. That was in 1936. The Nazi German pilots then had three years to perfect their war making skills, and they caught French and British pilots, and their integration with ground troops, unprepared during ten crucial days in May 1940 (the democratic pilots learned, but too late to win the Battle of France).

The second mistake was for France to have betrayed the Czech Republic, one that France herself had set-up.

Conclusion: some time, it’s more important to do what’s right than to worry about what the PC crowd think. PC is apparently not just for Politically Correct, but Perfect Cretin.

Patrice Ayme’

Catalonia Should Be Much More Independent

October 7, 2017

Independent of Madrid and the rest of Spain, that is, not of the rest of Europe, it was traditionally more bound to. Having just a little, too little, history can be poison. Yet history is a teacher, it should be learned, but in full, not partially as a partisan. Only then does history make one more intelligent:

Catalonia is to Spain as Ireland is to England. It should be more independent. For nearly a millennium, England went to invade and occupy Ireland, and now finally Ireland, or most of it, is a free Republic. The Irish speak, mostly, English though.

Whereas Catalans speak Catalan. Catalan is not Spanish. Sometimes it sounds just like French, not Spanish. And that’s no coincidence. Way back, Catalonia was part of Marseilles’ empire. Then came Hamilcar Barca, the Carthaginian general and plutocrat, who gave Barcelona its name. Marseilles fought Carthage, but a modus vivendi was found. Pytheas of Marseilles went on to discover Iceland and the obliquity of Earth’s axis. Carthage let him pass.

Finally Rome defeated Carthage, and the Narbonensis province extended over the region. That lasted seven centuries, until the Visigoths, repelled by the Franks, took over in the Sixth Century. In 711 CE, the Muslim Jihadist took Spain over in three years, Barcelona fell in their torturous, massacring grasp. Then the Jihadists went over the Pyrenees, and their gigantic army suffered an enormous defeat at Toulouse, at the hands of Dux Eudes (721 CE). The war with the Islamist invaders went back and forth, inside Francia, with enormous loss of lives, until the victory of Charles Martel in Narbonne (748 CE). Same Narbonne as above.

Catalonia (“Marca Gothica”) and the Marca Hispanica were carved by the Franks in the Eight Century, As They Repelled the Jihadists

Under Charlemagne, Catalonia became part of the Renovatio Imperium Romanorum, as did Aragon, Castile, and the Basque Country. The Jihadists were pushed south. In 998 CE, Catalonia got its independence from France (as did Aragon, etc.)

Later, Catalonia merged with Aragon. Still later, Aragon went to the Dark Side, on a rampage, and grabbed enormous territories in the Mediterranean, such as Sicily and Southern Italy, which the Normans and French had freed from the Muslims, and where they had legally ruled for centuries. Aragon also put in power the sinister (Aragonese) Borgias in Rome, and, pushed for the rule of the Inquisition (to which Isabella of Castille reluctantly agreed, due to the rabid insistence of her husband, Ferdinand of Aragon.

The Inquisition was a fascist abyss for Spain. However, emperor of Spain and Rome, Charles V, born in Bourgogne (he spoke French as his native language, and was born very close to his great competitor, Francois I; they were both elected to their positions) was a great humanist, and that hid the subjacent theocratic cancer ravaging Spain. However, with his son Philip II, a full fascism of the worst jihadist type, was instituted, and Spain went down. First it had to be ejected from the Netherlands (thanks to the French), then the famed “Spanish Squares” were annihilated by the French army. Then Louis XIV married the Infante of Spain, who was related to his mother (Anne d’Autriche, ex-regent of France), and with whom he would have many children (most of whom died during Louis’ long reign) . In the following act, Louis XIV went murderously crazy and committed a holocaust of French Protestants (said holocaust lasted 20 years, and ruined France, and soon enough, Europe).

Then the Spanish king elected the grandson of Louis XIV as king of Spain, to succeed him. Resentful Protestants helped make this into a massive war, the “War of the Succession of Spain”. France came out of it destroyed, famished, exhausted, and lost territory, but the Catalans found themselves with a monarch, a Bourbon, whom they could truly hate.

The French plutocratic heir, Philip V fought Catalonia, with plenty of satanism. A true fascist as his mass murdering Catholic fanatic grandfather Louis XIV, Philip V banned all Catalan political institutions and rights, and incorporated Catalonia into Castile. Philip V also imposed the French Sallic law (by then more than 14 centuries old, that is older than Islam is today).  

The Second Spanish Republic confirmed the autonomies of Spain’s traditional autonomous regions, including the autonomy of Catalonia and the official use of its language. Like Madrid, the Basque country and much of Spain, Catalonia fought hard to defend the Second Spanish Republic in the devastating Nazi and fascist attack and invasion (so-called civil war) of 1936–1939. With the defeat of the Spanish Republic by the bloody tyrant general Francisco Franco, who killed millions of Spaniards lacking enthusiasm for the fascist dictatorship, the autonomies were cancelled, and years of massacres ensued.   

The successor of Franco was put into very low Earth orbit by the Basque Separatists, thanks to an improvised explosive charge, but Admiral Carrero Blanco missed his rough landing, on top of another building and died in the hospital. The European Union then required Spain to become democratic to get in the EU. Catalonia voted enthusiastically for the new Constitution which gave it autonomy.

However, Spain transformed Catalonia in a nourishing cow. Catalonia pays each year, 10 billion euros ($12 billion) more in taxes to Madrid than it gets back, or around 5 percent of regional economic output. It is as if California sent 100 billion dollars more to the Fed than it gets.

Interestingly, California pays 13 billion dollars more in taxes than it gets from the Fed. However, California has 5 times the population of Catalonia and the seventh largest GDP in the world. $13 billion for California is around half a percent of GDP.

So, yes, Catalonia, with twice the population of Ireland, should be free. Catalonia can be viewed as a part of France, rather than a part of Spain, for a whole host of historico-geographical reason. “Pays Catalan” is presently a part of the French REPUBLIC, and has no problem (a Catalonian enclave in France, Llivia, voted 95% for Catalonian independence: they pay taxes to Madrid, and are fed up with it).

Spain recognizes Montenegro as an independent country. Montenegro speaks Serbian, and has only 700,000 citizens. Spain is hypocritical, it wants to keeping milking its Catalan cow.

[Full revelation: Let me add I don’t hate Aragon: an ancestor of mine was made Count by the king of Aragon, 12 centuries ago. Just telling it, as it is.]

Last point: Catalonia, even if more independent of Madrid, should stay in Europe. No, not just an allusion to the Euro: countries have used the Euro as currency, even while NOT a member of the European Union: Montenegro did, and does, this. I am more thinking of defense. There is a need for a global defense system, and everybody needs to pitch in. The only really independent countries in Europe, in matter of defense are Russia, and France. So Catalonia should buy the Rafale, and not follow the treacherous Belgians, who suggested they would buy the ineffectual, hyper-expensive but AMERICAN F35. (Greatly because of the treachery of Belgium and the Netherlands, were the anti-Nazi forces defeated in May 1940, that should always be kept in mind!]

