Derangement Of The Weak


Kissinger, Or Why Fascism Is So Tough, It Survives Holocausts.


Abstract: The notorious Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State of Nixon, and Chinese contractor, has always supported notions which happened to have given birth to Nazism. This is counter-intuitive, since Kissinger, an “Untermensch”, had to flee Nazi Germany at the age of 15.

Is he still trying to please his masters? I enquire, and use the occasion to explore how fascism, nihilism and plutocracy interconnect. From the empire of the Rising Sun, to the empire of the Burning Book. So on to the derangements of the week, to see how they connect to those of the past, and those of the weak.


It is fascinating that so many who were victimized by Nazism learned nothing important. Or learned that it was important to keep on serving the same masters. Victims tend to reproduce what they know, and they know what they experienced. They become their own executioners. Thus the reproduction of persecution, and the incapacity to understand where the problem comes from. Abuse breeds abuse.

Henri Kissinger stays a work of art that way. I am not alluding here to The Trial of Henry Kissinger, where Christopher Hitchens calls for the prosecution of Kissinger. “For war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.”

Kissinger just wrote a review of a book on Bismarck. The title of Kissinger’s review says it all: “Otto von Bismarck, Master Statesman“. What Kissinger forgot to mention is that Bismarck, a red haired giant, was, by virtue of his leadership of a legally anti-Jewish state, the master of the Jews. Bismarck also planned wars of annihilation.

 In “Bismarck, A Life”, Steinberg argues that Bismarck fostered a Prussian dominated civilization, enmity, an aggressive Reich, an antagonistic Europe, and eventually a world war. This is the very least that one can assert, and it is nothing that genuine anti-fascists don’t already know.

Fascism is an instinct that does with anything in the way of obeying the leader. That is both its definition, and its reason for being. The leader can be one man, or one idea, or best, an union of both. Fascism is precious in combat, but leads to weak, deranged minds in civil society.

In October 1943, an American task force bombarded Wake Island, which had been conquered by the Japanese army in 1941, and was under Japanese occupation. American civilians and POWs were gathered on a beach, shot, and finished with bayonets. This was done with military precision, under direct order and presence of the top Japanese commander on Wake. The commander, Shigematsu Sakaibara, was promoted to Rear Admiral a year later. Hanged in 1947, as a war criminal, he maintained to the bitter end that: “I think my trial was entirely unfair and the proceeding unfair, and the sentence too harsh, but I obey with pleasure.” In other words, he had learned nothing.

Why so nasty? Why violating so much the laws of the Western warriors? Well, the Japanese had to manage their western weapons in western ways, and learns bits of western science to do so, but, for the rest, they were all Japanese, Bushido style. Killing Americans quickly instead of torturing them to death slowly was a favor.

The first time the Japs had tried to conquer Wake, the US Marines had repelled them. A grave insult. Several Japanese ships were damaged, two destroyers were sunk with all hands, after their ammunition stores ignited, and exploded (in one case from shore battery action, the other from a bomb dropped by one of two remaining Wildcat fighter-bombers). Days after Pearl Harbor, an impressive American victory by a handful of Marines, already predicted an ominous dusk for the Empire of the Rising Sun.

1,200 other POWs from Wake were sent to camps. Some were picked up, brought up to the deck of the ship, and beheaded. Why? They had been associated to the US fliers, who with their four planes, had struck such an incomprehensible blow to the invincible imperial army in its the first attempt to conquer Wake Island.

Of course, as I use the word “Jap”, an historical abbreviation, all what the superficial ones will see is that word, instead of analyzing the facts. Abbreviations may be insulting, but they are not living in the same conceptual space as murder. I have met people who called me “Pat”, just after encountering me for the first (and last) time. Maybe they could not find enough energy to pronounce my full name? In any case, I did not confuse this lack of education with an attempt to murder me. American POWs were murdered at Wake.

In Afghanistan, 20 UN workers were assassinated, in one day because an enraged mob was incensed. Someone burned somewhere far away, they heard, a book of superstition to which they attach greater importance than to life itself. Intellectual fascism at its best: there is no thought, but what is in one book, and stupidity is its prophet. Attaching more importance to a superstition than to life itself is the concept that their masters (Taliban, tribal leaders, local potentates, and the Pakistani intelligence, the ISI) have ordered their underlings to emphasize.

