Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

Don’t Feed the Bear: All Putin Needs Is Comfy War

February 11, 2015


The French and German leaders are meeting again with Putin to make him recover reason: it reminds me of Munich, 1938, when the French and British leaders were trying to make Hitler reasonable.

France and Germany together have a slightly larger population than Russia, but three and a half time the GDP. (By the way, what happened to Britain? Well London is full of Russian plutocrats and banking institutions keen to make Assad and Putin possible; hence the British discretion.)

An Ukrainian in the street interviewed by German TV said it was out of the question to give territory to Putin: if one gives him a finger, he will take the entire arm.

Putin Wants "The Big Country" Back, & Its Prospect of Endless War

Putin Wants “The Big Country” Back, & Its Prospect of Endless War

In the West, cowardly pacifists say: do not provoke Putin, do as he says, he has nukes and will attack, if lethal defensive weapons are sent to Ukraine. That makes them collaborators of evil.

This is rather curious that pacifists use a fundamentally bellicose argument: don’t try to stop the mad man, he may get offended, and kill everybody.

Indeed, a mad man’s madness with criminal insanity overtones, makes the case for the greatest severity. So the essence of the pacifist whining call for the greatest severity to be applied on Putin, right away.

Because what are pacifists saying? Putin is the most dangerous Leader, ever. So let’s be nice to him.

It is now known that, had the USA and Britain be as firm as France against Hitler in the 1930s, Hitler’s own generals would have made a coup against him.

But, instead, Britain and the USA made concession after concession to Hitler. So Hitler flew from success to success, undermining any mood critical of him. How can one criticize a winner? Clearly, it was unpatriotic. It made the top German generals and marshals who thought that the dictator was completely crazy, and a danger to Germany look like traitors.

Something similar is developing with Putin. As he occupied and annexed territory in Georgia, Moldavia, and now Ukraine, and the West proved incapable to stop him, he looks ever more like a winner. Putin’s avowed goal is to bring back what he calls the “New Russia” (half of Ukraine) and the “Big Country” (the USSR). Pacifists say that the fundamental strategic interest of Russia is at play, so . di, Putin flies from success to success.

So where does Putin stop? This is what pacifists have to know, if they do not want to be simple collaborators of evil.

But of course, they don’t know.

Should we then keep our fingers cross, and hope for the best?


Because Putin killed only 100,000 in Chechnya? Because Catherine the Great stopped 80 kilometers from Berlin? Not a safe bet: Catherine did not have nukes.

Behaving now as nothing will stop Putin, but for the application of overwhelming force is not safe, but it is the safest strategy. If Putin is completely crazy, overwhelming force won’t stop him. But nothing will anyway, especially after he has fully armed himself, as he is presently doing, Hitler-like.

If Putin is not completely crazy, the threat of overwhelming force will stop him.

Not trying to stop him, if he is not completely crazy, will certainly make Putin completely crazy. Be it completely crazy with greed.

As I tried to explain, Putin, like Hitler before him, and Napoleon, and many (not all) conquerors before him, has discovered that war unites the People behind him, and make all the People think as one, and the name of that one, is Putin. This is what I call the fascist instinct. It is crucial to enable a (relatively) weak primate, far from any tree, to conquer the Savannah and Steppe, heretofore ruled by formidable predators.

Putin’s rule has been a disaster. Thus he needs to activate the fascist instinct in the Russian People. Thus he needs war.

Thus, if pacifists give him Ukraine, Putin will be deeply unhappy: he did not want Ukraine. He wanted war. War gives him fascism, thus the ability to rule. In this light, the reign of Louis XIV of France can be better understood.

After millions of Protestants had left France, and France has lost considerable territory in continuous wars, Louis XIV of France, the self-described “Sun-King” (“Roi-Soleil”) feebly bleated that his advisers had poorly advised him about Protestants: it had not been a good idea to have harassed, despoiled, and submit them to “Dragonades” (occupation of Protestant households by elite troops called “Dragons”).

However, Louis XIV, a dedicated fascist, hater of the “Republic”, lied (as fascists are wont to). Louis XIV had continual wars, and particularly against innocent civilians, because he needed continual wars, because that justified his fascist, personal rule.

Louis XIV was not afraid of war, he was afraid of peace, because peace meant the Parliament may want to re-establish the Republic again (which is what the “Fronde” was all about).

Napoleon faithfully executed the same scheme (because De Sade, one of the Revolution’s principals, had criticized the aggressive, expansionist war making, Napoleon put him in a mental asylum).

The same exact mechanism caused the First World War, with the Kaiser playing the role of Louis XIV. The Jews played the role of the Protestants under Louis XIV.

Soon Stalin would institute continual internal war, to justify the dictatorship of the Politburo which he headed. Hitler repeated the method.

So are we condemned to repeat history? Not so, if we learn how it works.

Putin got his 85% approval rating, from his activation of the fascist instinct.

However, the very latest polls show that the Russian People is getting wary of Putin’s protest of innocence about the war: 70 percent stated that Russia was assisting the breakaway rebels of Donetsk and Luhansk. Good. However, the same polling show that now most Russians think that establishing “Novorossia” (“New Russia”) is a good idea.

In other words, Russians are turning t the Dark Side: they know their dictator is making war in a foreign nation, but they are starting to approve the invasion of that nation, and its annexation.


Same story as what happened in the German collective psyche after Hitler annexed the Republic of Austria. Then the Germans became favorable to other annexations (Czechoslovakia, some Baltic states, much of Poland, etc.) Because Hitler had proven to be a winner.

As far as the Russians are concerned, Putin is a winner, so he has got to be right. Not right on the facts, but morally right: Ukraine, like Georgia or Moldova, is Russian property.

Want to turn Putin into a loser? Do it on the battlefield. And do like him: play dirty, send efficient weapons stealthily first.



May 1, 2014

Abstract: Putin is going to war for exactly the exact same socio-economic reason as Adolf Hitler: total failure. So he will not stop, until all is consummated.

Putin’s plutocratic society has turned into a dictatorship. His economy, weakened by militarization and corruption, is failing. That decay is on a collision course with his self-admitted personal addiction to power. A difference with Hitler: oil and gas (Russia is the first producer, with the USA; Hitler had none and depended upon American and Russian oil until 1941). Faced with fascism again, having learned a bit from history, with higher stakes, this time the so called “democracies” are rallying in a more timely manner.

In September 1939, France attacked Hitler to help Poland. Alone, France was, and condemned by the presidency and Congress of the USA. This time, it’s completely different. The USA is on the frontlines, joining an increasingly serious NATO. France is sending to Poland and the Baltic republics one hundred of her lethal, nuclear capable Rafales active stealth jets:

Serious Business: Rafale Carrying Six Beyond Visual Range Infra Red Missiles &, On Its Belly A 300 Kiloton H Bomb Capable Of Making 600 Kilometers In 8 Minutes. Sent To Poland.

Serious Business: Rafale Carrying Six Beyond Visual Range Infra Red Missiles &, On Its Belly A 300 Kiloton H Bomb Capable Of Making 600 Kilometers In 8 Minutes. Sent To Poland.

Both with the European Union, and NATO, attack against one is attack against all. Taken literally Putin has said he wanted to reconstitute the Czars’ evil empire. Submitting to Putin, means, for starters, sending people to be abused in concentration camps for homosexuality, opinions, and insulting the Church. Pluto’s reign: even Putin’s generals are billionaires.

[I would suggest that the USA sent anti-ballistic missile ships, in the Baltic, as the Kremlin has made nuclear threats from its occupied territory around the ancient German city of Konigsberg.]



The French Republic is controlled by the Socialist Party, and, officially, 57% of its GDP is state (although an economist on this site, D. Deux said the real number is lower). France can hardly be called a Wall Street, or NATO puppet.

100 French supersonic active stealth fighter-bombers Rafales are deploying in Poland and the Baltics, some a few dozen miles from Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave. What’s Kaliningrad? The ancient East Prussia. Another territory invaded by the Kremlin, and declared to be Russian. Some of the Baltics have been tortured and nearly exterminated by Russia for the last 250 years. Then, after ethnic cleansing, the Czars moved in Russians (many as recently as after WWII, under Czar Stalin). Those very same Russians whose descendants now Putin wants to save so much.

The Rafales carry the active stealth system “Spectre”. Basically Spectre makes anti-noise, with a precision of less than one degree on the source. That allows to jam Very High Frequency radar that renders even stealth planes like the future USA Strike Fighter, the F35, “Lightning II, plainly visible.

Active stealth Rafales can carry a standoff missile carrying  a 300 kilotonnes (of TNT) thermonuclear warhead. That’s twenty times Hiroshima. The missile is propelled by a French invention patented in 1908 (Lorin), that nearly flew as a fighter in 1940, before flying in 1947, the RAMjet. The RAMjet gives the missile a 600 kilometers range above Mach 3 (because it carries only fuel: the RAM breathes air).

(By comparison the bomber part of the arsenal of the USA consists of subsonic planes carrying obsolete subsonic cruise missiles of H bomb power at most 150 kt.)

Britain also regrets to have only strategic nuclear submarines as a deterrent (which the Scottish Independence Party wants to eliminate, presumably to switch allegiance to Putin). As Russia has threatened to use H bombs on the battlefield, and based some in occupied “Kaliningrad”, between Lithuania and Poland, it’s good to be able to reply tit for tat. Besides, Rafales could certainly land on Red Square…

Even Socialist France is warning Putin.



As I have argued, history is basically a compendium of ineluctable complexities, avoidable conspiracies, and ultimate wars. In particular, history is not made by pacifists inasmuch as by war. See: “War Makes History”.

There are basically two types of war: bad guys against bad guys, and bad guys, against good guys. Wars of good guys against good guys are very rare (see Note1).

A sure way to have a country led by bad guys is to make it a plutocracy. In Putin’s realm, even the top generals are wealthy plutocrats. Actually every whom Putin calls a “friend” is a multimillionaire, or multibillionaire, in the West alone. Putin has invaded now three countries, and made clear he was not going to stop there.

The enormity of what happened has not been grasped yet, just because it’s too enormous, emotionally speaking. Such a thing, a major power using military force to annex territory, did not occur since 1938-1940 (when Hitler annexed several countries and pieces thereof). Even under Stalin, countries were invaded, and controlled, but Stalin did not formally annex them.  Far from annexing Ukraine, actually, Stalin gave Ukraine a seat at the United Nations, and other powers (which now Putin is busy stealing, making him, in that precise sense, worse than Stalin himself! Quite a feat).



I argue that, although Putin really wants to terrorize the world with his military, and enjoys the power, his true motivation is to use his aggressive drive to hide a much less savory reality of his gigantic kingdom. But, before this, what is Putin’s official reasoning, officially a regression from concessions made by Stalin himself?

The unfolding invasion doctrine exposed by Putin, is a faithful duplicate of that of Hitler in the 1930s Hitler said: ‘invade wherever there are “threatened” “Germans”, and evoke the splendor of reconstituting the “Grosse Reich”, to protect “German” minorities. Putin says exactly the same except replacing “German” by “Russian”, and “Grosse Reich” by “the Big Country”.