You want Union? It exists, and it has a name: the European Union. Catalonia should not submit to kings and fascists, with a long track record of monarchy and fascism. I didn’t escape my attention that two giant banks announced they would withdraw from Catalonia: nothing scare the financial masters of the universe more than the freedom of the People.

Patrice Ayme’

Nobel, Not Noble: Fictitious Fiction Is An Addiction

October 6, 2017

Another Nobel for a guy telling stories about guys he invented in his head. Especially butlers. The context is great for the established order: Japanese boy born in Nagasaki, moves to Britain, and then, instead of fuming with anger and radiation, the good little Jap boy lauds British plutocracy and its underlings, and gets lauded in turn. Speak about a modern fable! beats the Forty-seven Ronins anyday!

In The Remains of The Days, Ishiguro vaguely alludes to the ties between the British aristocracy and the Nazis. Well, those ties were deep, and were fully deployed when Hitler was still a boy (the fascist in chief of Germany, the “Kaiser” never fail to mention them, and felt much encouraged that way). Watch the aristocrat (and Nobel Laureate) Bertrand Russell  doing his best during World War One, so that Europe would fall under the boot of Prussian Fascism (Russell went to jail for it; yes, I love and esteem Russell, but I spit for his plutocratic passion for fascism). Yes, it’s valuable this little fable of The Remains of The Days, but it’s so small in value, you know, and the universe of things we may consider, we have to consider, so much bigger! If one wants to study the connection between the Anglo-Saxons and Hitler, one should get serious and exhume serious documents, not invent little fables.

Long live the Nobel Committee whose obsequious servitude to Anglo-Saxons, attributes most literature prizes to those speaking English, even if they have to find them from Japan, especially if they have to find them from Japan… after finding them in the incoherent mumblings of a rocker who is as PC as Perfect Corruption gets. (Let me listen to some Bob, to celebrate!)

Some will say, oh, no, Kazuo Ishiguro is a British critical of British butlers. The Nobel clowns wrote: “who, in novels of great emotional force, has uncovered the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world.”

Shouldn’t we consider that people are wasting the time this civilization has to set things right, by reading soporific novels, about invented characters? Instead of learning about reality? Or instead of waking up with the robust flavor of full-blown characters from real history?

Fiction is fictitious, reality, historical.

Nobel Committee Says modern historians, hence the colossal historian Plutarch (above) himself, have no value. Value comes, say the Stockholm jesters, with their secret exploitation agenda, from making up stories. Just as the plutocracy does, a secret, deep subconscious message, for those who aren’t too smart

By never rewarding (anymore) serious thinking on real issues, the Nobel Committee says, implicitly, that modern historians, hence Plutarch himself, and philosophy in general, have no value. Value comes from affabulators making little stories with their little minds. 

[“Affabulator”, somebody making fables, a word in italian, Spanish, French, does not exist in English: court-jester is an erroneous translation; it’s high time to introduce it, since Stockholm thinks the only worthy language is English! So i did!]

The obsession with fiction is an addiction, of those who want to flee reality. And an obvious source of the lack of reflection of today’s potentially catastrophic world.

Think of it: consider what was written two millennia ago and which is still read today. Much of it is non-fiction. Nobel.Org should read more classics!

Right, there are fictional texts still read today, such as Homer, the Greek tragedies, Egyptian fables (recycled in the Bible),  Chinese and Japanese stories which are fiction and very old, and very instructive. But even the Vedas had the pretense to be “knowledge” (what Vedas mean).  

But more than half of the most important literature, from way back, is non-fiction.

The Nobel Committee neglects real serious reflection. It does not seem to understand the interest of history, or reflection thereupon. Most prestigious Greek or Roman authors still read today would not qualify as worthy of consideration, according to the clowns in Stockholm (OK, Sweden never attuned for its crimes with Hitler, and the wealth thus gathered, this is directly related, see below).

The Nobel Committee, in its anti-civilizational arrogance, and basic immorality, tells us that the genre of literature Hesiod, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno of Citium, Polybius, Cicero, Lucretius, Livy, Pliny (Elder or Younger), Plutarch, Lucan, Juvenal (heavy-handed satyre), Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Julianus, Plotinus, among many others, engaged in, was not worthy. Most of classical literature is unworthy, Stockholm calmly suggests.

This attitude to spit on real intellectuals, and the very nature of their work, causes real damage to civilization, because it encourages misunderstanding of civilization itself.

For example, there a gigantic Frankish/Gallic literature, which has not been translated from  late Latin, a language nobody can read. Often written by ecclesiastics, that undiscovered treasure trove of literature documents the Dark Ages of the Imperium Francorum. That was when Western Civilization was created, in an epic mental struggle, as a distinction from, and an improvement upon, the Greco-Roman civilization. Greco-Roman civilization had a  sinister relationship to slavery, unbounded plutocracy, and, in its last, terminal phase, to a theocratic fascism so thorough, most literature, knowledge and culture got destroyed).

Nobody seems interested in translating and uncovering these roots of our civilization, our world civilization: there is no money, no glory, thus no interest in it. If a Nobel was given to historian digging deep in history, wealthy money traps such as Harvard or Stanford would no doubt pay more attention to how civilization arose (and, thus, can be sustained). Meanwhile the Nobel clowns reward all the well-fed fable lauding the establishment makers that they can find.

Stockholm does not care about any of this. It’s an apparent case of the Stockholm syndrome. Sweden sent the highest grade iron ore to Hitler, so Hitler could build weapons to terrorize the world with. Finally France and britain decided to cut that “Iron Road”. After landings in occupied Norway, the French Foreign Legion put Nazi elite divisions to flight, and the next strategic move scheduled by the Franco-British High Command, was to cut Sweden in two, and occupy the iron mines (however France fell). The idea was to starve Hitler of steel.

In the so-called “Stockholm Syndrome” a prisoner falls in love with his/her kidnappers. Did Hitler steal Sweden’s soul? Did Sweden fall in love with Hitler, and thereafter with fiction… To escape the reality that Sweden, the country, never attuned for its considerable crimes in the rise and blossoming of Nazism? It’s seems likely. So now it prefers to honor those who write about imaginary butlers. Just as Sweden was Hitler’s butler? No, way worse: without Sweden, Hitler couldn’t have re-armed. Reality always beat fiction! Be it only in sheer imagination!

How come that most prizes in literature are given to English-speaking people? For the same reason as Sweden loved Hitler: there is money in it, and it’s PC to pay one’s respect to the biggest thug on the block. At least by the Swedish establishment standards…

A general objection to my point of view could be that historical analysis, and philosophy in general, can also merge with fiction. Yes, sure. At some point, one has to do guess-work, that’s fiction. For example most theoretical physics starts as fiction. So does much of mathematics too. Philosophy, and, more generally, any creative thinking is, at least in part, serious guesswork in the beginning, always. Or then, it’s not really new!

When Nobel died, it was not clear whether the organization of the prize should go to Sweden or France. Nobel lived in France. After one of his wealthy brother died in Cannes, a French paper front page read: “Le marchand de la mort est mort” (“The merchant of death is dead.”) Alfred Nobel established the prizes to avoid precisely the sort of posthumous reputation suggested by this premature obituary. Another thing Nobel did (while two of his brothers developed the Baku oil fields) was to found the Bofors factory. When the Nazis needed guns, they went to Bofors, which gave them the 88mm Nazi gun, which became by far the number one Nazi guns, used both against aircraft and tanks.

France should certainly create an anti-Nobel prize, attributed mostly to those nationalities Nobel.Org neglects. That would be more useful than the Cannes Festival.

Nobel is not noble: this is the second time this week I had to fire a broadside at the Nobel Organization for lying and wallowing in mud. Yes, Rome too, got Perfect Corrupted by the head.  Enough of this pro-fascist monkeys! There is nothing more noble that the honor of the human spirit. Yes, time to get love-sick for the grandeur of civilization, and the task at hand, to save what maybe the only life form in the universe, intelligent enough to self-criticize.

Patrice Ayme’

LEARN TO LEARN: Henri Poincaré, Not Einstein, Discovered Gravitational Waves, 111 years Ago

October 3, 2017

Physics Nobel Committee Should Learn Physics! And the notion of truth!

The truth shall not just make us free, but also safe, and moral. Teaching thinking is to teach truth and how to get to it. One should start by not deliberately lying. And understanding when it is that humanity started to understand something.

Intellectuals should revere the truth. If Satan speaks the truth, intellectuals should quote him approvingly.Why? Because ethics is truth! The Nobel in Physics was given to screwdriver turners for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”

However the rest of the press release from the Nobel committee on physics is a lie: it attributes the original idea of gravitational waves to a German. Surely the physicists who sit on the Nobel Committee are knowledgeable enough to know this is a lie. That sort of lies may sounds innocuous, it’s not: it’s anti-scientific, and proto-Nazi. It teaches the youth wrong. It teaches present day Nazis wrong.

The generation of waves by a central source field is easy to understand in primary school.

It’s because of these sorts of nationalistic distortions that Germans, a century ago, got so full of hubris that they went mad: everybody told them they invented everything! Everybody told Germans they were the superior race! And Max Planck was one of the prophets of this German superiority. ! And the hated French, were nothing, because that “inferior race” had invented nothing! Thus, naturally enough, since they were told from everywhere that they were so smart, the Germans decided to subjugate the rest of humanity, be it only to enlighten it (that was the idea of Keynes in “The Economic Consequence of Peace”).

Actually, it’s not a German who discovered, and named, “Relativity”, but a Frenchman.    

In press releases announcing the detection of gravitational waves, the collaborations LIGO and VIRGO, as well as the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, France), explicitly (and WRONGLY) attributed to the German Albert Einstein the original prediction of the existence of gravitational waves in 1916. A similar comment is made in the Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO.

But actually, gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light, were clearly predicted by Henri Poincaré on June 5, 1905, as a relativistic requirement. Poincaré made this requirement explicit in his academic note Sur la dynamique de l’électron (On electron dynamics, June 5, 1905) published by the French Académie des Sciences.

At the time, Poincaré was already world famous, and Einstein, nothing. Planck, a German nationalist, would make Einstein everything by allowing Einstein to publish articles without any reference on preceding he knew about, and parroted. This was sheer propaganda.

After explicitly formulating special relativity in this fundamental article, Poincaré further develops the requirement suggested by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz that the new space-time transformation leading to special relativity should apply to all existing forces and not just to the electromagnetic interaction. (At the insistence of Poincaré, Lorentz got the Nobel for Relativity in 1902)

Henri Poincaré concludes that, as a consequence of the new space-time geometry, gravitation must generate waves traveling at the speed of light in a similar way to electromagnetism.

Following the pre-Nazi German nationalistic propaganda contained in the press releases of scientific collaborations and institutions, almost all medias attribute to Albert Einstein the original prediction of gravitational waves.

The Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,  PRL 116, 061102 (11 February 2016), explicitly sates : “In 1916, the year after the final formulation of the field equations of general relativity, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves”. What, then, about the work done by Henri Poincaré 11 years before the Einstein finding ?

Actually, the situation seems quite clear. In his short article of 5 June 1905 Sur la dynamique de l’électron, C.R. T.140 (1905) 1504-1508 (Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, France), , the French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré explicitly formulated special relativity upgrading the space-time transformations that he called “Lorentz transformations” and to which he referred as the “Lorentz group”. After having worked out and discussed the new space-time geometry, Poincaré writes:

… Mais ce n’est pas tout: Lorentz, dans l’Ouvrage cité, a jugé nécessaire de compléter son hypothèse en supposant que toutes les forces, quelle qu’en soit l’origine, soient affectées, par une translation [a change of inertial frame in Poincaré’s language], de la même manière que les forces électromagnétiques, et que, par conséquent, l’effet produit sur leurs composantes par la transformation de Lorentz est encore défini par les équations (4).

Il importait d’examiner cette hypothèse de plus près et en particulier de rechercher quelles modifications elle nous obligerait à apporter aux lois de la gravitation [HOW TO MODIFY GRAVITATION]. C’est ce que j’ai cherché à déterminer; j’ai été d’abord conduit à supposer que la propagation de la gravitation n’est pas instantanée, mais se fait avec la vitesse de la lumière. (…)

Quand nous parlerons donc de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attirant, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où l’onde gravifique [GRAVITATIONAL WAVE] est partie de ce corps; quand nous parlerons de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attiré, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où ce corps attiré a été atteint par l’onde gravifique émanée de l’autre corps; il est clair que le premier instant est antérieur au second… [End of quote]

Gravitational waves were thus explicitly predicted by Henri Poincaré in his 5 june 1905 article formulating special relativity. All of these ideas got incorporated in the gravitational wave equation of Einstein (who worked closely, day by day, with a number of top mathematicians at the time, including crack mathematician David Hilbert, who found a different approach).

In special relativity, such as already defined explicitly, with all its equations, by Poincaré and Lorentz, the speed of light c is not just the speed of a specific object (light) but a universal constant defining (local) space-time geometry. As a consequence, no physical object, signal, or correlation can travel faster than c. Poincaré explained in extreme details the philosophy behind it (if something is always true, it’s a law of nature), in a book which Einstein and his student friends studied in thorough detail (although Einstein didn’t quote Poincaré in his famous 1905 parrot work, naturally enough for a nationalistic parrot (later Einstein would have a fall-out with another French Nobel, Bergson, about Relativity).

According to Poincaré in his article of 5 June 1905, the requirement of a universal space-time geometry with the speed of light c as the critical speed implies that the gravitational force must be propagated by gravitational waves with a speed equal to c , just as electromagnetic waves carry the electromagnetic interaction.

As Henri Poincaré explicitly underlines, the space-time geometry defined by Lorentz tranformations applies to all existing forces including the gravitational ones. Thus, gravitation cannot propagate instantaneously and must instead propagate at the speed of light. The same argument clearly applies to any object associated to gravitation.

Considering as a simple example the gravitational interaction between two bodies, Poincaré introduces a “gravific wave” leaving the first body, traveling at the speed of light and reaching the second body at a later time. This was the original formulation of the prediction of gravitational waves in a context where its general scope was obvious. Poincaré had been working for years on electromagnetism, and knew perfectly well that more sophisticated scenarios than the example he was providing could be imagined without altering the role of c as the critical speed.

A decade later, with general relativity, Albert Einstein considered in detail more involved scenarios than the one made explicit by Poincaré, incorporating in particular an effective space-time curvature generated by gravitation in a static universe. But this does not invalidate the basic principle discovered and formulated by Henri Poincaré in 1905.

In his article, Poincaré also refers to the previous work by Pierre-Simon de Laplace, Count of Laplace (1749-1827), one of the main French scientists of the period of Napoléon Bonaparte. Laplace had already considered the possibility that gravitation propagates at some finite speed, but he did not question the basic space-time geometry.

Poincaré had demonstrated and published E = m c^2… in 1900, more than 5 years before Einstein plagiarized it.

I have talked about this for years. I am happy that Science 2.0 picked up the notion in “Henri Poincaré Predicted The Existence Of Gravitational Waves As Early As June 5, 1905”

Correct attribution of civilization defining discoveries is fundamental. Example: India discovered numbers & zero as used today.

The chronological hierarchy of discoveries reflects, in general, the logical hierarchy of evidence supporting these discoveries. Whether in science, or in global thinking. Thus who discovered what, when, how and why, is not just anecdotal. it’s logical, according to the most natural logic.

As it turns out, few places in spacetime made most civilization defining discoveries, and then they made plenty of them, and that was related to political processes: a few Greek city-states, especially Ionian cities and Athens and Paris and its satellites are obvious examples.

One can learn to learn better, one can learn to think better, this is what the existence of concentrations of civilizational genesis, show.

It’s crucially important to understand what made these places tick and how, with the aim of reproducing such circumstances. Paris was the pioneering place in science, worldwide, for around a millennium, and this was the core mental skeleton of Europe, and even civilization. Buridan discovered in particular the inertia, thus the heliocentric system (attributed to Copernicus, well after the Catholic Church made studying Buridan into a capital crime!), Lamarck, evolution (taught in Paris while forbidden in England, etc… The same crowd probably wants us to believe in Donald Trump and Neo Liberalism, as no good idea could possibly come from anywhere else not Germanoido-Anglo-Saxon. The Nobel Committee is dominated by US physicists anxious to demonstrate US superiority and, in particular, the superiority of US universities, because there is beaucoup money in it, and it could please their sponsors (the tax-free plutocrats).

It’s also important to make correct attributions, because the original authors are always clearer about their reasonings, and how they got there. Plagiarists tend to be more obscure, because they hide their tracks.

Re-attributing the correct discoveries can be shattering, and teaches us how obscurantism proceeds to eradicate knowledge. The disappearance, for two millennia, of non-Euclidean geometry, is a case in point. So is that of atomism, and “Brownian” motion. The suppression of Buridan and the heliocentric system, by the Christian church is a particularly sinister instance: it was vicious, deliberate, and motivated by the hatred for thinking..

So let’s celebrate the discovery of gravitational waves. My little drawing above shows that one does not need even relativity to make waves. A big motion of the source will do, as anybody watching a tsunami on TV knows.

The gravitational wave detectors inaugurate a new sort of measuring instrument. However, the idea is at least as old as the Michelson and Morley interferometer of the Nineteenth Century. There is nothing new to it. (That’s why I called the laureates “screwdriver turners.)

And what of Planck, Einstein’s unhinged sponsor? Planck signed a disgusting message in World War One denying Germany had committed war crimes (he later denounced it, when the war was over). The French made one of Planck’s sons prisoner in World War One, and the other son was caged and executed by Hitler. That Hitler interlocutor, Max Planck, got, unfortunately, not just for him, but all humanity, his just deserts. But let’s not keep on having them now. Want Relativity? Think Henri Poincaré, forget about his parrots!

Planck enabled Einstein to post in the Annalen der Physik, the oldest journal in physics (1799), WITHOUT any reference, on the three most famous subjects in physics at the time. It was vicious and deliberate, to serve the satanic god of hyper-nationalism of the racist type. Playing with hyper-nationalism, Planck ended up losing, and Einstein, and the German Jews, became double losers (they lost as Germans and as Jews). So here is a case of the losers writing history… German hyper nationalism was encouraged by Einstein and Planck, with a false flag attribution, and they, and their kind, lost twice.

Truth is not seen just with the eyes. Truth is seen through the mind of a thorough debate.

Patrice Ayme’



October 1, 2017


The ancient Greek word êthikos means “relating to one’s character“. Stoicism was an important characteristic of the Roman Republic and its citizens, individually. King Pyrrhus observed that his victories against Rome would lead of the annihilation of his army (as they did), because the Romans took their defeats stoically, and kept on coming, destroying Pyrrhus’ officer corps.

Stoicism is a Republican virtue, all Roman soldiers and officers shared, because it was drilled in them, whereas Pyrrhus’ officer corps was held together by greed.

So how come did I savage old fashion “Stoicism” (and Buddhism, and I should have included Confucianism, as I was at it)? As in many behaviors, the problem with Stoicism arise if it abused.

Greek cities, at the time of their greatest greatness, knew Stoicism (although it had not been formally invented). Certainly, Athens pursuing the Peloponnesian War, in spite of horrendous losses in population and army (up to 50%), was stoic. But, after Stoicism was made into a religion (also known as a philosophical movement), it became a submission (at least in Greece; arguably, Athens had submitted earlier to the Macedonian Pluto-fascists).  

My argument in “WHY ROME COLLAPSED Part II: Stoicism, Fascism, Death Of Humor & Senses”  was that basically Stoicism in Antiquity (and India, and China) became a way hypocrites, weaklings, creeps, opportunists, and gangsters on the make found to accommodate themselves with plutocratic fascism of the oligarchies which ruled those countries.

Thus, I reckon, Stoicism contributed to the Collapse of Roman Civilization: instead of resisting with force, even violence, Stoics went with the flow, as plutocratic tyranny took over the Greek world, and then the Roman democracy. Sure enough, Stoicism merged smoothly with Christian theofascism in the Fourth Century. As Nietzsche, and others, yours truly included, there are few behaviors more unnatural than the noble Stoics’ insistence to follow what they call “Nature” by laying prone and submissive. 

Here is Nietzsche on Stoicism: 

Nietzsche should be mandatory reading for would-be “progressives”, “Antifa”, and those who claim to “resist” the established order.

I go a bit further, as I observed that “Noble” Stoics could be quite ignoble (see Seneca, Marcus Aurelius). And stupid besides: Stoicists are living according to “Nature”, we all are, so why are they trying so hard to promote what we all already do? I gave the answer: to occupy their minds, and those they preach to, away from criticizing the masters too harshly, and having emotions conducive to that. However, in the present essay I rescue “New Stoicism” from the fascist abyss and Nietzsche’s scathing critique.


New Stoicism: De Rerum Natura, Including Ethics?

However, there are more modern ways to claim a “New Stoicism”. Massimo Pigliucci’s analysis of  Becker’s A New Stoicism, II: the way things stand, part 1 is quite interesting. I sent a comment, which Massimo generously published. It’s reproduced here in an expanded form:.


Most of the texts we have from Greco-Roman Antiquity were preserved by Christian monasteries (150 out of 160, roughly). That does not mean that Christians saved us, it means that most of them killed us, while robbing us of our own civilization, whereas a few braves saved some remnants to tease us with (critical texts, say on Constantine, often went conveniently missing, although secondary works from the same historians were preserved).

Considering that, starting in 363 CE, under emperor Jovian, Christians burned books and libraries, and considering that, after 391 CE, thanks to Theodosius’ law, it was open season on intellectuals judged to be “heretic“, while the Roman imperial government merged with Christian “saints” and bishops, one can be sure that only texts and authors which pleased the Christians in charge, survived.

Greco-Roman civilization if far from us, and, for the longest time, we have looked at it with a telescope equipped with a Christian filter. (Now things are changing, because we have independent means to know antiquity, such as archeology.)

Thus all the big names and their big books and the big philosophical movements of Antiquity which were known or popular in the Middle Ages, bear a Christian stamp of approval. The rest of the gigantic intellectual production of the Greco-Romans mostly disappeared, and can only be found out, or inferred, with exquisite difficulty (such as fragments, or partly erased parchments).

For example we know the Greeks developed Non-Euclidean geometry, more than a century before Euclid, because there are six non-Euclidean geometry theorems in… Aristotle (the Christian fascists loved Aristotle, because Aristotle destroyed democracy, so they preserved him). Aristotle was not a mathematician, the survival of this mathematical activity (rediscovered 22 centuries later) was entirely accidental.

We suspected the Greeks had mechanical computers, because Cicero said so. Then one was found at the bottom of the sea. Thus we know that old arriviste Cicero, who early in his career bought himself a $100 million house (constant 2017 dollars), didn’t make that one up (how could he?)

A text such as Lucretius’ De  Rerum Natura was found by the personal secretary of several Popes, Poggio Bracciolini, in January 1417, in an obscure monastery (Fulda?). There was just one copy (and it got lost after having been copied; there were fragments in other places). Poggio loved to search for old books hidden in secret places; he found several.

The average Christian in charge of the empire around 400 CE, was busy destroying anyway to look at the world not thoroughly compatible with their apocalyptic Jihad. The Book of the Apocalypse promise the Final Judgement, once civilization had been destroyed, so they destroyed civilization. Christians detested physics. They detested Epicurus’ philosophy, inspired by Democritus’ atomism. (Lucretius is centered around atomism, the most important scientific discovery.)

Theology assumed that the universe was in some way a living being (“God”, or “Gods”). All the laws there were, were laws of God, not physics. So books with laws of physics therein, had to be destroyed.

However, we are way smarter (more exactly, we are not intellectual fascists, we just one idea, in their case “God”). Before rejecting that idea outright, that idea that the universe is in some way a living being, we need to inquire all what is meant by “living”. Nobody knows, and this is a question exobiologists, or now Quantum theorists, would like to answer. So, indeed, the search for a modern version of the deity, or deities, is incomplete. So, at first sight, it looks as if we couldn’t anchor ethics upwards.

But ethics can certainly be anchored downwards, as we are chained by the long anchor of billions of years of evolution. Indeed…

“Living according to Nature” faces the problem that, on Earth, “Nature” is life. Indeed, although “Natural”, “Nature” is an art onto itself: what is more artificial than life?

Life evolved, as it is, in part from chance and necessity, and other factors science is barely scratching at as we speak (see the mighty struggles of Quantum Computer engineers, mathematicians and physicists, to get a glimpse of the possibilities q-bits are starting to offer).

So life is an anchor for ethics, but it seems an arbitrary one. If two themes dominate it, they seem to be collaboration and predation. Yes, good and evil, light and dark. One can fairly assume that so it is throughout the galaxies. (And let the vegans recoil in horror, as we reveal to their uncouth selves that the animal most feared by African children when walking around is the elephant, a most clever herbivore…)

If life means mayhem, what is the wise to do? Well, precisely, a discourse, wisdom. And wisdom is central to life: wisdom is basically intelligence, and life is intelligence. (I maintain here a distinction between consciousness, and intelligence!)

Thus, indeed, one should follow reason, as reason (however happenstance it may seem sometimes) is the skeleton of life. (interestingly, the Gospel of John starts by saying “God” is the “Logos”, that is, Reason, a thesis obviously planted to seduce Neo-Platonists and Stoicists (because Bible-God doesn’t seem very rational most of the time). But may be the author of the idea God = Logos really believe it; certainly many did, then…)

Building character according to reason does not mean just controlling reason, but the emotions, and the circumstances giving rise to the emotions. For example, it means inspecting, controlling, even rejecting, the emotional circumstances which mold most people’s minds, while encouraging others (for example don’t expose children to team sports on TV, but expose them to “Nature”).

Ethics, according to “Nature” encompasses much more than what moderns value as “moral” (most ancient religions had human sacrifices; Carthage found ethical to crucify poorly performing generals, while Athens and 18C Britain executed admirals for the same reason).

Thus an ethical system embracing “Nature” will come to embrace much that is considered “immoral” today (therein Seneca’s amazing moral limberness).

An ethics embracing “Nature” is not just correct, it’s eminently practical. Experts consider that the risk of nuclear weapon conflict is the highest ever, and the world’s ethical system is not ready for this. It is actually because it’s not ready for this, that we got into the present predicament.

Embracing “Nature” ethically shows that no quarters shall be given by the hand of fate: “Nature” is an indifferent master. Nuclear Armageddon could kill seven billions, and “Nature” would breathe a sigh of relief. “Nature” is realistic, our masters, too, as they secretly plot our demise, consciously or not, hubristically or not…

We humans are the top predator, to the point of preying onto ourselves (something bears do). A fact & a warning. I disagree with defining as “Stoicism” as the full embrace of reason, human or otherwise, whatever “human” means.

Why? A stoic attitude, and by “stoic” I mean “stoic” in the usual sense, is, all too often, the only reasonable attitude to adopt. However, sometimes, absolute rage and fury, for example, is more appropriate. It’s so very true, many advanced species have these behaviors as completely natural outcomes (“instincts”). Including, of course, humans, and nobody does this rage and fury trick better than humans (something conventional humanism has neglected, to its eternal shame and impotence. That’s how Neanderthals extinguished Cave Bears, and Native Americans kept at bay, and destroyed the formidable galloping giant carnivorous bear, Arctodus.  

Yes, “human” may just be a qualificative for the survival of the fittest. Those at the receiving end will embrace Stoicism as the Romans of the Republic did, but they embraced much more: reason, with its full metal jacket, passion, with all the love and cruelty it implied, and fitness as certified by survival.

When Rome went down, and down, and down, plunging into the abyss of ever more functionality, the upper classes had rejected stoicism, and embraced luxury and corruption instead: Seneca, a multi-billionaire from influence trafficking alone, or even Cicero are examples of this (Cicero bought a mansion in Rome worth 100 million 2017 dollars). Yet Stoicism took ever more importance in Roman society, below the elite, as most of the Roman People had  to submit to emperors and their infernal cortege and of plutocrats.

Stoicism was the behavioral trap the best of the SPQR, Senatus PopulusQue Romanus, fell into. Sometimes one needs a revolution, and it better be violent.

Patrice Ayme’

NO LIMIT ON WEALTH, NO DEMOCRACY. Roman Limit: $22 Million (Why Rome Collapsed, Part III)

September 28, 2017


Now has come the time to Generalize the Roman Lex De Modo Agrorum, and to succeed where the Romans failed!

The Roman Republic had an ABSOLUTE LIMIT on wealth. I compute that absolute wealth limit  to be $22 million (see below). A Roman family, under the Republic, indeed, could not own more than a reasonable amount. Why?

Wealth is power.

If only a few have relatively enormous wealth, only a few have relatively enormous power. People power (demos-kratia) thus requires to limit the power of the few. Limiting wealth of the few absolutely the ingredient which enabled the Roman Republic to last 5 centuries. This has been safely ignored by conventional historians (who are not anxious to disrupt their paymasters).

When Augustus was “Princeps” (“First Man”) , he was not just the most powerful Roman, legislatively, but also materially, the wealthiest. Limiting income absolutely would be a good first step; as the UK Labor Party led by Jeremy Corbyn may propose. A tax rate of 95% on the upper margin could be even more effective.

Limiting wealth absolutely is not about being pro-capitalist, or anti-capitalist, it’s a question of being pro-democracy, or anti-democracy. This is what the highest, most educated, scions of the nobles lineage in Rome themselves thought: the Gracchi

Gracchi Brothers. Heroes. And their mission is still unfulfilled.

The Roman Republic limited wealth absolutely. At a time when 99.99% of wealth was land, the wealth law LEX LICINIA SEXTIA DE MODO AGRORUM specified that no family would be allowed to possess more than 500 jugera. That’s approximately 125 hectares, roughly 325 acres (1.32 square kilometer). Any land that they occupied above this limit was confiscated by the state (and redistributed to ex-soldiers, or would-be peasant-owners, as needed). The law was passed in 367 BCE. It also limited grazing on public land by one family to 100 heads of cattle.

Following the Battle of Telamon (225 BCE), Rome swallowed Cisalpine Gaul, adding huge swathes of land to the ager publicus, land which was given to new Latin colonies or to small freeholders.


Scale Of Absolute Wealth Limit: 150 Times The Poverty Level, Thus 23 Million Dollars 

It was viewed, by Republican Roman Law, that families should be given a minimum of 2 acres of fertile land, which was known to be barely sufficient for survival. So let’s do a little Patrice’s style computation (simple minded, but clarifying). Let’s view those 2 acres as defining the poverty level. Although this may sound like pata-logic, I will equal Roman property with modern income (because then agricultural land was income).

I will also compare Rome with the richest area in the United States, San Francisco (Rome in 367 BCE was pretty much around one million people total; this is my own guesswork, from a population I guess to be around 200,000 soldier-citizens; the subject is still a matter of research; it seems that the Roman census started to count women and children as citizens around 70 BCE, bringing an artificial boost in the number of “citizens”). San Francisco has a bit less than a million residents, with a poverty level, for a family of four of $72,000 (!). This is what it takes to survive in San Francisco to pay rent, eat, take care of children. Yes, that’s extravagantly high (nearly four times the median family income in the USA; life is San Francisco is outrageously expensive relative to the rest of the USA). However, the income of the Roman population was also extravagantly high relative to the rest of the Mediterranean zone, when the Lex De Modo Agrorum was supposedly enforced (say in 150 BCE; OK, I just mixed 367 CE, when the law was passed, and Rome was much poorer; however, this is an order of magnitude argument).

So, we have: 2 acres = $72,000. 300 times this is around 22 million dollars. Thus, even in San Francisco, wealth friendly terms, according to the roman Republic Law, the absolute wealth limit should be no more than 22 million dollars. Instead, the wealthiest families in the area are more than 200 times richer. 

(One could use the 2017 US Federal poverty level, $25,000 for a family of four. Then the limit on wealth should be, according to Roman Republican standards 7.5 million dollars.)

So there is definitively a distributive, socialist side to the Roman Republic.


Romans Made Wealth Hating Laws, In Place For More than 6 Centuries:

Not only the Roman Republic limited wealth, it limited the exhibition thereof. A number of so-called sumptuary laws were passed, including the Lex Oppia (215 BCE), after the disaster of the battle of Cannae (all in all, the Romans may have suffered 500,000 soldiers killed in the Second Punic war, more than Rome counted male adult citizens! It was a repeat of the performance in the First Punic war…). “Sumptus” means expenditure, so sumptuary laws limited expenditures of private citizens doing private things.   

Sumptuary laws limited how much gold a woman could possess (half an ounce), and the sort of numbers of colors she could wear. Lex Fannia and Didia limited how much could be spent at a dinner. Actually the first sumptuary laws were passed well before the Republic, and limited the spending during funerals. Thus Rome was in the mood of limiting wealth and its exhibition for about seven centuries, and the democracy fell with them. Greek democracies also had anti-sumptuary laws.

(However, in 195 CE, thanks to a massive demonstration of Roman matrons and women blocking the centers of powers of Rome, the law was repealed.)


By 140 BCE, Rome Mastered The World, And Its Masters Went Global, Escaping Taxation,Thus Overwhelmingly Satanic:

Plutarch reports that, “when Tiberius on his way to Numantia passed through Etruria and found the country almost depopulated and its husbandmen and shepherds imported barbarian slaves, he first conceived the policy which was to be the source of countless ills to himself and to his brother.”

Plutarch also noted, “Then the poor, who had been ejected from their land, no longer showed themselves eager for military service, and neglected the bringing up of children, so that soon all Italy was conscious of a dearth of freemen, and was filled with gangs of foreign slaves, by whose aid the rich cultivated their estates, from which they had driven away the free citizens.”

[This is very analogous to the immigration policy in places such as England or California in recent years: under the guise of immigration friendly practices, “sanctuary cities”, millions of immigrants without rights were imported to do the indispensable work nobody else wants to do (agricultural and domestic work in California). Those people are not technically slaves, just practically so.]

Speaking as a Tribune to a crowd at the RostraTiberius said, “The wild beasts that roam over Italy have their dens, each has a place of repose and refuge. But the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy nothing but the air and light; without house or home they wander about with their wives and children.”

Tiberius Gracchus had a lot of military experience and experience of military command (he saved a Roman army from the Numantines, by signing a treaty!) He was one the pillars of the Senate, and was destined to become as prestigious as his two famous Scipio relatives.  

Tiberius bravely fought to help Rome’s devastating victory in the Third Punic War.  His most glorious accomplishment was to become the first man over the wall at Carthage, surviving to tell about it.  He was awarded the “mural crown” for his stupendous achievement (as he was from the highest nobility, destined to the greatest commands, he didn’t need such heroics to become somebody). Tiberius’ courage in battle and at war against Carthage or Numantia enabled him to have the courage to fight the Roman plutocracy. It became a fight to death, and, unfortunately, the Gracchi didn’t win. So here we are, still fighting plutocracy, 22 centuries later!



People have gone around like caterpillars, following each others’ butts about the collapse of the Roman State. However it’s pretty clear that MOST of the Roman State territory was settled under the REPUBLIC, NOT the fascist empire (under Nero, Britain was conquered; however Caesar had invaded there prior, and the hard work was to conquer Gaul; Trajan also conquered Dacia, and pushed to the Persian Gulf where an illness fell him). Modern PC types may smirk that I am equating conquest and civilization. Yet, the German border was highly unstable; the Romans were not necessarily in bad terms with the Barbarians, and they actually helped the Goths to fight the Huns, under Valens, before catastrophe in a refugee crisis.

It remains that the Republic imploded, crushed by plutocracy, centuries before the military empire. But the latter was created, and could only survive, thanks to the former.

Tribune of the People Tiberius Gracchus tried to enforce the law of absolute wealth limit. He modernized it, and tried to make it so that it would stop the impoverishment of the average Roman, by redistributing land. For his effrontery, he, his brother, and more than 5,000 of their followers, were assassinated (conventional historians will tend to insist on some alleged technical violations of tacitly constitutional ways Tiberius would have engaged in; earlier Tiberius had saved a Roman army by slightly bending the usual ways too, so this does not carry any weight, and misses completely the importance of what Tiberius tried to achieve). Thus the Roman soldiers, deprived of redistribution of wealth acquired in newly conquered lands, kept on getting ever poorer.

The general Marius, who had saved Rome from certain annihilation by defeating the coalition of the savage Numidians, and then later the equally as savage German Ambrones, Cimbri and Teutones, and was elected seven times Consul, had faced a situation where he had to fight hundreds of thousands of barbarian warriors with the sole remaining Roman army, transported from Africa, with just 40,000 soldiers. For being able to call on more would-be soldiers, Marius removed the legal requirement that Roman soldiers should be property owning (what he should have done, if he had been able to do it, was to redistribute wealth from the hyper rich, to the soldiers, as Sulla did for his own soldiers, a bit later;  120,000 of Sulla’s legionnaires received plots of land).

What was going on with Rome was that the globalization of wealth and political influence, thanks to globalization, had run away from the needed expansion of law and of the the Roman Republic “checks and balances”.


Wealth Global, Law Local: The recipe for global plutocracy, in Rome, as it is now:

We are facing the same exact situation as the Roman Republic, 22 centuries ago, but we face it on a planetary basis: wealth is global, law is local. We need to change that by making global the taxation of power, that is, wealth!

One has to start somewhere. If the so-called “Conservatives” are ejected (as they deserve) Great Britain, under a rejuvenated “Labor”, may as well be that trail blazer! Even The Economist is equivocal about Jeremy Corbyn, whereas it used to hate, despise, and disregard him only a few months ago.

The Gracchi failed to impose global assent to the law which would have saved democracy, that was a failure of theirs: instead of bringing republican consensus, civil war started. The Gracchi’s law passed, but its main proponents had been durably killed and exterminated. This precedent of ultimate violence enabled the plutocrats, in power in the Senate, to not really enforce the Gracchis’ law; in later generations, all laws pertaining to wealth and corruption were violated.

Ever since, democracy has not been fully re-established: for example all the media, that is, what people use to make up their minds, is owned by plutocrats; one can’t have democracy when the minds of people are made up by masters (example: yours truly is banned at the New York Times, although a subscriber for decades).

Ownership of media should be very limited, in a generalization of the Lex De Modo Agrorum. Hopefully, by suggesting all these measures for limiting wealth, we won’t finish as the Gracchi (Tiberius was beaten to death with the leg of a chair). Not to worry: the control of the wealthy is so great, most people have no idea what we are talking about, or even that the subject exists, let alone that there are insects, such as yours truly, and they talk! ;-)!

It goes without saying that prestigious historians from famed institutions do not teach any of the preceding: they don’t understand the economics, the philosophy and the human ethology, all of them being out of their fields of expertise. Besides, their salaries and careers depend upon them not understanding it. They are small men, or women, avid for crumbs, whereas the Gracchi were giants, reaching for the stars.

So, instead, conventional historians, in the rather dim light of their deliberately reduced mental means, all too often, question the psychology of Tiberius, affecting perfidiously to wonder why he was so ambitious (in the usual method of the petty: questioning the messenger rather than the message).

Well, that’s easy to dispose of: Tiberius was at the very apex of Roman society, in roughly all ways. He had no ambition and no power to gain with changing the law and redistributing riches. He had no fame to earn, but that which enmity brings. Tiberius pushed for change, because it was the right thing to do.

That’s what exceptional people have always done. They succumb to the attraction of what is right. Humanity is symbiotic with truth.

It could have saved the Republic, and Democracy. The Republic, and Democracy, could only be have been saved that way. This was true then, it’s even more true now.

All the more as nowadays, the Barbarians at the gates yield nukes, and the Barbarians inside the gates, mold most minds, having made them, through the media they own and fabricate, from their own petty obsessions.

Patrice Ayme’

WHY ROME COLLAPSED Part II: Stoicism, Fascism, Death Of Humor & Senses

September 27, 2017

Seneca was one of the most famous Stoic philosophers. He talked wisdom as haughtily as Hitler talked about protecting minorities and correcting injustice. It’s one of the shortcoming of philosophy as usually taught to being unable to see, and explain what a creep Seneca was. Verily, once we can explain the horror therein Seneca, the horror therein Hitler, and the like, starts to make sense.

Seneca, looking as disheveled as his ignominy made him. Arguably one of the worst thinkers in history, still, much admired. Especially by Christians, of course. Here are extracts: “As is a tale, so is life: not how long it is, but how good it is, is what matters.”
“Life is like a play: it’s not the length, but the excellence of the acting that matters.”


Stoics we all are,

We, the humble animals of planet Earth,

Nature is our yoke.


We all have to be,

Just because we go through life

Much has to be endured and suffered

And we all find out,

Babe or old, crippled or splendid,

Human or beast,

There is only so much we can complain about and aloud

Unending tears do not bring a ploy, or a joy

Neither is too much sorrow a buoy, or a toy.

We need humor, so we all have it.

We need joy, so we all find it.

Thus what is it Seneca insisted so much on?

What are we supposed to do with this bloody multibillionaire’s

Mellifluous advice?

Why so loud, Seneca, you old criminal?

Your artful trade?

To hide your crimes, and those of your master.

And what of that other “stoic”,

Marcus, ruler of the world?

What do they teach those,

All of us,

Trudging in that valley of tears we call life?

That words of the haughty do not have to match their lives,

That we shouldn’t complain too much,

When we live in the times when only few rule?

Why? Can’t we talk to our heart’s content?

Not when infamy is in power, sure we don’t,

It’s clear that when Nero is the boss,

Not complaining enough is all the truth worth having.

Any alternative hypothesis means death.

When Marcus couldn’t pay for the army,

As the plutocrats kept all the wealth,

Not complaining, even for an emperor,

Was all the truth worth having:

Even for an emperor,

Complaint invited assassination from the other few,

Who also ruled,

And they were not joking.

So yes, stoics lack a sense of humor,

Telling us to follow nature,

When they do the opposite.

We have seen it all before,

Preaching the exact opposite of one’s true nature,

A basic trick of the vicious,

In all points similar,

To the dots of light and dark,

Adorning a forest cat’s coat.

We have seen it,

When racists accuse their victims of racism,

To better drown them in gore.

Stoicism, as philosophy,

And the closely related Buddhism,

Preaching common sense,


While insisting to divest from all the senses,

And the emotions they relate to,

Starting with anger and indignation,

And figuring out infamy,

Until it makes sense,

A preaching to accept the unacceptable,

We may as well start with killing humor,

The poison of power, when it’s concentrated in a few hands.

Stoicism may be what’s left to good men,

When resistance to infamy is futile,

When weakness is erected as a virtue,

Thus drenching sorrow with the dubious pleasure,

Of the deepest anesthesia of most passions, and senses,

Conveniently, and comfortably, forgetting,

Passion is to reflection,

What looking is to sight.

If you want to think well,

Start with emoting well,

And emoting well,

Even earlier than breathing well,

Emoting right precedes all,

And die with us,

Never killed,

And only mitigated by the powers of reason.

So meditate, you the Apostles of Stoicism:

You are teaching the air we all breathe.


Technical Background On Stoicism:

Stoicism was founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century BC. Zeno taught from his front porch (“stoikos” in Greek).

At the time, Athens was officially and effectively a plutocratic dictatorship owned by fascist Macedonia. Thinkers had to be stoic, or they would die like Demosthenes and other philosophers assassinated or suicided when the Macedonians took over. The Stoics taught that emotions resulted in errors of judgment which were destructive, due to the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature.

This is obviously idiotic, because, for at least five million years, our direct ancestors have deliberately imposed their will on nature, with the conscious goal to make nature serve us. Moreover, for several billion years, life has done the same with the entire planet, however seemingly unconsciously (depending upon what conscience really is, as our friend the Quantum physicist would point out).  Nature is the nature of life, and, in this context, life, we don’t even know what’s natural and what’s not.

Stoics flaunted their philosophy as a way of life (lex divina, they humbly said), and they claimed that an individual’s philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved. To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of nature, since everything was rooted in nature.

But of course, this is silly, as it ignores the nonlinear nature of human nature… which happens to be the greatest influence on nature. Humanity is grounded in nature, and the nature of humanity is to go beyond all and any limit, that’s how and why we evolved.

Stoicism blossomed in antiquity, while and because tyranny and oligarchy blossomed. Stoicism was not just a symptom, but an engine of the decay of civilization. As Seneca and Marcus Aurelius were. Seneca defended Nero’s assassination of his mother in front of the Senate (extending Nero’s rule for years; much later, after Seneca’s assassination by suicide, the Senate would finally order Nero’s execution; so Seneca’s backing up of Nero had a huge influence on history; it keeps on having one now, as nobody has bothered to enquire seriously on how such humongous creeps can become Masters of the Universe!).

Marcus persecuted Christians for no good reason, making sure Christianism would only get worse, as it did. But Marcus steered away from what was truly needed to save civilization, terrorizing plutocrats.

Here is Marcus: “Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking.” (Retort of mine: In particular you don’t need democracy, or even a Republic).

Here is Marcus again, pain is all about you not thinking right: “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.” (In particular, I would observe, if the Christians Marcus burned alive suffered, that’s just because they didn’t think right, proving it was tight, indeed, to burn them…)

When not lost in hypocritical obscenities, stoic philosophers are good at truisms everybody always agreed with (so did Hitler, explaining why Hitler, Seneca, and Marcus were incredibly appreciated by those who can’t see much further than the most trivial evidence…) However, deriving higher wisdom is not something everybody agrees with, when it happens.

Fascism gave birth to Stoicism, a case of a madness and exploitation creating the own mental environment it needed.
How do we know this?

One can look at the dates: Stoicism was created and taught 35 years after the fascist plutocracy was imposed on Athens.
More generally, fascism advocates a shrinking of (free) thinking, and that’s best implemented by a shrinking of the emotions (viewed as noble).

Christianity went further in all this intellectual fascism, as only thoughts validated by the fascist god were allowed. Conclusion? Books were destroyed, libraries burned, intellectuals terrorized, chased down, and assassinated. Civilization collapsed. In great part because of the infamy and corruption all too much of a stoic attitude enabled to thrive, unimpeached.

Voltaire recommended to “crush infamy”. We can’t crush what we learn to live with, as the Stoics advised to do.

Patrice Ayme’

p/S: The essay above was inspired by “Do The Stoics Lack A Sense Of Humor“, by Massimo Piglliucci, and the comments I sent there (the comment was not published, perhaps because would-be Stoics also lack a sense of humor!)