It does come not to their simplistic minds that a god that weak, that the slightest insult makes it welters, ought not to be revered. The fascist mind is not just all one way, it is pretty stupid out of that.

Something similar happened a few years ago, in Benghazi, Libya. A mob got enraged about cartoons depicting abbreviations, or interpretations of Mahomet’s nature. People died. Qaddafi’s troops “re-established” order, by killing more people. Bottom line: believing fanatically allows masters to kill whoever they wanted to kill all along. As the Muslim Brotherhood allies itself to the army in Egypt, expects more of this, on a larger scale, after conducting elections, Iranian style. And Turkey is going down the same road. Hence another interest of the demonstration of pro-democratic Western inspired force in Libya (with cooperation of Qatar and UAE!)

Similarly the war criminals at Wake island who assassinated the innocent civilian contractors believed in superstition too. Bushido was a superstition to which they had been imprinted to attach more importance than to life itself. Especially the life of others. Same idea as in Afghanistan.

A Japanese proverb was impressed onto soldiers when the fascists at the head of the Japanese military were expanding their empire throughout South East Asia:”Life is light as a feather, duty is heavy as a mountain.” Such an idea does not stay just on paper.

Such an idea establishes neurological connections. If you have to do your duty, you can’t escape. However, if you have to give your life, or terminate the lives of others, it’s easy. Life is cheap, fascism is all (as found in a literal interpretation of the Qur’an).

In the West it is the law which embodies duty (on a good day). And the (Roman, republican, secular) law was built around the sanctity of life and property, and equality of all for the law (“isonomy“). The tradition of that state of law, was so ingrained that even the emperor Justinian separated secular law from religious law (sixth century).

Such civilizational wisdom is not pervading Egypt yet. The Grand Pope of Islam in Cairo (OK, it’s called a “Grand Mufti”) issued a proclamation in the New York Times claiming that “There is no contradiction between Article 2 and Article 7 of Egypt’s interim Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship before the law regardless of religion, race or creed.”

Article 2 of the Egyptian constitution: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

Fascism at its best. Sharia does not recognize isonomy. Arabic was the language of some terrorizing religious invaders, who replaced, displaced and eradicated the world’s oldest language, Egyptian, known also as Coptic. More than 45 centuries of history were extinguished by “sand dwellers” (as the real Egyptians called the aggressive nomads of the desert).

It is always eerie to listen to Japanese fighter pilots who escorted kamikaze attacks. Now wrinkled and white haired, they have completely changed from what they used to be. Why? Because they have other values, and those values built them another brain. Neurological readjustment can be very fast perceptually, so we suspect it can be also fast and thorough conceptually. There is evidence for a neurological change ordered from the top at the end of WWII, by the Japanese leadership. First they made them fascist, then they told them they were sheep, and ordered them to bleat.

At the end of the war, the Japanese Navy conducted a suicide mission. The giant battleship Yamato and its escorts were supposed to charge the US Navy armada assaulting Okinawa. However the sailors were told that, should their ship sink, they had to fight for their lives, because they would be more useful alive, to rebuild Japan afterwards. That order was interfering with Bushido, the way of the warrior.

Shockingly, contradicting Bushido made Japanese warriors into despised American surrendering hamburger eating monkeys. This was an important conceptual change, from fighting to death for and against the end of the world, to helping to clean the mess in the kitchen.

Weeks later, the emperor Hirohito ordered a full perceptual and conceptual switch. As he put it in the “Jewel Voice Speech” in which he surrendered Japan: “However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable.”

Learning to endure what used to be endurable, learning to suffer what used to be insufferable. Afterwards the Japanese were nice like lambs. They had been ordered out, yanked out of fascism. They were ordered to get different brains.

Fascism is really a mental mode. And the Germans did it as well as the Japanese, if not better. When the war was already completely lost, the Nazis decided to call onto suicide pilots. The idea was to ram enemy bombers with Me 109s (the standard Nazi fighter). At this late hour, when Germany was in smoldering ruins, there were 2,000 volunteers. On the order of Adolf Hitler, the plan was carried out on April 7, 1945, three weeks before Hitler’s suicide.

Less well known, the Nazis had broken through French fortifications in May 1940, thanks to suicidal charges by explosive carrying engineers. Nazism was a superstition to which they had been imprinted to attach more importance than to life itself.

This willingness to sacrifice the best and the brightest fascists explain that later, both the Germans and the Japanese had run out of competent warriors. In particular they had run out of trained pilots. It would take just a week to form a kamikaze, whereas it takes many years to form a good fighter pilot. The good Japanese fighter pilots were at the bottom of the ocean. The Nazis built 2,000 superlative jet interceptors, the Me 262, but, by 1945, had nobody left to fly them competently.

How does my obsession with fascism connects with the obsession Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and various minnows of the absurd had for nihilism? Very simple: the strength of fascism is annihilation. Nihilism is what fascism does. Fascism is a mental state where the entire mind has become slave to the will to annihilate. Thus fascism implements nihilism, and is the master state. Condemning nihilism, as Nietzsche did is not enough. So Nietzsche also condemned emotional and logical states that led to nihilism. But they all come from one root, the will, or acceptance, to order one’s mind behind all too few ideas and emotions, which I call intellectual fascism.

How does Henri Kissinger’s somewhat deranged commentary on Bismarck fit in all this? Here is its conclusion:

“I must register two caveats. Steinberg’s hostility toward Bismarck’s personality sometimes causes him to overemphasize personal traits at the expense of his strategic concepts, which were usually quite brilliant. The second caveat concerns the direct line Steinberg draws from Bismarck to Hitler. Bismarck was a rationalist, Hitler a romantic nihilist. Bismarck’s essence was his sense of limits and equilibrium; Hitler’s was the absence of measure and rejection of restraint. The idea of conquering Europe would never have come to Bismarck; it was always part of Hitler’s vision. Hitler could never have pronounced Bismarck’s famous dictum that statesmanship consisted of listening carefully to the footsteps of God through history and walking with him a few steps of the way. Hitler left a vacuum. Bismarck left a state strong enough to overcome two catastrophic defeats as well as a legacy of unassimilable greatness.”


Bismarck: A legacy of greatness propelled by bribes and threats. And also propelled by fear and lack of love. Full grown men, such as his doctor, had to hold Bismarck’s hand through the night, so that he could sleep. How strong is that?

Funny, this love of Kissinger for Bismarck, because Kissinger’s Jewish family had to flee anti-Jewish Germany.

There were horribly anti-Jewish laws and practices under Bismarck (who was Chancellor of Germany 28 years). Not just this. Bismarck announced his “colonial” policy: “My African colonies will be in Europe“. So much for not wanting to conquer Europe. In truth, Bismarck’s main effort was to have Prussia conquer Europe (Hitler wanted even more, including redoing the genetics of man, true, but no excuse!)

It is well known that Bismarck fixed extravagant reparations on France, after grabbing two highly industrialized provinces of France. Bismarck’s hope, which he stated explicitly, was that France could not pay, and then the “Deutsches Reich” would have a casus belli to finish her off. (But, thanks in part to her colonies, the French republic was able to pay, to Bismarck’s chagrin.)

Of course, for someone such as Kissinger, France does not count. It is still the hereditary enemy, as it was to Bismarck, Von Molkte, Kaiser Wilhem II, and Hitler. Kissinger knows that those who pay his bills view France as a very bad example to the American people. Thus France ought to be belittled, or ignored at the first occasion, and the one after that. But France was actually the centerpiece of German and Prussian fascists for 140 years. They wanted to crush it, because it embodied democracy, and they wanted fascism, so that they could play in their vast Prussian estates, while keeping in line the Jewish and Polish subhumans out there.

The “Deutsches Reich” was proclaimed in occupied Versailles. clip_image002[5]


Die Proklamation des Deutschen Kaiserreiches by Anton von Werner (1877) (18 January 1871, Palais de Versailles). At the point of civilization…

Left to right, on the podium (in black): Crown Prince Frederick (later Frederick III), his father Emperor William I, and Frederick I of Baden, proposing a toast to the new emperor.
Center (in white): Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, right of him, in front,
Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, Prussian Chief of Staff.


Germany was made by Bismarck into a tough plutocratic-military dictatorship. To blunt democratic aspirations, and envy for the French republic, while he took control of dozens of German states, Bismarck made his Reich look superficially like a constitutional monarchy such as Great Britain, Belgium, or Italy. So he installed a national assembly (“Reichstag”). Bismarck (like Hitler later) could take some good decisions were taken, such as universal health care, and universal vote of men for the Reichstag. But it is not because the arsenic cake tastes good that it is any less poisonous.

Bismarck, only an angry lawyer, was fond of military uniforms, as all grandees of the Reich. The militarization of German society, culture, schools, and industry allowed for quick progress of GDP, especially in dual use economic areas (half civilian, half military). However, it created also an all too murderous, exploitative, idiotic mindset. “The Bismarck regime was a constant orgy of scorn and abuse of mankind, collectively and individually”. Nietzsche derided the omnipresent racism.

Bismarck engineered three wars to create the “Deutsches Reich”. Three wars in 8 years. War with Austria, war with France. The “Deutches Reich”, under that name, perished in 1945. Kissinger would have us believe that when Hitler christened his super battleship “Bismarck”, he did not know what he was doing (just as when Hitler proclaimed himself a Catholic, Kissinger would have us believe that Hitler did not know what he was saying. But it is Catholicism which invented murderous anti-Semitism, and did so twice: for the Dark Ages, and during the relapse of the Crusades!)

Which state of “unassimilable greatness” did Bismarck leave? The state Bismarck was Minister-President of, Prussia, disappeared under cannon fire in 1945. the Allies viewed Prussia as so culprit of what happened, that, by common assent, the proverbial “FINAL SOLUTION” WAS APPLIED TO PRUSSIA. In the old capital of Prussia, one now speaks Russian. In most of historical Prussia, the language is now Polish. So much for Kissinger’s vision of power. Bismarck brought a legacy of eradicable mediocrity.

Inappropriately, Kissinger evokes Bismarck’s sense of limits and equilibrium, but the chancellor of blood and iron disagreed. “For things to remain the same, everything must change”. Bismarck opined after 1890, after he had been fired by Wilhem II, that the “Deutsches Reich” he had created with such demonic purpose, was a monster.

So why does Kissinger refuse to mention all and any of this? Because in 1954, he wrote a PhD on Metternich, at Harvard. Kissinger became close to the Rockefellers and other plutocrats, from the Shah to Allah knows what. His job, his mission for which he was rewarded, was to convey a misleading view of history. A misleading view in which yesterday’s pillars of the old order were esteemed, so that those to come, descending from the preceding ones, could be too. Associating the old racism to the old order would have been self defeating: Kissinger’s own masters would be put under a cloud.

Thus it was important to lie about the tremendous legal anti-Judaism in Central Europe. Because, if it had been revealed, the next question would have been why did Jews of tremendous influence such as the Rothschilds had put up with it?

Well, the explanation is that plutocracy was more important to the Rothschilds than basic empathy (even for fellow Jews). similarly, those who pull the strings of Muslim fundamentalist rage believe that their own power, their own plutocracy, is more important than thousands of people dying, here and there, now and then.

Thus, for Kissinger, the notion that Hitler was not taught Nazism and racism by the established order is important. Otherwise one would suspect an established order there, and then, and maybe We The People become uncomfortably suspicious of the established order, now and here.

Relating Hitler to Bismarck would reveal that Hitler was not an accident, but part and product of a system. A plutocratic system. Thus, as far as Kissinger is concerned, it is better to just accuse mad dog Hitler, to have invented all that evil all by himself. Hitler is thus transformed from revelation to scapegoat. Thus it can denied that Hitler had been instrumentalized by the powers that Kissinger served. And he still serves them, so he is still at it. Hence his logically and factually weak analysis.

Kissinger inverted all values, and became the model for “Doctor Strangelove” in the famous Kubrick movie with the eponymous title, where the adviser of the president of the USA, uncontrollably programmed as a Nazi, pushes for thermonuclear war, as much as he can. Kissinger embraced fascism, so he still embraces Bismarck. It seems that, for Kissinger, Auschwitz is a detail, and fascism’s strategic concepts, which [are] usually quite brilliant.

The philosopher Hannah Arendt did not make friends by suggesting that Hitler became all he could be, thanks, in part, to the cooperation of all too many Jews. Those Jews were weak. They had been trained, like most Germans, to be weak in their spirits and minds. They were strong as a herd, because they were individually weak. And deranged.

Plutocracy’s Achilles heel: plutocracy can only be served by the weak, and is made of the weak. It is made of the weak, because it is a form of fascism, and fascism is for the weak. It is also made of the weak, and is served by the weak, because the truly strong fights it, be it only just because it looms over there. The true path of the ultimate warrior finds the highest mountain. And that mountain is plutocracy, and fascism itself.

Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “Derangement Of The Weak”

  1. aaron greenbird Says:

    thank you for this…..a most interesting post. are you familar with John Lash, his book is” Not in His Image”…………


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Aaron!
      I did not know about John Lash… I am so busy, trying to order and present my own efforts, that I have little time to scan every thing, but thanks for telling me, I will try to put him on my radar…

      Two things I know in the general direction of myths, etc.:
      1) Myths are important: see Nazism or Islam, or Christianity.

      2) The all too neglected Ancient Egyptian civilization played a huge role in the birth of many myths, including the Abrahamic religion (Freud thought Moise was a pharaoh…). Too bad this has been buried below the theocratic Article 2 of the present Egyptian constitution, which is terroro-Islamist, with its imposed Shariah. 45 centuries of evolutionary history, burried by intellectual fascism… The accomodation with Christianism in Western Europe was to re-institute Paganism under the guise of saints, equipped with a new ethics. Texts at the time were singularly deprived of mentions of Jesus. Saint Martin (a real Roman OFFICER) is much more important… and much more acceptable in his goodness and rationality than the Jesus of the Bible!


  2. Rod Graham Says:

    Dear Ms. Ayme,
    I stumbled onto your site by chance today and am delighted at all the food for thought in there. Thank you.

    It’s probably silly of me to ask, but are you familiar with Umberto Eco’s “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a BlackShirt”? ( — Reading that really crystallize what fascism is for me. Thanks again, RG


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Rod:
      Thanks for the appreciation, and for the Eco reference. I will look it up.
      I have long written on fascism, especially on my older site, Tyranosopher. For me, fascism is something very deep, an “instinct”. Just like sleep.

      Fascism is a mental mode. Thinking gets simplified by following leaders (both particular individuals, and particular ideas). That allows to concentrate on life saving action, in other words, flee or fight.

      Thus conceptualized, fascism induces many infernal traits. Love for superstition, or group think, and of course racism, nationalism, etc. are aspects of the fascist instinct.

      Thus my version of fascism seems to cover a lot of the particular aspects Umberto Eco mentions.

      Political fascism is just a peculiar facet of the fascist instinct. Mussolini gave a special meaning to political fascism, which was rather technical, involving, as it did the relationship of state, embodying the nation, and the corporations, in a contract with workers. Amusingly we operate on a bare bones version of this, where both nation and workers have gone down the drain of plutocracy.
      Some contested that Mussolini’s fascismo was in truth socialismo, but Hitler reassured them. Mussolini, said Adolf, was the real thing. It’s telling we now are operating under something even more drastic.


  3. JMcG Says:


    Interesting discussion of Japanese imperial fascism. Of Bismark, I’ve forgotten most of what I read in history books except for the phrase “blood and iron.” The case you have made that fascism under Hitler was in some form an evolution from Bismarck echoes arguments other historians have made if not in exactly the same way. By the time Hitler came into real power Bismarck is said to have been old, a mere figurehead. Kissinger, the Ueber-philosopher, has stated that the economic ascendancy of China should not come as a surprise to the Western world or to the U.S. because China was ascendant in 18 of the last 20 centuries. Could it be that Nixon was the one unwittingly who let the genie out of the bottle by opening diplomatic relations with China?



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I posted a new post today: Aphorisms, August 2011.
      It’s actually mostly about Obama, debt, etc… I mix in Quantum mechanics, for good measure… Revolution, that’s what I say… Israel, UK, Spain are nicely simmering…
      The problem of Germany started with philosophers Herder (a fanatic of the tribal spirit) and Kant (a Prussian robot). By uniting the whole thing, and making it vibrate imperially, Napoleon gave a very bad example… Then, of course the vengeance of Prussia and Austria made things way worse.

      I don’t see where Kissinger saw all this ascendency of China. After more than one century below the Mongol boot, and three under the Mandchu boot, I don’t see what so dominant with China. Moreover we, the West, could shut down China any day we wish.


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: