Who Needs Spanking? France, or Europe?

There is, in the Anglosphere, a systematic bias against the French Republic. The latest: an English organization “APPROACH” got France condemned by the “Council of Europe for the tortures allegedly inflicted in France on French children by sadistic French parents.

France, presently at war in several countries, just scoffed: the mood in France at this point is that there was not enough discipline, and too much laxity. No other country in the world is as obsessed by its own children as France. (France spends the most of all countries in the world on care and education of her children, until the age of 12, very clearly.)

Then I read a long article in Nature on the connection between corruption and the lack of innovation (the more corrupt a country is, the less innovative). That was also an Anglosphere based article. What struck me was that the article considered France half corrupt, so to speak. Half-way between the most corrupt European countries, and the less corrupt (Sweden). That was in contradiction with official European statistics:

Truth: France Less Corrupt That Sweden

Truth: France Less Corrupt That Sweden

Now this lie, that France is half-corrupt, is in a major article in Nature, the most famous peer reviewed journal, in 2015! Anglosphere anti-French propaganda never rests, and no lie is big enough?

On a philosophical-historical level, it is clear that France is much less corrupt than Sweden. France is a Republic, Sweden a monarchy founded by Napoleon (!), Sweden was Hitler’s most useful collaborator in World War Two, second only to American plutocrats viewed as a set. Sweden gave Hitler all the high quality iron he needed to make his weapons. In Spring 1940, France and Britain decided to act, and, invading through invaded Norway, were in the process of preparing to cut Sweden in two (to stop the flow of iron to Hitler), when France got invaded. So the French army, which had routed elite Nazi troops in Norway, was recalled.

Now, of course, Sweden is cooperating with the worst aspect of the USA, in the Snowden affair. And not just that, but a Swedish-American fighter plane is used as a Trojan Horse against the usual suspect, France.

The problem with Sweden is not enough spanking: the country collaborated with the Nazis like crazy, but never even examined, let alone punish itself (in France, 40,000 collaborators were executed, 200,000 condemned; however the collaboration of Sweden with Hitler was voluntary, and greed propelled, whereas France was defeated first, and then the Nazis were able to find criminals to help them; the fact that, to this day, Sweden did not self-spank about the whole affair, is abysmal; is it because spanking is outlawed in Sweden?)

But back to our British “Charity”: The “Association for the Protection of All Children” (APPROACH), a “Charity” in the UK, has the “right to register a collective complaint”. Charity to whom? Plutocrats?

“The aims and objects of APPROACH Ltd are “To prevent cruelty and maltreatment of children and advance public knowledge in the United Kingdom and abroad in all matters concerning the protection of children and young people from physical punishment and all other injurious, humiliating and/or degrading treatment whether inside or outside the home”.

There are, of course, laws in France against mistreating children. There is even a mighty state agency specifically in charge of this.

So this makes the following complaint irrelevant:

“The complaint alleges that France is in violation of Article 17 of the Charter because of the lack of explicit and effective prohibition of all corporal punishment of children, in the family, schools and other settings, and because France has failed to act with due diligence to eliminate such punishment in practice…. Millions of children are thus suffering violations of their right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.”

That’s purely defamatory: there is no evidence of corporal punishment of children in France anymore, than say, Britain. Actually there is evidence that British youth is exposed to more violence than French youth.

My own nephew, who lives in a tough part of France, where youth are pretty violent by French standards (Aix-Marseilles), lived in England as a teenager, and was astounded by the level of violence in South-East and East England where he resided. A particular problem in Britain is binge drinking among students:

At Least three Binge Drinking In The Last 30 Days For Students Is Very Violent Abuse

At Least three Binge Drinking In The Last 30 Days For Students Is Very Violent Abuse

So what is going on?

We have seen it before: the plutocrats in the Anglosphere (those who provide funds for “charities”) do not miss an occasion to attack France.

This is nothing new. France is generally accused of the “Terror” of 1793, but those who do this always “forget” to mention that the coalition which started to invaded France in Spring 1792 (that is, well before) threatened officially to “inflict an ever memorable vengeance by delivering over the CITY OF PARIS TO MILITARY EXECUTION and COMPLETE DESTRUCTION…”


So the “Terror” and Holocaust habit was actually started by plutocrats, many of them, if not most of them, based in England (and certainly England got the ball rolling against revolutionary France).

Ever since, France and her “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” has been in the crosshairs of plutocratic “charities”.

Thus French cheese was declared dangerous (hey, French bacteria inside!), and the European Union tried to outlaw it, for years. Wonder why the French National front is becoming the party the French prefer? The first thing the National Front wants to do is “get out of Europe“. Whatever “getting out of Europe” means. But it may mean, in practice, that Europe stop getting its orders from people who, like Draghi (Economics PhD MIT, 1979) or J-C Juncker, have made their entire careers, serving USA plutocrats. And reserving European edicts to absurd orders about the details of daily lives, while giant plutocratic institutions (corporations, individuals) are financed to the tune of hundreds of billions of Euros every few months.

More generally, why would plutocrats want the French not to touch their children anymore? Because plutocrats want human beings infeodated to them to be as inhuman and robotic as possible: one is better served by well programmed automatons. The casual, down to earth, natural and life loving attitude of the French is the symbol of the rebellious spirit plutocrats fear: what do these French think, believing they can interact with their children without the “Council of Europe” watching their every move?

“APPROACH” wants to protect young people from injurious, humiliating and/or degrading treatment… So what about paying enormous tuition for going to school? This is now the case in England (where, under Cameron the plutocrat, university tuition has reached USA levels). Is not paying much of a family income to attend school injurious? Let alone degrading and humiliating (as most youth cannot afford it)?

Canada forbids spanking, but in just a small part of Canada, 3,000 young women disappeared in recent years (only one culprit was found so far, a pig farmer, who fed girls to his animals; but he killed only a few dozens; Canada denied for years that there was a problem). Sweden also, loud and clear, has outlawed spanking, but has alarming levels of violence against women (not overall, but for rape).

Overall Violence Against Women Worldwide: Less In France, Italy, Spain

Overall Violence Against Women Worldwide: Less In France, Italy, Spain

In countries not France, I have seen parents terrified apparently to touch their children in any way. What they do generally is play ball with them, in a sort of semi-formal way (“Hey buddy, here is the ball…”). That’s officially safe. But is it really so?

Once people are afraid to interact with their children, they leave free access to the propaganda of real malfeasance against children. For example contact sports (American football, rugby, hockey, even soccer…) with their concussions: plutocrats prefer their slaves decerebrated. Many of the thugs employed in High Finance have a past in very violent sports: it goes together. By playing “American Football” or Hockey, they have learned to abuse others, and they justify that by letting themselves be abused.

One ends with creatures obsessed by scoring, winning, while looking superficially correct, and, their brains being fracked all over by concussions and their scars, unable to think of anything much. Thus, perfect servants of the established High Financial order.

Nobody has died of spanking, ever, that I have heard of. But in just one week in the USA, hundreds of youth suffer concussions, and several die. From American Football alone. Clearly a case of lethal, or morbid, child abuse. But nothing that “APPROACH” will ever approach, as that would be reproached by its sponsors.

American children with marmalade brains, dying all over from football? Ah, but, they are not French! Thus, who cares? Is that the logic? It is flattering in a devious way…

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Who Needs Spanking? France, or Europe?”

  1. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to ABC News.]
    It is easy to demonstrate that there is much more child abuse in Britain than France, so the fact a British “Charity” sued France is highly suspicious. Sounds political, with an agenda. For details that way:


  2. gmax Says:

    Plutocrats are wayward brats and need spanking. The simple trick they use against France work well


    • gmax Says:

      I meant the trick of badmouthing France at every turn. The examples you gave are egregious; France spends more on primary education, child care and preschool than any other nation.

      On the face of it, that is the exact opposite of child abuse. Let alone abusing millions (as the report claims).


  3. Kevin Berger Says:

    Well, the funny aside is that I recently have been half-following the “Westminster paedophilia” scandal(s) on reddit – don’t judge me -, a slow-mo Dutroux affair that never seems to quite burst out, as well as the various affairs of “grooming” (IE sexual exploitation, on an industrial scale, of mostly white young & very young girls, by organized criminals hailing from the “Pakistanese community”).
    Seems like the UK has its plate quite full, in that regard – wasn’t pedophilia, notably homosexual one, nicknamed the “English disease?” in the Victorian times, or am I misremembering this too?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Henri III of France “Code Civil” did not punish homosexuality (as Henri was the homosexual in chief). That was 540 years ago, or so. Homosexuality stayed a crime in the USA or the UK until a few years ago. That’s why it was much practiced, especially in the USA, a consequence, there, of the war of the sexes and a rebellious attitude confined to the bedroom…


  4. Kevin Berger Says:

    Anyway, I just cannot comment on most of your essays, but I sure can rant on this one, nice.
    I’m pulling this opinion solely out of my hat, for sure, and your esteemed Anglos commenters will beg to disagree, but that the “Anglo-Saxon” world has a real, fundamental, core (?) “issue” with France is a certainty to me; it’s not just a friendly rivalry, an historical leftover, it’s rather and IMHO a big, unspoken part of what “they” are, and it manifests all the time, under countless different guises, explicitly or by omission, from the very serious to the very trivial, and I’m not even sure that it’s always conscious and acknowledged, but it IS here.
    “They” are because they are not “us”, and this explains still IMHO why there is no reciprocity/symmetry in this sentimental relationship between the “Anglos”, whose animus fundamentally is alive and well because they care, and the French, who for all purpose do not care.

    And since I’ve also came to think that this “Anglo-Saxon” world is a very damaged, very damaging one on a spiritual level, I’m kind of very worried about France, as it is both specifically targeted, and possibly much at odds with it and thus even more vulnerable – IE, some other countries may well be more integrated in that world in terms of power dynamics and all, but their “core” remains mostly/more untouched.

    Not sure if I’m making sense, here. I’m ranting, have written this before (in English as well, savor the irony), and will write it again, as I’m mostly trying to understand myself.

    In any case, I’m definitively siding more along Dominique Deux in regard to Joan of Arc, or Napoléon. Without the former, there would be little doubt France would be Ireland, for example, so to speak, and given the right opportunity and environment, there’s little doubt still the “Irish treatment” would be gladly given, case in point the constant push against the standing of French in international orgs, hell, even the constant push to deny the French “roman national”, framed in the WWII narratives.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Kevin: I like your rants, they are fascinating.

      On Johanne and Nap, I have explained in detail what was wrong with them. I have nothing against a fully liberated girl liberating the world. And no doubt Johanne was superwoman, deserving love, admiration, blahblahblah. However the “100 year war” was FRANCO-FRENCH. At the time of D’Arc, it was a war of PARIS-London AGAINST the Queen of the four kingdoms in the south. The South won. It was as if the Confederacy had won Washington and Philadelphia, and new York and New England had seceded.

      I mean the traditional analysis of the “100 year war” is morally twisted, geo-politically wrong.

      What “APPROACH” and the like are doing is saying the French are sadists, thus the FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX is a sadistic idea. It’s as base as base can be. Good English parents are no different from good French parents.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The tyrannical slave master Napoleon, like the Catholic Fundamentalist Jihadist Louis XIV, ought to be a French national embarrassment. There are so many better leaders to celebrate in France! Why to focus on the worst?
      For example: Anne of Kiev:
      … whom I mentioned in:


  5. Kevin Berger Says:



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Kevin! Absolutely fascinating, especially if proven. I t supports my general plutocratic theory: wealth and power leads to Satanism all over.
      Everybody tells me I should watch “HOUSE OF CARDS”… They tell me it’s exactly like what I have been writing about for years (or seeing with my eyes!) Yet, I don’t watch USA TV (except “60 Minutes”)… Not at this point, since a few years…


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: