Sometimes, The Ends Justify The Means

Putin’s Reich, like Hitler’s Reich, can be thoroughly surrealistic.

Russia captured an Ukrainian army pilot, a well-known woman who served against in the Middle East. That an Ukrainian combat helicopter pilot ended in a cage in Russia is even stranger: did Ukraine invade Russia? No. Did Russia invade Ukraine? How else does Putin capture famous Ukrainian pilot (and then accuse her of “murder”).

Meanwhile, all over the Middle East, The Islamists bulldoze the past, as it proves that their so-called Prophet was just an analphabet raider who came thousands of years after the invention of civilization and secular law, in exactly the same place. The advantage, is that they show Islamist ideology for what it is. Here is how Islam conquered the Middle East:

Nazis Hid Such Pictures, Islamists Gloat About Them

Nazis Hid Such Pictures, Islamists Gloat About Them

OK, 13 centuries ago, they used swords, not guns. The child is Christian Armenian in Syria. Armenia was the first Christian nation (early Fourth Century, more than 400 years before the invention of Islam by a raider called Muhammad).

Per Kurowski, having read my Savage, The Franks? Islam Is Worse in Learning From Dogs, made the following comment, which I found weird (but it gave me an opening for a strong retort):

“Here a (nasty) question asked by Daniel C. Dennett in the book “Thinking” (2013) edited by John Brockman.

“Suppose that we face some horrific, terrible enemy… and here’s two different armies that we could use to defend ourselves. The Gold Army and the Silver Army: same numbers, same training, same weaponry. They’re all armored and armed as well as can do. The difference is that the Gold Army has been convinced that God is on their side and this is cause of righteousness, and it’s as simple as that. The Silver Army is entirely composed of economists. They’re all making side insurance bets and calculating the odds of everything… Which army do you want on the front lines?”

And Dennett has introduced the question by citing William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) with: “Far better is it for an army to be too savage, to cruel, too barbarous, than to possess too much sentimentality and human reasonableness”. 

So now you ponder on that for a while.”

Thanks Per, for mentioning Daniel Dennet, a well-known American philosopher, with a towering reputation, and this ineffable property of colossal boredom that seems to emanate from all American philosophers.

Like a giant Black Hole at the heart of a galaxy, I need to swallow stuff, so I can make light. Dennet will do for now.

First, let me say that I approve Paul’s answer 100%. Here I go:



The big mistake in World War two was to realize too late that Nazism had to be physically destroyed, with maximum savagery.

The French Republic understood it: by January 1938, the French War Ministry launched a hyper secret NUCLEAR bomb program (Irene Curie, daughter of Marie, had not already a Nobel Prize, but she also had discovered the nuclear chain reaction, and taught it to Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, both German, who, fortunately, had not understood too well what the much smarter Irene had found).

The aim of the program was to atom bomb Berlin: Nazis were to get what they deserved (the project fled later to England, and then MANHATTAN, becoming the project by that name).

Morality? Against those who have none, but the Dark Side, only darker ways win. 

The British followed the French example (Churchill of course knew about the nuclear bomb project): against the Nazis, only a deeper darkness would do. So they prepared a strategic bomber fleet. The idea was to eradicate Nazi cities, if it had to come to that. The British were ready for the worst.

The British were ready for the worst, the Nazis were not: it would have meant, for the later, to look deep in their ugly souls.

So they did not look.

So they did not anticipate that they ugly souls would lead them to be at war, again, with France and Britain. Or, maybe in 1945 (some of them, including Hitler, planned, secretly). But not in 1939. Thus the Nazis did not prepare with a bomber fleet and enough anti-aircraft defenses. Britain did, because Britain anticipated the ugliness of what could follow: as the British soul was pure, it could look into the possible consequences of Nazi evil. So Britain prepared for the worst, all-out war (something the ex-director of Mi6 just suggested may happen with Putin).

To fight evil, one has to draw the line somewhere. Thus, in 1939, Britain followed France, which had a defense treaty with Poland, and told Hitler that invading Poland was out of the question.

Hitler, stuck, made his hyper secret alliance with Soviet dictator Stalin official.

France and Britain, and Poland were undeterred. Poland refused to concede any territory for its Prussian tormentors who had occupied her for centuries.

Hitler attacked. France and Britain declared war.


At that point, it was clear Hitler had lost. It was just a matter of time. The Nazis tried to get lucky, and they were, in May 1940, after several inconceivable blunders by the French and British commands, who had not anticipated how insane the Nazis were. And Lady Luck was Nazi in May 1940.


When the Nazis had to turn to air war against Britain, though, they were not ready. But the Brits were. Nazi attacks against English cities met the wrath of the RAF. Ultimately savage city bombing at night reduced Hitler’s Reich to smoldering ruins. One million men manned the anti-aircraft guns, but still, British bombers inflicted war hindering damage. (By comparison, the Nazis had never more than three million men trying to invade the USSR.)

Why could not the Nazis reciprocate in kind? They had no (long range) bomber fleet. Their puny force was mostly wiped out in 1940. they had never anticipated they would find themselves in total war with Britain… While they were still unprepared. They had not anticipated that the French and the British would see all the way through their nasty Nazi souls and decided to do away with them, mustering whatever it took.

Later the USAF joined, and the Nazis ran out of everything. Especially the capacity to make ammunitions, explosives, and fuel.

Was it rough? Sure. But there was no other way to win the war.

And if that war had been lost, the Nazis, in the end, would have simply killed most of humanity.


That the ends never justify the means is cheap metaphysics. It’s a perfect metaphysics for slaves to have, if you are a master, as the servants will thus never revolt.

In practice, metaphysics ought to never contradict physics. In the real world, absolute force is justified by absolute morality.

Pointing guns at a toddler, and, or, gloating about it, is an absolute wrong.

Chimps or simple monkeys, or even dogs would understand this (once they have been shown what guns can do). Not only is morality absolute, but, ethological research shows, it is shared among all advanced species.

This is why dolphins rescue people at sea. It is also why dolphins do not attack people, although people do hunt, kill, and eat people in some parts of the world (I discovered that myself as a child in Africa; I have more to say on this another day).

Why is the genus Homo so demonic?

Well, it is a question of superiority.

However, that sense of superiority, with its Dark Side can only be moderated with even greater force. God is not our friend, as it is just an illusion, and allusion, that primitives have. However, force, inflicted with enough demonicity, is all the god we need.

Obama has learned that way: he has, de facto, allied himself with Iran (whose Prime Minister Abadi justified said alliance by claiming it was like that of the West with the USSR against the Nazis; I wonder if he realizes this means that he is working for Stalin…)

One should go one cynicism further: the strength of the Islamist State has come from officers from Saddam Hussein’s army. Should one want to finish the conflict, one could make them an offer they cannot refuse. But then, of course, does not want to really finish that conflict?

Situations develop an intelligence of their own, and conflicts are debates, at another level.

When rats are pressed in a cage, they become vicious. We have been building a cage, and it has not become more comfortable.

Belgium had, a little while back, 381 species of wild bees (crucial to the survival of the biosphere). Three years ago, it was down to 11, and a recent survey found only 5.

What, or rather, who, is killing the bees?

More on this later, and the connection with the world’s richest, and, according to himself, best man, the one who should pay no taxes, Bill Gates. Gates of hell are for those who make it so that too much power comes into too few hands.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Sometimes, The Ends Justify The Means”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    Not going to comment specifically until I have read this post out to Jeannie after dinner tonight. Must offer, at this juncture, my gratitude for your link to my post over on Learning from Dogs. Thank you.


  2. ianmillerblog Says:

    My interpretation is that it was Göring who lost the war. First, he claimed he could eliminate the British at Dunkirk. Yeah, right! Then his tactics in the so-called battle of Britain lost far too many aircraft, not because the British were superior, but because he insisted on idiotic tactics, e.g. fighters flying with bombers, and in assembling his big fleets, the fighters used up half their fuel before they got anywhere near Britain. A very high per cent age of Luftwaffe fighters simply ran out of fuel. Then, of course there was Stalingrad. Of course you can argue that Hitler was worse for going along with this ineptitude.

    It is arguable that the Brits were ready. They barely won, despite the best efforts of Göring. But it is true that Germany could have been more ready. With a real determined effort, the Me 262 plus air to air rockets could have been ready much sooner, had Hitler emphasised their importance, instead of wasting effort on things like the V1 and V2. Of course Hitler would also have been better off not going to war, but that is, as your article suggests, another story that wasn’t likely to be written.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The war was (most certainly) lost the moment the mighty democracies known as Britain and France declared war. In May 1940, the Germans had only medium to light 1,000 tanks. The other 1,000 tanks they had were Czech. The French had 3,200 tanks, mostly medium to heavy or even very heavy.

      If the French had used their army prudently, they had 99% chance of winning (and war games have confirmed this). However the French Rapid Intervention Force and its seven armored divisions were sent to the Netherlands. Then the three heavy armored divisions were also mismanaged (just one of them could have cut the Panzers; as proven by the fact the Fourth Heavy Armored (Half) division headed by De Gaulle nearly did it).

      It’s the French army which held the ring at Dunkirk. The Panzers could not move anymore (the exact problem the French armored army had in the Netherlands).

      The Nazis lost the war for all to see, especially themselves in 1941: in their despair, they had to attack the USSR. However, by September, it was clear they were losing: the had huge losses, battle after battle, victory after victory. Guderian wanted Moscow, Hitler sent him south to Ukraine. By the time he was allowed to charge Moscow again, he saw he could make it, asked to retreat on prepared positions, Hitler refused, Guderian, disobeyed, retreated, Hitler fired him, top Nazi officers were getting heart attacks after heart attacks. By then the 300,000 men Siberian army counter-attacked at Moscow (as Stalin knew from his spies that Japan was going to attack the USA).

      So Stalingrad… To go there, the Nazi Sixth army let itself be encircled several times. Desperate tactics all the way… As in France in 1940.

      So yes, they could never win.


  3. Per Kurowski Says:

    Patrice, of course I am not suggesting “we want them on the frontline”

    My father in 1940, as a Polish soldier (or by that time just more as a young Polish troublemaker) was on the first train to Auschwitz and stamped with number 245. He would clearly have understood entirely the need of fighting violence with more violence.

    But I, born on this side of the war (1950), and having grown up sort of accustomed to turning a blind eye towards Russia and China, have never ever, until now, been confronted with challenges that make me feel that I should probably better temporarily suspend my well-behaved Sunday School-member of Christian Civilization ways of acting and thinking, and become somewhat barbarous myself, in order to defend my constituency, my children and grandchildren, and my beliefs.

    Just have patience with me. Churchill had had plenty of experiences to draw upon when it was his time to act. But for an “All you need is love” Woodstock child, to suddenly wake up at 65 and realize that you’d better think and act fast as a Churchill, is not the easiest thing to do. But don’t you fret… If I am not already there I’ll get there somehow.

    Per Kurowski


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Per:

      Your answer is very interesting and touching. I have been too busy to answer you in a timely manner. Sorry.

      Churchill himself changed enormously. Churchill was pro-Nazi to the point of threatening the French Republic in 1929 with the… RAF… If the French kept of harassing Germany’s Second Reich (official name of ‘Weimar’!) about its secret re-armament, which violated the Versailles Treaty. This went on until 1936 (in 1935, the British gov. organized a Versailles Treaty violation with Hitler; the UK aligned itself behind France only in 1939… Hence the fiasco of Munich in 1938, when France was made understand she had to go alone against fascist Germany and Italy).

      Churchill turned around completely by 1939… But then he became hysterical and did not want to wait for the new planes to reach mass production (he wanted to mass produce obsolete types).

      However, Churchill did not allow the assassination of Hitler (many top German generals would have been happy to help, and had actually contacted Brits and Americans… who then betrayed them!)

      “All You Need Is Love” was, with all due respect, mental masturbation of the worst type.

      The Beatles (Lennon, PBUH) put “All You Need With Love”) to the sound of the Marseillaise, playing in the arms, the embrace, of the Pitts, who launched a 25 year war against “Liberty Equality Fraternity”, while getting the MBE.
      Make no mistake, I love the song, but I despise, and condemn the message.

      As I have explained in all directions, Britain was certainly at fault in 1789-1792. As the British armies and Navy, plus the Prussians, Austrians, Russians who invaded France at the call of British plutocrats, invaded France, All The French, And Humanity, needed, was the Marseillaise, and spill the blood of the invaders as happened at Valmy (September 21, 1792) and soon Toulon…


  4. dominique deux Says:

    Agree with all. Especially the Marseillaise bit. Squeamish is traitorous.
    Love the idea of an army made up of economists – preferably all economists, and outfitted according to the “rules” of economy, on the cheap and with a focus on industry profits. One problem solved.
    I still do not understand why, after the Charlie attack, there were no French counterstrikes on Islamist bases (training & logistics) in Libya. Egypt has been doing it, rightly, with nobody raising objections. Let’s do it under her colors, if need be.
    And finally: Valmy was not won by revolutionary masses (which got thoroughly trampled in the first weeks of the allied kings’ invasion) but by the robust artillery inherited from the French king. Artillery officers could raise from the ranks and thus stayed faithful to their country, not to their caste (Choderlos de Laclos was an artillery officer). The story was reverted for the (equally strong) French Navy, the other “arme savante”, which was gutted by emigration of caste-loving officers.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: Agreed to all. When I evoke events such as Valmy, I can’ get all the details lined up. It’s true the Prussians got defeated by the French (KING!) artillery… The French guns were superior (I don’t remember if it s was just the guns or the new explosives devised by Ecole Polytechnique). Anyway the Revolution of 1789 was clearly started (in part) by Louis XVI, and it’s his army which defended after the plutocrats threatened to holocaust Paris (a foretaste of Auschwitz, but this one official, loud and clear!).

      The Republic was proclaimed the next day (or so). By the National Assembly.


  5. dimvisionary Says:

    damn you stir the pot! “OK, 13 centuries ago, they used swords, not guns” And now they use compound interest instead of compound bows. But Islam didn’t conquer shit. All of our isms are illusion.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The warriors using Islam as an ideology conquered in 90 years (632 CE to 721 CE), all of Arabia, two-third of the Roman empire, including the Iberian peninsula, all of the Persian empire, and more. The Romans beat them on the sea at the Gates (or rather chain) of Constantinople. Their first serious land defeat was at Toulouse, at the hands of Duke Eudes’ Franks, in 721 CE.

      As you see I have no sense of humor… 😉


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: