Archive for the ‘civilization.’ Category

Why The Crusades Were Lost: Saint Louis’ Racism Against The Mongols!

July 9, 2017

Islam came to near annihilation in the Thirteenth Century as Franks and Mongols unified and took the Islamist capitals, Baghdad and Damascus. A little known episode. At the time, the overall Mongol Khan was a woman (another little known episode!) But she didn’t cause the problem. Instead Saint Louis’ jealous racism, and unbounded hatred of “infidels” made the difference.

Richard the Lionheart lived in France, where he was supposedly vassal to the king of France, Philip II Augustus his companion in arms (who left the so-called “Holy land” after a while, leaving his soul mate Richard, in charge). Richard may not have lost major battles. But, a century later, Saint Louis, Louis IX of France, did, and ruined France in the process.

It became clear nothing good was achieved by all this crusading. On top of that, the climate started to wobble. Instead, the French switched to the trading model with Islam (rendered possible by treaties consecutive to the Crusades). Immense fortunes were made (Jacques Coeur, born a commoner, became the richest man in France by trading with the Levant in the fifteenth century, and soon, master of the mint, and a most important European diplomat).

Arab chroniclers used the correct term, “Franki” (Franks) to qualify the Europeans trying to (re)conquer the Middle East from the religion of Islam, which had smothered it.

By the time the Crusades were launched, direct Muslim aggression against Europe has been continuous since 715 CE, a full four centuries (the word “Europe” was used first by the Franks in the context of the Muslim invasions). This continual Muslim attack was viewed, correctly, by all concerned, as the continuation of the war of Islam against Rome. (Naturally so, as the Franks so themselves as “Rome”. By 800 CE, the Franks had officially “renovated”, as they put it, the Roman empire…)

Painted in 1337 CE. Notice that the Franks are covered in armor, and the Muslims are not. Obvious technological superiority. The Romans already bought light steel helmets in Gaul! Muslim tech superiority is a lie. In plain view.

There is plenty of evidence that the Franks were more advanced than the Muslims in crucial military technology, as early as 715 CE. How could they not be? The Muslims were just coming out of savage Arabia, all the technology they had, was stolen, or, let’s say, adopted from others.

Four terracotta hand grenades, with “Greek Fire” inside, used by the defenders of Constantinople against the Turks. Greek Fire had many variants, some secret to this day. The Chinese developed dry versions, with salpeter, which turned into black powder later.

The Franks, who had been the crack troops of the Roman empire, as early as 311 CE, had better steel, better armor, better steel weapons, and giant war horses capable of wearing armor themselves. That’s why the Franks were able to defeat the Muslims, overall, in the first phase of the war with Islam, which was in Europe (711 CE, attack on Spain, until the counterattack on Jerusalem, 1099 CE).

This European technological superiority was obvious during the Spanish reconquista. An armored Spanish horse was like an intelligent, indomitable battle tank, which would charge again and again, rarely seriously wounded. By contrast, Muslim cavaliers wore little armor, their relatively small Arab horses were excellent but all too little (I used to ride my own very combative Arab stallion in Africa, which nobody else would, or could, ride… Its name, appropriately chosen, was Napoleon…).

Horse archers were not effective against heavily armored cavalry. They could bother it, but not defeat it. This is why the Mongols decided wisely not to attack the Franks again, after invading, suffering huge losses, Hungary, and Croatia. The Mongols debated what had happened to their ancestors the Huns, eight centuries earlier, in France (annihilation spared only political decision). The Mongols used rocket artillery.

Noah Smith wroteWhy Did Europe Lose the Crusades?“. Said he: “A little while ago, I started to wonder about a historical question: Why did Europe lose the Crusades? The conventional wisdom, at least as I’ve always understood it, is that Europe was simply weaker and less advanced than the Islamic Middle Eastern powers defending the Holy Land. Movies about the Crusades tend to feature the Islamic armies deploying fearsome weapons – titanic trebuchets, or even gunpowder. This is consistent with the broad historical narrative of a civilizational “reversal of fortunes” – the notion that Islamic civilization was much more highly advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages. Also, there’s the obvious fact that the Middle East is pretty far from France, Germany, and England, leading to the obvious suspicion that the Middle East was just too far away for medieval power projection.

Anyway, I decided to answer this question by…reading stuff about the Crusades. I read all the Wikipedia pages for the various crusades, and then read a book – Thomas Asbridge’s “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land“. Given that even these basic histories contain tons of uncertainty, we’ll never really know why the Crusades turned out the way they did. But after reading up a bit, here are my takes on the main candidate explanations for why Europe ultimately lost.”

He pursue by fingering “lack of motivation” as the main cause of the loss of the Crusades. That is true, in part: Europe opened to the ocean. However, the Crusades won in important ways (opening up trade). But the Europeans also really lost, when it would have been easy to win.

Noah Smith’s analysis focuses only on the English (so to speak) aspect of the Crusades. He does not quite say that a rogue frankish army seized Constantinople in 1204 CE. And then he omits completely what happened in the Thirteenth Century (because Richard Lionhearted was then dead, and history is all about the Anglois?).

For politically correct reasons, some of them ten centuries old, some more voguish, allegations have been made of the superiority of Islam (or China, for that matter). These (often self-serving from racist self-declared anti-racists) assertions are not grounded in fact.

By 1000 CE, the Franks had the highest GDP per capita in the world, and its history. European technology was, overall, the most advanced. Europeans were stunned by how little the Chinese used machines and animals.  

The Arabic numbers were Greek numbers perfected in India, where the full zero was invented, and were reintroduced through central Asia. Out of the 160 major work of Antiquity we have, 150 survived in European monasteries, the universities of the time (and the ten remaining were saved by the Persians, initially).

The Middle East, long the cradle of most invention, has been clearly a shadow of its former self, ever since Islam established its dictator, intolerance and war friendly terrorizing culture of god obsession.

Crusades in the Middle east until 1204; The image Noah Smith uses, which misinforms the reality of what happened…

Europe didn’t “lose the Crusades”. Saint Louis did. Europe didn’t just decide the Middle East was hopeless, in all sorts of ways. Europe had got reopening of the Silk Roads from Saladin. Meanwhile in 1244, the Khwarezmians, recently pushed out by the advance of the Mongols, took Jerusalem on their way to ally with the Egyptian Mamluks. Europe shrugged (by then “Roman” emperors such as Frederick I Barbarossa had used a Muslim company of bodyguards… So there was strictly no anti-Muslim hatred and racism… contrarily to what happened with the Mongols, see below…) 

It is also true that Saint Louis, a weird mix of a dangerous religious fanatic of the worst type, and a modern, enlightened king, lost its entire army (to a woman, the only female leader Islam ever had!) in Egypt. Saint Louis was taken captive at the Battle of Fariskur where his army was annihilated. He nearly died, was saved from dysentery by an Arab physician (impressed Arabs offered for him to rule them). A huge ransom had to be paid, comparable to the French budget. Then Saint Louis died in front of Tunis, in another ridiculous crusade (1270 CE).  Louis fell ill with dysentery, and was cured by an Arab physician

The Seventh and Eight Crusades were disastrous military defeats

Saint Louis, a racist, was the direct cause of the survival of Islam. The Mongols, allied to local Franks had destroyed Baghdad (siege of the Abbasid Caliphate) and Damascus (siege of the Umayyad). The Mongols asked respectfully to make an official alliance with Christianity, and eradicate Islam.

Instead the Pope called Nestorian Christian Mongols heathens, and him and Saint Louis promised excommunication to all and any Frank joining the Mongols in war. Thus the Mongols attacked Egypt without Frankish help, and were defeated by the Mamluks Turks.

Dejected, the Mongols decided that they were Muslims (Islam has no pope, and the Caliphate had been destroyed by the Franco-Mongol alliance ) Under Timor Lame, they would carve a giant Mongol-Muslim empire all the way into India.

This is just a fraction of the common operations of the Franks and Mongols, when they were allied against the Muslims, destroying Baghdad, seizing Damascus. Saint Louis and his pet the Pope saved Islam by calling a halt to the cooperation. Mongols and Franks actually took Damascus together, and the commanders entered the conquered city, side by side…

The Spanish were more serious. They, Isabella, Ferdinand and their advisers, planned to pursue the reconquista by extirpating Islam from North Africa and the Middle East.

The extremely well-trained, battle hardened army was prepared, but then the Americas had just been discovered, and war with France for the control of the world in general and Italy in particular, became everything. Spain engaged in a war with France it took nearly two centuries to lose. The conquest of the Americas changed the world, though. The reconquest of the Christian empire from the Muslims was given up…

It could have been done: the Spanish occupied many cities of North Africa, including Algiers and Oran. Power was divided between Ottoman pirates (“Barbarossas”) and the kingdom of Tlemcen. In any case, in 1525 CE, while Cortez was conquering Central America, defeating among others, the Aztecs, pirates retook Algiers in the name of the Turk Selim 1. At the same time, Selim defeated the Egyptian Mamluks, taking control of the Levant, Mecca, and Egypt.

Islam, a pretty deleterious religion in its literal, Salafist form, survived. North Africa and the Middle East, previously long the world’s wealthiest place, is now the poorest and most war-ridden…

And the war goes on, the ideology of Salafist, literal Islam, being fundamentally antagonistic to civilization.

For the USA, the Iraq war has been an enormous victory: it boosted the price of oil for a decade, enabling the massive deployment of US fracking. Now the USA is again the world’s number one fossil fuel producer. Also French and US military forces are fighting from Mali to Afghanistan, maintaining economic and military control over an area still crucial for energy production (although it will soon become economically irrelevant, from renewable energy).  

All the regimes from Mali to Afghanistan, are, officially, friendly to civilization. So why does the war goes on? Because the ideology is islam is centered on Jihad, no holds barred. Thus Islam gives a ready ideology to those who want to make no holds barred. This is why the Turks converted to islam. Within a generation, they had invaded a huge swathe of Central Asia, and overran very old civilization: Georgia, Armenia, and the Oriental Romans (“Constantinople”).

Then Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem were massacred (up to 10,000 at one time) by various Muslim potentates. Constantinople, having lost half of its territory, to the recently converted, ferociously invading Turks, asked the “Occidental” Roman empire to come to the rescue.   

In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military intervention for the so-called Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed desperately to stop the westward invasion of the migrating Turks colonising Anatolia.

Morality of all this? What people think they know about history has little to do with what really happened. The forces presently in conflict have been in conflict ever since Islam exists, as Muhammad wanted it. The Quraish, in Mecca, the dominant tribe Muhammad belonged to, didn’t trust Muhammad: he was an analphabet and an epileptic. To boot, Muhammad succeeded in life by marrying a wealthy business woman, and then switching from caravan trading, to caravan raiding.

Just before he died, Muhammad led the first attack against the Romans (who had not attacked him, and refused combat). War is the great arbiter of human destiny. The enormous Roman field army, horrendously led erroneously, was annihilated on its third day of battle at Yarmouk against the Arab Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius, a great general had not been present, he was in Alexandria.

War is a great arbiter, but it is also extremely fickle. Crucial battles are won, and lost, which should never have been won, or lost. Sometimes by sheer happenstance, sometimes from hubris, sometimes by having top generals with top armies not considering the worst imaginable case (as happened to the Romans when fighting the Arabs at Yarmouk, or with Yamamoto at Midway, or the French mid May 1940…).

To learn from history, it has to be learned in full. Civilization missed a chance to eliminate the Islamist war ideology when it aborted the natural alliance with the Mongols. But it’s not very surprising: the overall leader of Europe, then, was Saint Louis. Saint Louis invented the modern justice system, and put his mother, Blanche de castille, in charge of France for many years. So he could be viewed as non-sexist and all for justice. He is represented to this day, rendering justice below an oak. However, Saint Louis was also a savage. He really believed that unbelievers should be killed painfully. Interestingly, Saint Louis came to believe that the Muslims were believers: his fanatical rage was oriented towards Jews and those who, in Christendom, did not believe. So it’s entirely natural that, by considering the Mongols heathens, and forbidding a further alliance with them, he would, in the end, save Islam!

It’s not just that Saint Louis burned 12,000 Jewish manuscripts in Paris, in 1243 CE (5 years before he led the disastrous Seventh Crusade). Saint Louis wrote abominable descriptions of the atrocious ways in which he would kill infidels (I read it in the original texts long ago; however, I was unable to find a source today…)

We have Jihadists around, ready to kill the innocent nowadays, because Saint Louis was actually one of them!

Patrice Ayme’


July 3, 2017

Does creative thinking have to do with beauty? Yes it does. Mathematicians often say this, that equations, or a theory, are beautiful. But I have never come across any attempt at an explanation of why it is so. I provide the missing link here: rarity, preciousness!

Beauty Versus The Viciously Stupid Beasts:

Let me tell you a little story: for thirty years I watched four rare and endangered trees grow in a park where various animals roam (deer, raccoon, skunk, various large birds of prey, etc. A Mountain Lion was observed a kilometer away, among houses!). One of these endangered trees was a Monterey Cypress (a local, but rare tree, named after Monterey, California), another was a Yew tree (even more precious), still another a rare cedar, and another a native, but very rare now, in that area, Douglas Fir.

All those special trees had self-planted, or been planted by birds and grew on a hill next door overrun by (non-native) Blue Gum Eucalyptus and a few (non native) Monterey pines (Monterey in Mexico, not Monterey in California). I used to look at the growing Yew tree and the Monterey Cypress, and the rare cedar everyday. The city of Berkeley, which is politically correct, judged that the rare trees could only be “invasive”. They looked funny, different from Poison Oak and Eucalyptus, so they had to be invaders. 

The Yew Tree Destroyed By the PC Savages Was A Smaller, Younger Version Of That One. Beauty Shall Be Killed So Stupidity Can Rule, Say Plutocrats and their obnoxiously obsequious servants...

Poison Oak, for those who don’t know, is a plant with many different aspects, often forming impenetrable thickets, laden with the most acute carcinogen found in nature. It causes agonizing inflammation, burns readily, and inhaling its smoke, kills. Poison Oak also loves human destruction and is more present than at anytime in the Native American past. Instead of destroying endangered Yew Trees, one should destroy the square miles of Poison Oak in Berkeley…

In any case, the Politically Correct city send crews to search and destroy the four trees (located in four different places, hundreds of meters distant). They left the hundreds of Blue Gum Eucalyptus (originally from Tasmania) alone, and targeted the rare and precious conifers. Those trees were my friends.

But I shouldn’t not have been too surprised my friends got destroyed. I talked in the past with crews cutting trees, and they are so incredibly ignorant, I could bore readers with a long list of their absurdities. They view endangered trees as dangerous aliens.

While some were destroying some trees they viewed as invasive once, I asked them why they didn’t plant sequoias. They told me sequoias didn’t grow in the sun (false).

This tree cutting mania is grave: as fire chiefs point out, it augments considerably the risk of fire, as trees get replaced by chaparral.  In coastal California, trees catch fog and make rain, especially conifers. But PC cities keep on cutting. Just like they keep on calling themselves “Sanctuary Cities” when all they are, to tell the truth,  “Slave Cities”, where terrorized unlawful immigrants work quasi for free.


Do they hate Trump so much because, deep down inside, they’re so much like him?

This tree annihilation by the PC crowd made me reflect on the Trump hatred. Many friends I used to have make hysterically hateful discourses against Trump, and, often said even worse things against me. When I asked them why the hatred, they tended to redouble their insults and “block” me.

In retrospect, I had problems with them well before Trump appeared on their radar (Trump had been on my radar for decades, and I viewed him as the poster boy of what was wrong with US banking; I still do).

Attributing all the violence of US society to Trump is beyond ridiculous. It is beyond ridiculous, but it’s efficient, because it’s a cover-up. The violence of anti-Trump protesters is an attempt for them to pretend that they disagree with a system they profit from so much that they don’t intent to change it.

How do I know they don’t intent to change it? Because they propose nothing new. (For example Obamacare does not work, but democrats don’t have a replacement plan; result: Republicans argue among themselves!)



The violence perpetrated against beautiful trees by Politically Correct cities in parks which are supposed to be natural is a tell tale sign. Anybody with a sane mind would stop before destroying obviously rare trees. But not here: they are searched, and destroyed. What is the mood behind that?

Is there in the USA, more of a desire to search for beauty, and destroy it, than, say in more civilized places? Could it be that this is related to the fact that the US enjoys an extremely ugly healthcare system, an even uglier tax system, the highest incarceration rate, and the highest birth death rate among advanced countries?

Could that also be related to the fact so many of my friends turn against me well before they became conscious of Trump? After all, like those trees, I was different. So I had to be cut down.

How could this psychological mechanism work exactly? Anything beautiful is beautiful because it’s rare. Anything rare does not belong in the herd, except if it is the leader. But, in some countries, herd following is valued more than in others. Now here is the rub: any really new thought is initially not just rare, but infuriating to those who didn’t think of it first.

Hence any society which does not have a great sense and appreciation of beauty, of what is rare, does not have a great sense and appreciation of the human spirit.


Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer, Ein USA!

In many ways, the USA is the world’s most conservative country: Trump is no accident, but a system. US has led on CO2 pollution since ever. The USA clings, alone in the world, to obsolete units of measurements from the Middle Ages. But, most of all, among advanced countries, it clings to the idea of “leaders”. European… leaders were a bit taken aback when they went to Camp David, and Obama and his goons referred to them as “leaders”, in an obsessive manner. “Leader”. Shall we translate “Leader” in German?

Leader (ˈliːdəʳ  ) noun

  1. Führer m (Führerin) (f)
    1. [of union, party] Vorsitzende m f (Vorsitzender) (m adj)
      1. (military) Befehlshaber m (Befehlshaberin) (f)
    2. [of gang, rebels] Anführer m (Anführerin) (f)
    3. [of expedition, project, choir] Leiter m (Leiterin) (f)
      1. (sport, in league) Tabellenführer m

The USA is Führer obsessed. Young people in the USA, in the Space cadet mentality, better take a leadership school if they want to be esteemed by all sorts of authorities. Outward Bounds, Scouts, NOLS (National Outdoors Leadership School), etc

Here is Zuck, the Facebook Führer. Zuck says: Facebook is new church where “Leaders set the culture, inspire us, give us a safety net, and look out for us.”

Facebook will give people a sense that they are part of “something bigger than ourselves” akin to a religion. A religion where the showing of the human female breast brings exclusion. As I said, the US is a very conservative country. And Zuck Zuck his prophet. Zuck Zuck has beaucoup brains, he looks out for us:

As I’ve traveled around and learned about different places, one theme is clear: Every great community has great leaders. Think about it. A church doesn’t just come together. It has a pastor who cares for the well-being of their congregation, makes sure they have food and shelter.”

Amen, Zuck Zuck. (Because he pays little taxes, Zuck Zuck is a very great man working for CIA, so as we wait for him to become also president as another great CIA puppet-men did, one gives hospitals his name…)

This is all pretty ugly, and it’s no wonder that, of all countries, since 1990, the USA has been the most ardent defender of fossil fuels. Because getting rid of fossil fuels was a new idea… And great undermining great US superiority. (Add the college dropouts.)


The idea that we need leaders to think, get inspired and see is the very crux of the plutocratic mood: 

Zuck Zuck Zuckerberg is not just a parody, he is a paradigm. Only leaders can provide with the culture, the inspiration, the safety, and looking out for us. Because, presumably, we have no eyes to look out with.

This means that a few college dropouts like Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Branson (recently hosting Obama on one of his private islands), Ellison (Oracle, owner of the sixth largest island in the Hawai’i archipelago), Dell, Ted Turner, the first of all the Rothschild never went to school. Such ignoramuses are supposed to lead the world. And lead they do, and did. College dropout and Nazi startup genius, Henry Ford, was the first, and crucial financier of the Nazi Party…Hitler owed Ford everything, and let it be known.

The whole strength of democracy is that ideas come from the multitude, all the brains in parallel. That’s what made Athens incomparable: 80,000 could debate with each other, think back and forth. The Achaemenid Persian empire, although ultramodern and remarkable in many ways, had too few thinkers and they were afraid to think aloud. China, overall, had the same problem, especially under the unifying emperor Qin, who had a liking for burning books and burying scholars.

Intellectual fascism got even worse under hyper Catholic Rome, circa 400 CE; in both cases, books were burned as if there were no tomorrow. It’s no coincidence that Rome and China got crazy roughly at the same time, in the same way (Rome knew of China very well, and we have reports of Chinese visitors singing the praises of Rome)…

Calling to be led by leaders in matter of culture, inspiration, safety and even vision, as Facebook wants to do, is as ugly as it gets, it tells people creative individual thinking is a sin. It tells them new ideas should not sprout.


A new idea is rare: so rare, because it never existed before. And it is precious. “Precious” comes from the latin for expensive, costly. How costly? Because the brain uses up to 43% of the energy a human being consumes. Thus a new idea, a new organization of some networks in the brain is costly in energy, it’s precious, hence beautiful…

Patrice Ayme’

WHY & HOW CIVILIZATION COLLAPSE (Part 1): Alexander, Greeks, Romans, Franks, Vikings, Macron, Mali

July 2, 2017

Why Do Civilizations “collapse”?

Many have tried to say something on this subject, but their knowledge of Deep History was superficial, and Political Correctness prevented them to think in full. They didn’t do as good a job as the British historian Edward Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, published 241 years ago, by an extremely long shot. Gibbon understood the importance of system of thoughts. To understand history, one had to understand the importance of system of moods. Submissive mentalities such as Confucianism and Islamism dug their own graves. All too many success authors recently, did the same, by not understanding by not admitting that mindsets and metaphysics rule civilizations.

Why have Western Civilization and China not collapsed? Well, China was both very incompetent and very lucky. Incompetent, in no small part, because it was intellectually isolated (not anymore!) 

Western Civilization was smarter than China, that’s the non PC revelation which nobody wants to draw: non-collapse is all about intelligence. In great part because, Europe, the labyrinthine extremity of Eurasia, is less isolated than China: Europe is smack dab in the Middle Earth. Thus Europe had the opportunity to learn much more history than China, isolated by a whole array of giant mountain ranges and deserts. Those societies which learned history better did better. For example, Europe learned in various ways why its ancestors, the Sumerian cities, Egypt, Babylon, Tyr, flooded, dried up, became unrecognizable after invasions, degenerated into quasi-oblivion, were completely annihilated (Hittites, Phrygia, Assyria, Tyr, Carthage), or became irrelevant (Eastern Roman empire, and all parts of the Roman empire conquered by the Islamists and not wrestled back).

This continual learning was applied live, as events unfolded, by the master leaders. Alexander had a deep appreciation of the higher principles which made a highest civilization tick: he was tolerant and forgiving, qualities that Julius Caesar, who had studied Alexander’s life extensively, copied to excess! Julian would also sin in the same exact superior way. Clovis didn’t study the Greeks to the extent Caesar and Julian had,  yet he expressed his determination to use force to rewrite the fundamentals of Christianism, upside down (keep the good, throw away the bad!) Charlemagne took himself for a reincarnation of King David, and operated accordingly. Hence the Romans, when they took control of Hellas were careful not to annihilate their cultural ancestors and superiors, the Greeks. Instead, they just put their foot on them, and the Greeks despised them back (until they regained control, 800 years later).



And the dementia it both incarnates, and brings forth. More than 200 reasons have been evoked to explain the collapse of the Roman State. I have basically just one, but it’s a master reason which, modulo long, devious logical chains and happenstance, imply the other 200 reasons. That master reason made the Roman State completely senile. And we are repeating it now, by letting just a few do all the thinking, supposing they can think (and not just follow a public opinion which has itself been informed by plutocratic media), and having just a few do all the ordering around.

The senile, superstitious empire, and its well-meaning, evil leaders, and founding church fathers, was wiped out, and replaced by the frankly philosophically brutal Franks. However, as we will see, similarly to the Yuans, or the Romans of the morbid Republic, or the Romans of the late empire, by the Ninth Century, the Franks lost track of whom the Barbarians to be fought were. They forgot that smashing Barbarians was number one top priority.

Just like now.

And the reason for forgetting the evil of Barbarians is that we are led by an oligarchy who know all too well it’s evil (Bill Clinton surprised me by admitting that said oligarchy was nothing if it didn’t do good, at the Kohl funeral in the European Parliament; I guess he was burying himself alive? I noticed the absence of Obama, by the way…) Oligarchies are always anxious to entertain Barbarians even more abominable than it is. So that they shine, and are excused, relatively speaking.

We are indeed going through a similar process right now.  I watched ex-Kanzler Helmut Kohl funeral ceremony at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. Kohl unified Germany, held hands with the French president and consented to the French idea of the common currency (“Euro”). A great European, who had learned his fundamental lesson among the ruins of the 1000 Year Fascist-Racist Nationalist-Socialist Reich, to which the French Republic had declared war, six years prior.

Superficially it was a great Franco-German European get-together. What I saw was an assembly of potentates, some notoriously corrupt, kissy kissy with each other. Kanzlerin Merkel and French President Macron talked well. However: Words are empty at best, full of poison, at worst, when thought by only a few, they feed too much power in too few hands.

Some will object. They will say the obvious, thinking they are very smart when charging windmills. They will smirk, not knowing their prove the point they want to deride.



One guy in Strasbourg was Russian Prime Minster Medvedev. He is apparently nearly as wealthy as Bill Clinton. Not bad for a guy who was only always in government jobs. Even when they are not wealthy in properties, those oligarchs who have all the power, are wealthy in outrageous power, and we don’t have the means to talk back (several major media in the USA and the UK ban me, for example, as they are seemingly terrified that their readers would read me in a comment… And then realize I am more free, better informed, and all together more interesting).

Representative “democracy” is all about a few elected individuals taking all the decisions. Right. That’s exactly how and why Rome went down. Accepting the Earthly rule of just a few individuals is accepting the rule of a few minds, unexamined. It is accepting the rule of idiocy. The pure Republic was rather a direct democracy; the impure Republic which Augustus set-up was rather a fascist dictatorship. The pure Republic established the empire, and dreamed to extend over the whole planet! It could, and would, have done it, had it found a way to preserve direct democracy, globally. That was, on paper, easy: to conquer the world, Rome just had to globalize the anti-plutocracy mindset! That would have required to refurbish the absolute legal limit on wealth, and also to end slavery (the Franks would do the latter; absolute limit on wealth was less crucial with the Franks because of fair inheritance laws).

Rome all the way to India, China, reaching the Pacific? It didn’t happen because Roman direct democracy collapsed in a plutocratic crisis.


Notice that, most the Western Mediterranean, is divided between the Carthaginian empire and the Marseilles empire. Rome is still tiny. The logical thing to do was for Alexander to conquer all of Arabia (the south had agriculture). He intended to do just that, before taking care of Rome and Carthage (not Marseilles, or Magna Grecia in south Italy, both of which were Greek). However Alexander died at 32, while preparing the mixed sea-land invasion of Arabia. Also notice the hole in the middle, uncolored in purple: this represents Athens and her allies, which Alexander did not force to submit. The fiend Antipater, older than Alexander by half a century did, though, after he probably had the Alexander poisoned! The real Game of Throne is so complex, we don’t know yet where it started, nor how it will end…


Conquering the was tried by Alexander the Great first, but his Greek and Macedonian army longed for home, and found that India was much more powerful militarily than expected. Indians could, and were defeated, but clearly the resources were too stretched out. On his way back, Alexander, infuriated with his men, led the army through the terrible, absolute deserts of Southern Iran, suffering enormous losses. Back in Babylon, Alexander apparently decided to get more organized, conquering first all of Arabia. Then he would turn to the west, and take care of Carthage and Rome.

Then Alexander listened to his mom, the redoubtable Olympia, a royal from a kingdom west of Macedonia, whom his father Philippe had divorced to marry a youngster with whom he had an infant son. Alexander didn’t have to kill his father himself, the chief of the security detail did , and before you know it, Alexander was heading east at the head of the army his father had prepared to deal with Persia’s Achaemenid plutocracy. Greek valor, Macedonian horse, and Alexander’s military genius did the rest. In a matter of years, Alexander had created a hybrid empire with the locals. The elites would talk Greek for centuries, from Central Asia to India.

Olympia wrote to Alexander that Antipater, the most important general of Philippe, was plotting against him. Alexander ordered Antipater to come to Babylon, from Greece. Antipater refused. Next thing, Alexander is dying mysteriously. His closest helper was Antipater’s youngest son. Many (including myself) feel that it is likely that Alexander was poisoned under Antipater’s orders.

Antipater then went to destroy Athens’ direct democracy (everybody debate and vote on all important decisions), replacing it by a plutocracy (only those who are rich enough vote, and it’s to approve what the bosses have determined is to be done).

Notice that Alexander had left Athenian direct democracy alone (and Athens had not rebelled against Alexander, but did, against Antipater).

This is the problem with monarchy, or oligarchy: only a few take the decisions. If those few are excellent and not in error, it works great. But a few minds can’t get it right all the time, however smart.



An example of this ineptitude of monarchy, or oligarchy, with only a few minds thinking, is provided by Charlemagne. Charlemagne had pretty much a no-fault reign (however his gift of a large estate to the Pope would give the fascist theocrats a power base, for many centuries to come, enabling them to devastate much of Europe with their ludicrous superstition).

However, when advanced in years, Charlemagne saw the first Viking raids. He didn’t know what to do. Neither did his successors, his son and grandsons. Worse: his grandsons fought each other for control (of pieces) of the empire. That was ridiculous, all the more as Charlemagne had a potential Navy, and certainly expertise, from the Venetian Republic, a subsidiary, “march” state.

The Franks should have known what to do with the Viking raiders: after all, the Franks themselves started their career, so to speak, raiding up rivers in Hispania and Gallia, more than five centuries before the Viking imitated them!

What Charlemagne would have done, had he been a young man, and had he thought correctly, was to set-up a Navy, and go to colonize the Scandinavians. Instead, the Vikings made hundreds of major raids, ravaging about a third of “Renovated Roman Empire” before they were finally subdued, through a combination of force and civilizational persuasion.

Notice that the Franco-Romans, when they went on to (re)conquer Britannia, two centuries later, put an end to the Viking kingdoms there. William the Conqueror made his military force irresistible, by advancing democracy in England (the Franks outlawed slavery, and established a sort of monarchy-of-the-people).

By the Eleventh Century, the Franks knew all too well that wild Vikings had to be subdued. But, in 800 CE, they didn’t take the Viking seriously. And then the Viking started first by mostly raiding rich churches, that didn’t bother the half-Pagan Franks too much: the Franks liked to use the Roman Catholic churches as libraries and secular schools, but they weren’t feeling the pain of churches’ treasures being carted away… By 888 CE, when the emperor was deposed for paying the Barbarians, that mood had changed!



Some will scoff: why should they care about all these Greeks, Romans, Franks, Viking and Renovated Romans?

Because we are encountering the same sort of situation today.

The Renovated Roman Empire (“Carolingians as conventional historians have it) had to search, attack and destroy Scandinavian power, the “Fair” (Norway) and “Dark” (Denmark) Vikings. The Vikings had the same ideology: basically they saw easy pickings among the “Renovated Romans”, the world’s richest empire. Similarly the refugees nowadays see easy pickings in Europe. Just show up, get welfare.

A refugee from the wastes out there, if she can sneak into France, say on a tourist visa, can  have a child, for free: the French state will pay for everything. Whereas a French citizen from overseas (there are more than three millions) will go to France, have a child, and pay full fare.

Fine, some will say. But then there is this massive refugee crisis, millions of refugees, thousands dying a month, vaguely reminiscent of when all the Vikings, Muslims, Magyar, Avars, wanted to grab a piece of Europe for free. They were able to stay in peace after they changed their ideology.

However, the Ninth Century was an apocalypse for the Renovated Roman citizens living in West Francia (pretty much today’s France, Benelux, and Western Germany. It got so bad, that the citizens lost all respect for the authorities.

The last overall Renovated Roman emperor,  Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Fat, was reproached his inaction against the Viking: asked by We The People, to free Europe’s capital, Paris, from the Viking. Paris had been the de facto capital of Francia since the army there elected Julian The Apostate Augustus, in the Fourth Century.

Charles, great grandson of Charles I (Carlus Magnus, Charlemagne) chose to buy off the Vikings, instead of massacring them into submission (the proper course of action). As a result, the Vikings were right back. Again and again.

Charles III actually paid  the Vikings to attack Burgundy (then in revolt). He subsequently failed to deal with revolts in Swabia, Saxony, Thuringia, Franconia, and Bavaria. The nobles of the Empire deposed Charles the Fat  in 887, and he died two months later in 888. He was the last single head of the united Renovated Roman Empire (decomposing West Francia went her own way).

An anti-Viking superhero, who fought in the frontlines, close and personal, Odo, Count of Paris, nominally succeeded the deposed Charles III as king of West Francia (Neustria, Austrasia, etc.). I say nominally, because, locally, people have had enough of global governance. Imagine Brexit to the power six (2^6 = 64…)

Ultimately, as I said, a combination of military force and force of civilization, would make the Vikings submit (they got to stay in the places they had so well depopulated).

However the population of West Francia had lost all respect for the capacity of imperial authorities to protect them. Local power was seen the best protector of We The People. West Francia (the western two-thirds of present day France, and the Benelux) exploded into 60 different states (the same number of states which Julius Caesar had found there, a millennium earlier!).



Emmanuel Macron, the latest elected French king, is going around, speaking eloquently of a “Europe which protects”. Ah, yes. High time. It’s not 888 CE anymore?

Macron has learned the right lesson from the debacle of the Ninth Century: the “Renovated Roman Empire”, after 800 CE, made a terrible job at protecting its citizenry. Armies were more used to see who was top dog among the Franks than to fight the invaders (one of these battles among siblings, Fontenoy, killed more than 50,000 of the best Frankish warriors, in a few hours in 841 CE).

So what to do now? The Barbarians are at the gates, and breaching through. Europe paid the Muslim potentate, the Sultan Erdogan, billions, to keep the Barbarians away and out. The Roman empire used exactly the same method for decades, before it failed spectacularly. It had only made the Barbarians more barbaric and more demanding, and more powerful.

The way to handle the Barbarians is to go out, and destroy whatever makes them so barbaric. When Rome had its terminal refugee crisis, from too many Goths at the gates, Christianized Rome was welcoming, and thus found itself at war on its own territory. Instead, Rome should have projected force outside, and help the Germans, and Scythians, outside, against the Huns.

Right after his election, king Macron went to Mali, a country twice the size of France, where France wages war against the Barbarians. And now the king has gone there again. Good. This is the way to do it. Project force. China was doing best when projecting force outside, it’s not just a European thing. As China found out, not projecting force can result in having can result in a situation where the whim of one man could have annihilated the entire Chinese population, the entire Chinese civilization, language, everything Chinese.

However Genghis Khan was intelligent enough to have a high opinion of civilization. He brushed off the proposal of his generals to exterminate China, turn it into a steppe.

Wage war outside, exterminate the Barbarians. Let the ignorant call that “colonialism”. History knows better, they don’t.

Patrice Ayme’

Why This Site Shouldn’t Interest Most Americans

June 26, 2017

Very few Americans don’t believe in a God, or Life Force, Spirits and other Superstition (according to many polls, one of them reproduced below). I of course believe that all those who believe in superstition or divination are victims of a lack of introspection, resulting in a regrettable submission of (their) perception to domination. This the foundation of their political subjugation. It’s also the royal road to subjugation. Thus countries friendly to superstition and the religions attached to it, are typically submissive to mighty plutocracies.

And thus, as we see inequality rising around the world, it can be tracked to the imposition of the American “neoliberal” model, a modern ideology to impose the grossest traditional plutocracy!  Only 2% of North Americans do not believe in the supernatural: a god, life-force, spirits. This means that most North Americans are superstitious. In comparison, 11% of South-East Asians do not believe, in a god, life force, or spirit. One could say South-east Asia is five times less superstitious…. In France, a whopping one-third of the population don’t believe in a god, life force, or spirit. Thus the French are less ready to believe that plutocrats are benevolent, philanthropic spirits, under a merciful god… (The Market?)

The cult of all things religious has been reinforced top down in the USA since 1954, date of enthronement of “In God We Trust” (which displaced the Republican “E Pluribus Unum”).

For example, Americans are taught to venerate Pastor Martin Luther King. To esteem MLK is honorable, but his cult, at the exclusion of the cult of others, and not learning what exactly happened, arguably even more meritorious, is dubious. After all, President Eisenhower, an ex-general, and Earl Warren, head of the US Supreme Court, did the the heavy lift and courageous combat against segregation in the 1950s.  


Forget God and its “Pastors”: Presidents, Generals and Judges are who Order Progress:

Here is Earl Warren:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group…Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Much clearer than “I have a dream!”. To desegregate schools, Eisenhower sent the army. Conclusion: if you want to fight injustice, clear legal, republican thinking and the army, in other words, force, is what is needed.

This Is Why The French Revolution, Core to the United Nations’ Charter, Happened in France, and Not America!

MLK was made into a living god, a sort of Muslim-like “Messenger”. In truth he was part, and rather at the end, of a much more powerful wave he surfed on. Heroes may be useful, but the cult of the providential man prepares that of the “philanthropist” as plutocrats call themselves. (Just as in the Middle Ages plutocrats modestly called themselves, the “best”.)

Thus, when I criticize Islam, many Americans feel I defend the Bible (which is actually the source of Islam, something i know, but they don’t…)

The entire left of the world, not just the USA, suffers from searching for heroes, rather than clear thinking on the Republic. But this is precisely what the plutocratically owned media and the masters of public opinion, wanted. It’s the result of meta teaching, inculcating impotent forms of thought.

I should speak only to the French agnostics (but they don’t generally read English well enough to understand me, as a French professional philosopher once told me, thus he asked me to translate my thoughts in… French; a full-time job I couldn’t possibly do. Actually, I have no time to write a book. As Socrates implicitly pointed out, thinking per se is a full-time job… Socrates, going overboard, famously called writing “the semblance of truth”; that would make all of math, physics and now biology the “semblance of truth”… Although I do agree for Plato…)


Cult Of God, One & Only, Came From the Hydraulic Dictatorship Zone:

Verily, much of the roots civilization we use today appeared in what I call the Middle Earth (earliest writing is from there; although it was completely independently evolved in Mesoamerica). Egyptian civilization appeared 6,000 years ago, and the first city known in Anatolia, a few millennia before that.

However, the Middle East, central to the Middle Earth, suffered desiccation of the land, and then the minds, as it veered into . Thus it is natural that this physically sick region came up with a sick metaphysics. It is also of some import: it’s no coincidence that the Roman empire collapsed when Christianism was imposed to it, and countries such as Syria collapsed when Islamism was imposed to it (in the Seventh Century already!)

Some have noticed an analogy between “Ra” as in the theology of Egypt, AbRAhamism, and BRAhamism. This is not as ludicrous as it sounds. First, Abrahamism clearly arose in Egypt (as the Bible recognizes sneakily). Secondly Brahamanism, which gave rise to Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism itself came from the old Vedic religion, which, in turn, comes from the Middle East. Wikipedia says:

According to Anthony: “Many of the qualities of Indo-Iranian god of might/victory, Verethraghna, were transferred to the adopted god Indra, who became the central deity of the developing Old Indic culture. Indra was the subject of 250 hymns, a quarter of the Rig Veda. He was associated more than any other deity with Soma, a stimulant drug (perhaps derived from Ephedra) probably borrowed from the BMAC religion. His rise to prominence was a peculiar trait of the Old Indic speakers.[27]

The oldest inscriptions in Old Indic, the language of the Rig Veda, are found not in northwestern India and Pakistan, but in northern Syria, the location of the Mitanni kingdom.[40] The Mitanni kings took Old Indic throne names, and Old Indic technical terms were used for horse-riding and chariot-driving.[40] The Old Indic term r’ta, meaning “cosmic order and truth”, the central concept of the Rig Veda, was also employed in the Mitanni kingdom.[40] Old Indic gods, including Indra, were also known in the Mitanni kingdom.[41][42][43]

The preceding illustrates well the concept of the Middle Earth. It also means that 72% of the world’s population derives its metaphysics from Egypt, or thereabout). More or less (the Egyptian empire often encroached deep on the so-called Fertile Crescent, which is anchored in the West by Israel, Lebanon, Syria…

Ultimately, Egypt, soon after a remarkable attempt at monotheism (which promptly spawned Abrahamism), decayed. Why? Some will point at the invasion of the “Peoples of the Sea”, which Egypt, alone among the Great Powers, was able to defeat (at considerable cost).


Egypt’s Government Model Was So Obsolete, Its Civilization Became Senile:

However, shortly after, Egypt exhibited a lack of animal spirits and was durably overrun by Libyans, and then Assyrians, Persians…  Tellingly, it’s the very fierce Greeks and their uncouth students, the Macedonians, who freed Egypt.

What happened to Egypt? Long drawn out dictatorship, when the rise of new technology called for start-ups, basically Greece was full of startups. Startup city states…

True, Egypt got invaded by vast empires, modernized versions of itself. When the Persians came around and colonized Egypt, so they did because Achaemenid Persia was a multinational empire, ultramodern in many ways.

However, ultimately the tiny Athenian startup defeated Persia at Marathon, and then insolently landed an army to free Egypt (its mental benefactor) from Persia!


Puritanism Does Not The Best Minds Make, Deep Thinking Is Dirty:

Last week I went out with a number of friends of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion, aggravated by reactive vegetarian ethics. I was retrospectively surprised by the lack of animal spirits. How can one have artful, constructive mental intercourse without the blossoming of passion? It certainly can’t happen when all conversations are guarded. After all, that’s why the divinity was imposed: the divinity imposed a subdued mentality, a submissive morality, and, definitively, a lack of inquiry.  

Thus it’s no accident that the French, long at the forefront of the battle of ideas against the obscurity of stupor, are the ones most aware that all past superstition is just that, superstition without foundation, as reckoned by its own definition.

And these are not words without foundation: in the Twelfth century, Pierre Abelard reinvented Classical logic (and went further). In the Fourteenth century, another Parisian, Jean buridan (Johannes Buridanus), went even further with the Cretan Paradox (rendered famous by Kurt Godel). Buridan also invented the hard part of Newton’s laws (three century before Newton). Actually Buridan anticipated not just Newton, but also Riemann’s force theory (used by Einstein and Al. in the Theory of Gravitation aka “General Relativity”!)

Both Abelard and Buridan were involved in colossal struggles, fights to death, with the catholic Church. Buridan had refused to enter the faculty of theology, so that he would not have to take an oath to the god of Abraham. Abelard fought Saint Bernard to death. Saint Bernard was then the most important, and most fanatical Catholic. At the time, it looked as if Saint Bernard sort of won. But history showed he lost. Buridan’s work were outlawed by the church, under the penalty of death, except in far eastern Europe, where they were taught to the young Copernicus.  

During the period 1100 CE to 1700 CE, Christianism caused an unending succession of terror, major wars, crusades, holocausts and massacres throughout Europe, and from there, the world. How come Europe didn’t collapsed as Rome did? First Europe was governed mostly by a plutocracy which was severely related and intermarried. They killed the poor a lot, themselves, much less. And actually that plutocracy was firmly in command, in secular command.

For example a fanatical Catholic such as Saint Louis put his mother, Blanche de Castille, ex-ruling queen, in charge several times as he made war through the Middle East (and letting himself be made a prisoner by the one and only female ruler that Islam ever had, in Egypt!). So he let a woman in charge, but he also had organized a modern justice system, now copied everywhere, including the USA.

Rome collapsed, because emperor Theodosius, around 390 CE unleashed the office of “Inquisitor” he had just created, against the “Heretics” (“those who made a choice”). Inquisitor, heretics: two terms, dripping with blood and terror, bathing in fire, imposed by Roman Catholic emperor Theodosius. By 400 CE, the empire was collapsing so much that the bishops put the Franks in charge of three provinces.

The Franks were Pagans

Hopefully, they still are!

And will stay that way! Maybe Americans could join their forefathers the Franks, and realize that, if they want paradise, they can get it only on Earth. Let me rephrase this a bit: If one wants paradise, one has to work hard, because one can get it only on Earth! It means in particular that on eschews the seductions of the rule of hell (plutocracy), and better start with free universal healthcare, as those who believe it’s their task to create and make a really Good God!

Patrice Ayme’

Why The Anglo-Saxon Rage Against France

June 21, 2017


Another day, another explosion of a luggage full of high explosive in a public space, courtesy of Islamist terrorist, Oussama Z., a primitive Moroccan screaming “God is great” in Arabic. He tried to terrorize Brussels’ train station, but law enforcement spotted him before he could organize properly his devilish terror weapons. The fanatical barbarian was promptly shot and killed by officers. The Islamists have good reason to be enraged against France, and anything French-like, such as Belgium, ever since they attacked France in 715 CE… And got whipped. Before they invaded again, in 721 CE, to be whipped again. And again, in 732 CE. Some are gluttons for punishment. Islamist feel that the more punished they get, the closer to God. Which is great, probably because He is a homosexual in denial, who detest women. Different people, different nations, different mentalities.


France Alleged To Be “Liberticide”, Latest example of Anti-French rage and Hypocrisy:

Recently various major Anglo-Saxon media, including the crooked New York Times, preventively trashed new proposed anti-terrorist French laws as dictatorial. This is more than hypocritical. Those proposed French laws are nothing of the sort. Whereas US practice is beyond dictatorial, they are more police-state like (8 millions are under “Judicial Supervision” in the US!) 

For example a proposed French law says that the police could ask drivers of vehicles to have those inspected when they want to enter a security perimeter around major events (such as the “Tour de France”). This is a measure against car bombs. However, if the driver refuses an inspection of his or her car, to see if it carries a huge bomb, the driver can leave, no question asked. Try that in the US: you will be shot at, and everybody knows it (so nobody tries!) Everybody in the US knows that when the police gives an order, either you obey, or you get shot.

How “liberticide” is that? According to the crooked New York Times, enormously so (New York Times is crooked because it has banned me during the 2003 Iraq war, and for the last 6 years, although it denies it does, a further lie!)

By the way I have driven cars in the USA which way inspected for car bombs. Turning around was not an option, as I was dealing with the ladies and gentlemen of the US Secret Service, and that was nine years ago already. Major US media didn’t write editorials about it. I also found this to be no problem at all (because my car was not equipped with a car bomb!) I didn’t feel my right to carry a car bomb was trampled underfoot.


Conflicts between nations and versions of civilization arise from different mentalities:

These different mentalities do not just arise haphazardly. They often originate for a number of incontrovertible reasons. For example Fernand Braudel found that the desiccation of the Middle East brought increasingly dictatorial regimes, necessary to organize the enormous, increasingly complex hydraulic systems necessary for the survival of civilization. Thus the Pharaoh became “shepherd of his flock” (as official Egyptian propaganda put it, copied by the Bible a millennium later). Not surprisingly, Egypt, long at the forefront of civilization faded away as an engine of mental creation.


Why The French Are Like The Franks Who Became Like The Gauls:

It’s a curious thing that the same mentality inhabits France now as it did even before the Romans showed up. The population changed significantly in the meantime from massacres, immigration, emigration, etc. Centuries before the Roman empire, though, the 60 states of France each had their own treasury (and currency). And, in many technologies they were best in the world. Much of the Roman military equipment was purchased in Celtic Spain and Gaul (light metal helmets, swords). Five centuries later, the 37 arsenal of the Roman empire made their own weapons, right. But that was five centuries later, and by then Gallia was arguably the strongest piece of the Roman empire, and with a mind of its own (there was even a “Gallic empire” within the Roman empire, for a while).

France: trade routes from Med to Atlantic, and from Med to North Sea, and from Med to Germany! Melting Pot Max!

So why the same? Precisely because France was the original melting pot, the three main trade routes between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe being there. A crossroad of trade and especially mental trade. The Gauls actually used Hermes, also known as Mercury, as their main imported deity. That was the god of commerce, and communications


Why The Clashing Mentalities Between France and the Anglo-Saxons?

England has been in conflict with France since, paradoxically enough, the highly successful invasion and colonization of England by a French army led by the Duke of Normandy. As the latter and his barons took control on the other side of the channel, the new king of England, namely aforesaid Duke, became a vassal of the king of France. The king of Francia was not any king out there. After the de facto secession of the Western Franks from the rest of the “Renovated” Roman empire, the king of France was officially “Roman emperor in his own kingdom”.

This status of vassal went on for centuries. The situation became worse when the “Louve de France”, the She-Wolf of france, daughter of Philippe IV Le Bel of France, became absolute monarch of England. She was succeeded by her son Edward III, grandson of Le Bel, legitimate king of England and France. At that point, the leadership of England could claim that Paris was vassal to London, and the 475 years war (so-called “100 years war”) was on.

Another problem is that the Duke of Normandy had to persuade the English that it was in their best interest to be ruled by him. First, of course, the french outlawed slavery in England, something that the 20% of the population who were slaves, loved. But William had to make We the People stakeholders in their nation: England had been crisscrossed by civil wars and invasions, with all sorts of Angles, and Saxons, and (“Fair”) Viking from Norway, and Dark Vikings from Denmark, for 5 centuries… Thus William of Normandy installed a sort of more direct democracy which was frowned on by the more traditional Franco-Roman plutocracy on the other side of the Channel. That “English” trick was increased in following centuries, for example when other (French) aristocrats tried to be elected king by the (English) Parliament, and hoped to do that, by first increasing the powers of said Parliament.

In any case, as France was much more powerful than England then, with several times the population and riches, and a closer connection to Roman inheritance, the leadership in England could survive only through more devious and militarily efficient means than those used by the French from France.

In the end, England became basically a more efficient version of France, and that included a mentality that the French could see as more pragmatic, less principled, more perfidious and hypocritical.

As French supremacy lasted until 1815, the English had to try much harder until then, with a more underhanded mentality. In 1815, the English monarch renounced his claim to the throne of France (a claim started by Isabelle and her son Edward III, and later reconfirmed in an accord to end the “100 Year War” which Joan of Arc and her operators would violate, relaunching the war for another 375 years).

After that, France was clearly the junior partner in the way of world empire… But not as a land power, where the French military stayed the most powerful in the West, most of the time, until May 1940.

The German empire was the world’s most powerful military in the period 1871-1914. However, in September 1914, it was nearly annihilated by a French counterattack at the First Battle of the Marne, shattering the conspiracy to take control of the world. The reason for french military might can be tracked all the way back to the Third Century, when the Confederation of the Salian Franks was created, and Franks went up Roman rivers in what would become the Viking style, five centuries later. The alliance between Romans and Franks arose from these earlier conflicts, when the Romans, and in particular Caesar Constantine, realized that Frankish military might was best co-opted, rather than fought.

The ascent of the Franks was defined by them militarily defeating all and any enemies who tried to encroach on present day France. The list is nearly never ending, and includes the Huns, the Goths, and the Berber and Arab armies of the three invasions of Francia by the Umayyad Caliphate (715-748 CE), which brought its demise in 750 CE (as the bones of its armies laid in France). The switch from “Franks” to “French” happened in the Twelfth Century, and the first unelected French king was Jean I, an infant who ruled 5 days, before being probably poisoned (by Countess Mahaut of Artois; now a region of pseudo-independent Belgium).

Thus the French are frank and aggressive. On this civilization grew and multiplied. Frank, to know and transmit the truth, which is the core strength of war. Aggressive, to impose the truth. Why so much war? Because France is at core of Europe, where the easiest main three trade routes pass (going across the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Carpathians, the Balkan Mountains or the Caucasus, all East-West ranges, mostly, is best done through… France!)

More details of European topography, showing better that the easiest trade routes indeed go through France… South of Massif Central (the volcanic range in the middle of France), going west, and up the Rhones valley.

The French state is the direct descendant of the Roman state. There is actually no discontinuity whatsoever, militarily, legal or otherwise. The first well-known elected French king, Clovis, was also Roman Consul and Imperator of the Roman army. Clovis succeeded to do what the Roman state couldn’t succeed to do in the preceding 150 years: Clovis crushed and evacuated the Visigoths (Battle of Vouillé, in 507 CE). Thus Francia and Constantinople, all the way to the Tenth and Eleventh Century, viewed themselves as part of the same Romanitas (resulting in common military campaigns, as when the Eastern Roman fleet operated on the French Riviera in the Tenth Century, in cooperation with Frankish armies in the interior, to extricate the Muslims who had been terrorizing Western Europe, in still another invasion; the First Crusade, 150 years later was the reciprocal courtesy…)

The philosophical method William the Conqueror used is exactly the same which Clovis used. And that’s not happenstance. Notice that, in both cases, those methods were quite opposite to the cool massacres, and thorough holocausts enacted by Julius Caesar when he conquered Gallia (Gaul).

However, the gigantic French empire was the object of US greed by 1914, and the envoy of hyper racist US President Wilson (a democrat, ex-president of Princeton University, a famous plutocratic university) conspired, encouraged, abetted and talked the German Kaiser into launching a world war, which he couldn’t win, with the result that, in 1945, the US was in perfect position to grab both the British and French empires, in the guise of decolonization.

This crowned the “American Century”, this worldwide empire, in the glory of which we are all presently basking.

So why the “Anglo-Saxon” anti-French rage?

This anti-French rage is a preventive measure, lest all the preceding be found out.

And should we be Zen-like, satisfied with this cognitive cover-up, organized in great part by the glorious US plutocratic universities? No. Why? Because we are getting through what promises to be maybe the greatest extinction of the biosphere ever since Snowball Earth. The simple US greed mentality is completely insufficient to deal with this crisis. Americans emit 16 tons of CO2 per capita, per year, in no small reason because they are such glorious, sensitive people, having attended their glorious super smart universities of greed, and they need to drive big truck as soon as they are 16 years old. By comparison, the French emit 6 (six) tons of CO2 per capita, per year. Because they are such losers. But, precisely, we need to learn to lose gracefully the battle of mental comfort and venal stupidity, to win the next war.  The ultimate war. The war of biosphere survival. A war against all of yesteryear’s mentalities.

Patrice Ayme’


Real Civilization Does Not Confuse Civilization and Superstition.

May 23, 2017

Another day, another Jihadist attack aimed at children. The Islamist State has long given instructions to kill children. Twenty-two killed, 60 maimed in Manchester at a concert for children. A 22 year old cultural Libyan exploded himself. The “multicultural” assassin was technically, but not culturally, a Brit. Time to face reality.

An eight year old little girl died, among others. Who is responsible? The  savage who exploded himself, according to Islam, or those who, misleadingly, call Islam a “civilization”? Excited, nihilistic maniacs, or those who, in the philosophical establishment, call their religion civilized?

Here is a Sword Verse, one of a great many in the Qur’an, Surah 9, verse 59:

“But when the forbidden months are past,

then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,

and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…”

[Partisan Muslims whine that this is out of context; actually the context is much more terrible than that: all sorts of people are supposed to be killed, according to Literal Islam, for example homosexuals, just because they are homosexual, following explicitly the Bible, are supposed to “rain stones on homosexuals”. By the way, that’s ironical, as Muslim societies are INTRINSICALLY homosexual!]

Islam is not a civilization, it’s a superstition, and it has been highly successful precisely because this superstition gives a lot of pretexts to kill all sorts of people, while claiming warriors will be pals with god. Islam is not a civilization. How can we take seriously those who confuse “civilization” and superstition? Instead, indeed, Islam is just a superstition. And a pretty nihilistic one at that. “Nihil” means nothing in Latin, it’s related to annihilation. Muhammad explained from the beginning that Islam aimed at annihilating the Greco-Roman and Sassanid (Persian) empires.

Islam orders that society and superstition should not be separated. Said otherwise, Islam orders society to become a “theocracy” (power of god).

Tenochtitlan, Sixteenth Century. This is a civilization. It separated governance and superstition, because a civilization has to separate reality from fancy.

This is primitive. Serious civilizations separated, and separate, superstition and political governance. In Japan the Shogun heading the government was no priest. Nor was the Chinese empire a theocracy. An even more enlightening civilization was the Mexican one. The (more or less central) Aztec government separated the religion and the government: the emperor had diverse titles (including “speaker”), but he had no religious title. The Aztec emperor was not a priest. The two top priests of Tenochtitlan were at the head of the Aztec Church, a completely distinct hierarchy from political governance (which comprised war, justice, commerce, finance).  

Make no mistake: I don’t mind the devil, if, and whenever, it serves civilization: for example, I do not condemn the massive bombing campaigns against the populations who had supported the mass murdering fascist regimes of Germany and Japan. It was the cheapest way, by a very long shot, cheapest not just economically and militarily, but also, overall, in human lives, to win the war.

The Aztecs distinguished completely their superstitious religion from governance, That reflects, and encourages, the ability to distinguish reality from a fiction “above” it. Governance has to be grounded in reality, thus divorced from fiction.

The “West” did this, and did it all along, under the Roman Republic. The separation of church and state was re-asserted formally when (all too Catholic!) emperor Justinian ordered a (“Pagan“!) law professor to head a commission to refurbish Roman Law (by then nearly 13 centuries old, and full of obsolete considerations). Justinian gave just one instruction: to separate secular from religious law. Justinian’s refurbished law was immediately made law in the empire of the Franks (Imperium Francorum), which held (most of) Western Europe.

Thus, both Aztecs and Western Europe separated superstitious church and reality-based state.

A real civilization does not confuse civilization and superstition.

A civilization is the ultimate achievement of humanity. A superstition is a butterfly’s dream. And when a superstition is just a dressing for nihilism, it’s nothing to be proud of. Nothing. Not that nihilism is nothing, far from it.

Where does nihilism comes from? Nihilism is a characteristic of human ethology. The greatest enemy of man is not just man, but the enormous destruction which man can bring to terrestrial ecology. Thus, the enemy of man is man, squared. Including oneself. To destroy that ecological destruction man brings, it’s best to destroy men. That’s where the nihilist instinct comes from. When there are more people than the ecology can stand, people have to die. Thus more so in the desert. Thus the nihilist essence of Islam! Thus the attachment of Islam to the regions with a difficult, unforgiving, ecology.

The civil war in Syria followed a spectacular drought which starved Syrians massively. War in Syria has displaced at least 25% of the population, solving the ecological problem in a way few will find amusing, soon all over reproducing, if the greenhouse keeps on getting worse, as it will.

Nihilism of Islamism: religions for a devastated and devastating future?

Patrice Ayme’

Flawed Philosophy Is WHY CARTHAGE FAILED

April 12, 2017

Remember Carthage!

Superficialists will tell you Carthage failed, because a Roman army destroyed Carthage in 8 days of door to door fighting. The real philosophical question is how did it come to that, all the more as the Roman imperator (general) commanding said army, devastated by the horror unfolding under the orders he got from the Roman Senate, was crying as his own troops engaged in the carnage. The answer is philosophical, yet of extreme importance, looking forward in the present situation of civilization.

Some Traits of Carthage’s Extreme Plutocratic Philosophy Were So Wrong, That Carthage Failed. A lesson to meditate!

Carthage was one of the most striking civilizations, ever. Differently from Sparta, which did not contribute much to civilization (even considering the 300 stand at Thermopylae, which was later thoroughly eradicated with extensive collaboration with fascist imperialist Persian juggernaut).

Carthage made present-day Tunisia bloom. It was never again so agriculturally productive. In 300 BCE, the part of North Africa Carthage cultivated was as great as the private farms, and the Ager Publicus of Rome, and all the area of Italy cultivated by Rome’s allies. In other words, Carthage’s resources were enormous.  

But not just that. Differently from a land power such as the richest of them all, Egypt, Carthage mostly lived of maritime trade. She controlled the Western Mediterranean, all the way to tropical Black Africa, except for Phocian Marseilles’ own little Greek empire, and Magna Grecia (Great Greece) in southern Italy. 

Partial view of Carthage’s famous Cothon: the commercial harbor is rectangular, the circular inner harbor is military, and could hold 188 trireme warships, each in its own shelter. Cap Bon at the horizon. Contemporary Tunis, population, one million, is to the right.

Carthage established far-out trading posts in Africa, starting the idea of the direct collaboration of Europe, and the Middle Earth collaboration with Black Africa (something idiots call “colonization”… All the more dumb as it went both ways, see the Almoravids.)

Carthaginian agricultural science was so advanced that it gave Rome the only book the latter preserved when insane, mass murdering Roman plutocracy annihilated the North African metropolis. if the West could colonize so well, thereafter, and even the Arabs, or Persians, it’s in no small measure thanks to Carthaginian agricultural science.

Carthage was much admired by Aristotle, for its “mixed constitution” (monarchy + aristocracy + democracy). That was viewed as an ideal balance bringing stability. Except for Sparta, Greek City-States were notoriously unstable.  Sparta, like Rome, and Carthage, also had a “mixed” constitution (and was much admired by all too many of the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle-Macedonia clique… which ended democracy in Greece).


If Carthage was so great, why did it fail? Too much oligarchy, not enough citizenship:

Carthage’s plutocratic oligarchy was avaricious with citizenship (so were the Romans, but not as much, by a very long shot; however, Roman avarice in the way of citizenship is why there was the “Social War” of the First Century BCE). Thus, although Carthage controlled a greater productive domain than Rome, Carthage had much fewer real citizens. Moreover the latter were city-dwellers, poorly trained in war.

Thus Carthaginian armies had not much in common with Roman armies, which were full of healthy Roman farmers. By 400 BCE, Roman farmers serving in the Roman army were paid a stipend; the end result is that Rome was able to field the largest national armies in the Ancient Mediterranean World; Persia could field larger armies, but, like the Carthaginian armies, they were multinational armies of mercenaries.

The all too small full citizenry of Carthage meant that much of the “Libyan” population Carthage administered did not have a full stake in the fate of the metropolis. Carthage drafted them during wars, but also paid mercenaries, many of them from Spain or Gaul.

After the First abominable “Punic” war with Rome (which started in 265 BCE), Carthage suffered a striking revolt of an army of its own mercenaries. By contrast, Rome’s core legions were made of full citizens, superbly trained and equipped. (Even when the Roman legions rebelled, centuries later, they rebelled against each other, to seize power, never the City of Rome herself.)


It was cruel to deny citizenship to stakeholder, so Carthage became ever more cruel:

Carthaginian cruelty was legendary. Crucifying generals, to encourage the others, was common (whereas Rome, in 22 centuries of Roman history, never crucified a single general).

3,000 years ago, human sacrifice of children was still practiced: consider the Bible and the famous would-be child killer Abraham. 2,800 years ago, queen Dido founded the Phoenician colony of Carthage. Phoenicia, the cities of the present-day Lebanese litoral (Tyr, Sidon, Byblos, etc.) was most advanced: it created the alphabet (and books, bibles, from the word “Byblos”). Phoenicia practiced child sacrifices. Thus, so did Carthage.

However killing children became uncool in the Middle Earth: it was a big civilization there, and some of the national civilizations, such as Egypt, had never practiced child sacrifice. Those nation-civilizations were in competition and trade with each other, and child killing was no advantage. In the end, Phoenicia dropped that monstrous religion.  

But Carthage kept it.

Why? Because Carthage ruled North Africa, and had no competitors (Numidian kingdoms were clients and supplicants, and allies against Rome). Carthage’s absurdly obsolete cruelty would have been a lethal disadvantage further east. But, in North Africa, overlording the savage Numids and Libyans, it was rather a way to awe them some more, and thus to rule them, sort of.

And Carthage kept killing more and more children.

Why? Because denying citizenship to stakeholders was cruel, and needed cruelty to keep on going. And the more it went, the more cruel Carthage got.

Thus the more wrong it was about citizenship, the more cruel Carthage got (to impose that inequality ever more). Doing so it weakened itself in two ways: too small a citizenry (especially with all those dead kids), and Carthage put herself in the moral crosshairs of Rome (which was notoriously antagonistic to human sacrifice religions).

In the end, Carthage became much more democratic, infuriating and alarming Roman plutocracy ever more. Out of this fury, Roman plutocracy got ever more mileage. Indeed, the annihilation of Carthage by an unhinged Roman Senatorial class was an unmitigated disaster. It’s not just that the greatest Semitic civilization which ever was disappeared. It’s also that Carthage gave an excuse for the Roman plutocracy to get completely mad, insane, unhinged, and thus able to vaporize Roman total democracy (which had been growing, prior to the Punic wars).


Many are the lessons’ from Carthage:    

We saw above that the growth in inequality is justified, and accompanied by a growth in cruelty. This was true both on the Carthaginian and Roman sides. After 146 BCE, when Rome destroyed with extreme cruelty free city states in Spain and Greece, and annihilated Carthage, Roman cruelty turned against the Roman population itself.

This was of course insane, and the more insane it got, the more cruelty itself was used as an excuse and occasion for further madness. In the end, Rome found itself ruled by a plutocratic clique among which emperors were selected. This concentration of power among few hands and brains made Rome increasingly stupid (just as Carthage had become increasingly stupid). The result was a degeneracy of the state in a theocracy symbolically led by a crucified, and thus crucifying, messiah, Jesus his name.

Republics such as the USA and France also have a mixed constitution (the presidents have the powers of elected kings, the politicians, in combination with the plutocrats who feed them, make oligarchies, etc.) The US and France are the paradigms of today’s “republics”.

Still the same psychological laws which led Carthage and Rome down the abyss, are in place. Thus history can teach us how to avoid the pitfalls.


What Should Carthage Have Done?

The Punic wars started as a three-way struggle for Sicily, between Carthage, Greek tyrants, and the rising Roman power. Retrospectively, after a Greek tyrant landed in North Africa on the prominent cape next to Carthage (Carthage got rid of him with difficulty), Carthage should have extended her citizenship to Libyans, and grow to cover North Africa, imitating the Roman Republic, which was closer to a total democracy, then, than to a plutocratic oligarchy as Carthage was.

Thus Carthage could have grown organically, as a civilization (as Rome did). In particular, child killing would have disappeared, because Numidians and Libyans would not have acquired with enthusiasm Carthaginian citizenship, if they thought it meant their kids may have had to be thrown in the fire.

Carthage: it is alarming to see that a civilization so splendid, so smart and so advanced could be so wrong, and so retarded. But cruelty has a beauty that the herd often indulges in.

Patrice Ayme’

I Am Not Your Negro: Don’t Face, Don’t Change

February 6, 2017


“There are days, this is one of them, when you wonder what your role is in this country and what your future is in it. How precisely you’re going to reconcile yourself to your situation here and how you are going to communicate to the vast, heedless, unthinking, cruel white majority that you are here. I’m terrified at the moral apathy – the death of the heart – which is happening in my country. These people have deluded themselves for so long that they really don’t think I’m human.”

So I could say, speaking about the interaction I had with some “friends” recently, but it is James Baldwin who wrote these words, decades ago. I saw Baldwin in the excellent documentary “I Am Not Your Negro”. (Actually Baldwin said “nigger”, but that was too much for PC America, although it’s just a matter of switching from English, to Latin with a typo…)

Baldwin Gave The Philosophical Back-Up The Civil Right Movement Needed. Baldwin Was Very Close To The Main (Assassinated) Actors, MLK, Malcom X, Evers, Who Were Younger

James Baldwin (left) Gave The Philosophical Back-Up The Civil Right Movement Needed. Baldwin Was Very Close To The Main (Assassinated) Actors, Martin Luther King (right), Malcolm X, Evers, Who Were Younger

WHAT YOU CAN’T FACE, YOU CAN’T CHANGE: Call that the most human principle.

Obscurantist idiots prone to call everybody they disagree with, a racist, can’t get it: facing what you need to change is the opposite of (the usual interpretation of) Politically Correct they subscribe to. PC, or Perfect Cretinism, consists in believing that, if it feels good, it’s right. Little do idiots understand that what feels good, in the long-term, and the deepest way, ought to be right, to start with. Evolution, sustainability, reality and morality are closely related. That’s why Political Correctness is, fundamentally, immoral.

This basic principle, In The Face When Up To Change,  is indeed the driving choice that created, evolutionarily speaking, humanity itself. In particular, science and philosophy. I went to see the documentary made by a Haitian, part of it wonderfully narrated by Samuel Jackson, of the philosopher James Baldwin. Baldwin put it thus: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

They actually deluded themselves for so long that they really don’t think that they are human

“I Am Not Your Negro” is not just a movie about race relations, as most US commentators will pretend. It’s actually hilarious what bad faith – or is it just stupidity?- US mainstream commentators exhibit when some pretend that  I Am Not Your Negro is just about negroes. It’s not, it’s about the USA.

I have written down a lot of the ideas shown in the I Am Not Your Negro, not knowing Baldwin wrote them before. Those things are often seen as racist. This is how deluded the USA, and in particular the pseudo-left, has become. Baldwin, who was older, inspired Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and many others. As far as I can see, he is the best, deepest US philosopher.  

Patrice Ayme’

Banality of Rogues

January 1, 2017

The famous Prussian Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt, an anti-Nazi who slept assiduously with the Nazi Heidegger, her thesis advisor, married to someone else, wrote about the “banality of evil”, a concept that became famous… Although Arendt’s “discovery” would have made the Catholic Inquisition shrug and smirk, five centuries prior (the Inquisition would have said:’This is exactly what we have been talking about, evil everywhere!’)

Today I will speak of the banality of rogues. You see rogues tie in with the (re-)Foundation Principle. No rogues, no civilization. (There goes one of the main critiques against Donald Trump! Yes, I just saw the movie “Rogue One”…)

We have a real, huge example in history, the very base of our present civilization: the Franks were both rogues, and “renovators”, as they themselves described themselves, of the Roman empire. No less. But actually the Franks did much more, founding Western civilization in full, by outlawing slavery, making secular education mandatory, and running an imperial, military society which, somehow, saved and overcame antiquity, while preserving an open society (the whole picture got in trouble with the First Crusade: see, it’s the fault of Islam, once again, ha-ha-ha).

I was reading in a history publication, how the Roman empire went down, and they mentioned all sorts of barbarians: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Vandals, Alans, Huns… They forgot to mention the most important ones, the ones vested with Roman power, more than any others, the Franks… It was as if they talked about breathing, but forgot to mention air.

Ignoring the re-foundation of Rome by the Franks is ignoring, not just history, but the re-foundation of civilization, no less. Indeed the Franks removed the most glaring defects of Rome.  (That “renovated” empire officially went on until Napoleon, emperor of the rogue imperial part of said Roman empire called Francia, then France, shut it down in 1804.)  

Habitable Exoplanet With Ring In the Movie Rogue One: In Our World, Our Mental World, There Are Now Exoplanets Everywhere. In 1600 CE, Giordano Bruno got burned, just for suggesting that.

Habitable Exoplanet With Ring In the Movie Rogue One: In Our World, Our Mental World, There Are Now Exoplanets Everywhere. In 1600 CE, Giordano Bruno got burned, just for suggesting that.

[Earth may have had a ring at some point in the past (some scientist have speculated, looking at some otherwise weird data). Thousands of exoplanets have been found since the first one, 51 Pegasi b, at the University of Geneva eleven years ago. An exoplanet was found, in 2016, around the closest star, Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf; the planet is in the habitable zone. Details are unknown, as the planet does not seem to come between us and its star; good spending in astronomy would allow to look at it directly, using existing technology.But our corrupt leaders have prefered to give money to our plutocratic masters, and, thus, crumbs to themselves, rather than making science all it can be. Science is the one job for all, and necessary for survival, moreover.] 

How did Rome die? Basically from sclerotic thinking, mental paralysis, senility: the establishment by Augustus of his damned “Principate”, with a permanent “First Man” (Princeps) at the helm, was the fundamental cause of mental decay. We The People got completely disinterested from the most interesting question, and the few families at the helm were too idiotic to have any new ideas.

Once mental decay is at the helm, and pervades the base, nothing can save a society: when problems occur, they can’t be solved. This is what happened to Rome. Confronted with worse problems in the Fourteenth Century France sailed right through, as nothing had happened, because Fourteenth Century France was an intellectual power machine, greatest in civilization so far, ever.

Buridan, who was worth ten Newtons, at least, having overturned Aristotelian physics, discovered ⅔ of “Newton’s” laws, and justified, as a result, the heliocentric system, was not just chief of the university of Paris, but counselor to four French kings. That was typical of the situation in France, England, Germany and Italy at the time. Buridan’s network of students and collaborators extended throughout Europe. Meanwhile Florence’s bankers funded that Italian Republic’s mighty army with national bonds…

So the fierce, swift and abominable Black Plague killed half of Europe, and no aristocrats… So what? Rome, affected by smaller plagues, tottered on the brink of extinction…

Yes, one can point to the sorry state of the Demoncratic Party, with its entrenched interests, drinking the elixir served by self-serving plutocrats (such as those who set-up Obamacare without cost control. And no, don’t point at Trump; he and his Kellyanne Conway, among others, are a breath of fresh air, after decades of increasingly metastatic plutocracy. We will see what they do.

Sometimes heavy destruction is the only way to construction. It is alway the case, when the construction is huge. (And this is true for brains too, explaining why philosophers have it hard, when they interact with the commons… and reciprocally!)

Oh yes, it can hurt: this is the implicit theme in the last Star War saga (“Rogue One”). The rebellion has done evil things we are informed, and we see it trying its very best, to do some more (the father of the heroine is assassinated by the rebellion, although he works against the empire; the movie is notable also for the fact the main hero and character is a human female in her full glory, second to males in no way whatsoever!)

It is a complicated world. It will get ever more complicated. Mastering its complexity is the most crucial part in fighting evil. To master complexity, one has to understand it first. Thus, standing in the way of understanding is the greatest, deepest meta-evil.

Only rogues dare to understand, and act upon, what others refuse to understand, or even see. Rogues are necessary to progress, forward, and civilization is riding a bicycle: no forward motion means collapse. Because a ruined ecology is always biting at the heels of civilization.

Civilization may not like rogues, but it needs them, to be born again, with a better intelligent design, necessary for survival.

Being a rogue is not just a neurohormonal state. It is a mental architecture. Studies just published showed that first mothers get their brains permanently modified (details another time). Similarly a rogue brain is different from the brain of a servant of the establishment like Obama. It is permanently different. Giordano Bruno, or Galileo, or Descartes, or Montaigne or Abelard, were permanently different.

The superiority of the “West” (“Pars Occidentalis” as the Romans said) is due to its being just enough of a host medium to rogues. The fate of rogues was not as good in Islam, by orders of magnitude; after he got in so much trouble for fighting the Church, Abelard, in the Twelfth Century, toyed with the idea of going to live among the Islamists (so he wrote). Wisely, he did not do it: he would have been killed there (instead, in the West, his ideas won, over the centuries…)

Happy New Year To All (even the abysmal Obama, basking in Oahu, and his cohort of the corrupt!)

Rogues watch ants with sympathy…

Patrice Ayme’


December 11, 2016

What are the duties of love? How does love arise? What are the duties of a human being? These are some of the themes touched in the excellent fictional story “Allied”. “Allied” is happening between Morocco, London, and a bit of France in the period 1942-1944. The movies stars Brad Pitt (excellent) and Marion Cotillard (stupendous, Oscar deserving for her great facial expressions).

The movie is a mix of historical realism and a serious distortion, I should even say, violation thereof. the distortion is essential to the story, but fatal to the understanding of why it is that Britain won the war, and the Nazis lost it. Basically, the British were extremely tough, and even tougher than the Nazis, that’s why they won. The British could be tougher, precisely because they had humanity on their side (the part not just sorely, and erroneously missing from the movies, but even deeply obliterated in the movies).  

This has consequences for the now famous subject of “fake news”. In a sense, the entire “Allied”, although an excellent movies, and precisely because it is an excellent movies,  is fake news writ large. Deep disinformation. Maybe I should give stars to fake news and disinformation. When Hillary and Barack says companies reimbursed TARP, that’s five star disinformation. When US propagandists, so-called “historians”, say from Harvard, claim that the US acted only as liberator and savior in World War One and Two, that’s ten star disinformation. “Allied” is a good eight star disinformation about how smart British Intelligence was, and how deeply democracy connects with civilization.

Two Stars & The Sahara, What Could Go Wrong? Well, Depicting Civilization As It Was Not. As It Ought Not To Be.

Two Stars & The Sahara, What Could Go Wrong? Well, Depicting Civilization As It Was Not. And As It Ought Not To Be.

So what is the story told in “Allied“?

All right, all spoilers out, we are landing on the world of real here. Pitt lands in the desert, and goes to Casablanca, where he meets Cotillard. He is a Canadian special agent, she is a top French resistance fighter who has infiltrated Nazis and collaborators in Morocco. He poses as a phosphate industrialist from Paris. He tries not to talk too much, because his Canadian accent is detectable. Together they kill during a reception the Nazi ambassador. It was a quasi-suicide mission, and they get neurohormonally transformed from it (they fall in love) and marry in England.

Next they have a baby, a little girl. Now here comes the maximum spoiler. Even knowing it, the situation is still heart wrenching, though. Cotillard is suspected to be a Nazi spy. Pitt is charged to execute her, should her guilt be confirmed. This is when my heart-strings started to pull hard. He flies to france, and determines, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she is indeed a Nazi double agent.

He confronts her, she admits her guilt. She said she did not believe the Nazis would find her in England. They threatened to kill her baby Anna, so she revealed to the Great Reich what her husband, a high intelligence officer, knew. (Through a little Nazi network of fanatics, one a degenerate smallish woman, the other an apparent Jew resembling Sigmund Freud.)

So far, so good, in the plausibility department. Every single detail of the movie could be correct. Indeed, there were indeed plenty of double, even triple agents (agents known to be double who betrayed those in the know), during World War Two. Many got executed. Many got tortured to death over days, even months.


Yet “Allied”Establishes Not Just A Fake World, But a Fake Civilization, Vastly Inferior to the Real One:

There were indeed Nazi spies in England. Some even got executed. For example the three idiots who knew nothing, and crossed from the Netherlands by paddling to commit sabotage, in 1940. Why were they executed? Precisely because they were saboteurs rather than informants. And to set-up a nice terror mood among Nazi spies.

Most Nazi spies in Britain who were detected were proposed a deal: work with us, British counter-intelligence, MI5, to disinform your superiors, or die. None of the Nazi spies chose to die whom I know of. And this is what the movies gets completely wrong. Had really Cotillard existed and been found to be spying, her husband would have been ordered to divulge to her only false and carefully manipulated data.  


This way of having a world had a name: The DOUBLE CROSS SYSTEM XX:

Nazi spies in Great Britain were systematically made into double agents. Not all these spies were detected by MI5. Many, seeing that the war was turning against Nazi Germany, and, thus, or, seeing that Nazism was not their cup of tea (as the very head of army intelligence, the Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris decided; Canaris was ultimately discovered, arrested and executed). ALL Nazi agents sent to Great Britain were detected and made to work for the Allied cause (some were from standard military intelligence, Abwehr and some from Nazi intelligence, the Sicherheitsdienst (SD)).

All the more in a case as delicate as that exposed in “Allied” were a high officer is married to a spy. As delicate, and as potentially fruitful.

(There were double agents at an even higher level, but they were not detected during World War Two)

Such subtleties are not just about reevaluating history. Nor are they about understanding which way civilizational progress goes, and how to evaluate it. They present immediate interest in appreciating the brouhaha about, say,  Russia having “hacked” (whatever that means) the US elections. If one analyzes deeply and subtly, beyond the headlines, in the claims of “interference”, one realizes that there is nothing there.

“Double Cross XX” was humanly superior:

  1. It was human and had more altruism and empathy than the equivalent strategies in the fascist system.
  2. It was smarter. Smarts is the essence of humanity. Denying smarts deny humanity. Fascism is intrinsically single-minded: thereupon its strength in combat, and stupidity, long, or even short-term (when combat is not at hand).

Movies such as “Allied” are not innocuous, when they drag the edge of civilization in the mud. By representing allied counterintelligence as cruel, vindictive and stupid, it is extolling these characteristics.

After all, the Allies, who quickly self-described as the “United Nations” won because of superior values. Three years before their formal declaration as an organization in San Francisco. An interesting aside is that the “Declaration of the United Nations” was explicitly founded in its first clause on the Atlantic Charter. This is something Russians ought to want to think about when they view NATO as a fundamental adversary.

Take one example out of millions. A German general of the Wehrmacht (a standard general, not a SS), Anton Dostler, ordered the execution of 15 US soldiers who had been made prisoner when, while wearing the American uniform, they tried to blow-up a tunnel in Italy. The general ordered them executed. Subordinates knew well that this violated the Geneva Convention. They stalled, and asked for confirmation of the order, and again and again. The general insisted, and the US troops were assassinated.

The general was subsequently tried. He argued that he was acting under an order from Hitler. However any member of the Wehrmacht had the right to refuse to obey orders in violation of the Geneva Convention, and the order was not direct and reiterated in the specific situation. The Nazi general was condemned to death, and executed.

Where does the superiority of civilization intervenes here? Simple: the subordinates of the general executed an order they knew was anti-civilizational. At that point they had to decide whether they wanted to risk disobeying a direct order from a maniac, or not. Earlier in the war, they could have said no, and the case would have been considered for prosecution (no such prosecution was ever engaged, because the Nazis were afraid of a judicial precedent going against them!).

However, late in the war, when, clearly the 1,000 year Reich was on its ignominious way out, summary execution for disobeying orders became wanton and frequent. Thus the subordinates could not feel that they were fighting for the right cause, under smart and wise leadership, but under idiotic gangsters. That, in turn, would focus their minds not on winning the war (how could vicious imbeciles win the war?) but on saving their skins.

Whereas, it was exactly the opposite on the Allied side: there the mentality was that the cause was just. Greater than a soldier’s fate, worth dying for.

As Britain was more human, more emphatic, vibrant with a higher civilization, German agents willingly went to the British side. And conversely. After the war, it was discovered that Nikolaus Ritter, the Air intelligence chief under Canaris, had known that the cover for the agents in Britain had been compromised, but due to the fear of repercussions, in the cruel, demented, unpredictable, unlawful, wanton, self-destructive nature of the Nazi regime, Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) Ritter was too scared t0 inform Canaris (who was long a devotee of Hitler). Thus we can see directly that the less civilized a regime is, the harder it is to win a war.


Why To Insult (Britain Or Civilization In General? 

And once again, I will ask the same rhetorical question: why do those with money (like Hollywood movie producers, and investors, Trump just made one his Secretary of the Treasury!) have interest to misrepresent civilization, drag civilization deep in the mud? Because they have had so much money, in recent years, they feel like gods, and their pleasure has become to overlord people with all their taxpayer paid five star travelling around the world, their power talk with other rulers, their philanthropy, prizes, etc.

And their enemy? Civilization. Hence the interest to make us believe that British intelligence during World War Two was so brutish, vicious, stupid, short-sighted and inhuman to exterminate Nazi spies it could have manipulated, and did manipulate, in real history, as it happened.

To believe that British intelligence was so brutish, vicious, stupid, short-sighted and inhuman that it would have insisted to assassinate the beloved wife of one of their most esteemed operatives, a commander of the fully sovereign state of Canada, is well beyond ridiculous. Had such a case occurred, British counter-intelligence would have viewed it as a godsent, a fantastic occasion to make the Nazis believe more fake news, disinformation, misinformation and stupendous lies. (There may have been similar cases, with extremely high level spies, who got doubled-crossed… but they are kept secret to this day.)


The Double Cross System Double Crossed Adolf Hitler:

In the end, Adolf Hitler and his minions were persuaded, from fake intelligence, mostly from Double Cross XX, that the main D Day was not the one which happened in Normandy, on June 6, 1944, but one which was going to happen in the Pas De Calais (facing Dover, where the Franco-English Channel is narrowest). Double Cross XX had persuaded Hitler that an enormous army led by US General Patton (the most famous tank general of the Allies, professor of all top US generals, well-known for his ferocity), was going to rush across.

Actually that was a complete lie: all the Allied forces were concentrated to land in Normandy. Nazi forces basically held the Allies roughly two months, bottled in Normandy. Had Hitler understood on June 6, 1944, that the real D Day had just happened, in Normandy, the Allies may well have been defeated.

Then Hitler could have sent most of the troops in North West France to fight off the Franco-American Provence landing (where my North African dad fought, after the Italy campaign). Gott knows how this would have turned…

Had the Provence assault failed (that’s a big if) the Allies would not have had a second chance, for years. Moreover, the US strategists had warned that, thanks to new jet fighters and jet bombers, Nazi Germany would recover air supremacy by June 1945.

So Double Cross XX (crucially helped) won the war. The Allies won, because they were more civilized.

Allied is a magnificent movie. However, it is also a magnificent lie. And a vicious, deep lie, construed to make us believe superior civilization, and humanity is not what it is. And make no mistake: human beings are sensitive. I knew all the preceding, while I watched the movie. I knew perfectly well that the threat of executing Cotillard was grotesque, unreal, contrary to all what happened and should happen. I knew it was an attempt to confuse the Allies and the Nazis. Still when I saw the horrible fate of the innocent fictional toddler in that outrageous story, deprived of her fictional mother, I felt horrible.

Now Obama is in danger of insinuating that Russia stole the US election: he asked for a special report. That introduces a pretty horrible emotion. Even if we know that it is a fiction that a Russian is standing behind all US election official, the potential for emotional damage is enormous.

Trash civilization, by making us believe it was not the way it was. Now trash the US election system, by putting it in doubt. It’s the industry of doubt, destroying the foundations of value: a potentially lethal industry.

Patrice Ayme’