Some Stupidities Which Rule


(A Week In The History Of Ideas And Stupidities.)


Abstract: The American People is manipulated into despising France and loving guns. Another two cognitive strategies contrived by plutocracy to capture not just hearts and minds, but shrivel them into the hellish context, impotence and mental retardation, that evil and wealth are made to dominate. Comparing with the reality of history and what is happening in Tunisia, helps to put this sort of mental conspiracy into perspective… and suggests that awareness itself would be most of the needed remedy.



Nice philosophy from Barack Obama in Arizona during the memorial for the latest senseless shooting there. "We should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations." He said even better than that

Obama has to be extremely careful. He could not talk about handguns directly, and why selling them freely ought to be outlawed. If he had, he would have been called a progressive, a socialist, or, may be the right wing nuts would have hurled against him the worst insult they know, and call him French. So Obama has to go around, and from behind, by resetting the basic emotionality of the USA, which is not working right. And he did an excellent job as father of the nation, a role that no American president has done well since Kennedy.

Obama caused already great turmoil this week for saying an obvious truth that American plutocracy hates. Said Obama: “We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.” (I removed the bold on Sarkozy, because Sarkozy, in this context, is only a detail of history.)

More pro-American than Sarkozy, indeed, is hard to do. Except for myself and I, your humble servant, of course. But there are several versions of America; just ask Abe Lincoln.

This is an essay about guns in the USA, however it relates to the super rich, the plutocracy, and the frantic anti-French propaganda of the media of the USA. These are all aspects of the same system of thought, or, shall we say, exploitation.



The anti-French mood in the USA uses continual misinformation that stops nowhere, and apparently all Americans are asked to memorize. Here is, during the last week, in what passes as serious commentary, Argus Hamilton, the host comedian at The Comedy Store in Hollywood. He dissembled ( a form of lying) thus:"Barack Obama angered people in both Britain and the U.S. Wednesday when he told Nicolas Sarkozy that the U.S. has no better friend than France. Britain fights with us in Afghanistan but France needs our help with their food prices. The reason Obama`s a Democrat is because he only likes people who need, not people who fight."

Thunders "The Telegraph", apparently consumed by the anxiety that London will not be chosen to make Wall Street’s dirty work anymore: “To suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is simply ludicrous.” Right, London helped to refurbish the White House by burning it to an empty shell in 1814. And London boosted further the American GDP by rampaging around the USA during the war of 1812-1815. Is that why it’s called the "Special Relationship"? And more special than France’s? As I said, the specialitude, not to say speciousness of the relationship, has more to do with Wall Street, and its conspiracies. Example: AIG (American International Group) went to London to lose 182 billions of US taxpayer money, because it was an ocean away from the SEC of the USA.

“The Telegraph” is distorting what Obama was saying, and ought to know better, because France and Britain are unifying militarily, creating what is clearly a military superpower. And by the way, French GDP and population are bigger than Britain.

Now to answer vaguely the other fool, who represents some of the latest anti-French buzz. Food prices? France? France is the second agricultural exporter in the world. (With roughly two-thirds of the total revenue in agricultural exports of the USA.) In spite of a significantly overvalued currency.

France? Not fighting? Is it not that cute… Is not that cutely insolent: the French are crazed rugby players. Rugby is the original, hard root of that soft degeneracy known as American football. Rugby is played without all these artificial gimmicks and aids such as helmets, comfort pads, steroids, and constant suspensions to play commercials, so that the plutocrats can entice the People to give them more money. Equipment for American football does not serve ice cream and French fries yet, to be even more fat and comfortable, but it’s coming. that would allow to take even longer commercial breaks to serve Mammon

Average Americans, who have studied all too little history at school, and do not know that France is engaged in heavy fighting against Salafists in more countries than the USA, as we speak, and has done so for decades (France and the USA cooperate in several of these, not even discreetly) like to say this sort of things. Why? Because they are paid to, if they are part of the media, it’s as simple as that, and the people who pay them are the same that make propaganda for guns… or financial derivatives, or banks.



Hating France is of the utmost importance to the plutocracy of the USA. Even loving guns pale in insignificance. The war against the fellow republic, has to lay heavily on all American minds, lest they notice that some things, are done better there, precisely because the search for financial profit, at all cost, is kept away, sometimes.

To call the French non combative, is beyond grotesque. The French are so combative, they made the Nazis look like cows trembling with bovine encephalitis. France declared war to the Nazis, after all. However, one can sometimes get too aggressive for one’s comfort.

French aggressivity was very well known to Hitler (all his comrades had died at French hands in WWI). Astutely, Hitler attacked the neutral Netherlands to exploit that French characteristic. Hitler correctly guessed that the Dutch would whine to high heavens, and beg the French to come to rescue them from the big bad Nazis. There Hitler would set his trap for the overconfident, romantic French, dashing in shining, formidable armor, in the best tradition of Agincourt. (Amusingly, the stupid overconfidence of French knights charging English archers in the mud during the Middle Ages is well known. But what happened in May 1940, when the French charged into the Netherlands with their armored reserve, was a much greater battle, the stupidity was infinitely greater, and the consequences were much more astronomically catastrophic: 50 million dead. At least. The holocaust of WWII would not have happened if the French had kept their mobile armored reserve, in reserve. But French armor was superior in quality and quantity to Nazi armor, that was happened was never considered possible. And it was precisely knowing all this, and that his situation was desperate to start with, that Hitler, used as he was to bar fighting and street fighting, let alone years in the trenches of WWI, devised his far-fetched strategy.

Moved to the core by Dutch wailing, in one the most absurd feats of military history, the French high Command threw their rapid deployment force of seven armored divisions, the French reserve, the Seventh French army, to link with the Dutch, who had already retreated when it got there, and without air support. Tanks, at the time, could not go back and forth 800 kilometers in 3 days, and the French reserve got destroyed.

Several things: 1) Hitler could be a good psychologist, and he ascertained well the French character. 2) The move was so stupid that a trial of high treason of the French high Command was undertaken (under the occupation!). 3) The Nazis had only ten armored divisions. If the seventh army had been kept in reserve, it would have cut the Nazis from behind. De Gaulle with just one heavy armored division, the Quatrieme Division Cuirassee, half cut the Nazis’sickle thrust , and nearly killed their generals. 4) The French love to go in the streets to fight their government, just for fun, and to insure that free speech is alive and well. Reciprocally, how supine are those who never protest?



Of course France has been in Afghanistan since day one. Out of 26 allies fighting with the USA there which suffered fatalities, France is in third position in the number of soldiers killed. For Americans who think not enough French soldiers are getting killed in Afghanistan, they should realize that France has been fighting terrorists in the many countries of the Sahel and Sahara, non-stop, for decades, something Canada and Britain do not do.

Anybody who has studied a bit of world history knows that no country has a more aggressive military past than France. None. Even Rome pales in comparison. The Franks sent spies as soon as Muhammad became prominent, and tricked the invading Muslim army at Toulouse in 721 CE, inflicting Islam its first disaster in a land battle. And it was a terrible disaster. It would take 11 years for the Arab Caliphate to try again. It was just as disastrous (Poitier, 732).

Just last week in Niger an al Qaeda commando captured two young Frenchmen in the middle of the capital of Niger. French planes tracked the Al Qaeda’s SUV convoy, and French special forces attacked in Mali, killing many terrorists, capturing others (the hostages were assassinated at some point to be determined). Among those the French caught were some army personnel of a pretended ally…

French aggressivity is not restricted to the military domain. The intellect and romance are preferred fields of combat, and even the abominable Napoleon thought he had to demonstrate his superiority in these domains. In many ways the French and the Americans are very similar, and it is not by accident.


The relationship between France and the USA is unique, because without France, there would have been very probably no successful American "revolution", and, perhaps, without the creation of the USA, no French revolution. They are co-dependent in rebellion.

Naturally, the relationship is much deeper than that, because France and the USA (and also Britain) are all successor regimes of the empire of the Franks. This is not just an historical fact, but a set philosophical initial conditions. There were several important philosophical differences between Franks and Romans. Basically the Franks re-established sanity, and humanity, while grabbing from rome what they viewed as superior (they started with the law, written in Latin, and the next acquisition was… fascism).

The Franks loved riches and capital, but spread it around. They esteemed Jesus, but had a definitively secular approach to god. Told how Jesus suffered death on the cross, Clovis grasped his double headed battle-ax fiercely and exclaimed: "If I had been there with my Franks I would have avenged him!" They forced the Catholics to accept schooling as their mission, and Jews and Muslim (civilians) as their brothers.

A giant philosophical difference between the Franks and the Greco-Romans was slavery. Outlawing slavery forced the Franks to establish a socio-economy that entangled progress, technology, and fostering human rights in a non self contradictory way.

All of this rested on an amazing aggressivity which extended to Frankish clothing, multicolored and flamboyant.

Differently from the Romans, who could not handle the Germans alone, the Franks around the Tenth Century beat back simultaneous invasions by Viking, Danes, Mongols and Muslims. The Scandinavians were submitted and integrated, the Muslims thrown out of Rome. And Hungary was conquered again (next time the Mongols invaded it, in the 13C, their loses were such that they then wisely decided to ally with the Franks).

In any case, the Franks decided to reconquer the Roman empire, invaded as it had been by the followers of Sarah ("Sarasins"). After a little, but more profitable diversion, founding new Europes all over the planet, the mopping up of the degenerated, long suffering half of the Roman empire is now back on the front burner. Any questions about lack of aggressivity?



Even before France officially declared war to Britain, more than 90% of American cartridges were made in France, and even before that French agents had pushed Americans to sedition. At the time France was a super power, 11 times the population of 2.5 million English American colony.

The hyper costly American war of liberation broke French finances, to the point the American war budget was hidden in secret books, as it caused a super giant deficit.

Why was the France of Louis XVI so pro-American? Well, there was a whole mystique about the New World in France, in more ways than one. Losing Canada, and the freedom it breathed of, had been bitter. The enlightenment needed an outlet, and a world had been stolen.

Louis XVI was a study in contrasts. Louis was very much pro-enlightenment, pro-science, pro-progress, and also personally courageous. An idealist. Not only did he chose state of the art philosophers as top ministers, but he pushed the American liberation project beyond the reasonable. It could be said, in a way, that the greatest revolutionary of the time was Louis XVI himself. His reforms inside France, although attempted, came to nought, because he faltered and completely melted down each time the plutocracy gave him its marching orders (instead, a la Philippe Le Bel, or even Louis XIV, he should have sent some top plutocrats into the fire, or in prison).

Thereafter the American and French republic were completely entangled. The USA proclaimed itself a republic first. Then, in 1789, the USA wrote down a Constitution, and France decided to have a revolution, so she could do the same. The two constitutions came out within weeks of each other. France was still guided by the revolutionary (as I just said, contrarily to received wisdom), Louis XVI, and would have to wait another two years before becoming a republic (after Louis, misguided by his spy of a wife, tried to jump ship)..

The French constitution was more advanced as it had the world "universal" and "human rights" in it, differently from the American constitution’s "We The People" which could be, and was given, for a while, a tribal interpretation. Thus many an American racist has hated France ever since, as she is correctly seen as the enemy of slavery and racism (many famous historical French are of mixed blood, but nobody knows anything of it, as befits a non racist country; an amusing case is Alexandre Dumas, the quintessential French writer).

But let’s go back to the gun craze in the USA, and how it connects with banksters.



All politicians have to be very careful about guns in the USA. Even talking of them is dangerous. The National Rifle association has been going around imprinting all Americans will the fabulously stupid slogan:"Guns don’t kill people, people kill people." In other words, guns are innocent, but Americans are guilty. When an American sees another American, it should start shooting, then, according to the gun lobby, and Main Stream Media in the USA, since people kill people. This is exactly what happens. Advantage? As people are busy shooting people, no shooting at the plutocracy, behind its high walls, in its distant enclaves.

What about even more stupid slogans? Idiots don’t kill guns, idiots kill with guns?

This is why Barack was celebrating the central human tenet of rising up to the expectations of children and their magic belief for goodness

Instead of condemning that an obviously deranged maniac could legally buy a European gun with 31 shots bullets’ magazine, hiding it below his clothing (just as legally). A Eurozone gun which private citizens cannot buy in the European Union. (By the way, France makes nuclear warheads, maybe they want to buy some too?)

A little grandmother grabbed the maniac’s next 31 shots magazine, when, apparently following Sarah Palin’s advice for lunatics, "not to retreat, but to reload".

In "Helpless in the Face of Madness", the NYT’s Bob Herbert made an observation that had also struck me:

"… a photo and a headline on the front page of The New York Times this week gave us some insight into just how sick our society has become. The photo showed 11-year-old Dallas Green weeping and using his left arm to wipe his eyes during the funeral for his sister, Christina-Taylor Green, who was 9 years old and was killed in the attack in Tucson that took the lives of five other people and left Representative Gabrielle Giffords gravely wounded.

Beneath the photo was the headline: “Sadness Aside, No Shift Seen On Gun Laws.”

What is the matter with us? Are we really helpless in the face of the astounding toll that guns take on this society? More than 30,000 people die from gunfire every year. Another 66,000 or so are wounded, which means that nearly 100,000 men, women and children are shot in the United States annually. Have we really become so impotent as a society, so pathetically fearful in the face of the extremists, that we can’t even take the most modest of steps to begin curbing this horror?

Where is the leadership? We know who’s on the side of the gun crazies. Where is the leadership on the side of sanity?

For starters, assault weapons should be banned. Their raison d’être is to kill the maximum number of people — people, not animals — in the shortest amount of time."

Similarly the Euro-American magazine, "The Economist" made its cover, and leading editorial on the gun problem in the USA. It noticed gun control was going in the wrong direction, that 31 shots magazine were unlawful until very recently, etc. The Supreme Court decided in 2010 that cities did not have the right to make anti-gun-to-kill-people laws, etc… We may have to wait for another maniac to shoot the entire Supreme Court, before it changes its mind.

What is the matter? Why so much regression? Why, whereas the rest of the world progress enthusiastically, do the USA regress rabidly? Is it because Fox News, the hyper powerful TV channel, has turned "progressive" into the worst word in American English? (The talking heads at Fox have campaigned against "progressive" for years, mentioning the word in derogatory contexts at least 100 times a day, as if it was part of their lucrative contract with Murderoch the Great).

Herbert and "The Economist" do not explain what the mechanism of American regression could be. So I sent a version of the following to the NYT, which had the kindness to publish it:



Societies drifting into insanity are not infrequent in history, especially when they think obsessively of themselves as "exceptional". (Not believing in American exceptionalism is akin to an un-American activity in the USA.)

A century ago, we had the plutocracy known as the "Second German empire" drifting that way. Germany had the fastest growing economy, the biggest army, the biggest population, the highest literacy, etc.

What Germany did not have, though, was a minimum of introspection. After Britain massacred Boers in South Africa, it reconsidered. Why? Democratic introspection (OK, the Boers were also white…). That was helped by a free press.

However, next door, in Namibia, the German empire proceeded to effect a holocaust, as blatantly as possible, copying the methods of the Massachusetts’ colonists, 250 years earlier (paying for scalps). The broad idea, co-opted by the Nazis later, was that, if the Americans could have make holocausts work, so could the much smarter and educated Germans. (Along these lines, the "special commandos" exterminating Jews were mostly made of lawyers and PhDs.)

This, by the way, show that bad examples, and bad ideas once they have been made honorable, can be tried again under the metaprinciple that if it worked once, and was made honorable it could happen again: NOTHING IS AS MORAL AS SUCCESS. Right, But the American success with ethnic cleansing was mostly due to; 1) facing early Neolithics. 2) using immorality of such a high level that it proved unsustainable in Europe.

As the attitude relative to guns demonstrate, the incapacity to hold the most basic reasoning and to hold the standards of basic human decency is now blatant in the USA.

As it was blatant in Germany when Nietzsche flourished. Nietzsche found a few points in German popular behavior which showed him Germany had gone unhinged. Anti-Judaism, "mob mentality", "victorious" mentality, lack of refinement in thought and taste, and "incapacity to digest" contradictions, to celebrate differences, and whatever was superior were prominent German defects, of the most alarming nature according to Nietzsche. He was right: Germany was suffering moral and mental collapse, even before Hitler’s birth.

The point is this: when a country, a political class, a leader, or, for that matter an individual, go mad, it does not take too many facts, if they are crazy enough, to determine that insanity is setting in.

Fortunately, insanity in the USA has not yet reached the heights it reached in Germany before a mental Rubicon was crossed there on August 1, 1914 (although one could argue that mental Rubicon was crossed earlier in the German colony of Namibia).

The diversity of the USA has kept, so far, the madness in check (but the diversity could backfire: discrimination against Jews in Germany went up and down, before their holocaust; after WWI, the Kaiser’s "Jewish" advisers were made into scapegoats! For example if "black" Obama could be described as having failed big time, the white supremacists would come back with a vengeance, arguing that a "black" man did the worst job with America). However, the gun madness is all over the land. After the shooting in Arizona, gun sales augmented. apparently, killing a nine year old girls, the chief Federal judge and putting a bullet in the brain of representative Sarah Palin had put a rifle sight on, was excellent advertizing for the merit of guns.

Consider the stupidity of it all; the judge and the US representative boasted that they were pretty good shots. However, as Sun Tzu already said, most of the success of an attack consists into surprise. And this at a time when weapons were much less deadly than now. Nowadays, who can fire the first shot has killed. Except if all civilians, including nine year girls, are going to walk around carrying the armor of French soldiers in Afghanistan, at all times, in all places.

And you know what? This gun madness is all a red herring. The media, in the USA, is controlled by the plutocracy. So is the political leadership. The USA is not Tunisia. In Tunisia, the plutocracy did not control the media, so the dictatorial plutocracy had to close and harass the media all the time, for all to see. The media tried to say a lot that the plutocracy did not want the People to learn. But the plutocracy could not close the Internet.

In the USA the situation is different, because the plutocracy owns the media. There is no opposition, no contradiction. So all Americans know guns are good for them, a Constitutional right. never mind that the Constitution states that:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." the debate leading to the final amendment made clear that this was in the context of a military service (conscientious objectors were exempted). The National Guard is that militia.

In Pittsburgh, January 2010, a survey in urban neighborhoods found that 80% of young people knew someone who got shot. A study showed that, for three felons who avoided to commit a crime once because of a weapon, two were drawn to the challenge of confronting an armed victim. In other words, guns are criminogenic. As Wikipedia puts it: "Research and statistics have shown that guns intensify crime situations, and increase the likelihood of a more violent or lethal outcome."



So why the increase in guns, pro-gun laws, and gun propaganda? Because the media has decided so (including the notorious radio savages). In other another word; because the owners of the media , the plutocracy, want Americans to shoot each other.

There are three main reasons:

1) Justify The Private Use Of Force; That gives the plutocracy a pretext to be armed, and better. (That also means living in rich enclaves, a modern version of the castles of the Middle Ages, with private police: police, like schools, depend upon local taxes in the USA, differently from Europe.)

2) Promote Stupidity By Denying Causality; As I said in passing, the pro-handguns theoretical arsenal is incredibly stupid, self contradictory. Gabrielle Giffords boasted that she was a good shot with the Glocks gun that drove hot metal through her frontal lobe, in the direction of her speech area. Good shot? Come again? Palin, condemned by Giffords, for putting Giffords in cross hairs, now compares herself to a persecuted Jew during the depth of the European Middle Ages. Anti-Palinism as anti-Judaism.

These asinine debates may sound innocent, but, in truth, they make stupidity honorable, by having to worry decades after decades about how many ways idiots can split hair with their shaking brains. Such respect for stupidity "ought utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind" (to borrow a sentence of Nietzsche). But, in a country ruled by wealth and privilege, the higher ups want precisely to make the entire society below them as stupid as can be safely accomplished. Having unending debates about stupid things generate mental retardation, an intrinsic good in the many, for the few who dominate them. Thus, debating whether shooting guns through people save lives will be encouraged, to accompany the increasing presence of shooting metaphors, and an obsession with sport scores.

3) Shoot And Divide; As common Americans get shot by common Americans, they come to view their fellow citizens as the enemy. And thus cannot conceive of their real enemy, plutocracy, let alone organize against it. after all, the plutocracy is not shooting at them. They have no time for subtle exploitation; they have to return fire.

Release The Crazies; A related strategy was the cutting of mental health spending by Ronald Reagan. From the plutocratic point of view, that was excellent. Not only did it make society meaner, an intrinsic good, as a meaner society is friendlier to Hades. But, mostly, it augmented the shooting of innocent for not good reasons, thus increasing the general paranoia, fears, and divisions. Many of these crazies have been going around, and local authorities, who are unqualified, have been trying to detect them (which should truly be the work of police and government psychiatry).

If crazy is frequent, crazy will be viewed as normal, and that opens new possibilities to the crazed plutocracy; derivatives with your salad, anyone? And of course, whatever alienates reason is welcome.



Tunisians in revolt used solidarity networks, including on the Internet, to organize themselves against what the ambassador of the USA called "a quasi mafia" (WikiLeaks dixit). Solidarity is the key to revolution. The People is strong if, and only if, it can make one out of the many. (That was the long standing motto of the USA, before plutocracy found it dangerous to its rule, and tried to sweep it below the carpet.)

If the many are busy shooting each other, they will not stand as one. But the plutocracy, the CEO class, the hedge fund wolf packs, the banksters, stand as one. Divided the People get subjugated, idiotic the People submit. So let more bullets fly, and France get vilipended for whatever: thus the rule of Pluto hopes to proceed in the USA.

In many countries around the Middle East the plutocracy has long placed its faith in Salafist interpretations of Islam. That too allows to foster stupidity and divisiveness. Shooting those who don’t agree and calling them Al Qaeda also helps. Notice that bin Laden was on the very top of the Saudi Arabian plutocracy. Not to say that he planned it all as a deliberate agent of said plutocracy. But the rest of the Saudi Arabian plutocracy has found most convenient to justify its violent existence by calling anybody else evil. In Tunisia, Ben Ali justified its 23 year old kleptocratic dictatorship, as a rampart against Salafism, and being called Mr President by the leaders of democracies such as France and the USA. It is not just that the Ben Ali family used Tunisia as a private property. It prevented the average Tunisian to think as well as they could, wanted, and should. Not just for Tunisia’s sake, but for the sake of the entire planet.

And now to reiterate one of our little refrains. We need brains, ever more brains, as the world tumbles towards various catastrophes never heard of before. Otherwise said, we need full democracy. Plutocracy fosters stupidity, ignorance and erroneous logic, getting rid of it, worldwide, so we can think better, will be the essence of survival.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: ,

4 Responses to “Some Stupidities Which Rule”

  1. Christian Molina Says:

    This meant that where the regime was most powerful was the unoccupied southern where its administrative centre of was located..Petain and the Vichy Regime willfully with the German occupation to a high degree. He set up a paternalistic semi-fascist regime that actively collaborated with Germany its official neutrality notwithstanding. .Personal flag of Philippe Petain of Vichy France Chef de lEtat Francais …It is a common misconception that the Vichy Regime administered only the unoccupied zone of southern France named free zone zone libre by Vichy while the Germans directly administered the occupied zone.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Christian: With all due respect, all what YOU are saying are common misconceptions. To think for a moment that Petain was not at the mercy of the Nazis is beyond naive. Indeed, Petain claimed to be “chief”, because he was not. To speak of “willfull” collaboration of Vichy is like talking of sheep willfully collaborating with wolves, just because they go where the wolves want them to, and then give their blood…
      The whole debate is off base. Real question is why did Washington recognize Vichy as a legitimate power? Washington was not controlled by Nazis. Or was it? Seriously: Washington did not have a gun held at its head. France did. Hitler’s plan, all along, was to annihilate France (he was very clear about that).

      I am no friend of Vichy: it was a fascist organization. But Vichy came up, in great part, because of the attitude of the USA in June 1940. The USA did not want France to keep on fighting (differently from Britain, of course). France was a big modern country. To keep on going, to feed people, workers, administrators throughout the country had to do a modicum of co-working (co-laborating) with the Nazi occupiers. Otherwise they were deported.

      BTW, when my family was hunted by the fascists, in the southern city of Grenoble, it was hunted by the German Gestapo, not Vichy “collaborators” (my Mom was saved by US GIs).

      Last point: France had 41 million people in 1914, and less than that in 1945. The deficiency number is around 6 millions. In other words, metropolitan France lost nearly 15% of its potential population in 1914-1945). Poland has used a similar reasoning to tell Germany to give them more weight in the European Union (Poland lost 6 million in 1939-1945, due to Nazi aggression and attempted extermination).

      And the losses in the French empire (half my family was form there), were just as staggering.


  2. Dennis Says:

    Thanks for your interesting commentary and historical perspective. I always look for your comments at PK’s blog. This article made me think of you:


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dennis:
      Thank you very much for the compliment, I will work even harder. Thanks for the srticle about combining NASA’s Shuttle booster with the Ariane V’s main engine. An excellent idea, indeed. In general, as you no doubt know, I am for maximizing the cooperation between the USA and the EU (and even Russia), and especially in military matters. To start with, it would save a huge amount of money. It would also improve quality.

      For example, I have extremely strong doubt about the F22/F35 approach to aerial defense. The European approach (faster fighters fighting with extremely fast long range missiles) seems much smarter… Especially when combined with active stealth as in the Rafale. Passive stealth can be detected… all war planes have been more or less stealth since radar appeared, as anti radar paint also appeared.

      On another good note, France and the USA just signed a space monitoring treaty, even before the USA signed with Canada (they have one with Australia)…

      We all have now a common enemy, and it’s called overstressing the Earth. We need much more research and development, but the money can only be found in programs which are wars by other means (such as some agricultural price supports; corn for cars), or of course the fractional reserve money creation system, and other plutocratic activities…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: