Great Extermination, Big Nation, Little Minds?


  It’s 9/11, so we should celebrate, I mean commemorate, right? It’s not as if someone like me did not see it coming. I don’t have to commemorate in silence, because I have lots to say that is relevant, to avoid much greater horrors, looking forward (concentrate on Fundamentalist thermonuclear USA sponsored Pakistan for a hint).

 Thus I commemorate by telling the truth about the aggression of Washington DC against the Republic of Afghanistan, starting in the mid 1970s and related, more fundamental, conflict generating issues, such as foaming at the mouth nationalism, as made pathetically manifest in the deluded 2012 democratic and republican conventions.

  When nationalism blinds understanding, it’s evil. The plutocrats, and the corporations they own, irresistibly attracted by the minerals of Afghanistan, have first operated discreetly to create mayhem in central Asia, and then played USA nationalism as a violin, to get what they want; the greedy terror state they own and pay for.

  By coincidence, a day after I criticized Obama for fantasizing about the “USA is the greatest nation” Robert Kaplan published the major article in the weekend Wall Street Journal about why the USA is such a great nation. One would expect the Wall $treet Journal to extoll furiously the grandeur of the USA, and the glory of capitalism, and its armies, as Obama and Biden did last week, in an orgy of imperial self satisfaction. Well, think again. Most people don’t become rich by being idiots 24/7.

  Kaplan says that the pre-eminence of the USA is a lot about occupying a big, wonderful, special place. So make a note of this: while democrats, supposedly on the left, are screaming their heads out that the USA is a great, incomparable Reich, thanks to the intrinsic genius of its great race and its plutocratic ways, the Wall Street Journal, yes the journal of Wall $treet, more humbly conclude that it is all about enjoying the pleasures of treasure island. Kaplan observes:

  ” The U.S. itself is no exception to this sort of [geographical] analysis. Why are we the world’s pre-eminent power? Americans tend to think that it is because of who we are. I would suggest that it is also because of where we live: in the last resource-rich part of the temperate zone settled by Europeans at the time of the Enlightenment, with more miles of navigable, inland waterways than the rest of the world combined, and protected by oceans and the Canadian Arctic.”

  The resources of the USA have indeed proven, so far, practically infinite. No doubt, the wasteful habits of the culture of the USA come from that. And no doubt wasting resources has proven a profitable multiplier. Such as when wasting the buffalo, which, in turn, starved the well armed Plains Indians, a helpful factor in their genocide, that movie goers who watched “Dancing With Wolves” may remember.

  For most of the age of oil, the USA was the world’s primary oil producer. Not because USA citizens are geniuses, but because there is oil in the USA from the North-East, to the Los Angeles Basin in the extreme South-West. It’s something about the ground, not the hogs.

  This generosity with oil was most useful to clients of the USA plutocrats and corporations, such as Adolf Hitler, and his thousands of tanks and planes. Hitler started his invasions propelled by Texas oil…(Sold to him in spite of the Neutrality Acts. ) That was crucial to the self described “French-haters“. In geography is not just reality, but the impact of past and present philosophy:



1 Russia: 17 million square kilometers.

2 Canada: 10 million sq kms

3 USA: 9.6 sq kms

4 China: 9.6 sq kms

5 Brazil: 8.5 sq kms

6 Australia: 7.7 sq kms

7 European Union: 4.3 sq kms

  The first six largest countries are all recent empires established by military power (whereas the EU was established by debate). About two-thirds of Chinese territory was conquered over people who have fought the Han (most of the PRC’s population), for millennia. The Tibetans, for example, controlled much, or most of “China” for centuries. So did the Mongols and the Manchu. No wonder the Chinese government is not open to minority rights, self determination, and floods the exterior regions with Hans.

  The case of China is not the one where military invasion is the most conspicuous, because, after all, the Chinese have been fighting over China for as long as Rome existed.

  Russia was bottled west of the Urals until 1700 or so. Now Russia controls a land area four times larger than the entire European Union. Russia will be able to hold onto this immensity either by becoming part of the EU, or by deploying (extremely) excessive military force indefinitively (in other words, fascism at home).

  Let’s look at the other four. If one goes back 250 years, one notices that the ethnic composition of the land masses above changed completely over these centuries. The original inhabitants were (mostly) wiped out. Compare French New Caledonia, half made of descendants of the original population, and Australia next door, where the aborigines are mostly gone and the object of genocidal policies even in the 1960s or 1970s. By the official definition of genocide, which applies when one separates children from their parents. Canada used the same genocidal policies, just as recently. The USA had physically eliminated the Indians much earlier.

  One can classify the large empires in three groups. One, made of China, is actively oppressive. that means China did not yet exterminate the 100 or so ethnic groups that cramp the acts and empire of the dominant Han. Another, group, Russia, Brazil, is a mix of invasion and elimination (remember Stalin’s massive, murderous deportations). There are still natives left, and a tension in the air. The rest, made of Canada, USA, Australia has, in practice, eliminated the natives (except in a few zones, where they are shown as counter-examples of little consequence). Ethnic cleansing, at its most thorough.

Some will say that’s instant history. But yesterday’s history makes today’s philosophy



  How do we abstract that? Holocausts work. Can we propose a more general abstract from this? FORCE WORKS. That’s not surprising, but the fundamental fact of human evolution.

  Some who know basic classical mechanics will shrug that such is the definition of work: the application of force over an extent of space. This is an example where the categories found by deep thinking in the hard fact sciences can be readily used in the “soft” sciences.

  People on the “left”, would be “progressives” and similar types, do not like to be reminded of this principle, that force works, nowadays. Their excuse is that the fascist, Bolshevik style revolutions, which naturally abused force, being fascist proved to be, well, fascist, and abusive. To the point that they made a bad situation worse: it’s unlikely that the Czar’s regime would have been as bad as what Lenin put in place. By a very long shot. Indeed, fundamentally, it’s the Prussians who attacked Russia on August 1, 1914, who ended up putting Stalin in place. It would never have happened otherwise.

  But the truth is otherwise. In truth, they have learned to be happy to be pawns. Forgetting to apply force is inhuman. One does not have to go bloody in the streets, Lenin style. The most important revolutions are spiritual, mental, brainy.

  Thus the Indignes (Indignados, reduced semantically to “Occupy Wall Street” in the USA) movement is (was?) a good thing. Do we need president Romney to resuscitate it? Well, except for a severe degradation of the economy, there will be no president Romney. just singing the praises of Obama whatever he does not only will not bring progress, but an ever deepening regression down the hell of plutocracy. opening up like a giant, civilization devouring caldera.

  And just as the idiocy and jingoism of the Athenian People brought the defeat of Athens, and ultimately democracy, so it would be again.

  Mental force can be as quiet. A teen age French physicist made sparks in his father’s lab, and observed carefully how an electric circuit reacted. Thus, in 1839, less than 200 years ago, Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel discovered the Photo Voltaic effect. So is real innovation: a deep affair of the mind.

  In 2012, the USA will install about 2,500 Mega Watts of Photo Voltaic panels, more than two nuclear reactors. Solar power is now 20 times cheaper than it was when Jimmy Carter put solar panels on top of the White House (Reagan had them removed, because he hated the sun, as pertains those who love the Dark).

  Thanks to Monsieur. Becquerel’s innovation.



  Human beings are spiritual creatures. Most of what they do, they do, thanks to their minds. Obama, for whatever reason, some tied to his inexperienced, babe-in-the-woods, background, advantaged the banksters, the Military Industrial Complex and other dark forces in his first four years.

  Some will scoff, they will sneer that the Military Industrial Complexes are what allowed the creation of the world’s largest empires (exposed above), so the MICs are important creative forces (for good, or evil). They create facts on the ground. Those who disagree are just enemies to be, at best, ignored and despised.

  Empires create facts on the ground, thus in the minds.

  Indeed, it is important to realize that force can be applied to spiritual structures, not just material ones (the connection between both notions has to do with the fact that the spiritual world is actually brain based, that means, based in physical structures in the brain).

  Just as force can be applied on mental structures, so can inertia. The main problem of the Obama presidency, so far, has been that, instead of impelling momentum towards the forces of progress, it has, wittingly or not, imparted momentum towards the forces of Darkness. (And his debates about health care and banks, or Afghanistan, were shrouded in fog, mirrror, smoke and impenetrable committees. For example, what’s the name of the Death Panel at the White House? And if it kills citizens, it clearly has turned the executive branch into the executor branch, and overlaps another branch of government, Justice…)

  In all this I am not faulting necessarily Obama. After all, he was just parachuted into the presidency. But where is the rest of the progressive troops? Who is pushing Obama to the left? The Tea Party elected many representatives (Ryan an example). Where are the representatives representing “Occupy Wall $treet“?



  A typical  pseudo progressive commented on my preceding essay:

  “…corporations are behind everything this writer [Patrice Ayme] says is happening. This is one big worldwide mob at work. Obama is just a tool of corporations, as have Presidents been before him. My husband & I have made scathing remarks about Obama and how he didn’t deliver on many things he claimed he would. But the level of scathing remarks of this person [Patrice Ayme] clearly shows a bias and hatred. …even though people are lulled by the rhetoric of positive speech, it’s still positive speech that people need to hear to jerk us out of fear, hopelessness and apathy. Our thought processes need to be elevated. …America is both the greatest nation on earth, from the standpoint of innovation, technology, and conveniences. At the same time, we are also the most corrupt and damaging force in the world. You cannot have one without the other in this world of opposites unfortunately. “

  Pseudo progressives tend to confuse “bias and hatred”, for what is simply… extremely firm advice to my good friend Obama (one voice against a mob of banksters and sycophants!). The text above is typical: after calling Obama a mobster, I am pilloried in the name of… an orgasm of wishful thinking and crazed jingoism.



  In truth, the USA has not been as innovative as the leading Western European nations. As far as the key breakthroughs. It’s mostly the huge USA market that makes USA products successful. Germany and Britain flew jets before the USA.

  It’s only by distorting reality that the USA is made to look more intellectual that it really is. A lot of USA superiority is not just from dominating a big virgin continent, but also, simply, by having a big market. For example the neon tube was invented in France, but even the French visiting Vegas do not know this, and the French inventors did not win the patent battle with the USA exploiters.

  At least Steve Jobs had the honor of thieves: “We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”—PBS Documentary, Triumph of the Nerds, 1996. I have met Venture Capitalists-engineers, in the Silicon Valley who told me the same, smiling that most of their jobs was to go to Europe and steal ideas in the smaller markets there.

  OK, some major innovations arrived too early, for the USA to play a role. Such as French Hugenot and doctor Papin, inventing the piston steam engine, and the first heat engine powered vehicle.

  Papin’s inventions the English stole for their greater renown, so we measure power in Watts and not Paps (17 C). This is all the more spectacular as it is a French lady  Gabrielle Émilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, marquise du Châtelet, who definitively demonstrated the concept of energy (the core of modern physics). Even Newton did not find anything that important.

  As her lover Voltaire said to Fredrick II of Prussia, du Châtelet was “a great man whose only fault was being a woman”. Also French. So the Anglo-Saxons are on their knees singing the praises of Newton, they don’t even know why, just that it is civilized to do so. A man. White. English. Master of the Mint (he switched England to the gold standard).

  So the France played the crucial role in the domestication of energy. The first cars (truly steam tanks commissioned by the French royal army), were followed by the first balloons (in Versailles) and a century later, the first motorized airplanes (Avion I, II, and III, of Ader, also a military program).  Irène Joliot-Curie, Chemistry Nobel Prize winner (1935), for the transmutation of elements followed this by discovering the nuclear chain reaction, that is nuclear energy, in 1937.

  Once again, for reason of quasi rabid anti-French bias, the discovery of nuclear energy is attributed by the dominant Anglo-Saxon plot, eager to make the French pass for simpletons, to those to whom Irène Joliot-Curie taught the reaction (although with lots of difficulty, because Hahn and Meitner were not as bright, and the former’s relation with Nazism far from klar).

  The French nuclear bomb program, started in January 1938, had to migrate to England and then Manhattan (Manhattan Project), for obvious reasons.   Later Anglo-Saxon political leaders (Churchill, etc.) thought about caging all French top physicists, because, in their anti-French rage, they thought they would tell Stalin how to make nuclear bombs. The scientific leader of the project was Italian Enrico Fermi, another non USA, anti-fascist Nobel Physics winner.

  And so it is for a lot of innovations. Photography, both black and white, and color was invented in France (the French government bought the patents, and put the discovery at the disposition of mankind”). 

  Basically all the basic ideas in cars were developed in France and Germany, from the internal combustion engine (Swiss with hydrogen, then French with gasoline, and then patented to Daimler) to front wheel drive (Citroen) and radial tires (Michelin).

  Same with planes (and that’s why much of the aircraft vocabulary is French)

  The same extent to science. And it’s not just about the Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot engine and the basics of thermodynamics.

  Let me say in passing that it is astounding how much the French did for energy, practically, conceptually, and mathematically, I discovered when writing this! If one adds the discovery by Laplace of the Laplacian, core of modern physics’ manipulations, the French pretty much discovered everything important about energy.

  Most of the ideas having brought the big physics breakthroughs (Relativity, Quantum), came from France (Relativity principle, Quantum principle), Germany (Quantum of Light, Gravitation as curvature), Britain (Atom model, QED), with important Irish (Equations of Relativity) and Dutch (Lorentz) contributions. The significant USA contributions were Michelson-Morley (no ether drag, although that was known from French Fizeau too) and the (accidental) confirmation of De Broglie’s deep inspiration.

  USA propaganda twists reality badly. During WWII Nazi cruise missiles sank even Allied battleships. Why? Germans had discovered Germanium (I am not making this up) transistors in the 1930s… So even the transistor was as much an invented in the USA as apple pie.

  What’s left for a great Americano-American innovation? The laser. But there again, it turns out Europeans did the heavy lifting, and USA citizens put up the last decorations. Thanks to Einstein’s discovery of optical pumping, on paper, and its practical invention, with directed stimulation of radiation by light, in Paris, rue d’Ulm, by Alfred Kastler, and his group.

  Kastler got a solitary Physics Nobel in 1966 for that key invention, which made the laser quasi obvious (although that near trivial consequence, the laser, got discovered at Columbia U in New York, and a Nobel was attributed, there was a legal fight, and the one who did not get the Nobel got the judgment in his favor!)  

  I do not want to denigrate the USA as all too many in the USA view as a mission from god (that would be Wall $treet) to denigrate France, but the USA is a society less carried away by deep thinking. Some will scoff, and point at all the Nobels and the classification of universities, from Shanghai University. But those notions are related, big time and non linearly, to plutocracy.

The Nobels are not just given by Sweden, a nation that collaborated with Hitler and its Anglo-Saxon plutocratic sponsors as early as the 1930s (see the Assange affair for how low Sweden can sink, although the collaboration with Hitler was so great that France and Britain had decided to invade Sweden in 1940). The Nobel committee in Physics, for example, is mostly made of USA physicists. Same in economics. And all intellectuals dream of being paid by the hyper rich USA plutocratic universities, so they are anxious to please those potential clients for their wares.

The process is self feeding and vastly overestimate the intellectual prowess of plutocratically managed countries.


  As Kaplan puts is in the Wall $treet Journal:

“As a way of explaining world politics, geography has supposedly been eclipsed by economics, globalization and electronic communications. It has a decidedly musty aura, like a one-room schoolhouse. Indeed, those who think of foreign policy as an opportunity to transform the world for the better tend to equate any consideration of geography with fatalism, a failure of imagination.

But this is nonsense. Elite molders of public opinion may be able to dash across oceans and continents in hours, allowing them to talk glibly of the “flat” world below. But while cyberspace and financial markets know no boundaries, the Carpathian Mountains still separate Central Europe from the Balkans, helping to create two vastly different patterns of development, and the Himalayas still stand between India and China, a towering reminder of two vastly different civilizations.

Technology has collapsed distance, but it has hardly negated geography. Rather, it has increased the preciousness of disputed territory. As the Yale scholar Paul Bracken observes, the “finite size of the earth” is now itself a force for instability: The Eurasian land mass has become a string of overlapping missile ranges, with crowds in megacities inflamed by mass media about patches of ground in Palestine and Kashmir…”

  That, to make it clear, is an allusion to 200 millions fanatical, thermonuclear armed Pakistani, and their best friends have been the plutocrats of the USA. USA plutocrats brought with them immensely greater gifts. than the Greeks could ever imagine. (Ironically, it’s USA plutocrats, Goldman-Sachs, who brought gifts to Greek crooks. Curiously enough the eurocrats, so good at making European People suffer, have forgotten to visit pain onto Goldman-Sachs. Actually Goldman got rewarded, as two super Marios, Monti and Draghi, are now piloting Europe, among other Goldman alumni.

  Pursues Kaplan: “Even so seemingly modern a crisis as Europe’s financial woes is an expression of timeless geography. It is no accident that the capital cities of today’s European Union (Brussels, Maastricht, Strasbourg, The Hague) helped to form the heart of Charlemagne’s ninth-century empire. With the end of the classical world of Greece and Rome, history moved north. There, in the rich soils of protected forest clearings and along a shattered coastline open to the Atlantic, medieval Europe developed the informal power relations of feudalism and learned to take advantage of technologies like movable type.”

  It was also technology. The mastery of steel of the Gauls (and thus the Franks) was such that the very heavy ploughs necessary to dig in that heavy soil could be constructed , pulled by bio engineered oxen and giant draught horses, harnessed in new ways.



  An area where the USA lags increasingly is anything touching to the philosophical. This area, of course is, by far, the most important to allow the continuation of civilization. For example, as the Maya went down, because of drought and ecological devastation, instead of thinking deep, they went to each other’s throats.

  And we have counter examples. When Rome fell to the Gauls, the entire Senate put on its most magnificent clothes, ivory staff by the side. All the Senators sat on ceremonial seats, in a vast courtyard. They took the thinkers’ pose, pinching their chins in their right hands. They stood standing completely still.

  The Gallic warriors , shock troops, armed to the teeth, covered with fine  steel mail, and light steel helmets, with their giant steel swords, the world’s best, invaded the courtyard and with their horses clinging with the brand new tech of Celtic iron shoes. The Gallic shock troops were stunned. All of Rome had been open, and evacuated, except for the fortress of the Capitol hill, symbolically held by a garrison.

  Why were all the Senators there? Why is this courtyard? What did they want to prove? And why this ridiculous pose, anticipating Rodin’s thinker by 23 centuries? What were all this most prestigious leaders of Rome thinking? Striking a pose? What were those past consuls trying to show to the finest Gallic warriors?

  The eldest Senators of Rome were trying to show to themselves, to all of Rome, that they had failed, that they had collectively failed, that the mental system, the strategies that they had advocated, for decades, were drastically erroneous. a global re-think was in order. The top mental leadership of Rome had got to be decapitated.

  They were there to offer their lives, to sacrifice them to the cognitive failure that they had committed. The Gallic warriors milled around, astounded, feeling. deep down that something immense was in evidence.



  The increasing imbalance is demonstrated by the rising inequity and inequality in the USA, all over the place, not just wealth and income, but also in health, justice, and education.

  This is not just a USA story, as USA clout is such, and the control its plutocracy exerts on allied plutocracies, all over the world, is such, that the cancer started in the USA has become globally metastatic.

  Hey, it’s 9/11, so we should celebrate, I mean commemorate, right? So I commemorate 37 years of the war of the USA against the republic of Afghanistan, with a particular thought for Prince Harry who is keen to demonstrate that it is a patriotic duty for a plutocratic Brit to shoot Afghans to death from his big armored helicopter, while occupying Afghanistan.

  2,700 died on 9/11, whereas more than a thousand times as many Afghans were killed since the beginning of the armed USA intervention in Afghanistan. USA plutocrats and their agents are poised to recolt trillions in minerals, as long as the USA military stay in Afghanistan, after NATO much advertized departure in 2014 (The French, disgusted, are already removing their attack army, they will leave only advisers).  

  As Obama put it: “We work harder and smarter than anybody else.”

  Error for the many, profits for the few.



  Here is Kaplan again:

  “If you want to know what Russia, China or Iran will do next, don’t read their newspapers or ask what our spies have dug up—consult a map. Geography can reveal as much about a government’s aims as its secret councils. More than ideology or domestic politics, what fundamentally defines a state is its place on the globe. Maps capture the key facts of history, culture and natural resources.

  Maps capture the key facts of history, culture and natural resources…

  In this very brief survey of the world as seen from the standpoint of geography, I don’t wish to be misunderstood: Geography is common sense, but it is not fate. Individual choice operates within a certain geographical and historical context, which affects decisions but leaves many possibilities open. The French philosopher Raymond Aron captured this spirit with his notion of “probabilistic determinism,” which leaves ample room for human agency.

  But before geography can be overcome, it must be respected. Our own foreign-policy elites are too enamored of beautiful ideas and too dismissive of physical facts-on-the-ground and the cultural differences that emanate from them. Successfully navigating today’s world demands that we focus first on constraints, and that means paying attention to maps. Only then can noble solutions follow. The art of statesmanship is about working just at the edge of what is possible, without ever stepping over the brink.”

  Well, we are going over the brink.

The human engineered poisoning of the atmosphere with CO2 and other, even more vicious greenhouse gases, has a superexponential character to itself, that will become very obvious, all too soon. The Military Industrial Complexes have a great future, coming up.

And another thing. All too many, especially on the supposedly progressive left, but also on the self satisfied right, behave as if caring what’s all it takes. Yet, to really care, means to be aware. And of the harsh realities, first of all. If one wants to act well, one needs the facts good.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , ,

30 Responses to “Great Extermination, Big Nation, Little Minds?”

  1. Martin Lack Says:

    Over on the Climate Denial Crock of the Week website, Peter Sinclair has written up an excellent summary of the article in the New York Times newspaper. Which he begins as follows:
    “Why is a post about the 9/11 attack relevant to the story of climate change? Because its the clearest, most hideous, and most instructive example of how groupthink among a cadre of key policy makers is much more serious than merely a political game of point/counterpoint.”
    9/11, Climate Change, and Why Facts Matter (11 Sept 2012).

    We can but hope that those in power now will be able to admit (albeit for reasons of political convenience) that mistakes were made as a result of neo-conservatives suffering from cognitive dissonance in the run-up to 9/11.

    We must also hope that this will help those who are still undecided to realise that the Republican Party today has still not learnt the lessons from the failure to prevent 9/11 (and is still suffering from cognitive dissonance).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Marin: Thanks for the links. Interesting. Nothing I did not say before, for years, by a long shot, but it’s nice to see people who are read by more than a few writing it.
      I go much further than that. I claim many neoconservatives wanted an attack, so they would have a pretext they could sell to go invade Iraq. After they invaded Iraq, though, they found they could not hold it.

      They did not know what the attack could be, because it was their secret wish. France and Israel, for decades, were ready against 9/11 style attacks. The Israel response time was 2 minutes to interception and destruction, the French one, a bit less than ten minutes (France has generally ten pairs of armed aupersonic interceptors ready to scramble armed with Mach 3 MICA 80 kilometers missiles loaded). During the 98 world cup, France had air patrol above Paris. during 9/11, the USA could not vector any armed interceptor towards the planes, although they had more than an hour.

      In 1996 GIA commandos (GIA = Al Qaeda ancestor) tried to crash a jumbo jet on Paris. They were all killed by French special forces. But many USA neoconservatives, among the world’s most stupid people, never heard of France, except as “America’s oldest enemy“.

      But never mind. The USA has helped Pakistan develop thermonuclear bombs. Pakistan is, by far, the world’s most dangerous state. So suppose there is THERMONUCLEAR 9/11 on New York, or Washington 9from a boat). Then, of course, a fascist dictatorship would be established in the USA, bringing plutocracy to ecstasy. Is there another reason? The Bush administration said that the reason to pay for Pakistani nuke was to augment safety. You judge how reasonable that sounds.

      With a thermonuclear device, one does not need to come close. Better watch those small boats on the Potomac carefully. (You read it here first!)

      The CIA knew what Bin Laden was up to. They had taught him to strike soft targets, including public schools for little girls. Two decades before. And it worked. everybody knew it worked. Instrumentalizing Islam, a war religion founded by a raiding pedophile under the advice of a Christian monk, presents with some drawbacks.

      I condemn those who condemn those who hurt other people’s religious beliefs. Why should the crazies of god or dog be respected when they brandish death, because dog or god has been “humiliated”? Why should dog, or god, care about humiliation at the hands of monkeys? Respecting all religions is not an option, never has, and never will be, especially when thermonuclear bombs are around.


  2. Martin Lack Says:

    With the greatest of respect, Patrice, the whole point of the NYT article (etc) is that cognitive dissonance/confirmation bias prevented the neo-conservatives from taking warnings of an imminent attack seriously. What you appear to be suggesting is that they allowed it to happen as an excuse to attack Iraq (i.e. a re-formulation of the conspiracy theory explanation for Pearl Harbor). These two things are absolutely not the same; and one is not merely an extension of the other: They are completely incompatible versions of history, one is a lesson in human stupidity; the other is a conspiracy theory.

    You would have hated watching The Secrets of Bin Laden’s Lair (Discovery Channel) last night. In my view, the USA were completely justified in taking him down – and for launching drone attacks to take out other key targets – because they could not risk giving the Pakistanis prior warning of what they were going to do. The USA had missed Bin Laden so many times before; they were clearly not going to let him slip away again…

    One thing I suspect we can agree on is this: That taking offence at your favourite person being insulted is never an excuse to kill anybody. Sadly, Muslims seem to do this quite regularly, whereas Jews and Christians seem to have much greater tolerance. Therefore, even if we must disagree about Bin Laden and drone attacks, we can also agree that the problems in the Middle East will only ever be solved if people on all sides stop thinking that their god demands that all blood spilled must be avenged…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Martin: To suspect the Neoconservatives were waiting for a huge attack to use as a pretext to attack iraq, is not a reformulation of Pearl Harbor. How can you say this? 9/11 was tried in France. 9/11. To tell us it was a giant surprise is just a fable for very small children. Pearl Harbor was not tried before. It was really a surprise.

      But on the other hand, not a surprise, as the USA had organized a devastating oil embargo against Japan. Everybody knew Japan was going to attack. The bet had been it would go for Soviet oil. However, Sorge had given the Nazi attack on the USSR to the hour, and now he said…

      The French and the Israelis gave the USA explicit warnings about 9/11, and CIA guys would have met with Bin Laden (used to be their man), a few months before in the Gulf. So say the French (whose secret services in the Middle East are so good they have extracted out of Syria many a top ex-Assad guy)

      Nobody knows for sure what happened with Pearl Harbor. I know plenty on WWII, and, really, nobody knows. There seems to be a bit too many surprises barely avoided. One can safely say that the USA could not play surprised. That’s disingenuous.

      Suffice to say that Yamamoto, the head of the Japanese Navy was killed after exquisite intelligence, that the entire Nazi spying operation in Britain was used in reverse, that for the most spectacular tank battle of the war, Kurks, the Nazi plans were known in details to the Soviets thank to Anglo-Saxon services, and that Hitler was persuaded that the true D Day would be in Calais, thanks to a giant disinformation.

      It’s the refuge of the pseudo wise to poo poo conspiracy theories. That allows them, gives them an excuse, to become pawns of the all too real plutocratic global conspiracy we are presently experiencing.

      History is little more than a succession of successful, or disastrous, conspiracies.
      The Sorge Soviet spying ring in Japan in Fall 1941, informed the Soviets that Japan would not attack the USSR, and that could only mean the Empire of the Rising Sun would attack in the Pacific, and that meant Pearl Harbor. There are several dozens elements which, had they not been bent in a specially distorted way, would have made discovery of the Jap attack obvious. It was really a miracle that the Pacific fleet retreated in front of the advancing Jap fleet, and another that the three carriers were out that day.

      Six months later, the US Navy, thanks to its total breaking of the Jap codes, mounted an elaborated trap at Midway… That sank the entire Jap aircraft fleet (& its experienced pilots).

      Anyway, please explain to me why the USA financed Muslim Fundamentalist Pakistani thermonuclear bombs? If it is not a conspiracy, what is it exactly?

      Conspirare means breathing together, BTW…


      • Martin Lack Says:

        The fables we tell very small children are that (1) God created the Universe in six days; (2) Noah’s Ark and a 40-day global flood actually happened; and/or (3) a multi-lingual planet is God’s punishment for some Persians building the Tower of Babel.

        You are rejecting the simplest explanation (for the failure to prevent 9/11) in favour of a more complex one. This is what conspiracy theorists do. But, OK, you think we should not reject conspiracy theories. If so, why do you reject the conspiracy theories put forward to “explain” the consensus view (of genuine climate scientists) on climate change? For the avoidance of any doubt, the options are (1) the consensus view is not a real majority; (2) the majority are simply mistaken; or (3) the majority are just perpetuating their research funding.

        I suspect that you reject these because you accept the bulk of evidence that supports the consensus view. Similarly, the bulk of evidence used to support the view that 9/11 was a surprise. It now supports the view that it was not a surprise. However, I would be happy to wager my house on the fact that it will never support the view that neo-conservatives foresaw the scale of the atrocity planned; and yet still allowed it to happen.

        Conspiracy theories are, along with moral relativism and the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas, one of two major afflictions of a post-modern world full of post-normal science. The other affliction we have is conspiracy facts (i.e. big businesses such as tobacco, agro-chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and fossil fuels denying responsibility for the damage done by their products). Those who are truly wise can tell the difference.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Martin: Wait. Why do you say: If so, why do you reject the conspiracy theories put forward to “explain” the consensus view (of genuine climate scientists) on climate change? It’s like telling me why do you reject Hitler’s conspiracy theory about the Jews? Well, simply, because it’s not the truth.

          Keep it simple. There are facts. There are conspiracies. That does not mean everything is a conspiracy. The iceberg did not conspire with the Titanic. However, the Tobacco Industry conspired, just like IBM conspired with Hitler, or countless USA corporations and plutocrats conspired with Hitler. Or Sweden, or Switzerland, conspired with Hitler.
          And Hitler with Stalin. And Roosevelt and the top of the USA government conspired with Stalin. People such as Buffet are obviously conspiring with the so called “Chinese authorities”.

          Pearl Harbor was obviously a conspiracy: after all the Japs were on it. Where did the conspiracy stop? There were plenty of indications that the Japs would attack where they did, and Stalin was moving entire armies acccordingly. Same with 9/11: the USA was curiously completely totally unprepared. In spite of explicit warnings. It’s like I warn: Pakistani thermonuclear devices will be used.

          Any goup which can start to exhibit tribal behavior conspires. In a sense, tribes are conspiracies. They also constitute the force of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and stand ready to apply the fascist instinct massively.

          Just as there is a conspiracy to make USA citizens believe that fossil fuels have no impact on the planet, there is one to ruin education for the non rich. At least, in the USA. Student debt has been manipulated to become non extinguishable. Total: about a trillion dollars in the USA. Yesterday I was talking with a lady whose base tuition for her daughter is 28,000 dollars. After that, of course there are more mandatory expenses, for a total of 35,000 dollars. The daughter is 4 years old.

          All rich USA citizens know there is a conspiracy in education, and they acively join it. Actually that lady told me the $35,000 prep school paid in “networking” with other rich people.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Martin: Another conspiracy: enforcing the view that a thoroughly innocent USA was surprisingly and treachorously attacked on 9/11 by forces the USA had nothing to do with. In truth, Bin Laden was a USA mercenary, and the USA had attacked Afghanistan since the mid 1970s.

          I am sure that if the USA had attacked Great Britain since the mid 1970s, in an elaborate conspiracy (as explained by carter’s henchmen), killing millions, something would have happened to the USA at British hands…

          But the cover-up of all this is still another conspiracy, and the Main Stream Media re-activates it, everyday.


  3. Alexi Helligar Says:

    To care means being aware.”

    Alexi Helligar: I was thinking about this very word this morning. Surely, awareness is the beginning of caring. Care can be towards both good and malicious ends. When I casually say I care about something or someone, good intentions are implied. It means educating myself about the context surrounding what I care about so that if needed I have the tools needed to influence outcomes consistent with my values.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Alexi:Indeed! Without awareness, caring is empty. So those who claim to care, but without bothering to find out, what’s really going on, are using a sub optimal strategy, to put it mildly.
      Actually, it’s often the worst strategy.


  4. J McG Says:


    We heard for a long time that the Bush administration ignored warnings of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda in 2001 because of its ideological leanings. For those with right-leaning politics evidence of it was ignored after the fact of the attacks, perhaps even derided as baseless or dismissed as only motivated by politics. Facts are stubborn things.

    Op-Ed Contributor
    The Deafness Before the Storm
    Published: September 10, 2012 913 Comments

    IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

    On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

    On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

    That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

    The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

    But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled;


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Jeff:
      Very interesting, thanks for the article. Especially since you are a USA citizen and a British gentleman accused to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Gee. As the British gentleman can see the much smarter neoconservatives absolutely never believed there could be a conspiracy in 2001, and therefore were surely not part of it.

      As the GIA/Al Qaeda tried 9/11 in France in 1996… It seems pretty clear that at least some of the Neocons were hoping that an attack against the USA could be used to justify an assault against Iraq, just as they did indeed do.


    • Old Geezer Says:

      There were plenty of warnings, all ignored by BushCo. Maybe they just got tired of hearing them.

      But, the real question in my mind is…

      Why did the world’s most powerful Air Force not scramble jets? They KNEW there were 4 hijackings in progress. They had RADAR returns of 4 commercial jets with NO TRANSPONDER CODES.

      This is the same Air Force that routinely escorts lost 172s away from Obama.

      I have seen no good answers.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear OGP: Escort Cessna 172s away from Obama, because Obama is a sacred cow…Obama is the emperor, the symbol of the imperial state. His very existence is a challenge imposed. Cities inhabitated by cattle people inside are not sacred. If they were sacred, they would live in Bermuda, like the mayor of… New York… or the rich suburbs of Washington, or Palo Alto, or Saint Bart, or Davos…

        One of the rare planes, or more exactly the first plane, scrambled during the 9/11 was a F15 piloted by a civilian (contractor, I suppose), without a g suit, and the plane was not armed (OK, it could have rammed one of the 767s, a technique used by the Nazis in 1945).

        Studying the Neocons at the time shows that they were obsessed by planning to attack Iraq. They immediately jumped on 9/11 as a pretext to do so. Methinks that at least some of them Neocons had thought about instrumentalizing an Al Qaeda attack just the way they did. So they naturally would have waited for Al Qaeda to take its best shot.

        Now, how come there were no air defense in the USA? During the 1998 Soccer World Cup, France was so worried about Al Qaeda, that there was Air Patrol above the stadium (notice the UK had anti aircraft missile batteries on top of buildings in the Olympics). On the French Riviera, for decades the spectacle of supersonic interceptors passing by is routine, several times a day (so are restricted areas where radars watch the sea). In the Alps, they tend to fly by pairs, and to break the sound barrier (there were lawsuits for deadly avalanches thus triggered). One can clearly see them moving real fast across the sky.

        Some people want us to believe this all happened because personel organizing the air defense system were complete morons, thoroughly derelict of duty. I find this harder to believe than the sinister explanation that, some people in authority had a sardonic smile, and explain that, if worse come to worst, well, after all, there would be a silver cloud. So the defense system had been left deliberately unprepared. I just don’t think that they anticipated that there could be multiple skyjackings.

        Something somewhat similar may have happened for Pearl Harbor, by the way. There had been about 30 intercepted messages, and the US Navy had just cleared the path for the Imperial navy. There again, some of the higher ups may have had a sardonic smile, and welcome their hatred.

        That the Japs would attack the Pacific Fleet was zero surprising: they could hardly go for Indonesian oil, while leaving the US fleet in their back! Everybody knew this. The sardonic US strategists just did not anticipate that the admiral in charge at Pearl would have not put up the anti-torpedo nets, and wallop in unpreparation, and that the attack would be that ferocious (could have been worse: the third raid was cancelled, as the Japs lost their cool during their hare brain attack).


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        I am not at all a conspiracy theorist in the crazy sense about 9/11. Yet, it is striking that there was no inquiry answering the question of why NORAD did not react to radar returns on huge jets, without transponder. A cover-up, per se, is a conspiracy.


  5. Old Geezer Says:

    I am not a conspiracy nut either; I just know that the “official explanation” of 9/11 is full of gaping holes.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Smart operators thought it would be profitable to instrumentalize masochist, superstitious primitives. it started even before the CIA played Khomeiny and his friends that way in Iran, in 1953, against parliamentary democracy there. Salafism, not to use the word Islamism.

      Ever since the situation has got out of control, ever more. So we got a prick, 9/11. Nukes are no prick, though, and that’s the threat. As Netanyahu is saying… And the Republicans are piling up on. And can pricks handle more than pricks?
      I watched the trailer of “Innocence of Muslims”. It mostly claims that’s the Xtian cousin of Katija who invented Islam. In France media scream it’s “Islamophobe“. Meaning official Muslim history as related for 13 centuries, is “Islamophobic”?


      • Martin Lack Says:

        This reminds me, Patrice, of another comment of mine which remains unaddressed or unacknowledged. Clue: I am trying to determine if you are anti all religions (or just anti Muslim and anti Christian).
        As for me, I just think Mohamed met with the ‘Angel of Light’.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Martin: Going through my site answers this aplenty. I do not see why characterizing me is so important, all the more since there is the possibility that I am more complex than the world others observe. And that is indeed the case.
          In particular I would not characterize me as anti-Xtian, Christianophobic, or Islamphobic. Spite is different from fear. Let alone the fact that I appreciate positively many aspects of Islam and Xtianism, and support them even more as practiced, say, in Senegal.

          “Re-ligio” is a much wider concept than Judaism, and its heresies. Secularism is a religion, the mother religion. Just as Gaia is the mother of all the gods (the Greeks got that one right, even though the Anglo-Saxon tried to parrot it, the truth is the truth, even when garbled by those who try to talk ;-)!).


          • Martin Lack Says:

            Thanks Patrice – I have emailed my response.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dear Martin: I do not accept personal mail, as part of a public debate. Once a public debate is started, it should keep on being public. This site is not a dating service. This is an intellectual and spiritual site.

            One of the reason being that days have only 24 hours. Another reason is that going from public to ad hominem is just inappropriate. You, in particular, have been known to transform philosophical debates in personal attacks, without clear connections between the former and the latter.

            Still another reason is that I have declined to give conferences, so I do not see why I should give private tutoring. As a teacher, I am used to teach to many at once, and the Internet is the ultimate device for this. There are 7 billions of us, it’s not just about me me me me, and you you you you. I also have to teach my daughter, privately.


      • Martin Lack Says:

        Thanks Patrice. There is only one reason I sent the email (which was out of respect for your privacy). To the extent that you have done, I am grateful to you for answering my questions. As I have said, I am not trying to annoy you; only to understand you – and to do so without having to read everything you have ever written and then piece it all together like some giant jigsaw.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Martin: If you want to under-stand me, you have to under-stand my ideas. That means to understand which reasons and facts lead to these ideas. This is the method one has to use with people who think on their own, rather than regurgitate what they are supposed, they believe, to regurgitate.

          I have no religion, but for the truth, to the best of my knowledge, and I try to make the latter as good as possible.

          For example I have a 5,500 words essay on religion coming. It explores little known ground on religion in Carthage, Gaul and the Imperium Francorum, let alone Islam. I actually nearly cut out the Carthage part to put it in a separate essay. But it’s really part of a whole. And the whole has very practical consequences, for war, today, tomorrow, against what, and how much.

          OK, it’s big, it’s long, it’s complicated. But so is the world.

          Last point: Socrates did not care about being understood as an individual. No true philosopher does. Socrates cared about his arguments being understood. My case is worse than Socrates, or Nietzsche, because I inject a maximum quantity of facts (for example from history). It’s not all about little logical games and incestuous literary criticism (as all too much ‘philosophy’ is nowadays).

          Philosophers do not want to be believed as the god Jesus wanted to be. It’s not about me me me me (as Jesus was, when he did not obsess about his dad or his dreams). Philosophy is about the truth. A better truth.


          • Martin Lack Says:

            That all sounds very interesting but, like you, I only have 24 hours in a day… I am sure those who do not have to give a daily account of their actions to the government (N.B. I am unemployed not on day-release from prison) will take the time to read it all. I may do so; but will have to spread the investment of time over a few days… For the benefit of other readers of your blog (i.e. those attempting to swallow it whole), I would recommend opening a duplicate window – then you can read the post in one; and type your comments into another.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Thank you Martin! I never claimed to be easy to swallow. Actually, quite the opposite: really new philosophy is generally found impossible to swallow, and that is why so many philosophers were executed. The symbolic summum being probably that French philosopher who was burned alive on a pile of his books, during the half century of religious wars all over France (16C).
            The idea that her own religion cast a lethal spell on Carthage is completely new (although probably implicit already in Flaubert?). The same applies clearly to the Celts. But, because of the vastness of the Celtic ensemble, its many nations, and the extent of its meta religious habits, the Celts did not mind at all that their own basic religion was removed from them… That was smart.
            BTW, when I see something interesting on the Internet, I copy it, for further reading or reference later…

            You have to point at a government window everyday? Figuratively speaking? I think that unemployment is a grave social problem connected directly to the rise of plutocracy. Rome is the reference there. It invented it all, including why people were unemployed, what it brought to plutocracy, and, of course, welfare to hold it all together. massive unemployment as we have nowadays, is what plutocracy needs to flourish and justify its existence. A carbon tax would reduce it considerably, so plutocracy thinks a carbon tax is not good.


  6. Martin Lack Says:

    Patrice, I saw a very interesting programme on BBC TV last night: Islam the Untold Story – Historian Tim Holland has researched the history of Islam and concluded that the Qu’ran was written by Mo in Palestine, that the Arabs that conquered most of the known World in the years after his death were not yet Muslims, and that Islam was adopted by Arabs some 50 years later (i.e. in the same way Christianity was adopted by Constantine – in order to unify and control people).

    BTW, why do you always criticise Christians and Muslims but never the Jews? The intractible problems in the Middle East are the result of intransigence, arrogance and stupidity on all sides.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Martin: As you want me to answer you, here it is.

      I am commenting some texts that have been viewed as important by billions of innocents. I am not out to criticize particular individuals.

      As far as anti-Judaism. There was never billions of Jews, and the confused nature of Judaism, truly a debate on their god, has never connected to vast military dictatorial theocratic empires. Xtianism and Islamism did, and still do. BTW, I belong to a family of “Just”, so anti-Judaism is not exactly my cup of tea.

      What this historian concluded is well known, and can be read on my site, years ago. Written Arabic did not even fully exist when the qur’an was ‘written”, and it was not written by Muhammad, but long after his death. All this has been known since 660 CE.


  7. Adam Says:

    Patrice said:

    As far as anti-Judaism. There was never billions of Jews, and the confused nature of Judaism, truly a debate on their god, has never connected to vast military dictatorial theocratic empires”.

    It just makes me shudder with horror —- what if there were “billions” of jews. Jews (Israeli powers) never needed a debate on their god to “connect” to vast military dictatorial theocratic empires. They use others to do their “dirty work”.

    Hope your readers of my post, think deep and honest before labeling me “Jew hater” because I am not.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Adam: Some will say that there has been, there is, billions of Jews. Technically, “Islam” (whatever that is) and “Christianity” (a little bit better defined than Islam, but still quite varied) are heresies of Judaism. We looked in a mirror, and we found we were the ones…
      As I pointed out in, A magnificent mosque in Jerusalem sits on Mount Zion, making Muslims into Zionists

      This being said, would you please give an example of “dirty work” done by others? (The Iraq invasion does not qualify, as it was mostly, obviously, the work of Bush and his advisers, none of them Jews, to my knowledge… OK, I don’t know everything….)
      I am not trying to be sarcastic, I really wonder… OK, the Rothschild financed the Brits when they engaged in aggression against France, starting in 1792… But the rothschilds did not seem to have had Judaic aims, just plutocratic ones… And they were so cynical about them, that they could be viewed as loudly critical of this financial system we still have…


  8. заебывать Says:

    Highly energetic article, I loved that a lot.
    Will there be a part 2?


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: