White Flag Syndrome


Abstract: The cultural difference between the French Republic and the European countries that collaborated voluntarily with Hitler explains their different attitudes relative to the criminal  against humanity, Assad. Obama, Kerry, Hagel are commended for pushing in 2013, exactly for the opposite of what the duplicitous, plutocratic Roosevelt did in 1939. Obama is becoming the indomitable defender of human rights. Excellent.

What’s behind the Russian led, Assad loving coalition? The same sort of plutocracy loving coalition that propped Hitler and his friends.

It’s the very fact that France and the USA are cracking down against the worldwide, tax evading plutocracy, that makes all those who have profited from global plutocracy anxious at the deposition by force of one of their own, namely Assad. It’s not just that if Assad goes, why not Kim, Xi, Putin? It’s also a worldwide conspiracy of leeches that is threatened!


Why do you think Hollande and Obama are isolated about “punishing” Assad?

They are smarter! They are nobler! They have the long view! They defend civilization! They, literally and figuratively, have better intelligence about what is going on in Syria, Russia, etc. France and the USA are also the two top military powers of the West. They are also more courageous! Americans always boast that the USA is the “land of the free”, and France means “Free”.

French fries literally translates into “freedom fries”. Neither the French nor the Americans revere their unworthy masters as the Brits do.

As i said in the introduction, there is a generalized plutocratic angle. If Hollande and Obama are willing to use force, and take out a demon such as Assad, are major tax evaders next? Striking the plutocracy is essential for the Republic.

What makes France and the USA so special?

This is a vast, very interesting subject, but I am in a rush to present more arguments to destroy Assad, so I will address this subject another time. I had a full integrated essay with that inside, but people don’t have this sort of attention span. Let me just say this. For all the silly talk about “the special relationship with Britain“, the USA and France are sister republics, pretty much a unique case in history. They have the same constitution (up to details). They originated together, from the same republican process. Even more importantly, that entangled republic generated the world movement towards democratic republics all over, the United Nations and the Charter of Human Rights.

So it’s no accident they are in the lead against a mass criminal against humanity such as Assad. They have always been in the lead.  

Why is France so isolated inside Europe about Syria? 

It’s an extremely simple, but horrid, truth. Remember the 1930s? The psycho-philosophical cultures from that time persist. They were passed from parents to children to grandchildren, to great grandchildren.

Look at Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council: a Belgian Flemish politician. He suggested like a fool to negotiate with Assad, as if that had not been tried for decades. You have to ask about such a fool: what does the Belgian Flemish  tradition feel about fighting infamy, Hitler’s style?

Well the answer is that the defeat of the French army in May 1940 has everything to do with the attitude of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940.

(It’s a long story, so it will not be given here; but the Dutch and the Belgians should understand their grandparents caused the defeat of 1940; they were not the only cause, true, but their “neutral”, “pacifist” attitude is part of the causality web that produced Auschwitz. To act properly, instead of trying to help them, as it did, the French Republic ought just to have left them to the wolf, as they deserved.)

What happened in the 1930s that revolts you so much?

All European countries WILLINGLY COLLABORATED with Adolf Hitler. All of them. EXCEPT FOR THE FRENCH REPUBLIC. The French Republic was Hitler’s dedicated, relentless enemy. But that was it. The rest of Europe was, at best, supine. Denmark resisted the Nazis 6 hours (still, hundreds were killed). France fought six years. So, of course, Denmark, ended richer, in material possession, per capita, whereas France was devastated. Sweden, or Switzerland, were made filthy rich from WWII.

Wow. That’s crazy! Are you sure? They all collaborated? Why does not anyone talks about this?

There is no glory in remembering what happened. But now, it’s a warning. the only country that can talk about Assad in Europe is France. Because France knew how to talk to Hitler. With all due respect, the other European countries should come to the classroom, and be taught by their professor of practical, survivalist, philosophy, France.

That is, once they come out of the chapel where they celebrate abject, inhuman, vile, decerebrated subjugation to fascism and those prone to the worst crimes against humanity. Have you just looked at Von Rompuy’s weasel face? He looks like the most despicable treacherous villain from central casting. It’s hilarious.

What do you want Belgium, Britain, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Russia, Ireland, fascist Spain, Portugal to say? Oh yeah, we made Hitler all he could be?  And that’s why we want to negotiate with Assad, as we did with Hitler?

By the way, although ti’s usual to despise them, nowadays, Greece and Yugoslavia were also exemplary.

Can you give examples of these alleged collaboration?

Just a few examples out of many. Poland made a defense treaty with Hitler in January 1934, standing on its head the protection it was getting from its creator, France.

Britain made a treaty in 1935 with Hitler that, following Lord Keynes (UK economist and government official, object of a cult) violated the Versailles Treaty, and that the Nazis viewed as an Anglo-Nazi alliance against the French Republic. Later the ex-king Edward VIII was allowed to spy, as “Inspector of the British Forces” on the French defense system and plans, and communicate his finds to his friend Hitler (with the help of his American wife, herself a Nazi spy). The higher reaches of British society were stuffed with Nazis.

Russia and Portugal helped the Germans, and then Nazis, to re-arm secretly and unlawfully. Sweden and Norway made an “Iron Road” for the world’s best iron desperately needed by Hitler to feed his war machine.

The Swedes also licensed the 88mm gun, the Nazis’ main, and most effective anti-tank and AA gun. Russia, Italy were at war against France in 1939-1940, to help their little comrade Hitler. Giant Soviet resources fed the Hitler war machine.

Belgium betrayed the defense treaty with France by refusing to build fortifications (allowing the Panzer army to pass through unhindered in May 1940).

The Netherlands was basically a Nazi economic agent. The Irish government cried after Hitler’s death was announced. Switzerland‘s multifariously vicious roles helping the Reich, deserve a book. 

What about fascist Spain?

Hitler helped general Franco, but Franco did not reciprocate. Although Franco kept on killing millions of his republican, secular enemies inside Spain after he finished Catalonia in winter 1939, he was careful to NOT help Hitler. That made Hitler furious, and weakened him enormously: by controlling Gibraltar, which Franco refused to attack, Britain was able to keep a lock on the Mediterranean.

This also shows that all the countries that collaborated with Hitler rather than the Republic (France) did so willingly, motivated by greed, and unfathomable stupidity. We have a right, nay, a duty, to ask whether their cultures are still that mistaken, that they make a butcher such as Franco humanitarian and far sighted.

You did not mention Czechoslovakia and Austria…

Those two were complicated cases, with divided populations. The Czechoslovakian government was left out to dry at Munich when the French Republic, itself first betrayed by Chamberlain, could not serve Hitler with an ultimatum (as British PM Chamberlain had already given much of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in a spirit of negotiation; so France had to argue against both Hitler, and Chamberlain!). The fact that the formidable Czech fortifications where located in the ethnically German Sudetenland complicated everything, but Hitler’s bad faith was blatant.

Although not as bad as Assad declaring the only solution was to “liquidate” his opposition.

What about Greece and Yugoslavia?

Nowadays, it’s common to depict Northern European countries as more “moral”, and the south as corrupt. But, when it really mattered, when facing Hitler, it was completely the other way around.

Greece and Yugoslavia were anti-Nazi, and completely refused to collaborate, even though they faced annihilation. Their heroic sacrifice was not in vain. They played a crucial role in the defeat of Hitler in Russia: Hitler had to attack and invade them, losing all his (victorious!) thousands of paratroops in Crete, instead of sending them east. He never recovered these 6 lost weeks, of preciously good weather, and his lost units.

If Hitler had attacked the USSR by early May, as initially planned, there is little doubt that Moscow would have been encircled and captured, cutting Russia in two. Moreover Russian evacuations to Siberia would have been cut short. Stalin would have died in Moscow.

The vast Yugoslav and French resistance movements immobilized at least 30 Nazi divisions by 1944, many of them, elite. Vercors, in particular, allowed D day to succeed by diverting crack SS paratroop units needed in Normandy.

Why was the USA not present at Munich?

Because Roosevelt was a plutocrat in drag. More Von Rompuy than Lincoln. Starting in 1934, Roosevelt was extremely hostile to the French Republic, but he hid it successfully from the unsuspecting masses. If you assume extreme hostility to the French, you understand all of Roosevelt policies during 1934-1945, in one fell swoop. In common lore, one calls Roosevelt’s duplicity “American Isolationism”. But certainly American plutocracy was NOT isolated from Germany. Quite the opposite: it leveraged Germany.

How can you be so sure of this unusual thesis of Roosevelt’s hostility to France?

I look at his decisions, what he said, and the moods he expressed. The hostilities started in 1934 when France got upset about what she viewed as aggressive dollar devaluation, and the Anglo-Saxon’s elite friendliness to what became Nazism, first made obvious by Lord Keynes in 1919.

Can you give specific examples of Roosevelt anti-democratic plotting?

Roosevelt did nothing much to reel in American plutocrats transforming the Reich in a power-house. OK, Texaco got a tiny fine for fueling the Nazis and fascist armies in their insurrection against the Spanish Republic.

Then Roosevelt betrayed the German generals who had revealed to the USA embassy their intent to kill Hitler, and recalled his anti-Nazi Berlin ambassador, the historian Dodd. He also nominated as ambassador to London another loud pro-Nazi, J. Kennedy.

On September 3, 1939, the French Republic declared war to Hitler, and, within days an offensive by 45 French divisions was launched, smack into the Nazi “Westwall” (Siegfried lines). Hitler ran out of crucial resources within days as the Poles resisted desperately. The Nazi military situation was no good. American corporations flew decisively to Hitler’s rescue. What did FDR do to stop that? Nothing that could help the French Republic at war.

Quite the opposite. The Congress and the president of the USA, may they live in infamy, declared Britain and France to be “belligerent” and applied various, significant sanctions against them.

Said President F. D. Roosevelt to Congress, while French and Polish troops were fighting the mass murdering racist Nazis, September 21, 1939:

“But if and when war unhappily comes, the Government and the Nation must exert every possible effort to avoid being drawn into the war… this Government must lose no time or effort to keep the Nation from being drawn into the war.

In my candid judgment we shall succeed in these efforts.”

By September 21, 1939, more than 300 million Europeans were already at war. Democracy was represented by France, population 40 million, fighting more than 200 million fascists (Naziland, plus the USSR). There was nothing candid about Roosevelt, and his judgment was that, as long as his plutocratic class would stay on top, everything was fine. And that meant weakening Europe. For Roosevelt, the business of the USA was business. Business with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, that is.

Do you have more happy news?

Yes, Italian Justice just declared that Berlusconi has been in cahoots with the Mafia for at least 20 years. It has long been obvious that Berlusconi’s fortune is just his payment for Mafia money laundering. But then Toronto is been built by Calabria Mafia money (in a way unlawful in Italy; the Italians are furious).

In more happy news, the Treasury of the USA announced that the tax evasion by USA plutocrats to tax heavens is 1,375 billion dollars, a year, more than a third of the yearly Federal Budget of the USA. In other words, everything could be financed, except for the criminals who head the USA.

Did they talk about that at Saint Petersburg?

Well, Putin is himself organized crime of KGB type. He is going around stupidly claiming that the secular rebels in Damascus gazed themselves. That’s the big lie technique, dear to Hitler. In truth many Western intelligence agencies have all the details, and Putin knows they do.

Yes, supposedly there will be automatic exchange of data in 2015. It may happen because Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the USA want to stop the fiscal bleeding. The BRICS and other critters are furious, though. But like Roosevelt with France in the 1930s, they cannot say why they are really furious. Namely that all that good plutocratic money that used to flee the West towards the tax havens will be now be forced to stay there, in the West. That’s why BRICS currencies have been tumbling.

So, instead, they join Putin, and disingenuously suggest that the secular rebels gazed their own children?

Yes. They are getting very afraid that the West is finally using force to regain its destiny. They don’t like that, because they had a deal with Western plutocrats, and, without it, they sink.

They want to keep on submitting to their masters, so they can profit, as many did in the 1930s and 1940s. That is the White Flag Syndrome. If it’s hard to beat them, and more profitable to join them, adopt the appropriate mood and thoughts, while claiming you see no crime.

How does that explain the hostility of many European officials to France?

Because as I said, many come from a Hitler friendly parentage. Even more directly, many of them have their own, lesser deals with the Plutos. Many were, or will be employed by Goldman-Sachs and its ilk. They have rabid so called neo-liberal agendas, namely, they want all the money to their friends the plutocrats, and none to the welfare state (Mr. Rehn is an example; he was recently furious that France had balanced her budget by rising taxes, instead of dismantling her welfare state).

Many smaller countries are tax havens, and they collaborate with plutocrats just as their grand-parents used to collaborate with the fascists, or the plutocrats sponsoring them, in the 1930s. It’s often a question of families, just as in the Mafia (see Berlusconi; when Sarkozy and Merkel tolerated Berlusconi, they knew he was Mafia).

Britain, the Netherlands, Ireland have enjoyed great returns as tax havens. Ireland taxes worldwide Apple profits 2%. Luxembourg is little more than organized crime, etc. What they are afraid of, is that France will use more force, about taxes, and other large countries, such as Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, will follow in the breach.

Just one French nuclear attack submarine could shut down all the Caribbean tax havens, as I have long pointed out.

For example, France just forced humiliatingly Switzerland to submit to a humiliating tax treaty. Germany will be inspired. Because Britain is a major military power (that means a huge, costly military-industrial complex only second to France and the USA’s) and a welfare state, it needs revenue, and now that making Britain into a giant tax havens a la Magpie Maggie Thatcher has no future, it will need to find money, that money that fled to all tax havens, including of the European sort.

Let’s recapitulate. France and the USA are isolated because those republics are cracking down?

France and the USA are the fundamental republics. All others are imitations. The republican model was imposed on them from the outside, not by a revolution from inside. They are followers, not revolutionaries. What we have now is France and the USA imposing higher moral, humanitarian and republican standards.

It looks like gas, but it’s fundamentally about taxes. It’s about which values have imperium. When Putin claims the rebels gazed themselves by firing rockets from Assad’s territory, he is truly saying that it’s OK to be crazy, craziness is worthy. Obama was right not to waste his time visiting him. Yet, Putin has not sunk as low as most of the anti-wars in the West.

What is wrong with the anti-war protesters?

CNN showed an hysterical anti-war woman crying loudly in Senator Mac Cain’s face:”I beg you, I beg you, please, don’t bomb Syria!” She was waving an arm in the air, imploring. I admired Mac Cain’s composure. Interlocutor after interlocutor made a show of inconceivable ignorance during that Obama hating Tea Party meeting. These are the anti-war protesters for you: inhuman, irrational, ill-informed ignorami.

The anti-wars ought to be conferred collectively the Auschwitz Prize. That’s for all those who express loudly the opinion that the deliberate mass killing of children is none of their business, and not one weapon ought to be fired against the perpetrator, lest it disturb the peace. That’s sinking lower than the Nazis themselves, at least on the rhetorical level. And rhetoric is important; it’s the first order of expressed thought.

So don’t ask for whom the gas spreads. It spreads for you. And it smothers minds first.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

36 Responses to “White Flag Syndrome”


    I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the US and France should invade Russia and China because you question their sovereignty?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      To Darold: I did not suggest to invade Syria, let alone China and Russia. I question their sovereigns, not their sovereignty.

      I am just saying that the fact that the USA and France crack down on global plutocracy, using force is tightly related to using force against plutocratic tyrants (the USA and France are certainly using spectacular, and successful force against, say, Switzerland; Kim has more than ten billion in Suisse).

      Assad is part of the plutocratic archipelago. If a kinglet of Pluto’s archipelago, such as him is killed by France and the USA, that’s an unambiguous message to worldwide plutocracy, from simple mega tax evading corporations to the likes of Mr. Kim.


  2. nathan curry Says:

    One of your best essays IMO.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thank you, Nathan. I appreciate the compliment very much, especially coming from you. I was wondering what was happening to you (I have no time to go to facebook!)

      This has been a time of high stress. Some have compared me to a right wing extremist… Prez BO is finally moving on the issue along the lines I advocated for more than two years! ;-)! That was not ineluctable, as I did so little for the banks… But he is finally moving on tax havens too…
      Where are you now?


      • Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

        I am in London – launching 2 new ventures. Off to Paris tomorrow for business trip.

        Someone raised these point about your essay:

        “What about Churchil in the UK?Was he a nazi or a fascist?”- this misses the point of the context of the essay

        – but this question I cannot answer as I do not know enough about it:

        “What about countries like Yugoslavia(France played a key role in creating it),Bulgaria or Greece?”


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Nathan: Churchill was Anglo-American, and well connected, although francophile and French speaking. Until 1930 (before Hitler!), he was with his class of exploiters, and vociferously against the tough stance of the French relative to German unlawful rearmement. He even threatened military action. By 1938, though, he had become anti-Hitler.

          However, when disaster struck in May 1940, Churchill refused to commit all the Royal Air Force, and maybe the Battle of France was lost then. Indeed, for cause of dispersion, the French Air force ought to have been able to re-establish air supremacy by mid June, given the time to bring back far flung units.

          I did not talk about the South-Eastern European countries: thank you a lot for reminding me of them. I will incorporate them in the essay: it’s not just, it makes the others, the northern countries’ moral posturing look even worse.. But for Italy, they played no role in Hitler’s ascent. Greece and Yougoslavia were anti-Nazi, and completely refused to collaborate, even though they faced annihilation. They played a crucial role in the defeat of Hitler in Russia: Hitler had to attack and invade them, losing all his (victorious!) thousands of paratroops in Crete, instead of going east. He never recovered these 6 lost weeks, and his lost units.
          If Hitler had attacked by early May, as initially planned, there is little doubt that Moscow would have been encircled and captured, cutting Russia in two. Moreover Russian evacuations to Siberia would have been cut short.

          Yougoslavia and France vast resistance movements immobilized at least 30 Nazi divisions by 1944, many of them, elite. Vercors, in particular, allowed D day to succeed.


  3. Ken Says:

    Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
    Guatemala 1954
    Indonesia 1958
    Cuba 1959-1961
    Guatemala 1960
    Congo 1964
    Laos 1964-73
    Vietnam 1961-73
    Cambodia 1969-70
    Guatemala 1967-69
    Grenada 1983
    Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
    Libya 1986
    El Salvador 1980s
    Nicaragua 1980s
    Iran 1987
    Panama 1989
    Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
    Kuwait 1991
    Somalia 1993
    Bosnia 1994, 1995
    Sudan 1998
    Afghanistan 1998
    Yugoslavia 1999
    Yemen 2002
    Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular no-fly-zone basis)
    Iraq 2003-2011 (Second Gulf War)
    Afghanistan 2001 to present
    Pakistan 2007 to present
    Somalia 2007-8, 2011 to present
    Yemen 2009, 2011 to present
    Libya 2011
    Syria 2013?
    Don’t you think that is enough war?
    As for Tax havens You need to go to Britain and the Queens many Isles in the south pacific to get to where the real money is hidden.In fact it would do more for our budget to INVADE the top ten tax havens which are
    8. Japan (who is allowed by the US to buy Iranian Oil now).
    7. Jersey(Britain)
    6 Singapore
    5. USA
    4 Hong Kong
    3. Luxembourg
    2.The Cayman Islands(British again)
    1. Switzerland
    Lets start at the top of the list and work out way down.Make war pay for itself hit money rich targets. am sick of hitting poor people Nothing to loot. is there?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You forgot lots of French wars, the last one being the astoundingly successful one in Mali.
      War can be an absolute good. Example: WWII. Take the first one on your list: Korea. Without the UN intervention there, there would not have been a South Korea. Moreover, bad guys in China would have attacked Taiwan, maybe the Philipines, Japan would have had to nuclear arm (and then lead a guerilla war to get the Americans of their back first), etc.

      As I have long said, you can find it in my writings over the years, The world’s top tax haven is the USA. Obama and Hollande know this. But they can’t bomb it first.


  4. Ken Says:

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6d4ed6bc-c386-11e2-8c30-00144feab7de.html#axzz2eI2F5JwS Can’t forget British Cayman islands,British Virgin Islands ,Bahamas and many others.A 2012 report from the Tax Justice Network estimated that between USD $21 trillion and $32 trillion is sheltered from taxes in unreported tax havens worldwide. If such wealth earns 3% annually and such capital gains were taxed at 30%, it would generate between $190 billion and $280 billion in tax revenues, more than any other tax shelters.[8] If such hidden offshore assets are considered, many countries with governments nominally in debt are shown to be net creditor nations.[9] However, the tax policy director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed skepticism over the accuracy of the figures.[10] A study of 60 large US companies found that they deposited $166 billion in offshore accounts during 2012, sheltering over 40% of their profits from U.S. taxes.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      PM Cameron told them, British tax heavens, it was over. The fact is, Britain attitude, under Cameron, has changed (nota bene: I hate most of Cameron’s policies). For the best. London is much less the banksters heaven it was still under Bliar/Brown…


  5. Ken Says:

    http://www.can-offshore.com/tax-havens/Cook-islands-tax-haven.htm can’t forget these other British tax havens under the Queen.


  6. Dominique Deux Says:

    Dear Patrice

    I posted this first on the previous essay because of technical problems, now solved through that trick. Please ignore the earlier post.

    A sweeping, deep-rooted essay, replete with carefully hidden truths. They need to be stated again and again. But it sounds a bit too optimistic to me, especially about a supposed paradigm shift re tax havens.

    Visions of Rafales and Typhoons surgically exploding those warehouses of shame, all over BRICS and Commonwealth confetti, which house tens of thousands of bogus corporate headquarters, are exhilarating but, I fear, won’t be happening anytime soon. Hey, we might hurt a night watchman, or sewer rats (the cute, furry kind). The House of Lords won’t stand for it.

    Truth be said, I suspect the fabled G20 “get-tough” decisions are rather about reinforcing the semantic distinction between legal tax avoidance (fair-haired CEOs) and illegal tax evasion (swarthy Mafia bosses). And making sure it keeps Jersey and Antigua in business.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: Well, we will see. PM Cameron had told his tax havens the gig was up. And the fact is, lots of London evading tax schemes are now based in Suisse (where they are not safe at all).

      The perspective is not to threaten to outright physically threaten the tax havens, but the vision of an exploding ASSad, sent to high heavens by a SCALP missile should provide other plutocrats with an unmistakable message: the Republic is out to get them, and no Pluto Putin can protect them.
      In any case, thanks for the appreciation: “sweeping, deep-rooted essay, replete with carefully hidden truths. They need to be stated again and again.”
      And as far as the optimism is concerned, I plead guilty as charged!


  7. de Foucaud Paul Says:

    So let us go push cruise missiles along the US ones.
    And after ?
    What is the strategic and geoplitic plan for such an action ?
    Nothing heard about it on the time beeing.
    Do you want now a WW III war ?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul:
      WWIII? We will get WWIII if, and only if, we let the plutocratic phenomenon grow out of control, as in the 1930s.

      I advised an extremely tough line against the North Korea fat kinglet, Kim. So far it worked: he is much nicer now. However, should he grow his nuke force, pre-emptive war there, even pre-emptive NUCLEAR war, is preferable to the alternative (with Japan and South Korea bristling with 10,000 nukes… with China trying to stay ahead).

      For ASSad, as I said, two aims: hit the chemicals, get rid of him personally (as a criminal against humanity). The Syrian army would be stronger without Assad, and secularism in a better position. It’s a bit like the situation with Hitler in 1944-45: he was viewed as so bad, the British military establishment liked him as Commander in Chief. The Jihadists can only love to have ASSad as the chief of the opposition. So, paradoxically, striking ASSad is partly about helping secularism.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Rafales waiting in ambush with SCALP may be able to react in quasi real time, as when Qaddafi was executed, or during the initial defense strikes at Benghazi. Tomahawk from distant submarines or even more, destroyers, are not fast reacting: that’s how Bin Laden escaped Clinton’s wrath…


  8. Ken B. Says:

    You want to tell me that you felt that an attack on Syrian targets would be a good idea. That is what I gathered, anyway.

    Granted, I’m not a student of history as you appear to be. But here is what I see.

    The entire event stink to high heaven of an attempt to frame Assad for an attack he never performed, so that Obama & Co. will have a phony excuse to bomb them. You say that Assad is the “only one” with chemical weapons – Are you absolutely sure about that? Because I’m not. Haven’t you noticed that ALL the stories on this attack say he “allegedly” produced the attack. There are reasons for using that word…


    In addition, John Kerry has lied to the American public about the timeline of events leading up to Obama’s “had it up to here” threat to attack Syrian targets. On Wednesday August 21, a chemical attack appears to have taken place. Angela Kane of the U.N. had not finished and sent a formal request for site inspection to the Syrian gov’t until SATURDAY, the 24th. Syria gave the OK to inspect the site the VERY NEXT DAY (Sunday)! U.N. inspectors were on the site on that MONDAY. But…here’s the rub…Kerry says that SYRIA was balking and stalling for 5 days, trying to delay U.N. inspectors. How can that be?

    U.N. inspectors were IN Damascus on the day Assad supposedly made the attack. Jeez, that sounds like a quite logical and safe move to make. The whole world is watching if Assad will use chemical weapons, and lo and behold, HE DOES!?

    Or did he??? http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/actual-video-footage-of-syrian-rebels-launching-chemical-weapons.html

    Patrice, the fact is, the United States is a member state of the U.N. In the U.N. Charter, Article 2(4), it’s clear. It is illegal for member states to attack each other because they claim another state is violating international law, unless they are acting in self-defense or unless they are authorized to do so by a Security Council resolution. The Security Council said NO to a Syria attack. The deal is done.

    Patrice, Obama, Kerry, McCain, and the rest of “gang” do not care about Syrian people. They are interested in regional “stability”, which of course we have been double plus good at, no? If they can attain regional stability, our power over oil and rare earths (and God knows what else) in the region will be unmatched. Obama is not being forthright with the American public about why he is so bullish on attacking Assad and taking him out of power. He, and Kerry, Pelosi and the others are oh so concerned about the poor civilians, and look what Assad has done yet again! It is a facade, Patrice. You are smarter than me. I know you must see this. It is one thing to say we have the power to stop evil from occurring, but what happens when we are the ones committing evil. We are no better. Under Reagan and Bush Sr., we provided materials and intel to Saddam so that he could properly produce and target his chemical weapons. So, where, Patrice, do you think Obama and Kerry and the rest get off telling other countries how they should behave? Has America apologized for cahooting with Saddam? In no wise. The saying is “Let he who is without sin caste the first stone.”

    It was good talking to you, but I wasn’t there to talk, I was there to reach out to my fellow Americans – Not another war for oil and profits.

    I could go on. I’m tired.

    -Ken B.,


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Ken!

      Thanks for taking your time. I am not just a student of history but I can be fairly called a historian (I reinterpret past facts in a new story).

      I am as cynical as they go.

      However we differ on the facts. You present the Syrian government talking points, which are about as smart as W.’s (the war criminal president).

      I have answered all the points you talk about in various essays. I am getting information from France too, where the intelligence agencies on Syria are second to none.

      Assad is so bad, there will be an intervention anyway. And if the USA does not want to participate, in the long run, French strikes are unavoidable. France will attack, alone if need be, as with Hitler in 1939.

      The whole premise about the French nuclear deterence is that neither NATO, nor the USA can be depended upon, as WWII and many other cases amply showed.

      Although I am a partisan of the UN, it has its limits as two dictatorships have UNSC seats. France is used to override the UNSC with strikes against criminals against humanity and human right defense.

      Being on the right side of these provides with retrospective agreement.

      At this point, Assad is stuck, as he may well be struck by France immediately if he repeats a new gas attack.

      France has said she will wait for the official UN inquiry report before punishing the August 21 attack. Although she has all the elements. That so many would believe that rebels would fire Sarin rockets from Assad held territory onto their own families is the sort of frantic naivety that made Bush into the criminal he became. Or Hitler, for that matter.


  9. Paul Handover Says:

    I must get out more! Because when you write, “It’s the very fact that France and the USA are cracking down against the worldwide, tax evading plutocracy, …”, my instinctive response was when did the USA start cracking down?

    Would appreciate a quick list of recent actions by the USA that demonstrate my lack of understanding. Seriously, I would be overjoyed to stand corrected!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: Indeed, indeed… You will not read this from the usual plutophile pundits. “The Economist“, itself part of a tax avoiding scheme, will not tell you that, lest it becomes even more real. Obama is using the same general strategy that he is trying to use with ObamaCare (long story). Slow and around…

      Anyway, just ask Switzerland, or more exactly Swiss banksters, about France and the USA. You will get the truth: it’s horrible out there. I have related what happened in preceding essays.

      The idea is to spread the tax squeeze like a cancer… So Obama looks plutocracy friendly, but he hurts where it counts.

      The very fact the US Treasury let it be known that there was $1.4 TRILLION of tax havens evasion in the USA alone is telling. Of course they won’t talk about it, if they did not want to repress…

      Anyway, he is pretty much following my script (literally!) at this point, so I am not going to complain…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      BTW, Paul, something else no one has picked on is that the Assad neurotoxin attack was related to the bruhaha in Egypt. Assad thought that would hid the massacre (I mentionned that as soon as it happened).

      What Assad did not expect is that Hollande and Obama were delighted to have an ocasion to change the conversation from the historical support of the West (!) for the Muslim Brotherhood (the grandson of the founder of the MB, Tarik Ramadan, a… Swiss…is professor at OXFORD!)

      Ramadan is, philosophically, a creep, a lethal poison, and it’s a shame he can teach at Oxford, and a testimony to the Western plutocracy manipulation of Salafism to get oil (for the plebs) and money (from the feudal types, and thus the oil, hence, the plebs!). As a man he is a refined gentleman, who knows exactly which strings he is supposed to pull.


  10. Paul Handover Says:

    Patrice, thank you. Wouldn’t mind a link to some of your previous essays. Oh, agree with you with regard to The Economist. Been a subscriber for years but this is the end of the relationship. Any ideas on a substitute?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: I wrote several essays about Syria recently, but I have been recommending the Qaddafi treatment on Assad for more than two years (that would be a visit by Rafale jets on his convoy).

      What is happening since reinforces my viewpoint. Even the latest fighting is an amusing Assad’s manipulation: not defending a Christian city, letting the bandits in, so now he can change the conversation, and pose as a saver of Christians…

      I am often a cynic, as, I am sure, we all have to be who love Learning From Dogs. The Economist’s main sin at this point, I feel, at least for me, is that it is not thought provoking enough. Yet, I still read it quite a bit (being a cynic). I am also a subscriber to New Scientist (excellent!) and Nature (in the way of Brit magazines).

      Frankly, we live in a world where much has to be revealed, and I try my best. I am getting more and more interested by what I write (hahaha). There is no substitute for thought provoking discourse. I am surprised when people who have read me for ten years come, and suddenly understand the plutocratic problem, and how what happened in the 1930s relates to what happens today (often on a larger scale!). And then they ask: how come nobody talks about that? (I wonder silently why it took them so long to get it…)


  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Paul: I have seen several different, “authoritative” versions of Kaddafi/Qaddafi’s end.

    The following can be asserted:
    1) the criminal had been localized in Syrte, in a space of a few blocks
    2) he tried to flee in a convoy composed of up to 200 vehicles, some carrying heavy weapons
    3) one American drone hit the convoy
    4) French fighter bombers of several types hit the convoy with huge bombs, destroying it completely
    5) Qaddafi’s vehicle was destroyed, he was wounded, fled on foot, alone, with his gold pistol, found refuge in sewer
    6) Lybian commandos of a unit that the French Marsoins had landed with during the fall of Tripoli were present during Qaddafi’s arrest and dispatch.


    • Paul Handover Says:

      Thanks Patrice.

      On a more basic note, I used to subscribe to The New Scientist years ago when living in the UK. Just seen that it’s available in the USA for $25/quarter. Might just go for that.

      Best wishes.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Good call. New Scientist is totally excellent. very ecological too. I have now a new reason to feel that reading “The Economist” is very dangerous. Details in another comment.


    • de Foucaud Paul Says:

      Thank’s Patrice,
      You are looking well informed about that end of the story !
      I will be fully informed by a good fellow as soon retired.
      Again the combined use of fighters, special Forces, weaponised ISR drone and fast decision loop taken from Staff is a best.
      Theese means used together, as a force multiplier, over Mali seemed also as astonishing efficient.


  12. Patrice Ayme Says:

    I think the Dark Side is real. I have had several vivid illustrations of that during my life. Including being bombed by rabid racist fascists.

    Yesterday provided me, unexpectedly, with a new personal example. I saw a woman with a pitbull on leash in a park. I took an extremely wide berth (10 meters). After the danger seemed to be well passed, I erred: I started to read The Economist again. I have warned against The Economist (although I have subscribed to it forever). Even Zeus does not seem to approve of that activity. Indeed…

    Next I felt a violent electric shock in the back of my upper left thigh. The pitbull had made a sneak attack from behind, and tore through pants and thigh, leaving an impressive bleeding hole. No doubt an animal capable of handling bulls…

    So now here we are. The dog was confiscated by Animal Control which found the owner ‘elusive” and has been unable to track the dogs’ rabbies vaccination, and suggests I start rabbies treatment.

    Some animals behave rabid, including Homo SS, and its hybrid with a heron, Homo ASSad…


    • de Foucaud Paul Says:

      If you were abble to face this animal with the desire to kill it, it would leave you and might be within a death hawl as soon abble to understand that…
      If afraid, you will be beaten with no chance to avoid it.
      This is avaliable in front of any dangerous animal.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Paul: Je ne suis pas sur que je comprenne. That pitbull came sneakily, silently, from behind, as I was reading, at a ninety degree angle from his mistress who had released him from his leash, unbeknownst to me. There had been no indication of hostility whatsoever. As a police commander laughed to me:”Nowadays, one has to walk backwards!”
        I have charged mountain lions three times, BTW… And approached African lions on foot three times at least, in the wild (twice accidentally, sort of.)


  13. estate planning attorney Dallas Says:

    This site was… how do you say it? Relevant!!

    Finally I have found something which helped me.
    Many thanks!


  14. Ken B. Says:

    “The anti-wars ought to be conferred collectively the Auschwitz Prize. That’s for all those who express loudly the opinion that the deliberate mass killing of children is none of their business, and not one weapon ought to be fired against the perpetrator, lest it disturb the peace.”

    These are your words, Patrice. So, my questions follow…

    Where was the world’s outrage (yes, even France and the U.S.A.) on the use of white phosphorus weapons in the sieges of Fallujah in 2003-2004 where as many as 50,000 civilians remained?

    Where was the world’s outrage (yes, even France and the U.S.A.) when the USA was complicit (via satellite imagery and component sales) in the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80’s?

    Where was the world’s outrage (yes, even France and the U.S.A.) when the USA poured 20 Million gallons of Napalm and Agent Orange on the country of Vietnam, causing skyrocketing cancer rates and birth defects (not including initial “damage”)?

    Where was the world’s outrage (yes ,even France and the U.S.A.) when America and U.K. used depleted uranium munitions in Iraq during the Gulf and Iraq wars?

    When non-Westerners make use of weapons of mass destruction, there is outrage and calls for military intervention from the West. But when the Westerners themselves use them, it is totally permissible under nebulous reasoning, and the world could care less.

    Your view on attacking Syria via the U.S. or France military is absolutely hypocritical, to the extreme. Amazingly, you seem ignorant to a simple fact: America and France are against chemical warfare…WHEN THEY FEE LIKE IT! When they get caught or when the population studies are done after the fact, it is denial, denial, denial by the U.S. and it’s allies.

    But you don’t care about those Iraqi children that the U.S. chemically burned, congenitally deformed, or shortened the life of via cancers. Who cares about those Vietnamese children. Let’s just focus this time on Syrian children. Let’s just save the children in Syria! France loves Syria! Let’s just kick ASSad’s ass out, and hopefully al Qaeda doesn’t take over. Hopefully we don’t start a wider conflict and lose yet ANOTHER war. Hopefully, Syria will fall, and then with that big boost to our American ego and American pride through the glorious victory over tyranny, we can move on to the next country, like…Iran! Hopefully sleeper cells here in the U.S. don’t get woken up in the process. And then finally our empire extension will be complete. The entire middle east will be under our thumb. The mission will be accomplished, and we can move on to our AirSea Battle plans for Asia.

    Ain’t it great?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ken: Lots of questions there. Let me handle a few right now, more later, I have to bring my daughter to school. I thought at the time that the whole Fallujah siege was a USA war crime, and I persist and sign. The American soldiers were furious because they intend to retire to private security companies, very profitably, and, in their eyes that should not include roasting, hanging from a bridge.

      when the Israeli used white phosphorus in Gaza, that was widely broadcast and justly harshly criticized. Apparently the Israelis don’t want to be threatened with the ICC, so they discontinued the habit.

      Notice France is asking to send ASSad to the ICC, and the USA and the UK are blocking that, at this point…

      It’s true Saddam was snafued by the war against Iran. The West (especially France and the USA) pushed him to attack (ironical, sort of, or, rather Machiavellian, as France and the USA were behind the rise of Khomeiny). That’s why I think he did not get a fair trial (as intended, so he would not speak about Rumsfeld!).

      Usage of chemical weapons in Vietnam led the General Assembly to override the USA veto, to make chemical warfare even more unlawful… And the USA signed on that later, and has been destroying its chemical weapons ever since…


  15. Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] These are symptoms of the White Flag Syndrome. […]


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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: