We Are No Dinosaurs: H Bombs Potentially Save Lives, Whereas PC kills

March 18, 2018

I long advocated comet and asteroid defense. The subject is intricate, with high stakes, even more interesting as the very strange reactions it brought.

Years ago, I claimed that H bombs were the ultimate, and necessary tool to achieve security. At the time, “experts” were ruling out nukes. Contemporaneously, I had a major fight with a (decorated) geophysicist about my claim that the Earth functions as a nuclear reactor, thus driving the Earth magnetic field, which protects the upper atmosphere from stripping by the solar wind during Coronal Mass Ejections (which is, we now know the way Mars’ atmosphere was stripped). In my opinion both experts’ opinions were the fruit, not of science, but of the Political Correctness which fed them (they got to their expert position not thanks to their smarts, but thanks to being PC).

Political Correctness, in this case “nukes are evil” was so great at the time that “experts”, to achieve astronomical moral superiority over the moral turpitude of the ilk of yours truly, the moral turpitude of those who tell the truth, pontificated idiotically that H-bombs would be inefficient, unsuitable, inappropriate, and that, to promote their usage, was, besides criminal, the mark of a lack of scientific culture. Moreover, they added, impacts were impossible in the foreseeable future.

Here is an update: the old “experts” were wrong, like 100% wrong, peer-review journal and the US government recognize, it is my pleasure to reveal.

Siding Springs comet, the smallest one is even more dangerous, because of its speed. Europe landed, and orbited with Rosetta the bigger one… which is a tenth of the largest comet known. As comets fly by, they can destabilize others, or asteroids.


A new generation of expert has arisen, who say exactly what I used to say, the obvious. The latest study, in a Russian lab, mimicked nuclear blasts, using lasers (whose energy, just as a nuclear bomb is mostly photons, initially). A US study, on project Hypervelocity Asteroid Mitigation Mission for Emergency Response (HAMMER), concluded the same. New facts have come to the surface.


The probability of impacts, as I said in the past, was underestimated:

As demonstrated in the Tunguska impact in Siberia, “impacts” of a less than 200 meters across bolide has a high probability to end as an airburst. Tunguska flattened 2,150 square kilometers of forest, destroying 80 million trees. That’s a circle with a diameter of 50 kilometers. In other words, exploding above some of the largest city on Earth, it could kill up to 30 million people, annihilating Tokyo-Yokohama, Mexico City, New York, Moscow, the greater Paris, etc… Initially it was thought the explosion was up to 30 megatons TNT, but then it was realized one should take into account the momentum of the disintegrating bolide, just as in the case of a hollow charge to penetrate armor. That lowered the yield to no more than 5 megatons!

A stony asteroid of about 10 m (33 ft) in diameter can produce an explosion of around 20 kilotons, similar to that of the Fat Man plutonium implosion bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Data released by the US Air Force’s Defense Support Program indicate that such explosions occur high in the upper atmosphere more than once a year.

The 1930 Curuçá River event in Brazil, observed by many, was an explosion of a superbolide that left no clear evidence of an impact crater. A smaller air burst occurred over a populated area in Russia on 15 February 2013, at Chelyabinsk in the Ural district of Russia. The exploding meteoroid was an asteroid that measured about 17 to 20 metres across, with an estimated initial mass of 11,000 tonnes, and inflicted over 1,200 injuries (mostly from flying glass, like a nuclear blast)… It would have been worse, had it streaked closer to the city.


ATLAS, the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System:

So now the good news, thanks to our old friends at NASA, ATLAS is running, with one telescope on top of Maui at 3,000 meters, and the other on top of Mauna Loa, 100 miles away, at 4,200 meters.    

ATLAS is an asteroid impact early warning system developed by the University of Hawaii and funded by NASA. It consists of two telescopes, 100 miles apart, which automatically scan the whole sky several times every night looking for moving objects. On the side it has already detected several comets, and 1,200 Supernova, mostly type 1a, among other scientific prowesses. It has also discovered 17 Potentially Hazardous Asteroids…

Second good news, a new generation of experts, American and now Russian, has established that nuclear bombs would be safe and effective to dispose of a dangerous impactor detected too late to nudge it away… Besides, they would be the only way (as I used to say).   


Blowing off skeptics with the Hypervelocity Siding Springs Comet:

Some fanatics, outwardly humanistic, inwardly the opposite, will sneer that my desire to find some use to thermonuclear fusion is pathetic: who cares if a given city has non negligible probability to be vaporized by heavens in the next 100,000 years?

However, the probability is much higher than Conventional Wisdom has it. And a new reasoning will be deployed below, not found in the scientific literature, to my knowledge.

An example was the Siding Spring comet. Nobody expected this sort of comet. It zoomed on what looked like a straight line through the Solar System, passing Mars at 56 kilometers per second. A typical speed for a meteorite (and probably Tungunska) is 11 kilometers per second.

As really great, although female, physicist Émilie Du Châtelet demonstrated in the Eighteenth Century, the energy of body of mass m going at speed v is ½ mvv. So energy per unit of mass augments as the square of the speed. Thus one kilogram of the Siding Spring Comet had 25 times the energy of one kilogram of Tunguska bolide. Add to this the fact Siding Spring was much smaller than its big tail advertised: only 400 to 700 meters across. Siding Spring passed very close to Mars (140,000 kilometers, half the Earth-Moon distance). If Siding Springs had hit Earth, that would have been probably at an angle, and it would have liberated an amazing amount of energy

Computer simulation show that a 200 meters diameter comet going at 11km/s would explode with an energy of 30 megatons. If the comet were 650 meters: 30 x 40 megatons, say: 1,000 megatons (Siding Springs diameter: 400-700 meters). Multiply by 25, from the v^2 factor of Émilie Du Châtelet: 25,000 megatons of TNT. The average penetration angle would be 45 degrees, giving an average trajectory of hundreds of kilometers by hypersonic surfing of the shock wave on the upper atmosphere, say 600 kilometers over 10 seconds. Acceleration: 56,000 meters/sec/10 seconds, in other words 5,600 gs, more than 5,000 the acceleration of earth’s gravity.

These are orders of magnitude. Maybe the comet would surf the atmosphere over a minute, etc. In any case, no solid body, a fortiori a fragile comet, can withstand thousands of gs. It will disintegrate. As it does, it would fry everything in its path. If it surfs two minutes, it could leave a trail of devastation hundreds of kilometers wide, over thousands of kilometers. And guess what? No impact!


Some mysterious degradations of living conditions in recorded history are so far unexplained. Volcanoes, of course are generally the prime culprit, as I long suspected, and explained, with dinosaurs:


Chinese and Romans records indicate a spectacular deterioration of conditions in the Sixth Century. Volcano, or impact? It seems two distinct eruptions were culpritRecently, mainly from the work of some researchers in France, mass deaths in Europe from starvation in 1257 CE, were explained by the explosion of a giant volcano on the island of Lombok, bringing down the kingdom there. The explosion of Thera/Santorin brought down Cretan civilization, thanks to tsunamis, ash, quakes, etc…  

If an impact was found to have occurred in recorded history, with catastrophic consequences, instead of still another crazy volcano, the probability of those extraterrestrial events would be jacked up. In the scenario I gave, the impact from a fast-moving, small comet, there would be no traces on the ground.

In any case, the pollution of questions of life and death by Political Correctness can be utterly grotesque: it was clear all along that, in some configurations, we would have to nuke asteroids or comets. To pretend otherwise was idiotic, corrupt.

Having to use nuclear energy to save ourselves is very good. And ultimately, we need controlled, sustained thermonuclear fusion. If we had it now, the CO2 catastrophe (and many other catastrophes) would be avoided. Nuclear is our friend, if, and only if, well done.

What’s never our friend is any notion that it is philosophically correct to believe that fancy and corrupt notions of so-called Political Correctness trump the truth. It’s not just that nothing trumps reality. By faking reality, we reject altruism. 

Patrice Aymé



Superior Civilization Needs Superior Weapons (Collapse Series 1)

March 16, 2018


Military Non-Superiority Is The Civilized way To Collapse:

Si vis pacem, para bellum!” (If you want peace, prepare war) the Romans used to say. Indeed, implementation of civilization, like sausage making, is no pretty sight to behold. It requires a stern consideration of the human condition, mind fully open… to the most awful possibilities, those which, precisely, can undo civilization. In recent years, the two oldest Republics, the USA and France have coldly executed some of the worst Jihadists… using legislative powers going back 25 centuries, to the beginning of the Roman Republic (the Consuls had the right to execute whoever they decided to execute when it had to do with military operations; thus US and French presidents have right of life and death against enemies of the Republic).  

If an advanced civilization has no crushing military superiority, contact with a vicious society can cause collapse. This happened many times. This happened to Egypt, more than once. Egypt recovered fully, more than once, until it didn’t, each time more diminished. First with the Achaemenid Persians, then the Romans, Christians, and most irretrievably, with the Muslims.

Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) warheads streaking to the ground at 16,000 kilometers per hour. They all come from one rocket. Against those only some weapons not yet in existence could be effective. Impacts of warheads from just one missile can be hundreds of kilometers apart. Each warhead can be 300 kilotons of TNT, 20 times the Hiroshima bomb. Precision is less than 100 meters.

An obvious example of collapse caused by the failure of military superiority is Rome. The Western Roman empire of 40 million people was ravaged, most of the population eradicated, by at most 150,000 barbarian savages ferociously invading, fighting and destroying as if their lives depended upon it, because it did.

Constantinople, the Eastern Roman empire, would know a similar fate, in slower motion. The Romans lost most of their territory to savage Islamized Arabs, and, four centuries later to the recently Islamized Turks, before being terminated by the later, another four centuries down the line. No wonder the flag of Saudi Arabia has a curved sword on it.

Roman Egypt surrendered to the Third Caliph, Omar, hoping for a promised lenient treatment. Three years later, Egypt realized that the Muslim conquerors had lied, and were most abusive. Egypt revolted. Too late: the library was burned by Omar and his ilk, and ever since Islamist terror has reigned therein, diminishing the minds so much, as Napoleon discovered to his dismay, that the very notion of progress had vanished in a superstitious, theocratic haze. 

Sophisticated, enormously populated (40 million?) Northern Song China fell to Genghis Khan’s Mongols, who were no more than 150,000 cavaliers. It had been invaded and occupied before. However, Mongol generals proposed to kill it all, and even change Chinese climate and ecology, but the conqueror in chief wisely rejected the suggestion. Two decades later all of China, and even Vietnam, ended down under the Mongol boot for a century.  


Superior Minds Need Superior Defenses:

A contributor to this site, SDM cogently asked: “Why make rearmament a priority when it would appear there are more than enough weapons already to destroy mankind? Are you implicitly promoting a revamping of military weaponry rather than just more of the same old stuff?

Answer: Yes, precisely. Precisely because we have all those terrible weapons to destroy mankind, we need smarter weapons to prevent the use of the most terrible ones. I am talking about superiority of weapons as factor of security.

Destruction of mankind is not a new thing. When the barbarians invaded the Western Roman empire they caused up to 90% eradication of the population. When the Mongols of Genghis Khan finally defeated the Western Xia empire, they killed 100% of the population, leaving only sands behind. When the Muslims invaded Spain, they eradicated 100% of the Goths, and 25% of the Catholics (except for a tiny corner of the Cantabrian mountains where they got blocked by heroic defenders). Ancient warfare could bring 100% exterminations, go ask the Assyrians (Babylon and its allies, unable to defeat the Assyrian field army, decided to destroy the Assyrian population first, to starve its army ).  

More precise weapons are needed. Take nukes. In the 1960s, the USA and the USSR made gigantic thermonuclear bombs, up to 25 megatons of TNT: if they wanted to destroy an objective, they were not sure of the precision of detonation, so they made giant bombs. Not only that, but they made more than 50,000 of them. Using a fraction of that arsenal would have killed billions.

For example the USA had planned, in case of war with the USSR, to explode giant bombs on the Soviet submarine pens found next to Leningrad. Their detonations were expected to destroy the populated part of Finland, as well. President JFK was informed of this collateral damage, for his eyes only. Later, precision of ballistics came down to one meter. At that point, a smaller nuke could take out the same sub pens, without taking out Finland. Standard French, British and US thermonuclear warheads are now around 200 kilotons.

China and Russia have developed very small nukes, which could destroy crucial military objectives, without too much collateral damage. Thus tempting to use: once one’s headquarters, or storage of weapons have been taken out, one may not feel inclined to escalate…   

Right now if some “leader” in a nuclear weapon state decides to do away with a large city, he has a good probability to succeed: only US cities, to some extent, and Moscow, have Anti Ballistic Missiles. Destroying missiles with missiles is a very expensive, even ruinous, and certainly chancy business.

However, powerful laser batteries would destroy ballistic missiles cheaply, and at will. Thus lasers would annihilate MAD, the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine… which is a crime against humanity.

More practically, precision ammunition have proven to be a real progress. Recent battles against ISIL killed not even a tenth of what would have been before. In Mosul, it is said 12,000 civilians died. A conventional extirpation of the Islamist State would have killed many times that. Mosul has more than one million inhabitants. Instead, with advanced weapons, strikes could be directed exactly where the snipers were inside buildings.

Developing superior weapons means to invent new technology, in a way no other civilian demand will do. The car got invented because the French army of the Ancient Regime liked the idea of what we now call tanks. Black powder and rockets were perfected by the Mongols and Europeans, because they wanted superior weapons (China had a more festive approach to explosives than the Mongols and French). When they invaded Eastern Europe, the Mongols used field batteries of rockets. Soon Europeans found ways, thanks to saltpeter, to augment the explosive power of black powder. Around 1430 CE, two French brothers invented field guns, small enough to be rolled to a battlefield and beat English foot and archers into submission (that was the final phase of the “100 years war”). Some rabid pacifists will smirk. However, all this explosive tech not only built roads, but now it enable us to send robots around the solar system.  


Falling Behind What’s Needed, Or How Xi Became Crazy:

SDM asked: “Is it your position that the “West” is somehow behind the weapons technology curve in comparison to …..China? Russia? Anyone?

No doubt that the west is under the sway of corporate neoliberals to the detriment of the vast majority of the people because of climate change denial, austerity, tax giveaways, wage stagnation, lax financial regulation, etc. etc. Are there data that shows the US/EU weapons are inadequate?”

There are plenty of indications that the West is in military peril. Some of the West’s main weapon systems may be obsolete, vulnerable, or ill-conceived. Vulnerable and obsolete: the giant aircraft carriers of the USA may be vulnerable to ballistic missiles: the Chinese developed a specific carrier killer. Obsolete: the US Navy is supposed to use the F35, a “stealth” flying bathtub. The F35 may be fully visible to some radars.

Western Quantum radar goes up to 20 kms, the Chinese one 100 kms (from better detection of single photons, they said, so progress in fundamental physics)… A good quantum radar going 1,000 kms would make the F35 fighter completely inoperative. They are supposed to construct more than 3,500 of these turkeys, and defend the entire West with it (but for France).

Knowing that he will be able to deny the West air supremacy has got to have a bad effect on Xi’s psychology… Now he may think he can takeover the world, or at least the South China sea, Taiwan, hey, maybe Vietnam, which, after all was long Chinese…

China and Russia have stealth fighters. The Russian one is faster than the Western one. Russia has shown pictures of test firing of a HYPERsonic missile. Hypersonic missiles go too fast to be intercepted by any existing defenses (one can imagine more advanced lasers could do it). The point here is that the hypersonic missile could turn into the nightmare the Romans knew all too much: arrows from recurve bows, which the Parthians, Sassanids, Sarmatians, Alans and Huns had. They could penetrate Roman armor.


A civilization can get destroyed in a few hours:

Rome never recovered  of the battle of Hadrianopolis in 379 CE. The crucial part of the battle lasted minutes, not much longer than it took for the US Navy to set on fire the four finest fleet aircraft carriers of the Imperial Japanese navy at the Midway battle in 1942 (ending any hope of the Japs to avoid defeat in WWII).

At Hadrianopolis, Roman emperor Valens got killed, the Eastern Roman field army was annihilated, the victorious Goths were on the loose, the empire shaken in its deepest psychological foundations, the barbarians elated, and meanwhile enormous concessions had to be made to the Sassanids. The battle happened in a few hours, and by accident. The left Roman wing was in the process of destroying the Gothic foot and Gothic camp, when, suddenly, disaster struck: the rested Gothic cavalry, 15,000 strong, charged in the flank of the left Roman wing, which then fell on the Roman center compressing it to the point soldiers couldn’t use their weapons, let alone maneuver, like at Cannae, sic centuries earlier.

Skeptics may bleat that the Goths surrendered to the Romans in 382 CE, after sacrificing king Fritiggen and others culprit of the victory of Adrianopolis. Thus, those historians may insist, no untowards consequence from the crushing defeat. But the peace treaty is revealing: the Goths could settle, but as Goths, under Gothic law, not as Romans. It’s a bit as if Muslim Fundamentalists destroyed half of the US Army and then were allowed to settle in Ohio under Sharia. Sure enough, a generation later, the unassimilated Goths took great umbrage, and were on the march again. This time, in 410 CE, they sacked the city of Rome, and settled in Gaul and Spain.(The Goths got ejected from Gaul by Frankish king Clovis in 507 CE, after being crushed at the battle of Vouillé. To thank him, for having annihilated, at long last the Goths who had tortured Rome since the catastrophe of 379 CE, the emperor made Clovis into a Roman Consul for life!)


What was the world’s strongest army on May 10 1940?

The French army. Although the Nazi army had doubled its tank force with Czech tanks, the French army had 50% more tanks, and the French tanks were better: many were impervious to German artillery. The best French planes were equal in quality to the Nazi planes, and there were hundreds of them.  

However, by May 15, 1940, although the French army had lost just one division out of one hundred, it had lost the Battle of France: the “torrent of German tanks” (as the head of the French army said) was flowing towards the sea, unimpeded, and the main French armies, plus the British Expeditionary Force, had been cut from behind.

What happened?

The Allies didn’t see that the entire Nazi army had advanced on three small roads in the Ardennes forest, under a thick canopy of springtime leaves. One Spitfire pilot saw it, but he wasn’t believed.


Accidents happen.

France was ultimately saved by her ungrateful brat of a child, the USA. The other brat, Britain, although helpful in 1940, had been derelict in 1933-1938, when it was more or less aligned with Hitler. The fact is, the British Second Armor division was supposed to be in the way of the Panzer thrust on May 10, 1940, just behind the French infantry B division, which was attacked by three Panzers… but the Brit 2nd Armor had not arrived! If it had, the battle would have been just the opposite, as the French would have had time to reconfigure their armor.

The French and British air crews couldn’t get their act together in the week after May 10, 1940. They  got it after that, but it was too late. The Nazis had been training in Spain where they had intervened in 1936, they knew how to operate with ground crews.

Another factor in May 1940 was that the US and Britain had 200,000 soldiers. France had six millions, and Nazi Germany ten millions. In other words, USA and UK were disarmed, the French Republic was supposed to do all the work. If Britain had in May 1940 as many soldiers as it had in 1944, the defeat of May-June 1940 wouldn’t have happened. That would have been a disaster for the USA, agreed…


Conclusion: Democracy has to be defended. Plutocracy is always around, conniving, eager to rise further. If plutocracy sees weakness, plutocracy will pounce. Just watch Putin and Xi. The latter may be much encouraged by what experts in the Chinese military perceive, correctly as weakness in the Western military, which is pretty much reduced to the USA, Britain and France… As in 1940. Weakness in democracies encourages fascist dictatorships, as Hitler himself said many times. When hell itself speaks, wisdom should listen.

Patrice Aymé

Trade Wars, Divisions, War War: It Happened Before, In The 1930s

March 10, 2018

Stupid Is Depressing:

Trump plans to institute tariffs which have made the European Union angry. Jean-Claude Juncker is the head of the European Commission, the part of the European executive which heads the European administration, 32,000 strong, of 500 million souls. Juncker retorted to Trump: ”This is stupid. We can do stupid too.” Juncker has been around: he is quadrilingual French, English, German, and Luxembourgeois. Also, as PM of Luxembourg for two decades, he masterminded the transformation from its bovine economy to onshore tax haven. In any case, Europe is drawing a list of symbolic US products to be struck with tariffs too, from motorcycles to liquor. Let’s backtrack a moment here. This sort of madness is how the crash of Wall Street in 1929 and the Great Depression were engineered.


Crash of Wall Street & Great Depression:

A massive, and deliberate overheating of the economy happened in 1920s. The Anglo-Saxon elite had decided to inflate out of the British World War One debt. US car production reached level in 1928 it won’t see again until 1948. When overheating became blatant, the US central bank decided to raise interest rates, the economy started to falter, and the US Congress decide to get real smart, the way idiots do it. Simply, Washington reasoned, why don’t we reduce imports? When investors with a modicum of real economics heard this, they understood an economic war was pointing its ugly snout, and they pulled out.  

After the markets crashed, they recovered, as the US Senate hesitated. However, the situation became catastrophic in 1930. Then the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were finally imposed, and Europe retaliated in kind. It would have been better to keep European production in Europe, buying the cars from government money , and selling them at a loss. That would have been socialist, and only the USA would have suffered. European tariffs made US exports collapse, companies went bankrupt, banks followed, and people lost all they had, as bank deposits were not insured either privately, collectively, or by the government itself. The economy greatly depressed.    


The questions are: what is China doing right, and what are we doing wrong? Of these sorts of graphs, world wars are made. Notice that, in a few years, China got the world top GDP. Our crafty leaders say China has built too much! It’s going to crash! I say: go look at the homeless in US streets, it’s sickening. I say: contemplate that Paris didn’t build one skyscraper in… forty-four (44) years. They say: it’s to keep Paris pretty! I say: they deliberately don’t build, and it’s like that all over the West, more or less… Why? Keep it expensive, elitist. That “austerity” extends to activities such as scientific research (where China spends enormously). Actually Trump just wants to eliminate the world’s main existing thermonuclear research facility, and even European scientists are screaming that’s an outrage. 


The Great Depression Brought The Mood Of War:

In Germany, the Great Depression brought Hitler to power. In the USA, Roosevelt. Both decided to reflate their economies at all costs, using similar methods (following Keynes all too much; Keynes had advocated make-belief work, if need be). The much richer USA for example decided to build 24 “Fleet Aircraft Carriers”. For comparison, and giving an idea how expensive fleet carriers were, Germany planned to have two such carriers by 1945. The US carriers, were helped by an enormous fleet of more than 200 “fleet submarines” (each nearly 100 meters long). The US subs sank 60% of the Japanese merchant navy, and eight “Jap” aircraft carriers.

Roosevelt put also millions to work, employed by the government. Hitler tried similar tricks, forgetting small details, like that Germany had no oil, and that much of its miracle economy was actually the province of US plutocracy. All the more self-contradictory as the Nazis officially hated so much those plutocrats they were the humble pigeons of.

Meanwhile the French Republic didn’t like the Hitler circus, seeing world war painted all over it, and went to Washington to protest the collusion of US plutocrats and Nazi demoncrats.That didn’t sit very well with old family plutocrat Roosevelt, who hated France anyway, as he saw in France both a juicy prey, and a threat to the plutocratic order, especially of the US sort. In any case, the relationship between France and the USA became execrable in 1934, and would stay that way for the duration, until 1945, and much beyond.

From the French point of view, the easy money, frantic spending on the military of the Anglo-Saxons and the Nazis was wrong in all ways. So the French economy relatively shrank, as France grimly prepared for world war. Sure enough, by 1937, the German economy was in deep trouble, and Hitler had no choice but rob Jews and others to create an appearance of wealth to his millions of increasingly rabid supporters.

Thus we see that the Great Depression did more than depress economies and psychologies: it put the French Republic on a collision course with the USA and the UK. The UK realized its mistake by 1936, and threw out its young Nazi king. By 1939, the UK, having seen Spain fall to Hitler, aligned itself with France, but the USA kept aligning itself, de facto, through its plutocrats and a diplomatic service helping them, with Hitler. (By 1944, though, the top US generals, whom Roosevelt couldn’t control, allied themselves with the French military, because they saw the valor, and had the need. Besides they were in palatial arrangements at the Versailles castle…The relationship stayed tumultuous, though…)

So question: does Trump want to renew with the mistakes of the past? Germany is now solidly allied to France and is a republic too. The only “oiseau de mauvaise augure”, actually a well-defined vulture, is Putin… However recently US forces in Syria eliminated 50% of a force of Russian “volunteers”…


Divided We Can’t Stand:

The trade wars of the 1930s brought division to Europe. Nazism and the “Axis” would never have happened as they did, complete with holocausts and world wars, had the three big representative democracies of the West stayed united. (But of course, Roosevelt, like Hitler, wanted to grab the world; he was just much more crafty about it! Thus much more successful.)

For example Belgium would have built the segment of the Maginot line it was supposed to build, and that would have blocked, or slowed down the Panzers long enough for the superior French forces to regroup where needed (US influence pushed Belgium to suddenly become “neutral”, thus betray France, following that way the pernicious queen of the Netherlands, who digged the grave of her own country, with her love for Kaiser and Germany…)

More prosaically, German generals wanted a pretext to kill the Nazis. Instead Hitler showed them an isolated France… The US attitude was to play all sides, until the American Century got firmly established.

Nowadays, France and the USA are solidly allied. They are fighting side by side in Africa, something which started long ago, in 1978, when the French paras dropped on Kolwezi (the US provided some airlift, and the go-ahead). The war against the Islamists in Africa is long, intense, unforgiving. The Trump administration rightly denounced China’s maneuvers in Africa (suck all the juice, and ever more encroach…)


And the Truth Is That The US and EU Elites Are Lying:

The US deficit is fundamentally caused by the exportations to China, Mexico, etc, of US production. So the slaves overseas are doing the work, while the higher class in the USA does not have to deal with pesky, expensive US unionized workers. Increase profit, decrease labor, grow plutocracy. What isn’t there for plutocrats, our lords and masters, to like?

Otherwise Trump is bluffing. Trump is trying to cut a deal about NAFTA/ALENA. To threaten tariffs is Trump’s dangerous and silly negotiation mode. Europe should ignore his craziness, but Europe, like Trump, is trying to make the peons believe it is doing something, when actually it’s doing even less.

So both the EU and the US elites are having a disingenuous argument. They play for the gallery of the naive out there, while the play is getting a life of its own. The right way out is to implement, throughout the West, a version of what Roosevelt did in the 1930s which was right: not the fight with France, that was wrong, not the support of overseas US plutocrats machinations, that was even worse. What was right was the rearmament program (developing and deploying more advanced weapons), and putting people to work, while cleaning up finance. And going to school, more than ever (as French president Macron just promoted in India). But schools all over, and everybody going to them is not enough: we need to put intelligence to work. And work, in the incoming age of robots, especially talking robots, of the sleek type I had on the phone today, means research. Nowadays scientific research should be promoted to the max. If not for us, and our children, for the planet… Can we please, believe in something, for a change?

Patrice Aymé

Making North Korea An Offer It Can’t Refuse

March 9, 2018

What is the context? A complete failure of non-proliferation would guarantee a nuclear world war. We already have three countries with nukes not allowed to have them legally: Israel, Pakistan, India. Neither India nor Israel will go on the attack: they are representative democracies, India understands nuclear war would kill lots of Indians. Israel is a very special case, its nukes are obviously defensive. Pakistan, though, is a terrible cade: an Islamist Republic, masquerading as a representative democracy, truly a military regime where rogue fanatics, one could imagine, could seize nukes at any moment.

Kim and His Sister are Swiss educated, very smart, cosmopolitan, and, as fine connoisseurs of happenstances, utterly ruthless. They have no choice, the way they see it. We have to deal with cornered animals, thus the time is ripe for an alliance reversal…

So North Korea has to be stopped from doing what it is doing: nuclear blackmail, for the rest of the planet to contemplate. Instead, North Korea has to convene that nuclear NON-proliferation is an excellent socialist idea whose time has come. In exchange, one should make North Korea an offer, even an alliance, which it cannot refuse.

Some may sneer, as Mr Krystoff seems inclined to do. However, like Israel, North Korea is a very special case. Like Israel, it’s a rather small country, all too isolated.

Korea, on and off, had 18 centuries of war with China. Obviously North Korea needs a friend. In the grander scheme of things historical, the USA is not going to set-up a colony in Korea, but China seems keen to re-invest countries which it used to invade, control and colonize in the past. This is clearly exhibited with the South China Sea.

The deal Trump can propose is obvious: diplomatic recognition, full commercial relations, etc, in exchange for denuclearization and demilitarization of rocketry. So why are the anti-Trumps unhappy? Because they are tribal anti-Trumps rather than true progressives. Playing the tribal violin is the guaranteed road to war. So the attitude of the New York Times, suddenly arguing one shouldn’t talk to North Korea, shouldn’t be a surprise to those who realize that tribalism is an old instinct.

What’s the alternative? Do nothing, as G.W. Bush and Obama decided to do? Not anymore, and Obama knew it. The problem is that we have arrived at the end of nothing. Doing nothing leads to nuclear war, guaranteed. Not necessarily with North Korea, but with the next regime which will use nuclear blackmail. And it could come from surprising directions.

For example there is the little detail that Japan, for example, used, long ago, to have a back-up plan to fabricate 3,000 thermonuclear bombs in one year (Japan has a plutonium stockpile from old fuel treated in France, and shipped back…) North Korea has, reportedly, already 60 nuclear bombs.  Japan will not wait forever as the madman next door stockpiles enough to destroy all Japanese cities several times over. (Anti-ballistic missiles can only stop a few, on a good day.) One doesn’t want Japan to feel betraye, and it would be, should nothing been done next door.

So power to Trump on that one. A nice outcome won’t solve all the long term security problems of the planet, but there is no alternative, short term.  


March 6, 2018

Times change, and so do minds. For 9,000 years of civilization, slavery was viewed as natural. However, queen Bathilde of the Frankish empire outlawed it around 655 CE. Now nobody says aloud that slavery is natural.

However everybody believes, but for a few anarchists, that the principle of leadership is natural. That is the Fuererprinzip (Nazi semantic), but Obama himself said it was a fact (although he himself, like Clinton, was only nominally a leader).

I will explain here why oligarchy is intrinsically evil.

Oligarchies are, by definition, the rule of the few. They want always more power. There are three classes of reasons for this:

  1. The more power one has, the easier it is to get more, as I demonstrated in “Evil, Plutocracy, Exponentiate”. For example it was much easier for Obama to get the Nobel Peace Prize than the US presidency: the Norwegian oligarchy loves a winner: surely having brown skin was not enough (maybe Obama, or his devoted agents, or, even more important his mighty sponsors, would reciprocate? What else? Surely it was not Obama’s bombing weddings with robots in countries the US was not at war with?)
  2. The Dark Side is intrinsically nice for those who practice it: it provides with previously, and otherwise unknown neurohormonal flushes. Thus the monarch learns to enjoy to send people to death (and finds even advantageous to advertize it, when the monarch is hyper powerful, like Tiberius or Stalin).
  3. Distributing life, death, torture, extermination, extinction is metaphysically satisfying: it turns the perpetrator into God. Or. more exactly the neurohormonal excitation of giving death is so intoxicating, it uses, and provides with, in particular, the feeling of omnipotence, that it gave rise to this omnipotent, jealous and malevolent abstraction known as “God” (contemplate Him in the Bible).

There are reasons in nature for evil. But there are no reasons for oligarchies. Thus, oligarchies, themselves a fruit of the unholy coupling of civilization with the Dark Side, need even more evil to stay in power, than brought them in to start with…Another name for oligarchs is slavemasters. We outlawed the latter when they buy and sell people. Why not outlaw the former, when they order people around.


Yes, we need energy to fly a plane, and a plane is no natural phenomenon. However planes are good, they are necessary evils. Same with oligarchies. Some oligarchies are necessary: say the orders of doctors, lawyers, civil engineers, the military. If we need them, built them, use them. But if we don’t, when they are unnecessary evils, let’s do without.

One obvious area where oligarchies shouldn’t exist is politics and economics. I am not exactly the first to believe this: that’s one of the ideas subjacent to the 5 stars movement in Italy, which just got one third of the vote there last Sunday, as expected.

Nobody says aloud that slavery is natural anymore. Slavery has become abhorrent. Let’s do the same to oligarchism! It has to become abhorrent. Some may say: what for? Because oligarchism, by confining power to a few, also confines the mental powers which matters to a few, hence ruins the potential for debate, and thus intelligence. The potential intelligence of the civilization that it rules over with its conspiracy of tiny brains. We had a civilization with an increasingly tiny brain before: Rome. It didn’t finish well. Similarly, Chinese history shows a succession of dynasties, and collapses, from a similar mechanism: at the end of each, ideas are hard to find, as only a few minds minded the “Mandate of Heavens”, and were unable to find solutions to the last few catastrophes…


Patrice Ayme

“Judges”deprived of wisdom, conspire against civilization

March 4, 2018

French politician and Member of Parliament Marine Le Pen is charged by French “justice” for showing on her Twitter account pictures of tortures & executions of the Islamist State. Yes, you read that right: the French government considers it a crime to show the Islamists in a bad light, and finds Twitter too permissive that way. An equivalence would be to prosecute a Jew for showing pictures of victims of Nazism! Mad PC judges? An indication of the failure of education? Or even of the failure of so-called “representative democracy”, where justice has been professionalized, and thus served by the servants of the established order and its twisted logic which targets logic, common sense, and basic human dignity? All of the preceding!

A French judge has opened a formal criminal investigation into Marine Le Pen’s publication on Twitter of a series of grisly images in 2015.

The three images referred to the so-called Islamic State group, as it is called in the Middle East and were captioned “Daesh is THIS!” One showed the decapitated body of Islamist victim James Foley.

The far-right National Front leader later deleted that image amid the resultant outcry, insisting she was unaware of the victim’s identity. The other images showed a tank running over a man in an orange jumpsuit, while another jumpsuit-clad man was shown in a cage being burned alive.

Ms Le Pen is facing charges of circulating “violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity” and that can be viewed by a minor – punishable by up to three years in prison. 

Another violent message would say French judges? Does that picture incites terrorism, pornography, and harm human dignity, and we should criminally prosecute those who show it? As French judges would want us to believe? Well, go ahead, make my day! [Picture taken in 1945 by GI Pfc. Bertram Sanders, US 103rd infantry division cameraman, at one of the concentration camps in Landsberg shortly after the city’s capture by the 411th regiment.]


For contemporary French judges, showing mass criminal facts has apparently become itself criminal.  Thus not covering-up the crime is itself criminal. This is exactly more of the sort of insanity which has been blowing across US universities. And it was exactly the main behavior enabling fuel of fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. Earlier on, it made possible the religious terror of the Inquisition in Europe, which lasted nearly 15 centuries (from its instauration by Roman emperor Theodosius I in 380 CE until the last Catholic terror execution in Spain in the 1830s).

Such censorship by so-called “judges” is criminally enables the enemies of civilization, including the Islamists: for years, the Islamist Tariq Ramadan was all over European televisions, supporting the most vicious Islam, such as stoning women for infidelity (meanwhile he was going around, beating and raping). Telling the truth about Ramadan and his organizations was outlawed by the so-called “judges”. European intellectuals who self-defined as “left” were all in love with Ramadan.

On a grander scale, had all of the Germans know what some of the Nazis were doing with innocent women and children, Nazism would not have lasted another day. This is why the Nazi leadership lied heavily to the German population about where the Jews had gone…. So, in a way, those French judges who consider that showing crimes against humanity is itself a criminal infraction, are the best friends the ilk of Adolf Hitler ever had.

So-called “judges” may be unhappy with what I write (they better be, because they have misbehaved on a civilizational scale, harming human prospects themselves). Some in France advised me not to write the present essay: could get me in trouble, they said, the arms of French justice are long and mighty. But I don’t care, I welcome the fight with tyrants, even small black-robed ones: ever since Africa, I loved crushing cockroaches with my bare hands.  Cockroaches are smart, make no mistake, some even hiss, but they are just cockroaches.

French judges have been hounding Marine Le Pen for years. Hopefully, it’s not because she is a woman. Although I believe that’s a factor: what else? One third of the French electorate voted for her last year. By the way, I showed on this site some of the pictures Le Pen is accused of. Will judges arrest me? Differently from Socrates, who chickened out, I fully intend to insult them, should they do so (Socrates’ judges were actually 2,000, as required by Athenian direct democracy). Insults are a form of violence, true, but arresting people for revealing infamy is as great a violence a society can suffer, short of the infamy itself.  

Direct democracy should overrule professional judges. This is a case in point. Everybody of culture in Europe knows of the atrocities of Christianism. Those of Islamism today should be exposed: they are just as dangerous, and closely related. That judges would behaved as if they were above civilization, let alone We The People should be viewed as a good reason to abrogate “justice” as we know it.

Today’s government is viewed as made of three elements : the executive, the legislative , and justice. The distinction is as old as Saint Louis who, although a (mass) criminal in more ways than one, invented the modern judicial system: takes one to know one. Actually Saint Louis famously wrote that nothing would please him more than to torture to death miscreants and Jews, but he won’t, because the law forbid it (and applied even to kings)!

Saint Louis’ modern views about the judicial system is why the US justice is full of French jargon (another facet of the US as a glorious French colony with its roots in plain sight). For Saint Louis law was the entanglement of Salic Law (established from 300 CE until 800 CE, date at which the Roman empire was re-established by Charlemagne) and Roman Law (established 500 BCE to 400 CE, refurbished by Justinian government circa 545 CE). Judges interpreted laws and passed new ones in Parliaments (there were 17 in France, one in London).

Democracy is different: it is the rule of We The People. We the People passes the laws and also governs and judges. So no place for professional judges, and black robed cockroaches, to decide what harms human dignity. The precondition to any violation of “human dignity” is disrespecting the truth. Learn that, judges and cockroaches!

No, this is not insolence: even mosquitoes, recent experiments have shown, quickly learn to fear swatting. But then again, not all creatures can learn that fast! Recent inquiries have shown would-be intellectuals are among the worst learners (and I know exactly why this paradox rules…)

Patrice Aymé


Why Did France Lose North America?

March 3, 2018

Background context: New France surrendered in 1760, leaving North America pregnant with the USA. An immediate consequence was the further rise of cruelty in North America, with the further expansion of slavery, expropriation and the near complete extermination of the Natives. Another consequence was the boosting of racist, militarist Prussia, its malevolence overrunning Europe, for many generations to come, culminating with the apocalyptic world wars of 1914-1945 which wrecked Eurasia. The most significant consequence, though, was the triumph of the over-exploitative extermination colonial model, over the gentle trading model and “mission civilisatrice” the French practiced (and which, confronted to the extermination model, got exterminated, naturally enough).  

Dreadful consequences all over: Contemplating the success of the American holocaust, enthused by the success of ferocity against colonization as “mission civilisatrice”, frenzied forms of colonizations similar to the US extermination model sprouted all over to duplicate the American experience: King Leopold in Congo, snatched an entire country for himself, to make them all into his slaves, and the alternative was death. The Prussians conducted deliberate extermination of African populations. Even Britain declared war to force Zhong Guo, the “Central State”, 5,000 years old, China, the sister civilization, to overdose on opium (the British idea of free trade!) The towering successes of having holocaust serving greed propagated to Turkey (when the Young Turks allied themselves to racist, holocaustic Germany, bringing the Armenian holocaust) or the Japanese empire (which started to view the Chinese the way the Germans viewed Slavs and Jews, as the new Native Americans to profitably exterminate, by having them all die, and steal all they had…)

The loss of New France is more than historical, it was a conflict of philosophies. And it is extremely relevant today.

Would civilization be technologically different if New France had kept on going? Certainly not: the region known as France nowadays was always at the forefront of technology, for the deepest reason: location. But the really interesting observation is that the collapse of New France was greatly a consequence, not just of the hatred of some English plutocrats, but also of some factors inherent to France. In some ways France was too civilized (New France couldn’t resist the cynicism, money and ferocity deployed by English speaking America), in other ways, New France was not civilized enough (French idealism prevented to implement enough realism, a well-known French atavism; the religious wars came at the wrong moment, the Sixteenth Century; and Louis XIV’s persecution, and expulsion of 10% of France, often the best, the Protestants, had terrible direct and indirect consequences).

The philosophical interferences between these sums over histories is not over, quite the opposite (it’s similar to a Quantum computation, and it is not over). It is of greater import than ever. Right now what is at stake is not just a New France, hundreds of Native American and African nations, and the equivalent of the 100+ million Chinese and Europeans who died in the 1914-1945 wars. It is the entire planet that is at stake: we are clearly heading towards a 4 degree Celsius global temperature rise. Not by coincidence, the USA is now producing more oil than ever, and more than anybody else (thanks to be addressed to Obama; Trump needs no encouragement: he is successfully pursuing the coal export policy launched by… Obama, you guessed it).


Jean de Verrazane and other French explorers visited the entire eastern shore of North America on French boats, starting before 1508 CE. In particular New Angoulême (French: Nouvelle-Angoulême) was the name given in April 1524 by the Tuscany born da Verrazzano (1481-1528) to the future New York. Jacques Cartier succeeded Verrazane in “Canada” in 1534 CE. Cartier reported that the Natives didn’t think that French colonization was a good idea: they lived, just so. The French pointed out that they knew intense agricultural techniques enabling to feed much more from the land, so maybe they could squeeze in. So the French dutifully started a trading model of interaction with the naive Natives: we give you our know-how, you gave us your furs.

I am saying that the Natives were “naive” because of what happened in the end: they should have seen it coming. They should have known better, and cooperate maximally with the French had they been smarter. Self-examination, well-done, would have brought greater smarts.

Native Americans were wont to exterminate each other. It didn’t require much imagination to guess that the decent deal the French were offering was the best imaginable. If the invading Europeans started to behave like the Native American themselves, the latter were going to be exterminated. That was clear. And it is exactly what happened.


Native Americans’ Self-Destructive Viciousness:

Here is an example: the Iroquois massacred the Hurons in the Seventeenth Century; the root cause was that the Hurons had been civilized by the French, so were left defenseless against their old neighbours, the savage Iroquois confederation. The Iroquois always detested the Hurons. As soon as the Hurons had become soft, sedentarized, using intense agriculture taught by the French, and praying to the ever forgiving Lord Jesus, they were easy prey.   

Thus, had they contemplated reality for a moment, the Native Americans in Canada could have realized that it would be smarter to get allied to the well-disciplined, government organized French than possibly be exposed to rogue white tribes.

Smart alliance is what happened during the conquest of Meso America. Although the Aztec empire fought to death, it lost because Cortez found hundreds of thousands of Native allies, most of the nations and cities subjects of Tenochtitlan, or in outright war with it. It was a military alliance: Cortez had hundreds of thousands of copper tipped bolts made to exacting standards for Spanish crossbows.  

It was not all a deliberately human engineered holocaust, at least in the Sixteenth Century. Toribio Motolinia, a Spanish monk that witnessed the smallpox epidemic, wrote: “It became such a great pestilence among them throughout the land that in most provinces more than half the population died; in others the proportion was less. They died in heaps, like bedbugs.”

Smallpox was a factor in the Fall of Mexico to the Conquistadores. The emperor, many top lords and perhaps half the Aztec army died from it.


Patrice’s Little Proof That North America Had 100 Million Inhabitants:

As Stony Brook University “the French Mapping of New York and New England, 1604-1760” puts it: “The French contributions to the early mapping of the northeastern United States are frequently overlooked. Usually when we think of colonial mapping of this area, English and in some cases Dutch maps come to mind. However… French cartographers often made the earliest and the best maps of much of what is now the northeastern United States.

  The neglect of these French maps is mostly the result of national biases. The best recent work on colonial-era French maps of North America has been done by Canadian scholars… American historians have been preoccupied with other subjects, such as the westward expansion of the United States, and French exploration and mapping do not fit in very well with the main themes of U.S.history. Besides, students of American history tend to be allergic to foreign languages, and consequently they usually view events through the eyes of British or American witnesses.

When in 1604, Samuel de Champlain explored exactly the same places the Mayflower colonists would, fifteen years later, he reported that the land was too full of Native Americans to accept French colonists. However, by the time the Mayflower showed up, most of the population was dead. Presumably from a smallpox epidemics: European cod boats were just off the coast, in full view, and some crew landed.

The preceding is well-known. My conclusion, though, is new. Think of it: Champlain said the population of Massachusetts was of a density similar to France. Now the arable land of North America temperate and lush such like the best agricultural land of France was at least five times that of France (that’s an underestimate; and half of France is mountains). What was the population of France? Twenty millions in 1600. Now 20 x 5 = 100! One may say that I am exaggerating here. But not really: the USA most arable, French like land is really around 3 million square kilometers (excluding the West, Alaska, Great Lakes, Florida, Louisiana, etc; personal evaluation).

Now, of course, many Native Americans died from a lack of resistance to Afroeurasiatic diseases (somewhat still mysterious, modern biology doesn’t get it yet) .


Native Americans Were All Too Close Genetically & Isolated:

Not all the details are in to elucidate this dark biology. In particular it is possible that there was a genetic contact between “Australasians” and… Amazonians (!) (we know this from both direct genetic trace, and the fact the Sweet Potato, initially from South America is found in New Guinean highlands…).

But the big picture is this: the future Native Americans were isolated in Beringia for maybe around 10,000 years (say between 25,000 and 16,000 BCE). The cause was the Last Glacial Maximum: the giant glaciers isolated Eastern Siberia and Alaska in a common land mass, centered around the present Behring Straight, There a population comprising as low as 2,000 women interbred and thrived. When the glaciers shrank a bit around 16,000 years ago, a very small subpopulation squeezed along the coast with boats, squirting the glacial outlets, and invaded the Americas. They took less than 2,000 years to arrive in Southern Chile.

But they were genetically compressed, from an original Siberian stock which was already pretty isolated from the Africano-Eurasiatic biologic.

However, as we will see next, it is not biology which was most devastating to the Native Americans, but the philosophy that the English-speaking colonists, or, more exactly initially, their masters wielded. That mentality was straight from the Bible, Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions. It was a mentality founded on greed as the supreme value, and few qualms at implementing it…

New France was lost, because its philosophy was less militarily effective than the philosophy of its English enemy. One can’t just scoff, and pontificate that philosophy don’t have to be militarily effective. If a philosophy is killed by killing its followers, occupying their lands, making its documents disappear, never to be seen again, it doesn’t matter how right it was.

Fortunately, in the case of New France, the state died, but the philosophy is not dead yet. Far from it, as we will see…

(To be continued…)


March 1, 2018


Plutocracy Is Intrinsically Exponential:

A phenomenon exponentiates if it its instant rate of growth is proportional to its own value (by definition). So the bigger it gets, the faster it grows and it grows as fast as it is big. (The exponential is the most important function in math after +, x, /. In particular, once equipped with square root of (-1), trigonometric functions, so any cyclic phenomenon, can be deduced from it, and described, by it. Here we extend the exponential to morality, spirituality, intelligence…)

The paradigm of the exponential is bacterial or viral growth. The growth of a population (and it could be tumor cells, or rats) is, before running out of resource, and without a predator, or other external abating agent, proportional to said population.

One of the greatest progress of humanity, in the last five centuries, has been to develop the tools for, and build an understanding of, the exponential function. It is everywhere. Including looming as the greatest cause of civilizational collapse, moral, ecological, intellectual, epistemological, etc. For a civilization, evil is the deadliest infection of them all. It grows proportionally to its presence, so it exponentiates (we will explain why).

A particular case of evil growth, is the takeover of civilization by plutocracy. It is the main cause of the collapse of civilizations.

If left unchecked, forces of evil will rise. And, if unchecked, they will rise exponentially. Thus it’s important they are not left to rise. Thus evil power, in Greek: Pluto kratia is is not just a moral phenomenon, not just a moral implosion. It is also a mathematical phenomenon, and that makes evil not just a human factor, but a law of physics.


Proof That Evil Exponentiates:

Humanity is intrinsically good: otherwise it would not rise children, thus would not exist. Good, in first order, means you do the work, and don’t fight back.

Hence, those who don’t play by the rules of goodness, decency or common sense, get an advantage: they can exploit, and meet no resistance. That advantage is self-feeding: the more it’s used, the more advantageous the advantage it provides with.

This is observed with lionesses in a pride: some do all the work, other restrict their contribution to showing up, and eating whatever is killed by those who did the work; that’s explained because just the appearance of a big group is impactful… The lazy ones work by just showing up!

Thus, as in pride of lionesses, bad behavior already existed in prehistoric human tribes. But it was intrinsically contained, as in a lion pride: if evil exploitation is too abused, the group would collapse, and thus so would the perpetrators with it. So, there was not that much exponentiation in prehistory. However, with the rise of civilization, something new appeared, enormous power. Enormous power is the core reason for civilization: it makes it useful, it makes it dangerous. Generally a civilization’s power is translated into what is called “money”. (Objecting that crypto currencies, Inca knots and modern future derivatives are not money is silly: those apparently different media all translate in money; and even into gold, in the case of the Inca.)

  1. The exponentiation of money is well-known: it is the law of compound interest. The more money one has, the faster one’s money grows (not relatively, but absolutely). It’s basic mathematics. The same holds for anything money can buy, like real estate. That’s why anybody with serious money in the past used to be called a “rentier” (someone who enjoys a rent).
  2. However money transforms into power onto other people, and reciprocally: money and power are equivalent. To prove something with one, is the same as proving something with the other.
  3. Thus, any form of power will, left unchecked, also exponentiate, because it is readily transformed into money and other (“real”) property (which will exponentiate). One lends only to the wealthy. Not just the wealthy in money, power, but also wealthy in the capability of using evil ways. rich, (A particular spectacular example of money translating into power occurs when generals pay their armies; the history of the Mediterranean, Europe and China are full of such behavior, including when it brought the agony of the Roman Republic).

Abuse of power and abusive power cannot be checked by the love stuff, the gentleness and the low hormones vegans and fanaticized pacifists. Hence plutocracy, the power (kratos), not just of wealth, but of Pluto itself, the god of hell, the god of bad behavior, tends to feed on itself (Pluto = Hades, Angra Mainyu, Satan, Shaitan, Le Malin…)

If one analyzes what happens, it is clearly the concentration of power, in a few hands which causes the exponentiation of power.

Thus, the greater the power, the less concentrated one should allow it to become. In other words, technological progress requires ever more direct democracy. The alternative is exponentiation of evil.

Hence ever more democratization is a necessary consequence of the pursuit of civilization. Without ever more democratization, evil and plutocracy grow, until they overwhelm everything, as demonstrated in various Dark Ages (the “Invasion by the Peoples of the Sea” (33 centuries ago), the Greek and European Dark Ages being the three most famous cases).

Patrice Ayme

Note: More generally, most catastrophes tend to exponentiate, for the same reason as avalanches exponentiate. Thus one exponential loss of control, such as the rise of plutocracy, can launch others. Thus civilization collapse in the Roman Principate in turn launched a number of other catastrophes which, themselves exponentiated (for example “plagues”, which tend to happen when society is itself collapsing; three famous examples are the “plague” which destroyed Athens once the Peloponnesian war started, the plagues which devastated Rome around the Third Century, and Constantinople in the Sixth Century; the counter-example is the “Black Plague” of 1348 CE: it killed half of the population, appearing eleven years after the start of the “100” year war, however, it didn’t disorganize the European states governments, which reacted strongly, taking anti-epidemiological measures; thus exponentials couldn’t develop, and, differently from Athens, Rome and Constantinople, European society rode the plague as if nothing had happened…)

How To Alleviate Fake Media Censorship Through Public Utility Legislation

February 28, 2018

The problem of “fake news” cannot be disjointed from censorship and propaganda… Censoring the truth, or replacing it by lies is not very different. The solution to this steering of the public mind into subjugation is to recognize quality thinking and information as “PUBLIC UTILITY”… From the Google-Facebook duopoly, to the most modest websites, as yours truly (legislatively enforced). That means, dear New York Times, and various university professor sites, no more censorship… 

In a few hours, I was censored three times, twice related to Nobel, not so noble, Paul Krugman, the self-described “Conscience of a Liberal”, and his network. More sad than infuriating. 

I had sent to Paul Krugman a pretty neutral piece for his  post “The Force of Decency Awakens”. Krugman claimed that the same emotion, decency, waking up, was the root cause for the renewed fight against sexism, and against guns. Decency comes from the present participle of decereto be fitting or suitable“. Krugman apparently found my comment unsuitable and inappropriate. However that comment was purely about how and why plutocracy grew and how that related to indecency. My comment actually supported what Krugman said, it understood it, it stood under it. Krugman should have been happy to be understood, with not one word against him. But, no, he censored my comment nevertheless (someone at the NYT told me Krugman censors me personally). When Krugman does this, I am always baffled: does he really not understand, or does he censors me because he is afraid of the shareholders of his employers (some of the world’s wealthiest men), or is he simply jealous like the wicked queen was of Snow White?

In his post, Krugman pontificated that:”Political scientists have a term and a theory for what we’re seeing on #MeToo, guns and perhaps more: “regime change cascades.””

 The link was looking at only four revolutions, and asked for big money to go beyond the abstract. I smelled a rotten fish. I looked at that site.  It claims: “REMARQ is a collaboration network from RedLink, designed for researchers and qualified users.” “Qualified users?” I sent a comment. The “Remarq Team” looked at the title of my Aristotle Destroyed Democracy essay (I was electronically informed) and, within minutes, sent me something that got plastered on  my browser: The Remarq team rejected your qualified user request and comment on article Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the 1848 Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings. 2018-02-27 14:37”. To be “rejected” by a “team” sounds more abusive than polite.

The theme of ADD is that the respect for Aristotle’s political work is the respect for monarchy, the rule of one. Aristotle’ s main political idea constitutes the bottom principles of today’s political “science”: a few individuals (generally male) should lead We The People, as if we were sheep. This is not idle talk, and a claim Aristotle was a bad influence: Aristotle was actually the leader and mentor of the small group of vicious men who launched the Hellenistic Regimes (which later encouraged the destruction of the Republican spirit in Rome).

The idea of the rule of one, monarchy, defended at the highest intellectual level, is, of course, also the main idea of Judeo-Christo-Islamism, with its big boss, God (which not coincidentally grew with the Hellenistic regimes). Attacking Aristotle, for those who believe in the Guide Principle (Deutsch: Führerprinzip) is like attacking Allah for the worst Jihadists.  Most intellectual professionals paid for their mental work are there to enforce the established order, they do now what the church used to do in the Middle Ages. To rule over minds, one will find more efficient to rule the souls, rather than to wield chains. Here the opinion of Paul Nizan about paid intellectuals, paid to have the correct thoughts and feelings, the watchdogs:

Those whom the establishment feeds wear a chain around their necks, a fable of Aesop already

One difference between someone like me or Nizan (who lived in the Middle East, Europe, Africa) and the political scientists at the “Remarq Team” (who presumably didn’t grew up nor lived in such places) is that I am not paid to tell lies, lies are not what Nizan or I, profess… As paid condottiere of things intellectuals presumably are (why else would they think it is important that others do NOT see my thoughts? If they are so bad, why don’t they rot by themselves?) This observation is not new: since ever, intellectuals have been paid as “watchdogs” (to use Paul Nizan’s expression; Nizan, a friend of Sartre, enlisted in the French army to fight Nazism. Nizan died in combat at Dunkirk, 23 May 1940, part of the enormous French army protecting the evacuation of 330,000 elite soldiers, including most of the professional British army (future instructors to the mass army they would teach), against the entire, vengeful Nazi army

What is clear is that a lot of people are spending a lot of efforts censoring the Internet. The NYT censored my comment on the Krugman essay referred above.  

A physicist specialized in Dark Matter censored my comment on Dark Matter, on her site (not the first time!) although the idea I have been pushing is incredibly simple (thus potentially revolutionary). Whereas people like that physicist are pushing MOND, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, I am pushing MOQ (MOdified Quantum; which I also call Sub Quantum Patrice Reality, an allusion to the fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation, and its ilk are NOT real…).

A good reason for not having MOND is that, modifying gravitational mass, as MOND de facto does, opens the can of worms of having to modify inertial mass, and, if not, why not… Whereas MOQ/SQPR fills in a gap in the usual Copenhagen Interpretation and its ilk (the other way to solve the gap is the Many Worlds/Multiverse, in other words, angels on a pin, with no limits, whatsoever…) As an exchange on the comments of the Dwarf Galaxy disk problem (predicted by MOQ/SQPR, not by MOND, nor LambdaCDM…) shows, my comment was finally published. It made an analogy between the present situation and the epicycles (an old point of view of mine now adopted by many physicists)… But I am going in much more details. The epicycles’ theory was a consequence of the wrong, ridiculously wrong, Aristotelian physics, at the root, and it may well be what is going on now… Buridan resuscitated heliocentrism, because, first, he got the physics right (also heliocentrism was obvious…)

Delaying comments destroy the debate: the New York Times delayed my comments, by several days, systematically, for years: that allowed the NYT to claim it practiced no censorship (in correspondence with me)… although nobody would read them, then… and then the NYT decided to just censor ALL of my comments, for years. My point is that this sort of steering of public opinion should be illegal, in a public utility (see below)…

I am used to something paradoxical for whom has never been employed by academia (I have ONLY been employed by academia), the scholar as a thief. I was, bad luck, next to some of the greatest, most decorated thieves ever, one of them was one of my best friends (until I discoverer to my horror and depression that he was a thief… There were pages on his thievery at some point in the New York Times; not only he helped then to demolish my career, but he demolished the career of the famous G. Perelman… Perelman got the top prizes in mathematics, refused to accept them, as he said that, then, he would have to tell the truth, and the world of top math would be revealed as the BS it is. Then an angry and discouraged Perelman gave up math (contrarily to repute, math is a social activity; can’t do it when the people you talk to are, you know, thieves, among other problems…).

I had this problem with Black Holes: I suggested, long ago, that the standard reasoning was insufficient because it neglected Quantum effects (say Quark stars, etc.) Now this point of view is standard wisdom.

Thievery is a general problem in research, in a time of insufficient budgets. I have known the detailed case of junior researchers (not just yours truly) seeing their papers rejected, and then senior “peer reviewers” running away with the ideas… which they had just rejected for publication. Greed is not just a plutocratic problem, nor does plutocracy necessarily have to do with making billions. Verily, the power (kratos) of evil (Pluto) is great… especially when directed at honest to goodness thinkers.

Strange world. A tweet of mine, relating to the Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account, was also “made unavailable”. What did my tweet say? Here it is: Problem: Democrats view as too left-wing the taxes advocated by Carnegie, the USA’s first billionaire (19th Century)! Carnegie explained in detail why it was necessary to tax enormous wealth enormously. The only deep reason for taxation is to prevent hyper wealth accumulation!” https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/965670396715511809 …

Am I too left-wing for Bernie? Or, more to the point, is Carnegie now too left-wing for the Democrats and US “Socialists”? Anyway, my tweet was removed by the powers that be (such a dangerous tweet, I agree!) At least Senator Bernie Sanders just changed his position on some guns… Tweeted Bernie, 2/28/2018:

We should not be selling assault weapons in this country. These weapons are not for hunting. They are military weapons for killing human beings.” I replied @BernieSanders:

Hillary Clinton used to complain that Bernie Sanders sided with the NRA. Glad to see the clear statement against military assault weapons..(See? Even Hillary can be right sometimes…)

The Internet is big money nowadays: 73% of the advertising revenue in media goes to the duopoly of Google and Facebook (up from 63% in 2015… and 85% of the growth in said revenue). So, we have, de facto, a monopoly of two! By itself, this should impel governments to act (well, OK, they are acting by doing nothing…)

And what do many Internet agents do? Steer, censor and contrive. Indeed, neither Google nor Facebook create content, they are content to steer We The Sheeple towards their idea of decency. They are electronic leeches. 

It is clear that none of this is innocent. what is happening on the Internet is exactly, on a much grander scale, what Putin is accused of doing: a few individuals and their obsequious servants, manipulating public opinion. So what to do?


Remedy: The Notion Of Public Utility Medium:

Public utilities provide an infrastructure necessary to society. They are subject to public control, beyond that of standard private industry. In the case of media on the Internet, the infrastructure would be the most important infrastructure of all, the infrastructure of truth!

As it is, there is a serious problem. As David Chavern has it in the WSJ in “Protect the News From Google and Facebook“: “A partial exemption from antitrust laws would help publishers and readers (Feb. 25, 2018):  The news business is suffering, but not because people don’t want news. They do—more than ever. The problem is that the money generated by news audiences flows mostly to Google and Facebook , not to the reporters and publishers who produce excellent journalism… newspaper advertising revenue fell from $22 billion in 2014 to $18 billion in 2016 even as web traffic for the top 50 U.S. newspapers increased 42%.

Local news is most at risk. As print circulation declines, community news publishers have the hardest time adapting to the ever-changing demands of Facebook and Google algorithms… Tech savvy, digital-only publishers are also struggling. BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti said in December that Google and Facebook are “paying content creators far too little for the value they deliver to users,” and that “this puts high-quality creators at a financial disadvantage, and favors publishers of cheap media.”

And the Wall Street Journal to pursue:Google and Facebook have become the primary and de facto regulators of the news business, and governments around the world are starting to recognize the danger. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced earlier this month that her government would review the economics of internet news consumption. Regulators in Germany, Israel and South Korea are investigating how Google’s business practices have disrupted the media market and harmed publishers and consumers. U.S. regulators, on the other hand, have rarely looked into Google or Facebook—and never at their influence in the news marketplace.

Some voices on the left and right are calling for Google and Facebook to be regulated as utilities. But there is an easier solution: exempt news publishers from certain aspects of antitrust regulation.

U.S. antitrust laws, designed to promote fair competition and prevent consolidation, actually make it harder for traditional news outlets to compete with Silicon Valley giants. Under current law, for instance, news publishers cannot get together and agree to withhold their product unless they receive a return on their investment.”

YouTube (owned by Google) warned some accounts which had reported that the latest school mass shooting in Florida was a “hoax” and the victims were “actors”. Nice, but those sort of “fake news” are not really worse than decades of lies from the Main Stream Media. Lies, or non-saids (French magazines reports that US president Jimmy Carter started the war in Afghanistan, which killed many millions, from his own administration, were censored, so US Americans really don’t know that! By the way, my point of view that Carter, Clinton and Obama were fake, not to say evil, is spreading. In the case of Obama, that depressed me….) For Carter, July 3, 1979 attack against Afghanistan, please consider:



What to do is that there should legal recourse against any medium declared a public utility, and yet, practicing censorship:    

To become a medium of public utility, there should be, and could be, two ways:

  1. Being declared to be so, by legislative decision, and Google and Facebook, and all the major media, certainly should be.
  2. Applying to become so (for example this site would).

Any medium of public utility would have to satisfy some requirements, such as trying to tell the truth when claiming to do so (poetry and fiction would be allowed, but under those labels). Public utility media would also have to avoid censorship, and be ready to justify it (that mean be ready to justify when censorship is applied; for example, the NYT would be required to justify why it censored me systematically when I comment Krugman’s posts…)

More than a decade ago, a philosophy site banned me for life for “fantastic logic” and stealing (from myself) my own (!) intellectual property (which I had made the mistake to put on their site as comments; so they viewed my ideas as their own thereafter, and forbid me to publish said ideas of mine on my old, Tyranosopher, site…) Ridiculous, but at least they provided some reason (last year I learned that the main, very famous philosopher behind that site, an old enemy of mine, called Searle, has been accused of sexual harassment by many girls and women, and was suspended from his prestigious university position; that didn’t surprise me, as I considered him a thief already… Sexual harassment is a form of thievery, and assault.)

When a medium is unwilling to give any reason for the censorship it applies, it should not be given the privileges associated to journalism, the respect of implied scholarship, nor the prestigious aura of “public utility”.  

Your devoted servant, glad to be, hopefully, of some public use,

Patrice Aymé

WHAT IS IT, TO KNOW? Does the Unconscious Know? Yes! What’s the Unconscious Anyway? WE FEEL, THEREFORE WE THINK

February 25, 2018

Being conscious doesn’t mean one is conscious of being conscious. Thinking is, first of all, an emotion! A set of emotions! An avalanche of emotions! Nor does knowing require that one knows one is knowing!

Suppose I am outside, and a terrible black cloud appears, and grows, and grows, towering ever more, and obscurity in the distance extends, ever more. Do I know something bad is about to happen? That’s a good guess! So I do know something, even though it’s nothing precise, or certain. But what are we sure of, in this world, besides death and taxes? We know that there is a probability that, this is all we know for sure… Just like in Quantum Mechanics! Probabilistic knowledge! Determinism was an illusion! When we know, we know, sort of. We were doing Quantum Mechanics all along, like Mr. Jourdain was doing prose, all along, and we didn’t know it!

Indeed, what is it, to know?

As I contemplate doom and gloom in the distance, this ominous cloud blossoming, occulting everything, I certainly start to feel, in my heart of hearts, that something terrible may happen. My emotional system knows something dreadful seems to be coming my way, but does that mean I “know” it? Some will say that sort of knowledge is not really knowledge. It amounts to nothing. However, emotions, e-motions are what makes people move, they move not just bodies, but reason itself. Yet, I sure know enough to be overwhelmed by a feeling of doom and gloom. That, in turn, will motivate me to look for a house, a cave, or barring those, some thick trees, a burrow, a trench…

Or look at the same sort of situation on a shorter timescale: suppose an avalanche or a predator, or a snake suddenly becomes apparent. My emotions know, and my brain will react, before I can describe the situation in words. The delay can be considerable, as all brain resources can be mobilized in desperate avoidance maneuvers, depriving the rest of this noble organ from any capability.


No time to think one is thinking! Too busy thinking! When does the adventurer know that he is in deep trouble? When he starts skiing funny? Of course. His brain got flooded by one emotion: AVALANCHE! At that point his consciousness became a slave to survival, as directed by a brain in full survival mode. Notice that he tries to stay on his feet, as long as he can, and gain speed over the avalanche itself, by heading straight down with a leftward angle, probably as his brain perceived, or established that the maximum development of the avalanche was maximum centrally, and to the right. Navarro (that’s his name) knew there was a cameraman to the left, and, although he had an anti-avalanche airbag, it made sense to get out of most of thick of the thousands of tons of snow roaring down.


Don’t smirk. Nowadays there are devices called avalanche bags. They are carried in special backpacks. When a backcountry skier is caught in an avalanche, the skier is supposed to pull on a cord. That activates the filling of a huge bag which then makes the skier ride down the avalanche like a bobbing cork, as the ensemble of skier plus airbag is lighter than the raging snow rushing down. It works very well… except that many skiers don’t deploy the bag! Why? My theory: their brains are too busy doing other things, to think about deploying the airbag. They just forget about it, too busy their brains being at saving their lives! Another name for it, some will say, is: panic. This is why armies drill troops as much as they do: they hardwire the behavior.

I have direct experiences of this sort of situations, as I love the outdoors a little bit too much. That includes two avalanches, both in Chamonix, and actually only a few miles apart. There was total absence of panic. When what looked as much of the spectacular peak of the Drus, the second most famous mountain in Chamonix, was falling towards me, in an ice funnel a mile high, I was certain that I was going to die, what did my brain do? Howl to heavens about the unfairness of it all? It was too busy to be panicked.

So the situation is a bit like this, in the case of ultimate peril: OK, this is death, incoming. However, panicking is not the subject at hand. The only reasonable thing to do, the only possibility, is to run across that ice couloir, towards that smooth and vertical, granite wall, 15 meters away. No alternative.

The brain is conditioned to do what needs to be done, even if completely hopeless. Because what is hopeless and fruitless for the individual is an investment and fruitful for the species. Indeed:


What is the evolutionary root of this?

Insuring the survival of the species is why and how it evolved. Suppose you are prehistoric man, confronting ten famished saber tooth lions, one hundred meters from your cave, and you have no weapon. What to do? There is no hope, you are saber tooth lion dinner, so put the hope of survival aside. Your survival doesn’t matter, but that doesn’t mean your life’s mission is finished. You can still fight ferociously, for goodness. Prehistoric man’s brain will then try to gouge a lion’s eye. Thus exacting a heavy price on the saber tooth lion species. Your vengeful sacrifice will help those in the cave, your family, tribe and friends, to survive. Actually, the lions know this, all clever predators know this, and they are leery to attack you: clever predators know enough rudiments of human psychology, they know enough of the human spirit, to know that, even cornered and weapon-less, a prehistoric man will fight to death, and exact a heavy price. So they may even leave you alone, and go for simpler prey.

(By the way, during World War Two, many populations, especially the Norwegian, the Poles, the French, the Yugoslavs, and Soviet resistance, exhibited this behavior, of suicidal, vengeful killing of Nazis, no matter what. The Nazis had not expected this, maybe because they were, as fully trained fascists, too much into obedience. This had decisive strategic consequences, fully in evidence during terminally ferocious battles in the Fall of 1941, including the Battle of Moscow, Bir Hakeim (when 3,000 French prevented the Afrika Korps to encircle the British Army), Stalingrad, and the exploits of various resistance: more than 7,000 Nazi trains were attacked, crossing Poland,  and the French resistance made the difference between success and defeat after D Day… As crack Nazi divisions, such as SS Das Reich, took three weeks to crawl to Normandy, instead of the expected three days.)

This inter-specific psychological interactions between beast and human consciousness can still be observed today. When weaponless Maasai confront real lions in Africa nowadays, the lions will typically behave like beaten dogs, respecting the human so much, they will do something else, like take a hike: the Maasai use this knowledge of leonid minds on a regular basis. And reciprocally. A Maasai alone with a stick will keep a lion pride at bay, just from the respect he inspires… I have myself engaged in this behavior, even as a child, and without a stick… 

So what is it, to think? Not necessarily to get discursive about it. The logos is a form of thinking, most accomplished (a particular case of the logos is the traditional concept of reason). However the general case is rather: “I FEEL, THEREFORE I THINK!

This is a vast generalization and a deepening of ancient trains of thought. For example, in “A Treatise of Human Nature” (1738), David Hume observed that: “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

What I add is that much, and sometimes most thinking, even occasionally nearly all of it, is itself removed from discursive consciousness. This is what happens in dreams. It is also what happens, at least partly in accidents. Victims often don’t remember the accident itself. The usual explanation is that the short term memory circuits had their power cut down, as it is directed somewhere else in the brain. But I would go further: the entire machinery of the usual form of consciousness is useless, and shut down!

All this as a preliminary to, and a consequence of a question in Quora:

Quora asked: At what point did German Commanders realize the war (WWII) was lost for Germany?

Predictably someone whined that the question was poorly posed: it lacked precision, and my iconoclast answer, was even worse (shortly after writing it, that someone realized that I used a generalization of the notion of knowledge, thus he deleted his full page of objection! Too bad, it was a good example of much that was wrong in conventional epistemology…)

I gave my own answer (and will reproduce it here soon): on September 3, 1939, the top Nazis got that ominous feeling, that dreadful sensation, that they abominable show was over: the French Republic had declared war, British poodle in tow (the UK’s war declaration preceded the French one by minutes, but 95% of the forces were French, and it was France which was bound to receive the brunt of the fighting).

So, in their hearts of hearts, the Nazis knew they were done: their probability to vanquished the combined might of the French and British empires was close to zero, especially in light of the fact that Nazi survival depended entirely upon the ongoing goodwill of the USA relative to Nazism… keeping in mind that the US was the Franco-British own personal offspring, the world’s mightiest brat.

However just like someone caught in an avalanche, the Nazis couldn’t stop, they couldn’t dare to put it in words. Instead, instead of renegading on what they were, instead of evolving out of their neurological dead-end, instead of making a logos out of it, the Nazis opted for neurological laziness, doing more of what they had built themselves to be, clinging to that old human instinct to deal with ultimate situations: great vengeance! Thus the Nazis subconsciously decided to extract a heavy price for having been so savagely interrupted in their robust, yet semi-peaceful (the way they saw it), takeover of the world, or, at least, Eastern Europe, by the Great German Reich… (Just as the 1935 UK-Hitler “Naval” Treaty had envisioned…)

Thus we have here a spectacular explanation for the thoroughly imbecile, self-defeating, mass criminal behavior of the Nazis in World War Two… It was deliberate. Not because the Nazis were trying to win, but because the Nazis knew that they had lost (to start with!)

Great vengeance is an evolutionary adaptation which has insured the survival of the species, by teaching the rest of the brainy biosphere, that human principles rule.

However, great vengeance can be diverted from its laudable evolutionary reason, and that’s a warning: it means irrationality can have the deepest cause

Be conscious, and worry, that consciousness is conscious of  what can’t even be put in words.

Patrice Aymé

February 24, 2018