As the New York Times put it, April 18, 2014 (with a few additions of mine between brackets []):

“[NEW RUSSIA] was conquered in the late 18th century by Catherine the Great, who installed [one of her many lovers, co-conspirators, and co-murderers in the assassination of Catherine’s husband, the Czar] Prince Grigory Potemkin to lead the colonization of the lands.

The prince earned fame as the architect of the Potemkin village, a town of brightly painted facades and happy people erected to deceive visiting officials and dignitaries. Critics have accused Mr. Putin of employing a similar sleight of hand in the invasion of Crimea and the supposedly spontaneous pro-Russian uprising in eastern Ukraine.

On Thursday, Mr. Putin repeated his assertion that he felt an obligation to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, where they are a large minority of the population. “We must do everything to help these people to protect their rights and independently determine their own destiny,” he said.

“The question is to ensure the rights and interests of the Russian southeast,” he added. “It’s New Russia. Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Odessa were not part of Ukraine in czarist times; they were transferred in 1920. Why? God knows. Then, for various reasons, these areas were gone, and the people stayed there. We need to encourage them to find a solution.”

What Putin is saying is that the empire of the Czars ought to be reconstituted, as it existed in the Nineteenth Century. That means that, among other places, Poland ought to be annexed (Poland was part of the empire of the Czars in the 19C).


Yes, it’s enormous. Yes, Putin went off the deep end. Yet, remember this: it’s because people did not read Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler literally, that they got surprised by the resulting holocausts, later.

Once again, several of mechanisms launched by Putin are exactly the same as with the ones the Nazi dictator used. Hitler was surrounded by a cloud of plutocrats (many from the USA and Great Britain). Plutocrats made Hitler feel all powerful, and made him believe that so great was plutocratic power (kratos), that they would keep the Western democracies impotent, and that, never, ever, Britain and the USA would align themselves behind the French Republic in her determined opposition to Nazism.


[The relevance to Putin, is that, at first sight, Putin is sure to lose, especially if he conquers all of Ukraine. Putin is acting from the same political delusion, and economic necessity as Hitler.]

So Hitler was sure that the “democracies” would once again surrender, and do whatever he wanted. However, he got extremely surprised by the signing of a defense treaty between Poland and Britain (France had signed a similar one 6 months earlier… with Britain in the appendix). Hitler tried a few last tricks, and differed the invasion of Poland by a few days.

However as Paul Schmidt, a translator of the Reich’s foreign ministry relates (See Note 3 for an error in the link!):   On Sunday September 3, 1939, at 9am, Berlin time:

“I then took the [British] ultimatum to the Chancellery, where everyone was anxiously awaiting me. Most of the members of the Cabinet and the leading men of the Party were collected in the room next to Hitler’s office. There was something of a crush and I had difficulty in getting through to Hitler.

When I entered the next room Hitler was sitting at his desk and Ribbentrop stood by the window. Both looked up expectantly as I came in. I stopped at some distance from Hitler’s desk, and then slowly translated the British Government’s ultimatum.

[This is the text of the British Ultimatum: ‘More than twenty-four hours have elapsed since an immediate reply was requested to the warning of September 1st, and since then the attacks on Poland have been intensified. If His Majesty’s Government has not received satisfactory assurances of the cessation of all aggressive action against Poland, and the withdrawal of German troops from that country, by 11 o’clock British Summer Time, from that time a state of war will exist between Great Britain and Germany.’]

Paul Schmidt pursues:

“When I finished, there was complete silence.

Hitler sat immobile, gazing before him. He was not at a loss, as was afterwards stated, nor did he rage as others allege. He sat completely silent and unmoving. 

After an interval which seemed an age, he turned to Ribbentrop, who had remained standing by the window. ‘What now?’ asked Hitler with a savage look, as though implying that his Foreign Minister had misled him about England’s probable reaction. Ribbentrop answered quietly: ‘I assume that the French will hand in a similar ultimatum within the hour.’

[Patrice’s remark: Hitler’s foreign minister and former Ambassador and conspirator to London, Joachim von Ribbentrop, had assured him repeatedly that neither Britain nor France would honor their commitments to Poland.]

Paul Schmidt pursues:

“As my duty was now performed, I withdrew. To those in the anteroom pressing round me I said: ‘The English have just handed us an ultimatum. In two hours a state of war will exist between England and Germany.’ In the anteroom, too, this news was followed by complete silence.  

Goering turned to me and said: ‘If we lose this war, then God have mercy on us!’ Goebbels stood in a corner, downcast and self-absorbed. Everywhere in the room I saw looks of grave concern, even amongst the lesser Party people.”

Hitler was allied with the Kremlin, which promptly invaded Poland, even though 45 French divisions attacked Hitler’s “Westwall” in the West: “Poland never will rise again in the form of the Versailles treaty. That is guaranteed not only by Germany, but also … Russia.” (Hitler , public speech in Dantzig, now Gdansk, end September 1939.)



What is going on with Putin? Why is he so crazy? Why does he risk a widening war?

Well, the answer is simple: because he has long been at war, and has long been losing it so well that even him, in spite of his stupidity, has noticed it. Like a gambler on a losing streak, he puts more on the table. Wait, some will say: ”Is Putin not acquiring territory? How can you say he is losing”.

Once again, Adolf Hitler’s case comes to our rescue to understand the generality of the situation.

In 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt, alarmed by Hitler’s annexations sent a telegram to the German “Chancellor-President” inquiring: “Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory of the following independent nations?” Roosevelt listed 31 nations including Poland, the Baltic States, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Britain.

Hitler gave his answer to the Reichstag, assuring ‘Herr Roosevelt’ that Germany only had peaceful intentions toward its neighbors. Germany, Hitler declared, “had not thought of proceeding in any way against Poland.”

Putin, Lavrov, and company have been duplicating those comments. And duplicating the brazen lying pattern of Hitler: after claiming there was an insurrection in Crimea, Putin coolly, and publicly, admitted that his forces did it all, “acting very professionally”. In other words, Putin lies so much, he believes that everybody has got to tolerate his constant lying, and he does not mind broadcasting it. That, too is reminiscent of Hitler, who did not hesitate to say, and write, publicly, that the bigger the lie, the better.  See “Mediating Pluto”.

As with Hitler, but hopefully faster this time, the “democracies” are going to get tired of the lies.


The truth was just the opposite. Starting in May 1939, the president of Germany gave a whole series of conferences to his top generals stating that war was unavoidable, because the German economy, far from flourishing, was breaking down.

What was going on? Germany had become a full blown plutocracy, corrupt through and through, insuring immense economic inefficiency.

Same for Putin’s Russia. Remember the Olympic games in Sochi, by far the most expensive, ever, in history, 50 billion dollars, most of the money going top plutocrats around Putin (some now struck by sanctions)?

Germany also was making a huge effort of militarization. That, too, unbalanced the economy completely. Putin is duplicating that. While NATO is disarming, Putin announced a complete rearmament with completely new weapons, including new mobile nuclear missiles.

So, of course, Putin’s economy is breaking down. The nominal GDP of Russia is significantly smaller than Italy, and is around 1.5 trillion dollars (less, smaller than California’s).

Hitler again, in his third and final conference to his top generals in August 1939:

Our economic situation is such that we cannot hold out more than a few years. Göring can confirm this. We have no other choice. We must act,” Hitler said. Thus far, all of Germany’s territorial gains had come as a result of “political bluff” but it was now necessary to utilize Germany’s “military machine.”

“I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters but victory.”

In the latest developments, May 1, the Russian Foreign ministry condemned the Ukrainian national elections and referendum scheduled for May 25. Chancellor Merkel called Putin to ask him to say something about freeing observers of the 57 nation strong Organization or Security and Cooperation in Europe held by terrorists in South East Ukraine. Putin retorted by requesting the withdrawal of Ukrainian army from South east Ukraine (as if that was within the powers of Merkel to order around the Ukrainian army!)

Heil Putin!


I am of courseunfair when I compare Putin to Hitler.  Putin himself would to point out that he, and Hitler, used the methods Catherine The Great used to extend her borders all the way to the west. That, is west of Warsaw. Catherine would send spies and agents provocateurs, hard picked Russophiles, who would cause problems, and then what we call now Special Forces. At this point she would scream Russians are being threatened, and send her army, using the Targowican confederation.  She used that method also throughout the “New Russia” which Putin mentioned repeatedly.

The entire idea of the European Union is unanimity in all important decisions, respect of the dozens, if not hundreds, of cultures and civilizations of the Old Continent. It’s the exact opposite of the spirit that has been festering in the Kremlin, ever since it exists. It’s a shock of civilizations against a predation that predates civilization.

“They say the greatest addiction is to power,” Vladimir Putin. Well, there is more than that, baby Vladimir, with your nuclear toys. As Salvador Dali pointed out, Hitler started World War Two, just because he wanted to lose it… Unbeknownst to himself!

Why? There is a streak of self-destruction in the genus Homo.  By destroying the latter, just so, evolution made it possible for the environment to live another day.  Putin may feel he is channeling Ivan the Terrible, and he will create his “Big Country” (not realizing that his country is 42 times California in area already, although Russia has a smaller GDP than this state of the USA).

But all what Putin is doing is walking up the valley of death, searching for the oldest instinct, destruction of the fiercest predator, himself. Evolution at its best, culling the obsolete. Too bad millions of lives are at stake.

Meanwhile all will turn out good, as long as the Occident remembers that history it its master, and collapse, its friend.

Patrice Aymé


Note 0: Why did Hitler refer his generals to Goering’s assessment of the Nazi economy? Hermann Goering was an authentic hero of the World War One, whereas Hitler had been only a courageous, but lowly caporal in WWI.

Generals took a flying ace such as Goering seriously. Goering replaced Von Richtoffen at the head of his top squadron, after the latter’s demise.  Moreover, the father of Goering had made Namibia safe for Germans, by exterminating the locals in a deliberate holocaust-man hunt.

So the Nazi German military officers (such as Rommel) could only venerate Goering. The most serious generals wanted Hitler dead. But that was easier said than done. When the generals turned to Anglo-American help to do so, they were betrayed.

Note1: the Swiss Civil War of 1847 is a rare example of good guys against good guys; yet, even in this case, the ones who won were the progressives federalists, and could be viewed as good guys against the staunch Catholic conservatives! Moreover, less than 150 soldiers got killed.  A better example of good guys on good guys would be the much more bloody French Commune of 1871, when both French sides had good points, and no choice, as the Prussian imperial army was pulling the strings, material or emotional, on both sides.

Note 2: On the obsolescence of USA bombers: manufactured between 1979 and 1990, the SUBSONIC cruise missile’s W-80 warhead is deployed aboard 85 non-stealthy Air Force B-52 bombers to give the 1960s-era planes an ability to launch nuclear weapons without having to enter heavily defended airspace.  The warhead has a variable explosive power of 5 to 150 kilotons, or roughly one-third to 10 times the yield of the nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima. It’s carried by 1980s-vintage Air Launched Cruise Missile.

Note 3: I gave the link on Paul Schmidt because it was in English. However it contains a grievous mistake: it claims France joined Britain in supporting Poland. However, in truth, it was the other way around: Britain was added in the fine print of the addendum of the Franco-Polish Treaty. And the truth is, that Britain was highly supportive of Hitler until 1936. In 1940, the ex British king, who was a Nazi, transmitted the French plans to his friend Adolf Hitler. Although he had been fired for being pro-Nazi, and wanting to marry a notorious Nazi spy, Edward VII had been made Inspector General of the British Forces, and spent a month studying the French defenses.



March 16, 2014

No, it’s not 1938, because in 1938, Britain and France confronted the fascist dictators, without their, then, ingrate progeny, the USA.

Yes, it’s 1938 in all other ways: Russian dictator Putin has instigated a combination of vicious alarm, demented propaganda, false justifications, brutal invasions, referenda with transparent boxes, and annexations, seasoned with total contempt for international law, that is very similar to what German dictator Hitler pursued in 1938.

In 1938, the (so called) democracies did not act perfectly: the Nazis could have been terminated without the carnage of 3% of the world population killed by the war that followed. Indeed the top German generals had asked Britain and the USA to help by declaring that they would adopt the same tough line as France.

Not only the Anglo-Americans leaders declined to do so, but, instead, they betrayed the trust the German generals had put in them, by denouncing them, his subordinates, to Hitler. (Don’t be surprised if standard historians, well fed by their plutocratic universities, are careful to never mention this fact; I should make a list of the 100 most inconvenient and never mentioned facts of WWII.)

Just as in 1938, the democracies do not know what to do, in 2014, because they are still in a placid state in which they fear war more than anything else, and the invading dictator knows this. That makes the corrective action that the democracies need to take, obvious.

The aim of this essay is to show how to avoid more of a parallel between 2014 and 1938 than we have already achieved.  This is not easy, because the exact same psychological dynamics are in place in 2014, as in 1938. Placidity encouraging ferocity, ever more.

The fascist instinct has taken over a great power, once again.

I did not acquire this opinion in the last 5 weeks: my From Russia With Hate, nearly 6 years old, saw the present Russian war hysteria coming.

March 1938: The Nazis want to annex Austria. Austrians don’t really want this. Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg calls a vote March 13. Nazis are angry: what if Austrians voted against the Anschluss?  March 10, Schuschnigg is forced to resign, and is replaced by a Nazi, while Hitler’s divisions enter the country “at its invitation”. The Austrian army surrenders.

April 10: the Nazis organize referenda in Austria and Germany to approve the annexation. They win by 99.7% and 99.08%, respectively. (Notice the resemblance with Crimea’s 97%.)

That’s what Goebbels, laughing, called “Total Democracy”.

Correctly, the Western powers have declared that Putin’s referendum in Crimea, organized in similar circumstances, after a military occupation, to be null.

At this point, in April 1938, having got away with something enormous (the invasion of a country), without having fired a shot, Hitler underwent a neurohormonal change, and started to feel that he could get away with anything. He had to show that he could bend the world to his will (lest his generals assassinate him, which they tried to do repeatedly, for years, with remarkable bad luck.)

Similarly, Putin has to show his generals and plutocrats, that he, and he alone, can get away with anything.

Unsurprisingly, then, Hitler declared that the Sudeten Germans inside Czechoslovakia were also an oppressed minority and needed to be protected inside Greater Germany. Czechoslovakia, a Slavic nation with its own language, just delivered from a long German oppressive occupation by the Versailles Treaty of 1919, was determined to fight. Its protector was mighty France.

However, France had three problems, in this order: Washington, London, and Berlin. (See note)

The first error of democracy in 1938: the USA was collaborating with Hitler rather than with France and Britain. (See note on USA duplicity) OK, with its racial oppression of people of color, the USA was not a fully representative democracy, and many of its racist leaders could only be sympathetic to the racist Nazis (in particular, the U.S. Army was segregated and “inter-racial” marriages outlawed in many states).

In any case, in 1938, officially in the interest of peace, the British Kingdom and the French Republic persuaded the Czechs NOT to defend themselves against Hitler. Big mistake. When France was invaded in May 1940, half of the Wehrmacht’s tanks were Czech (they had been seized by the Nazis, or produced meanwhile, in Czechoslovakia).

First lesson: A successful invasion makes the invader stronger. Hitler became ever stronger by invading ever more. In such a case, the earlier the war, the better. At this point some in Russia still doubt Putin’s wisdom. The more Putin invades without firing a shot, the more devotees he will have.

Let’s not tell the Ukrainians NOT to defend themselves violently from the Kremlin’s maniacal dwarf.

Maniacal? Putin’s main idea is that the disappearance of “the USSR was the Twentieth Century greatest tragedy”.  (Even Hitler did not dare say something that stupid, such as the disappearance of the Second Reich was the Twentieth Century greatest tragedy.)

Hitler’s argument for the annexation of the Sudeten was that there were three million Sudeten German in Czechoslovakia, and they wanted to live in Fatherland Germany (OK, he used “Vaterland”). Never mind that there was no free media in Germany to present another discourse.

His true reason was that Hitler wanted to invade all of Czechoslovakia, and re-establish Germany as the master of Eastern Europe.

Putin’s argument is that there are two millions in Crimea, and they want to live within Mother Russia. Never mind that there is no free media in Russia, or that this will-to-Russia is actually fundamentally racist.

Putin’s true reason is that Putin wants to invade all of Ukraine (the detailed preparations for the annexation are known).

Second Lesson: When a dictator’s has tipped into the Dark Side, expect the worst. That’s the wise thing to do. Putting one’s head in the sand to protect one’s neck is naïve.

Hitler was superficially correct, about the Sudeten: the Germans there were really German, they happened to be living where the natural, mountainous border of Czechoslovakia was.

Putin is obviously wrong: 40% of Crimea is made of people who fear Putin and his kind. 12% of Crimea is made of Tatars who sneaked back, as survivors of Stalin’s genocide on 1944. They do not have tender memories of their assassins.

The Czechs had excellent fortifications. They could have defended themselves at a cost higher than the Nazis could have paid.  (See Note on fortifications.)

The Czechs fortifications were nearly as good as the French Maginot line. That was breached nowhere (and caused huge losses to the Mussolini’s fascists army in the Alps.)

The British were understandably afraid to confront Hitler in 1938: they had only a few divisions, and no modern air force. In appearance, the French were ready militarily, but did not look forward another world war, after getting several millions killed or mutilated in the First World War. (See military and strategic notes).

There was a military problem: what was the French army exactly supposed to do if Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia? The French army faced the “West Wall” (= Siegfried Line). Thanks to their enemies in Washington and London, the French had been prevented to establish their military frontier on the Rhine in 1919.

In 1944-45, the Allies, with a combat-experienced, five million men army, facing no more than 50 small German divisions, would take 6 months to break through the Siegfried line, although the democracies had air supremacy, and much more of everything than the Nazis (who were reduced to diluting their explosives, and make their mines to wound rather than kill).

So the 45 French divisions that squeezed in a very small front in September 1939 could not make a decisive attack.

Similarly, it has been said that it would be folly to oppose Putin militarily. The same was said when Hitler invaded the Rhineland, or Spain, in 1936.

The French Prime Minister had no illusion in 1938. As he stepped from his plane, he was applauded for having preserved peace at the Munich Conference. He muttered: ”Les pauvres, s’ils savaient.” (“Poor little ones, if they only knew.”)

What the French PM knew was that Hitler had crossed a psychological Rubicon, a tipping point signaling the collapse into the Dark Side. Hitler had changed to a different neurohormonal regime, where dominance is exerted in a lethal way. Hitler had decided that the Franco-British could not do a thing, and were unwilling to impose their will. (Hitler knew also that his allies in the USA would insure on-going collaboration with the corporations of the USA.)

Similarly, Putin has decided that Obama is weak. Certainly someone who needs a teleprompter to speak is no strong in his head. It is as if he advertises that he is a puppet, reading what his masters wrote

Certainly Putin noticed this. And who are Obama’s masters? Plutocrats, the very people Putin barks orders to. Thus, in this dog eats dog hierarchy, Putin is top dog, Putin noticed.

Hitler went through the same exact logic… Except he failed to notice that the power of the American plutocrats who had made him, and enticed him, rested on a nation-continent, the USA, the power and nastiness of which he grotesquely underestimated.

Similarly, Putin even more grotesquely underestimate the power of the USA and the European Union, combined.

On March 22, 1939, Hitler annexed much of Lithuania. The Germanoid mobs were hysterical with nationalistic bigotry. The West was tolerant of this madness… Not realizing for a moment that it meant the minorities therein would be hated with as much folly.  True, German speaking people were in a majority, but they had clearly sunk into the deepest evil.

On February 22, 1938, PM Chamberlain had admitted to the British Parliament: ”We must not give false hopes to small states by promising them the protection of Society of Nations (SDN, ancestor to the UN undermined by the USA) because we know nothing of the sort can be done.”

After annexing part of Lithuania, 1939, Hitler crossed a new step in his neurocognitive degeneracy. He said in a discourse, on March 23: “We don’t want to hurt anybody, but it was necessary to put an end to the suffering that the world imposed on the Germans in the last twenty years… From now on the Germans from Memel are part of the Reich… Even if the rest of the world does not like it.”

The glory and might of Hitler was at its apogee. The world trembled in front of Nazi Germany. All of Hitler’s annexations had happened without a shot fired. Was not Hitler a genius? A liberator? Who could deny his love of the Vaterland?

Six years later to the day, one German out of ten was already dead. Millions more would die. Entire German cities had been wiped out. Territories that had been German for 7 centuries were lost forever. Nazi Germany had become synonymous to infamy.

Same story, potentially, now.

A difference, though: we know history, and are keen not to repeat the same mass neurohormonal disaster in the same way. The time to stop the vengeful Russian mind-set is now.

Hyper nationalistic Russians are explaining the degeneracy of their homeland (a place with no free press) by twenty years of Russian suffering imposed by the world, invented just the same as the twenty years of German suffering that Hitler had invented by 1938.

Retrospectively, the Franco-British plea to the Czechs to accede to Hitler’s demand has been seen as an enormous mistake. “Munich” for years was the butt of jokes. It is time to remember this.

What could have stopped Hitler? His generals told us: only the knowledge, among his most serious supporters, that a catastrophic war was in Germany’s future, if Germany kept the same leadership.

What is the solution that this allows us to draw with Putin? Putin heads a coterie of plutocrats, many of whom will pay a heavy price if the West goes to war.

Those who support Putin have to understand that the West will go to war if Putin stays in power. And the time is now. Not in a month or two, after Putin has annexed more territory.

Let’s not forget that the hyper nationalistic drive in Crimea, just as in annexed German majority areas in the 1930s is oriented against minorities. Then non-German, now non-Russian. Basically Russians want to kill Tatars, same as in 1944.

Human rights, and civilization need a credible military threat. A threat that the people who support Putin believe. A threat that their world will die. As simple as that.

That should start with sanctions that hurt… the West. The USA ought to immediately lift their embargo on gas and oil to the Europe Union, and the Europeans should turn off all the trade to Putin. For starters. Also discrete but efficient military equipment ought to be sent to the Ukrainian army.

As it is obvious that, if undeterred, Putin will invade the rest of Ukraine just as his mentors Stalin and Hitler used to annex, invade and deport. Putin, just like Hitler, will lose when shooting starts.

Patrice Aymé


1)      USA duplicity note: in 1938, France and Britain alone confronted Hitler, Japan, Italy, and Stalin knowing full well that, as in World War One, in 1914-1917, the USA were keener to exploit the situation for its own profit, to start with. A proof of duplicity: Roosevelt replaced the anti-Nazi ambassador, Dodd, by a pro-Nazi.

2)      Note on fortifications: In 1940, the Nazi army, going through Luxembourg, hit the French fortifications at their thinnest, thanks to intelligence provided by the Prince of Wales; however, the Nazis suffered huge losses crossing the Meuse, had to use suicidal charges, and nearly gave up.

3)      Military Note-unpreparedness of Britain: Britain had no army, and no air force; it was rushing flat out to build itself a modern air force, but it won’t be ready for another two years; same for some armor.

4)      Strategic note: The enormous sacrifice of 1914-1918 had saved France and the French Republic. However France had not recovered the natural borders of France on the Rhine, which had grievous military consequences, both in 1914 and 1940. Even worse: Anglo-American interference had lined up on the side of re-nascent German fascism after 1918, entangled with Wall Street and USA corporations. Hence the lack of enthusiasm of the French to die for the same racket.

Reverse Yalta, Free Ukraine

February 21, 2014

What’s the proximal genesis of the system of thought that made Ukraine a subject of Moscow? Yalta. The present events in Ukraine are echoes of a momentous, and horrendous, event, Washington’s division of the world with Stalin, in 1945.

Ukraine is a vivid demonstration that plutocracy is not just about stealing from the People. It never was. Plutocracy, in full, is a mass murdering frame of mind. Or should I say, greed of mind? In Ukraine the (“democratically” elected) plutocrats in power unleashed special forces to fire war weapons such as sniper rifles and Kalashnikovs into demonstrators. We The People had to submit, or fire back with hunting rifles. Casualties are in the hundreds.

The exploitative mentality starts with lauding greed, it ends up with extermination. It does not just exterminate nations, it can displace them. This is Roosevelt’s work:

Poland & Ukraine: Displaced West By Dying Roosevelt & Mass Murderer Stalin

Poland & Ukraine: Displaced West By Dying Roosevelt & Mass Murderer Stalin

With the help of (satanic?) Anglo-Saxon leaders, Stalin did to Eastern Europe what Jefferson and Jackson did to the Indians. Mass deportation to cause extermination. Or, at least the tearing off roots. No wonder the president of the USA collaborated.

All right. Everybody knows that Stalin started his career as a Christian fanatic, before turning to robbing banks. However, FDR and Churchill are often viewed as saints. Yet, the map above is their work. Large parts of Poland and Austro-Hungary became part of Stalin’s dominion. Lviv, second city of Ukraine, population 2 million, liberated a few days ago, was long part of Poland and, or the (Holly German) Roman empire. It was thrown to Stalin, like a piece of meat to a bear.

The tearing into pieces of Europe was agreed to in what Churchill called the “Naughty Document”. It’s also known by the euphemism of “Percentage Agreement”. Here is the proof of the plot between American, English, and Soviet plutocrats:

Dividing Europe As If It Were A Pie

Dividing Europe As If It Were A Pie

Ukraine is a nation of 46 million. Ukraine is older than Russia. It has its own language, Ukrainian. Ukraine founded Russia, but was abused by its creation. Yalta is a place in Crimea where a conspiracy between a moribund plutocrat, an exhausted statesman, and a mass murdering, ursine gangster sealed the fate of the world for the next 69 years.

The usage of the word “plutocrat” is fully justified in Ukraine. Killing people is the plutocrats’ highest calling. The leaders of Ukraine are not just satanic, although that would justify calling them plutocrats. They are also filthy rich… the  28 nations of the European Union have frozen their assets, blocked their visas (that followed sanctions against Switzerland for discriminating against EU’s Croatia). The EU explicitly accused Ukrainian leaders to be drenched in blood.

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland were sent to Kiev to negotiate with the Ukrainian dictator/president on behalf of the EU. Shots could be heard as the foreign ministers went here and there.

Eastern Ukraine was long part of the Russian empire, where Ukrainian was outlawed, so that only Moscow’s language would rule. Western and Central Ukraine speaks Ukrainian. It was long more or less part of Poland. Ukrainian is closer to Polish (70% in common) than to Russian (62%).

Systems of thoughts and moods are highly persistent, they have a life of their own.

Russia’s childhood was tortured in the fire and monstrosity of the Mongol conquest and tyrannical three centuries long occupation. However, yesterday’s traumas can’t live on in tomorrow’s world.


Yalta was a conference in Crimea organized by Stalin in February 1945. The “Soviet” dictator had refused to travel outside of the USSR for organizing the post- World War Two world. Three men, none of them a continental Western European, divided Western Europe, as if it were a prey. Which it was.

Unbelievably, the dying Roosevelt travelled all the way to Yalta, so that he could surrender half of Europe to Stalin. Including, of course, Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic republics. That horrendous betrayal was rendered possible by excluding France’s combative general and president Charles De Gaulle from the conference.

The war against Nazism started in 1939 when Poland, backed up by France, refused to surrender its territory to Hitler. Hitler was backed up by Stalin, American plutocrats (and, to its shame, until excuses are finally proffered, Washington).

For the perverse, it made sense that neither Poland nor France were invited at Yalta. After all, it was French and Polish resistance to Nazism had caused World War Two. At least, so the subconscious of Stalin, part of British higher society, American racists, and Washington had it. The French and the Poles had spoiled a good thing.

De Gaulle was both a politician, a minister of war and a combat general during desperate 1940. His niece, who resisted Nazism, was sent to the Ravensbrück extermination camp. De Gaulle would not have surrendered to Stalin; at the time France had an expert one million man army that had played a crucial “Spitze”, point, role on the Western front in 1944. One of the main ideas of De Gaulle as president of France in 1958-1969 was that “Yalta” was one of the main trauma of the world. (Although I have solid personal reasons to hate De Gaulle,  I recognize that he was very right on some points, including that one.)

Yalta displaced entire countries to the west, to make more room for the Kremlin’s subjects. Poland was displaced to extinguish German provinces such as Pomerania and Silesia. But then, so that Poland could not become a problem, it was amputated of much of its territory. The eastern half of Poland was made “Ukrainian”. (Right now the largest city there, in ex-Poland, has been “freed”, after arresting the government police.)

What is the meaning of all this?

Simple. Yalta, by cutting the world in two, established the American Century and the, even shorter, Soviet Century. Now the USA and the USSR Russia are back to their old trick, fossil combustibles. The USSR (aka Russia) blackmails Europe with its energy supply. Yet Czar Vladimir I is terrified by other people’s minds, and thus cracks down on the highest added value, brain work. Hence Vladimir’s petrostate becomes ever more so every year.

Meanwhile the USA is busy making a fortune from the building greenhouse (by methane leaking fracking, and selling the coal to German anti-nuclear fanatics). The USA has a much more diversified economy, and more than twice the population. The USA also enjoy a much more sophisticated oligarchic propaganda. The USA does not crack down on computer usage, which is central to the 21C economy. Instead it has made it an integral part of the surveillance state.

What’s the progressive thing to do? Obviously support the anti-plutocratic revolution in Ukraine. The same day that more than 60 people were killed by gunfire in Ukraine, Libyans were voting for a Constituent Assembly (the USA took 13 years between Independence in 1776 and a Constitutional Assembly in 1789).

The story of Ukraine is about correcting some wrongs that developed in the last millennium. In Libya it’s more like correcting wrongs that developed in the last two millennia (thanks to horrors visited mostly by rabid Christianity and its Islamist poodle; earlier Libya had given the Severian dynasty to Rome, so non Christianized Romans were not too nasty to Libya ).

I have my eye on Venezuela too, where a famous beauty queen taking part in an anti-government demonstration was shot to death this week. Venezuela is another petrostate (with colossal reserves).

The anti-plutocratic revolution has to spread around the planet until we change from a short-termist, murderously exploitative model to a gentler, more sustainable, more democratic, and that means more intelligent, model.

If Ukraine becomes as good as, say, the present France or the USA, the latter two will be encouraged to morph into the more advanced forms we need. This is what happened in Switzerland, where direct democracy has blossomed out only in the last two decades, and brought enormous riches (spiritual and economic).

Patrice Aymé

North Korea: CRUSH INFAMY!

April 3, 2013

In a few words: Killing lethal moods swiftly is the only way to survival for a civilization increasingly surrounded by ever more deadly dangers. One way, or another, the North Korean regime has to be disposed off. Quick. No half measures will do. Against a power crazy, cornered nuclear beast, any moderation will contend in vain. All the democracies have to understand this, and act accordingly.


Abstract. War is Homo’s most fateful behavior. Goodness often cannot do without it. Man has evolved partly intrinsically bad, because not only is the planet finite, implying war, but forceful progress, ferociously defended, has always been the only way out of wanton fangs and claws. The law was invented to sheperd new technology away from new bestiality. Better beasts against lower beasties, that is the dirty work enlightenment has to go through, just as one washes clothes, from time to time. 

ICBM Trajectories To Hawai'i, West USA  On Map

ICBM Trajectories To Hawai’i, West USA On Map

In war, leaders turn into gods, deciding who may, or will, die. Men become death. Yet, in the better cases, war can kill the worst moods, not just other men. With North Korea, such is the case.

With many times more population than the Earth can sustain, dawn may rise on an age of war as never seen before. Unless more advanced discipline, that is, more law, and much more futuristic technology, allow to master the demographic situation. Good discipline is when our better angels are enforcing it. Good technology is when anti-ballistic missiles missiles are reigning, rather than what they are supposed to intercept. 

In this context, if a pretext arises to annihilate North Korean fascism, by force, it should be jumped on. Sometimes blatant usage of force is good. Many are the very strong reasons for this. To start with, North Korean fascism has crossed all the philosophical red lines.

It’s the first time a regime begs for food, by threatening Armageddon. Your food, or your life.

It’s not a question of advocating the first good world war around the corner, but a case of precisely the opposite, of desperately clinging to a greater notion of planetary peace. And not just in the context of Korea, but of the entire planet. The age of war will certainly arise, should the mood of aggression be encouraged by brainless pacifists.

One wants to avoid the contagion of having countries around the world believe that nuclear fascism worked, because democracy left it not just unpunished, but rewarded.

That mood, that fascism had been left unpunished, or even rewarded, is precisely why allies of democracy in World War One, such as Russia, Japan or Italy turned to fascism after WWI. They observed that German war criminals, culprit of a deliberately planning a World War of wanton aggression for August 1914, had not been punished. And that some of them thrived (Schacht).

(In truth the Kaiser, and its top generals, should have tried for various outrageous war crimes, not by coincidence the same crimes that made the Nazis’ fame later. Correctly tried, he Kaisers and his co-conspirators would have been hanged. Not coincidentally that would also have had the positive side effect to remove criminals such as Luddendorff, Schacht or Hidenburg, who were top Nazis, one way or another: the former two chaperoned Hitler, the third nominated him.)

Repeating the performance with nuclear weapons ever more widely available, would have even more dreadful consequences.

It is timely for the USA to remember that it is the betrayal, by the USA, of its parents, France and Britain, and humanity in general, that enabled Hitler to score from 1936 until his armies froze in the suburbs of Moscow in December 1941. The pseudo-pacifists, intrinsic collaborators of evil as they are, should be especially reminded of this. And the following corollary:

Those who know history are condemned not to repeat it. 

(Fortunately Obama knows history better than the plutocratically tainted Franklin Roosevelt.)

In 2013, the USA can count on the formidable strategic deterrent of the European Union spearheaded by France and Britain. But the USA better be ready to go the whole way, right away with its East Asia allies. The question is whether democracies such as South Korea and Japan will win, rather than the fascist  regime principle, in a nuclear context. Should the USA be reluctant to smash North Korea, it would favor the latter rather than the former.

(This, unfortunately is a possibility: the Chinese plutocracy is little more, nowadays, than an antenna, a subsidiary, of the one centered around Harvard and Wall Street; major USA plutocrats would not want their main tool, the People’s Republic of China, broken, and that tool has been cooperating with North Korea since the “communist” era of the early 1950s.)

History, logic and wisdom show that the first line of defense is to inform North Korea that the only concession worth making, is to consent to engage it in total war. There again the situation faced with Hitler is enlightening. In some important ways the present situation is worse. Tolerating North Korea is not just tolerating fascism and plutocracy over democracy, it’s also tolerating nuclear blackmail for planetary guidance over the most basic common sense.



The situation with North Korea is clearer than it has ever been with any extremely lethal fascist regime in the past. The regime has to be changed, using force, one way or another. In the soft version, North Koreans, faced with annihilation, do it themselves. So the world democratic leadership should make clear to the NORTH KOREAN MILITARY THAT THEY WILL BE TERMINATED, should they not get rid of the terrorizing dictatorship that they let themselves be guided by.

That solution, execution, and a coup, did not happen with Hitler. But it could have. It nearly did. It certainly would have happened if the Anglo-Saxon part of the West (plus Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden) had not been collaborating with Hitler (each in its own way).

More specifically, German marshalls and generals could not figure out, all too long, on which side Great Britain, and especially the USA, were. Each time Great Britain or the USA made a new deal or concession with Hitler, Hitler’s top generals, who were GRIMLY DETERMINED TO GET RID OF HITLER, were undercut. The German generals wanted to appear as the saviors of Germany, not the ones undermining the great National-Socialist German Workers’ revolution (to give the Nazi party its full name).

One should avoid that same slippery slope with North Korea (Clinton, Bill, the guy who brought us the reign of financial derivatives, and too big to jail bankers, cut deals with North Korea; so here we are, facing nuclear strikes!). It should be made clear to the world’s united fascists, that, threatened with (nuclear!) terror, the democracies will ALWAYS ANNIHILATE regimes playing that sort of “games”

Nuclear threats are not a game,” Ban, the UN secretary general, a Korean,  in connection with N.Korea’s nuclear blackmail  said at a news conference in Andorra on April 2, 2013. “Aggressive rhetoric and military posturing… could lead down a path that nobody should want to follow.” My main argument is that rewarding this, is an even worse path.

Although the primary culprits of Nazism were the crazy Germans of the 1930s, themselves, of course, enormous manipulations of public opinion by Anglo-Saxon plutocrats caused the apparition, in Great Britain and the USA, of a mindset collaborating with Nazism. That mindeset was re-amplified back in Germany as Germans, and especially the Nazis, could appreciate all the help from the USA the Nazi party, and then regime, was getting.

Anti-French feeling, prominent with the London financier and economist Keynes, rose in that context; the French republic became the explanation of all that was bad in Germany, as far as much of the Americans elite was concerned (it goes on to this day, in a remarkable case of mental inertia).

World War Two killed 75 millions, 3% of the world population. Could it have been (mostly) avoided? Yes. Is there an application to the situation with North Korea? Yes.

In 1939, the USA, entangled with Nazi Germany through its plutocrats, passed a law calling its parents, France and Britain, “belligerent countries” (because France, followed by its reluctant poodle Britain, had attacked Hitler).

As it turned out, France and Britain were right to attack Hitler. However, in the first ten months of the war, more than 95% of the fighting against the Nazis was made exclusively by the Poles and the French. On May 10 1940, France had 110 divisions engaged against Hitler’s 160 divisions. Britain had only ten divisions (plus one tank brigade). (Various traitors such as Belgium and the Netherlands found themselves arttacked by Hitler, mostly put off balance the French military, so, instead of helping France, helped efficiently in her demise.)

Carefully forgotten by official history, the most significant contributions of the USA to the war effort in 1939, helped Adolf Hitler. OK, not a thesis to make friends with! Friends trespass, truth stays.



President Obama, contrarily to Franklin Roosevelt, was not born and raised in the plutocracy, and knows history much better (Roosevelt’s unexplained, long term anger against France, and his urge to cut Europe into small pieces, is a testimony to his lack of a sense of history; in the fullness of time, for the USA to undercut the beautiful civilization out of which it sprang, is self destroying).

Moreover, differently from 1939, when Hitler looked like a distant asset of the USA, this time the USA is on the frontline. A president of the USA will not be able to claim surprise as with Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. The North Korean military has just announced that it has been authorized by Mr. Fatso to conduct nuclear strikes on the USA.

North Korea’s 2013 nuclear threats were apparently to get “concessions”. Nuclear blackmail is a new mood on the world scene, a new mood in history. A CASUS BELLI, PER SE. No nation has ever engaged in idle nuclear threats before (nuclear dissuasion is an entirely different thing). On the face of it, nuclear blackmail is a new form of terrorism. Nuclear terrorism.

It’s not because a regime is led by obviously crazed maniacs, that it should not be taken seriously. In 1939, the USA did not take Hitler, seriously. The USA did not stand with its parents, France and Britain, or even democracy, civilization, or common sense, and basic humanity, against fascist thugs. Quite the opposite.



Hitler had good reasons to be angry and desperate in 1945. The Nazi dictator had actually the means to kill millions in 1945, using jet bombers (that flew too fast to be intercepted) and huge storage of nerve gas. Hitler did not even contemplate the possibility. Whereas the insane Mr. Kim poses in front of  map that says he plans to kill dozens of millions or so. Mr. Kim is not too worried; he is obviously not even on a diet. He is an old hand at terror as the way to the best life, the only life he knows.

The present North Korean dictator spent nearly ten years in rich boarding schools in Switzerland. Many say that would make him somebody one can trust. Quite the opposite. Mr. Kim knows that it is terror that brought him (and his father before him), the ultimate plutocratic lifestyle: buying anything, getting away with anything (not just mass murder).

Hoping that Mr. Kim is one of us, a frequent reaction with common people I interviewed, because he has always lived like the ultimate plutocrat shows how brainwashed We the People has become. Plutocrats are not like us!

To believe that just because plutocrats are spoiled they will always be keen to not make waves, is similar to the reasoning of the 1930s that Von Ribbentrop, Hitler’s foreign minister, had got to be reasonable in the end, because he was an extremely rich wine merchant, with a vast, luxurious apartment in central London, where he entertained the British oligarchy. Hitler himself, not just the British high society, believed this.

Von Ribbentrop was hanged at Nuremberg, for the part he played in setting up the conditions for World War Two, by misleading a lot of people. It’s clear that, should missiles start flying, the young Mr. Kim’s responsibility will be much greater than that of von Ribbentrop. In other words, Mr. Kim is a potential criminal of the highest order. Already making nuclear war threats put him off the scale. That he had a privileged youth, thanks to the murder of thousands, if not millions, makes him even more so.

Mr. Kim was born and raised in a world of terror, where terror is the friend that kept on giving to him. What he knows at this point is that many North Koreans want him dead, and all too many of his own generals are wondering why this brat, half their age, gives them dangerous orders. Apparently there was already at least one assassination attempt.

By the time France and Britain declared war to Hitler, there had been no less than 24 (two dozen) known assassinations attempts against  Adolf Hitler (including some by SA and SS, some all the way up in the army command, all the way to Generalfeldmarschall, and higher!). Those assassinations attempts motivated Hitler to further an ever more outrageous, ever more dangerous situation, in the hope of activating the fascist instinct that makes people group up brainlessly behind their leader in case of lethal threat.

The top Nazis were in the usual position that top plutocrats always find themselves in, when they have got too far. When their devotion to the Dark Side has brought them far enough, the safest course, the only course, is to get ever worse. 

Mr. Kim, the North Korean dictator, sees two alternatives: on one side being arrested, tortured, jailed, tried or assassinated, and, on the other side, playing nuclear war games. With the hopes that he can score big that way (say through concession by the West, as he used to get from Clinton, Bill, Lewinsky Maximus). As his father did before him.

Then, after his hoped-for abject concesssions from the West, Mr. Kim would appear to be Mr. Indispensable, saver, if not father, of his nation. That is why Mr. Kim will never stop, because the only hope he has, to survive, is to instill in us enough horror, that we submit abjectedly, ever more. At some point, that will mean actually launching a nuclear tipped missile, unless Mr. Kim is physically neutralized first.



Looking forward, nuclear blackmail should be viewed as a war crime. If one makes a death threats against, say, the president of the USA, it’s legally punishable. The same should a fortiori be true when one makes threats against millions of people.

Any regime that engages in nuclear blackmail ought to be discontinued. Taking North Korea out, would incite leaders who do not think very well in Iran or Pakistan, let alone Beijing, or Moscow, and the individuals attending to them, to think more carefully in the future. It’s a question of annihilating a mood that feels nuclear blackmail works. That mood will grow, lest it’s killed in its North Korean egg.

If that mood grows, the situation will become very hard to control. One of the problems in 1939-1940, is that the French republic found itself at war with no less than five hostile countries or gangs rendered crazed by fascist thugs: the Nazis, the Italian fascists, the murderous Soviets, the Japanese imperial machine, and (most of) the American plutocracy (the latter pulling everybody’s strings directly, but for the Japanese, who, nevertheless, through the formal machinery of the Axis, were submitted to their influence; after all Yamaoto studied at… Harvard, just as one of Hitler’s earliest (1921) sponsors).

Although France could have handled just one of these enemies with 99% probability of winning, with so many enemies together collaborating suddenly, the Republic was at the mercy of a shove by a combination of high command incompetency, fate and betrayal. As happened. (One of the many nefarious consequences being the Holocaust of more than 50 millions.)

Right now, the West can smash the North Korean dictatorship completely, and easily. Others who want to help the infamy in North Korea are welcome to stand on the battle field, and be smashed too. We may as well have it now, on the time and place of our own choosing.

Tomorrow will be something else. There is no doubt that, if Mr. Putin sees that North Korea is getting concessions, he will become even more aggressive than he already is. On the other hand, if he contemplates every single palace of Mr. Kim reduced to ashes, he will reconsider his present drift towards ever more aggression and tyranny.

Indeed, after the Troika was very firm on Cyprus’ mobsters’ activities, the Kremlin backed off. If the Troika had been impressed by the threats of Medvedev and Putin, we would still be giving respect to gangsters (instead, Cyprus’ justice is now turning against the politicians and oligarchs it suspects got paid by the Russian mob).



Democracies have to make junior, or more moral military in a fascist regime realize that they better not collaborate.

The first way to take a fascist regime out is to make very clear that anybody contributing to such a regime will be tried for war crimes, and that the regime, should it engage in outrageous threats, confirmed by aggression, will be taken out. To back up that threat, it has to be real.

One should not repeat what happened with Hitler. The top German brass had contacted the British government to ask it to declare that Britain would stand with France and declare war, should the Nazis engage in one more provocation. The idea was that then the German generals, headed by Beck, the head of the army, would make a coup, and justify it to the German Volk by observing that Hitler’s march to a war with France and Britain, would destroy Germany.

A similar situation happened a bit earlier in Japan: junior officers tried a coup against the top military-plutocratic brass. Strong support by the West against those officers may have been effective. In any case it may have make top officers such as USA educated Yamamoto (head of the Navy) think twice. 

Instead of making the declaration the German generals asked for, British traitors told everything to Hitler. That made all subsequent coup attempts much more difficult. It is certain that, should Britain have clearly declared in 1938 that it would go to war against Hitler with France, Beck would have got rid of the Nazis (they were easy to eliminate for the army in 1938).

In North Korea, as in Nazi Germany, millions of rather well meaning naïve idiots are the main support of the regime. One has to show them that their leaders bring them doom and gloom, and only doom and gloom. And never, ever, the smallest positive thing.



A most significant difference, at this point, between the 30 year old fatso in Pyongyang and Hitler, is that Hitler never had a nuclear weapons program. The Nazis had been told by their ignorant scientists (Hahn, Heisenberg, etc.) that nuclear bombs were not possible. (France had started her bomb program in January 1938, Japan did have three nuclear programs, the main one in (occupied) North Korea.)

Another difference is that, six years into his reign, Hitler was at war with Poland, and the French and British empires. The North Korean dynasty is in its third generation, and it’s getting ever more absurd, crazy, and lethal

The scared and scary brat in North Korea may have 300 weaponized, miniaturized nukes, and perfectly working ICBMs, in ten years. Then what? Dozens of millions dead? 

In ten years, the nuclear brat in Korea will be more scared than ever, more crazy and lethal than ever, and would believe, should he succeed in his present maneuvers, that ever more blackmail will be ever more profitable. By then he may have more allies (contemplate Putin’s unstable, phantasmagoric and childish mind).

Moods are important. Mussolini was Hitler’s determined enemy, before he realized, that, after all, they were fellow fascists. Stalin, and his cabinet of Soviet comrades just as phantasmagorically, went the other way, from German generals, and Hitler’s best friend and fan (!), to their most determined enemies.

The German slip, from imperial fascism in July 1914, to racial mass murdering fascism by 1933, was greatly due to the mood that whoever the Nazis and their fellow travelers thought counted in the USA, and Britain, was with them, against France (and then against the Jews).

Once the fascist instinct has taken over an entire population, said population has to be defeated as the large single minded idiotic monster it has become. The Nazis were still fighting like mad men in April 1945, when most of Germany was covered by foreign armies. Units were formed of German kamikaze pilots to ram their planes against Allied bombers. The first suicide collision brought down two American superfortresses… So do not doubt an instant that many a North Korean officer is foaming at the mouth to visit nuclear fire on all the cities of the USA (among other places).

The West should not be afraid to impose a new mood now, because not only its survival, but the fate of the biosphere depends upon taking the toughest decisions, and very soon.  The new mood should be that the West will not hesitate, as Voltaire ordered, to crush infamy. Especially when it has to do with saving reason.

China and Russia have to face the fact that their own creature, North Korea, is threatening to engage in nuclear war. That is their responsibility. This is not something that happened in the 1950s. 

President Truman fired Mac Arthur, because he said that Mac Arthur “wouldn’t respect the authority of the President”. It had nothing to do with nuclear war. Had North Korea be endowed with the capability of waging nuclear war, and threatened the USA with nuclear strikes in the 1950s, Truman would certainly have unleashed Mac Arthur all the way to Stalin’s Moscow. 

Hitler had not even threatened France and Britain when the two democracies gave him an ultimatum on September 1, 1939. Why did France and Britain engaged in a world war? Crush infamy! At least, this time, and in a striking contrast with what happened in 1939, the USA can be sure that, should nuclear war be engaged in Asia, it can count on its parents to help keep Mr. Putin in check, manu militari.

Voltaire felt very strongly about his metaprinciple: Écrasons l’infâme (“Let’s crush infamy“). So strongly that he signed his letters with Ecr. L’inf. (Cru. inf.)


Ecr. L’inf., Patrice Ayme

Bash France On WWII, Hades Rules

November 18, 2012


Questions: Why persistently misrepresenting what happened in World War Two? Especially in the initial roles played by France and the USA? What are the vital lessons looking forward? Answers in the conclusion.



Some internet sickos claim that, if one use notions pertaining to Nazism, one has lost the argument. They are often found to hate Jews.

Rotterdam Burning, 14 May 1940. When Nazis Threatened Same For Utrecht, Netherlands Surrendered.

To help the Netherlands and Belgium, the big hearted French and British armies left their prepared positions, and moved north, enabling the Nazis to cut them from behind. Hitler cynically had hoped to play that bleeding heart attitude like a violin, dashing through the unbuilt Belgian portion of the Maginot Line (unbuilt, thanks to the USA’s perfidious influence).

Those who hate to mention obvious notions are generally dependent upon them, either materially, or psychologically.

Circles worshipping financial kleptocracy, and white racism, naturally hate France: this started in 1934 when the French leaders visited Washington (!). France, a creditor, wanted austerity in economic & political matters, in full opposition with the USA, which favored Hitler’s line: stimulus, no matter what.

In the case of Hitler stimulus meant stealing from the Jews to redistribute to his supporters, while re-arming crazily in all ways; in the case of the USA, or the UK, stimulus meant not getting ready to fight a world war on the side of France, by keeping military spending low, favoring consumption. Ironically the inversion of that proposition during WWII led to an economic boom in the USA… and a debt crisis in the UK (as the USA used usury against a desperate Britain to lend her, for example, 100 old destroyers).

The first hysterical French bashers were the Nazis. Besides the painful fact that half sized France had defeated the Second German Reich in 1914-1918, they had a more recent point. Indeed, France had started the world war (in the sense that a world war was the only way to stop Nazism). Nowadays French haters have turned this around. They pretend that the French Republic was full of collaborationist cheese eating surrender monkeys. Confronted to the fact that it was the French Republic that launched the world war against Nazism, French haters do not have enough humor to claim that it was just to better surrender.

Instead they prefer to focus on the French self flagellations about the 75,000 Jews who were deported by the Nazis and died. (Never mind that most of them were Central European refugees who the USA had refused to accept, and never mind that the armed French police who effected the initial arrests had to be armed, allowing it, 2 years later to fight the Nazis with weapons!)

Never mind that the French empire lost nearly FOUR (4) million dead in the 1914-1945 World War: such enormous losses are assuredly not understandable to most contemporaries.

By comparison, the USA suffered 186,000 dead on the European theater in WWII (while the USA had 3,3 times the population of France); and 117,000 dead in WWI, for a grand total of 303,000 dead. The same numbers for Canada are: 45,000 dead (WWII), and 65,000 dead (WWI), for a total of 110,000 dead. However Canada had 8% of the population of the USA, and declared war to Nazi Germany on September 10, 1939, seven days after France and the UK did (and two years three months and one day before Hitler declared war to the USA, the most celebrated heroic gesture of Uncle Sam, hiding below its bed!).

As I always say, all the USA had to do, at that point in time, in 1939, to win the war, against Hitler, should it have wished to win it, was to declare it. The German generals would have joined, and done most of the work, by getting rid of the Nazis. (Hitler was not as powerful as usually depicted; although he knew the head of the army, Beck had led a plot to get rid of all the Nazis, on the ground that they endangered Germany, it’s only in 1944, 5 years later, after Beck did it again, and again, and again and again, that Hitler could have him suicided!)

The French Republic ultimately won the war in the deepest way imaginable, turning the German state in a genuine sister republic and democracy of France.

Think about what would have happened if France had followed the British line of 1935, and let Hitler free to do whatever he wanted in the East: the few surviving Slavs would be enslaved, all the Jews, Gypsies, etc., exterminated, and the Grosse Reich all the way to Japan!

French haters generally hate to mention Hitler, and some of them (say Buchanan, famous writer in the USA, and a past presidential candidate), to this day, make no mystery that they hate France, because France attacked their cherub, Hitler.

In a way making Germany in a republic and a democracy was a reunification of the Germans, as the Franks were total Germans, and the secret of France, and, actually, the West, was the philosophical unification of the Greco-Roman ways with the Celto-Germanic ways.

(Ironically, in some respects, Germany is now more democratic than France!)



I wrote this partially in jest. Partially so, because much of the trouble of the Middle East has to do with a religion that has instituted, and promoted, militarized plutocracies, that is, the rule of a few devils, complete with abject submission to the lowest instincts. That the USA instrumentalized this Islamism perfidiously is its own problem.

However, this joke of mine failed, as usual, to amuse my friend Chris Snuggs, a Europeanized Brit, who has long resided in France and Germany. Complained he:

“The USA liberated the whole of Europe, most of Asia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and helped with Libya, which would not have happened without Sarkozy, for which I forgive him all his other nerdish irritations. Just compare North and South Korea if you want to see the real heroism of the US soldier. Incidentally, while US marines were dying to liberate France the French elite was collaborating with the Germans to send Jews to Auschwitz. I think, therefore, that this endless slagging off of the USA is very silly.

The invasion of Afghanistan was provoked by the murder of 3,000 innocent people of over 60 nationalities in NY. The utterly insane depravity of fundamentalism Islam is the root problem, not the USA, many faults though it may have.”

Answer: Chris, I agree with some of what you say, but disagree strongly with some too, especially with the naive end. You should study my writings more, should you desire to stick to the truth. The USA aggressed Afghanistan in the mid 1970s, through the CIA, on its own, and a secret order of full attack was given by Carter on July 3, 1979. Within months bin Laden was recruited in Turkey, because of his plutocratic connections with Saudi plutocracy, and his naive Islamist beliefs, prone to manipulation. Later bin Laden led an enormous Muslim Fundamentalist army (mostly made of Arabs, but also Chechens, etc.).

Did I forget the slight detail the USA was de facto allied to Hitler in 1936-1939? Let’s talk first about first things first.

To call the “milice“, a criminal organization the ‘French elite‘, shows oneself to be a fascist. My family took huge risks and made huge sacrifices to save more than a dozen Jews during the Nazi Occupation.

Food was rationed, throughout France. So it was very difficult for a family of 4 to find food for 16. Besides, running away from the German speaking, Gestapo. The Gestapo was full of Germans, not full of French. De facto, the Gestapo ruled France.

Barbie, head of the Gestapo in Lyon killed, it was determined, through torture, around 5,000 people. One of his tricks was to set a dying resistance fighter on one of his armchair in his office. He did that to Jean Moulin, in particular (an artist and French prefect who was nominated head of the resistance in France by the Free French government). 

BTW, my family, having been denounced, was warned by an informer, inside the Gestapo (!), and ran from it in a forest. There they stumbled into an American GIs’ patrol. This explains my mother’s devotion to the USA (which has become more nuanced under the withering fire of my fact propelled critique).

Many of the French who lived through WWII were thus, intensely devoted to their American liberators. And, no doubt, the GIs deserved the devotion. The effect was augmented by the fact that the million man French army converging from Normandy and Provence was fully equipped by the USA, so the French populace often took for Americans what were in truth French troops. Most of the major French cities were mostly delivered by French army units, which tended to be much more experienced than the Americans, more relaxed, and much quicker on the hoof.

And yet, a careful examination of what happened in World War Two, needs to go beyond the 11 million citizens of the USA who were drafted in WWII. A careful examination of how a criminal such as Hitler came to kill 50 million Europeans points directly to Washington and the plutocracy of the USA. If not for the American plutocrats, first of all, Hitler would have had no fuel to allow his armies to go anywhere (and Hitler would have had no planes flying, his Luftwaffe grounded in 1939, as I am always keen to point out).

Not that the USA is sole to blame: without Swedish high grade iron, Hitler would have had no tanks. And the French Army, in cooperation with Britain, was poised to cut Sweden in two on May 10 1940, just when Hitler applied that method to the motherland at Sedan.

Of all these things it is good to reminisce, as war, and an anti-democratic ideology extends throughout the Middle East. The bottom line is that the USA had betrayed its parents, France and Britain.

Democracy was divided in 1939. On one hand, there was France leading Britain and many courageous countries of the Commonwealth into the ultimate war against Nazism (they were belatedly joined by… Norway in 1940). And then there was a whole panoply of pseudo neutrals, led by the USA, most of them collaborating with Nazism.

The defeat of France in 1940 was caused in great part by a positive interference of the actions of many of these pseudo neutrals (under USA influence, Belgium refused to extend the Maginot Line, allowing the Panzer Army to pass; Holland played victim and led stupidly the French High Command to come to its rescue with the seven armored division quick deployment mobile reserve, the absence of which then allowed the ten Panzer divisions to sickle behind).

Fortunately, Obama has this lesson at heart (just as G W Bush, grandson of perhaps Hitler’s most interesting collaborators, was just the opposite, and came into the crosshair of the French elite!)



The Chinese deputies met. Together, their worth is 83 billion dollars. The richest, a woman, is worth 6 billion dollars. Real estate. The next one is worth about three billion. Plutocracy is doing well, nowadays.

How did the great war of 1914-1945 start? When (German) plutocracy imagined its tremendously rising trajectory would face a worrisome future (the German Socialists did not see why they could not get all the advantages their French colleagues enjoyed, and thus live in a republic with less plutocracy). To make matters worse, other plutocrats, in Britain and the USA, tried (and succeeded for the later), to leverage the situation to their personal advantage (especially after 1919).

It goes without saying that the same psychological mechanism will apply to the Chinese kleptocrats when the Chinese people gets angry from the way it is been exploited. Just as the German plutocracy tried to save itself with the distraction of a war, so will the Chinese plutocracy.

What would hold it back? Just the certainty that the democracies will go to war, and stop, only when they have achieved victory, no matter what.

Some, of course, will agree that it is not what the French Republic did in 1940. But some of the leaders who grabbed power in 1940 obviously felt France was fighting the world basically alone in June 1940, and it was better to cease-fire, while the other two democracies, Britain and the USA were getting their act together. (Surely, Nazi collaborationist regimes such as Sweden or Switzerland, did not qualify as genuine democracies.)

In the end, French armies started to fight again the Nazis, even before the USA did, and to more effect (Bir Hakeim, probably World War Two’s most crucial battle with the prior Battle of Moscow).

Wars are not over. The argument can easily be made that we are one great world war away from world peace. Yes, that argument has been made before.

Hundreds of rockets are fired again on Israel. The sophisticated “Iron Dome” anti-missile system intercepts and destroy more than 90% of those heading towards protected cities. It is impressive to see rockets flying in a volley being exploded one after the other, up in the air, by Iron Dome.

On the ground, Islamist Fundamentalists from all over Muslim Medievalistan [neologism] have been pressing Hamas for more action. The Egyptian Prime minister visited Gaza, so did another minister from Tunisia. Turkey’s Erdogan visited Turkey’s old subject, Egypt, and expressed support for its other old subject, Gaza.

Israeli PM Netanyahu said that the terrorists were targeting Israeli children, while taking refuge next to Palestinian children. He declared, as he had to, that the Israeli government would do “whatever is necessary“. To stop the rain of rockets. This evocation of the Dark Side can only mean an escalation.

Indeed Iron Dome fired hundreds of its interception missiles (officially very cheap, at only $50,000 a piece, an interestingly mythological number). The anti-Israel fighters have thousands of rockets (although the Israeli Air Force is trying to take out launch sites and storage facilities.) I doubt Iron Dome has thousands of missiles, and the AM batteries are not covering all of Israel. (Let alone that Hezbollah to the north has more than 10,000 rockets.)

Meanwhile more than 100 people a day are killed a day in anti-Syrian airstrikes by the Syrian Air Force. Turkey followed France, and recognized the Président de la coalition nationale syrienne, M.Moaz Al-Khatib as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people (“pour nous le seul représentant légitime du peuple syrien”), as Hollande put it in the Élysée Palace.

The Élysée Palace was closed in June 1940. So much for having a French State after that (there was no National Assembly, nor Senate, nor most of the institutions of the state after this; demonstrating, by the way, how idiotic were Chirac’s excuses in the name of the French State: how can one present excuses in the name of what did not exist?).

The French president had been against a cease-fire in June 1940, but was overwhelmed by a coup from a few men (“soldats de rencontre“), while the Nazi panzers were reaching Bordeaux. The Élysée reopened in 1946 for Vincent Auriol, President of the provisional government, then first President of the Fourth Republic from 1947 to 1954.

Those who claim that “France” had a legitimate government in Paris after June 21 1940 know nothing. Why do they think it’s called Vichy?


Chris Snuggs replied in turn to my observations:

“Most countries are made up of millions of people. Of course, one is led into generalisation, and I have no wish to denigrate your family. I was in a German doctor’s surgery a couple of years ago and read a moving homage to Jean Moulin of the Resistance. However, the point is, France’s political elite – the establishment, which is after all what counts in politics – was at that time fascist, and Europe had to be liberated by the Yanks. Yes, it was a long time ago and Yes, their industrial-military plutocracy today has a lot to answer for, but if it is right for Germany to still feel some guilt about WWII (which they do, irrational through it is) then the USA can still get credit for the multiple countries it has liberated, even many decades ago. There is an eternal struggle between morality and greed, and in sucking up to nasty family kleptocracies in the Middle East, the USA has gone too far – as is Cameron in trying to flog stuff out there, but when it comes to the crunch and you are threatened by a dictator and fascism, the US will eventually try to bail you out – or has done so in the past, but many must be sick of the eternal slagging off by Europeans. “Go to hell.” might be my reaction were I American. “You only want us when you need liberating.”

Politics is not black and white. Sometimes you have to support a lesser evil. Maybe the kleptocracies of Saudi, Kuwait and Bahrain are better than the outright fascist lunacy of the Iranian regime. Maybe. After all, in WWII our sailors died taking convoys to help save the USSR, which actually murdered tens of millions more than Hitler.

As for the election in the USA, let’s see how Obama deals with the fiscal cliff. Let’s see if he increases the number off drones killing many more innocent families in Pakistan (as he has so far) or whether he will supply weapons to the Syrian rebels to overcome yet another fascist, family despot. All I know is, were I a desperate revolutionary fighting a despot family kleptocrat I wouldn’t put much faith in Obama, and his claiming credit for killing BL was nauseating bollocks. The man is a pontificating academic patrician who has never run a business and most likely couldn’t. His only real asset is slick talk from an autocue.”

Answer: Totally ignoring that the British and French military intervened in Bosnia, under a UN mandate, well before they succeeded to drag the USA in, is apparently fashionable among Washington sycophants… Yet, without France and Britain firing back first, the USA would have never showed up.

 To elevate the Vichy collaborationist group into the French political elite – the establishment is a logical mistake. I have gone over this many times. Several of the leaders (including Petain) were among the fiercest fighters in WWI. Several of them got condemned to death (and some were executed) after France re-established a legitimate political authority (led by De Gaulle) in august 1944.

In truth the FRENCH political elite – the establishment execrated Hitler, but had been stuck since 1934 from engaging in all out war against Hitler, due to the collaboration, and entanglement of much (not all) of the British, American and German elite with the Nazis. This is the part of the Second World War that is extremely pertinent to this day, and widely, even wildly, ignored.

The collaboration with Hitler went as far as a treaty between the United Kingdom and Hitler, in 1935, that violated the Versailles Treaty, officially. So how could the French political elite – the establishment then attack Hitler for violating the Versailles Treaty? Such was Blum’s quandary. Blum, as a Socialist and a Jew, part of the French political elite – the establishment, could not be suspected of being a collaborator.

I also know for a fact that the son of another French Prime Minster, Daladier, was wanted very badly by the Gestapo (as my family hid and sheltered him, the only non Jew for whom my family did this).

In 1939, after the Spanish Republic fell, the French republic finally persuaded the UK to go to war against Hitler. A trap was set in the French-Polish defense treaty, where an appendix signaled that the UK would join France in providing Poland with needed assistance. (The Washington political elite – the establishment gave Poland to Stalin at Yalta in 1945.)

When the French Republic and the UK declared war to Hitler, the USA reacted with sanctions against them, passed by the US Congress, signed by the president, FDR. Meanwhile the USA sent 500 tons of lead tetraethyl, a crucial anti-knock compound, to Hitler, so that his aviation could stay in the air.

If not the French and British would have had instant air supremacy over the Nazis, a situation only achieved in June 1944…And not earlier, because of the TREACHEROUS AMERICAN HELP TO HITLER.



The Battle of France in 1940 was a very serious event: it was the fiercest battle of the western front in WWII. Nearly 200,000 soldiers died. Officially 50,000 Nazis, most of them elite fighters and officers, died. And probably more.

In pitched massive tank battles of May-June 1940, the Brits and the French won.  

It is estimated the French lost 1,274 aircraft destroyed during the campaign, the British suffered losses of 959 (477 fighters). The battle for France cost the Luftwaffe 28% of its front line strength, some 1,428 aircraft destroyed. A further 488 were damaged, making a total of 36% of the Luftwaffe strength negatively affected.

So how come the Nazis won? Simply by cutting the superior French and British from behind. And that was the result of Hitler’s crazy gamble, to put his entire tank army on a single road in the mountains, knowing full well, as he did, that he did not have a chance otherwise.

Morality: do not underestimate desperate men with too high an opinion of themselves.



The holocaust of 50 million Europeans (including up to 6 million Jews) happened because the USA did not rush to the help of France and Britain as it was its duty in 1939 and 1940.

When the US General Infantry landed in Normandy on June 6 1944, they were not exactly alone. Actually there were more Brits, Canadians, and other Commonwealth troops, Poles and French, than there were Americans. Besides Canadian soldiers had landed in France in 1940, and 1942 already. Verily, the Americans had been brilliant from their absence in the first three years of the war, and finally got involved only because the fascist Japanese and Germans attacked them.

As the USA never had more than 64 divisions on the Western Front, American combat troops stayed a minority in 1944-45 (although USA supplies and equipment were dominant).



The role of Stalin was, first of all, self interested. He helped Hitler considerably. The last giant freight train from the USSR crossed into the Reich while the Nazis attacked the other way. Hitler’s forces suffered heavy losses in the Fall of 1941, on their way to Moscow, where they were crushed by Christmas, after reaching the end of a metro line (literally and figuratively).

That was the first severe Nazi defeat, with a huge loss of equipment, men, and opportunity. Long live the Russians? Not so fast. The Nazi offensive against the USSR was delayed 6 weeks, because the Greeks had defeated Mussolini’s fascismo. Those six weeks, plus the ensuing enormous Nazi losses in Crete prevented the Nazis to seize Moscow, and break the USSR in two.

Fascinating subject, that deserves its own essay. In one sentence, though, yes, the French and the British could have won without the USA. After all, the USA had nothing to do with Bir Hakeim, Al Alamein, and the defeat of the Afrika Korps. Or the defeat at Moscow (although USA supplies helped by the time of Stalingrad). However the outcome would have been assuredly very different, and much slower unfolding. No “American Century” though.   


Conclusion: FRANCE WAS CIVILIZATIONALLY & MILITARILY CORRECT TO DECLARE WAR AGAINST HITLER IN 1939. THE USA WAS EXTREMELY WRONG TO HAVE SUPPORTED HITLER IN 1939, thus undercutting not just democracy and its parents, but also the numerous sane elements of the German military.

France was momentarily defeated in 1940, due to a combination of unlikely factors. (Hitler ran out of luck within weeks of the fall of France, though.)

Why Germany acted the way it did in 1914-1939, has a lot to do with why the USA supported Hitler in 1939: a persistent mental super storm, where the Dark Side was allowed to guide the reigning plutocrats.

The same sort of factors are still ruling in many parts of the world today: Russia, China, the Middle Earth. That they would coalesce as the “Axis” did in 1935-1938 is a gathering possibility, with offensive intervention by the leading democracies the only safeguard (the safeguard that failed in 1939, as the USA went Dark).

The World War that tore apart Europe in 1914-1945 was not just a form of collective madness, tribalism, militarism, imperialism as last stage of capitalism or a logical extension of the sort of exploitative racism Europeans had demonstrated worldwide.

The plutocratic phenomenon was the main cause of WWI and its aggravation into WWII, Yet, plutocracy has been the cause less studied, as the notion does not enjoy the prominence that it should have.

Keeping accusing the French to be surrender monkeys is a lie to mask the atrocious role that the plutocracy of the USA played in WWII, all the way from taking sanctions against France and Britain in 1939, until Yalta, and actively collaborating with Stalin to let him crush half of Europe in 1945.

This attitude serves the interests of the plutocracy of the USA, by focusing attention away from reality towards an American Dream that exists mostly in the mind of the beholders. This is why anti-French racism is a crucial link in the chain of resoning supporting the established order in the USA, as I showed in a number of essays on the origins of Anti-French sentiment

Oligarchies in the UK and the USA long used Hitler as a tool. Britain abruptly switched from collaborating with Hitler to collaborating with France in 1938-1939. The USA, though pursued an ambiguous policy, not just with Hitler, but also with Stalin. The bottom line being that, playing hyperpower, the USA displaced and replaced the European powers thoroughly, by leveraging World War Two.

In case the French and the British did not get the message it was repeated loud and clear in 1956, when Eisenhower, who had collaborated with Stalin in April 1945 (over Patton’s objections), collaborated again with his butcher, Nikita Khrushchev, to impose his will at Suez… and in Hungary.  

Now that the effects of fascism in Europe have faded away, the intellectual, judicial and economic power of the European has grown. And so it has been in the rest of the world. The USA’s 200 million white very developed people have found themselves less and less capable of imposing their will by force and conspiracy on the entire planet. Thus the realization by the USA that an alliance with the European Union would not just be more profitable, but necessary.   

The French Republic’s point of view that Nazism was a cause worth fighting against, proved, in the fullness of time, most progressive.

This is to avoid this message, that the French were right in 1939, the USA were extremely wrong, that the Wall Street types and their sycophants keep repeating that “France” did something wrong in WWII. Yes, right, from their point of view, and the source of their indignation is not what they claim.

After all, among many other things, if the USA has a brown president, it’s because institutional racism was demolished in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. That certainly would not have happened if the racist vision of the world of the Nazis had triumphed in the 1940s. And Nazism would have won if no country had declared war to it. And definitively, it’s France that opposed Nazism (with the UK, with not much of an army, in tow). So France showed the way. Obama 2008 was made possible by France, 1939.

That not only enrages those still nostalgic for racism (think Tea Party), It also enrages American liberals, since after all, they did not amount to much.

Once again, if the USA had declared war to Hitler, instead of flying to his rescue in 1939, German generals (led by Beck) would have killed Hitler and the top Nazis, and that would have been it: no American Century. Oops.

As a USA born citizen told me recently in Paris: “World War Two was a win-win for the American elite”.

And thus a paradox: if Hitler was so good to the USA, should not a patriotic American have followed its Congress and President in 1939, and support Hitler? The question is not quaint: as the USA is poised to become the world’s greatest oil producer within a few year (again!), it does look as if, again, the Dark Side is on the side of the USA. Should not thus patriotic citizens of the USA support it?

Such is the quandary: American progressive have to be regressive, it seems, for the USA to progress better.

Thus this past instructs the present. Rome and Athens started to lose the day they resigned themselves to fixed borders militarily, and intellectually. Naturally they then turned to the Dark Side.

Neither the West, nor actually the planet and its biosphere can afford the same mistake again. Thus democracy has to remember that progress is its best friend. That does not mean that the legions ought to march all the time (as they did when Republican Rome was rising). Sometimes one can be crafty and multipronged (as happened with Burma, aka Myanmar, where the local military plutocracy was seduced by the West into resisting the Chinese temptation).

Putin, Chinese plutocrats, and Muslim pluto-theocrats may look picturesque, but do not underestimate the temptation they feel, and the ability they have, to coalesce. A chain of viciousness goes from enraged, or all too innocent, Muslim Fascists, to Hamas, Hezbollah through Syria, to Iran, Pakistan, China, with the moronic Putin lurking, and messing things up. If that chain is successful for the elites that profit from it, it will extend, and may even exponentiate, causing a world war.

Time for a philosophical Iron Dome.


Patrice Ayme

Bank Crisis, Yes. Euro Crisis, No.

April 11, 2011



I am working on an essay which explains why some civilizations are superior to others, and how to measure that objectively, beyond the capability gunships provide with. It depends upon the notion of structure (among these structures are democratic institutions).

Measuring civilization is a much more interesting, and a much more difficult subject, that the silliness below. It is silly, because it should be totally obvious. But, somehow, it is not. As even Nobel Prize winners will not address it, someone has to. Sometimes one has to stoop, go to the trenches, and shoot back at the enemy, even when it’s a friend. After all Socrates killed at least four in real combat, and he is still esteemed…

I came across a post of April 11, 2011, from Paul Krugman, entitled "The Road to the Euro Crisis". That is a piece of not so crafty propaganda. Look at the title: it assumes that there is a "Euro Crisis".

That is a confusion of genres. There may be a crisis, but it is not of a crisis of the Euro itself. The Euro is strong, all too strong. The Euro was carefully calibrated to be worth one American dollar (by looking at very long term averages). Instead it has been for years hovering above 1.4 US dollar. The Euro is the world’s strongest currency. It would be better for the European economy if there were a Euro crisis.

Paul has claimed recently his European enthusiasm. If so, the aim of his propaganda would be rather mysterious. If it is not anti-European, what is it? Well, a careful analysis of the genesis of Krugman’s thought shows that, until a few months ago, he had no idea what was the idea behind the construction of the European Union. Then he discovered Robert Shuman, who explained clearly that Europe had to be made by irreversible moves, filling in the details in mopping-up operations later. Krugman, in truth, made a stubborn hostility against the Euro, part of his trade, for more than a decade.

That hostility against the European currency may be coming from the fact that, to keep overlording over the rest of the planet, it is better that the USA has by far the largest market, with the largest currency, so to speak. Since everything is written large in the USA, other countries become as many details, easily crushed. Ideas, feelings and companies get amplified in the internal market of the USA, and then they take over the world.

France and the USA conducted several war by proxy against each other after World War Two (although they were allied with several others).

The USA’s belated enthusiasm for democracy had allowed the European empires to be wounded to death by fascist Germany and Imperial Japan, and the USA moved in to replace them. Britain, not knowing too well which side it should chose, and mostly France, tried to resist this. A succession of wars happened, where interests and companies supported by the Americans confronted those supported by the French. Some of these wars are now forgotten: Katanga, Biafra…

I personally put the Rwanda war among these. It was terminated when a French paratroop division was dropped over Rwanda in Opération Turquoise, another of these UNSC operations implemented by France (one is just being conducted in Cote d’Ivoire). The origin of the Rwanda war have never been elucidated. However, before the holocaust, before the assassination of the two presidents which ignited it, the rebels spoke exclusively English, in a French speaking country, and were richly armed (including with anti-aircraft missiles). So some Anglo-Saxon power was behind them, and that may explain the lethargy of the USA to the whole Rwandan civil war.

Meanwhile the French, who were not exactly born yesterday, culturally speaking, proposed to the Germans to make an union, since disunion was clearly not working.

All Americans attached, one way or another to the reigning American plutocracy can only tremble, or more exactly can only toe the line that anything big from Europe is necessarily bad to the big, bad USA.

Thus the Euro is big, so the Euro is bad. Very bad: if the USA had to pay their oil, or their debt, not in Dollars, but in Euros they would quickly go the way of Argentina. So, from the context of the reigning American plutocracy, stopping the Euro is pretty much a question of survival. From the European point of view, the Euro is a way to stop being subjected to American domination. If not to stop outright exploitation, as the scale of the USA allows mediocre American companies and unspectacular ideas to become world dominant.

So the Euro is hyper strong, there is no Euro crisis, but clearly we have a Krugman crisis. Here is Paul’s short post, in its entirety:

“Just a note: I see that some readers are confused when I talk about how the coming of the euro led to low interest rates in the European periphery.

It’s actually very clear in the data:


As the euro became a done deal, countries that had previously had to pay a large interest premium found themselves able to borrow on the same terms as Germany; this translated into a big fall in their cost of capital. The result was bubbles, inflation, and in the aftermath of the bubbles and inflation, what you see now.”

Euro currency was introduced on 1 January 2002. This convergence-divergence of interest rates has nothing to do with the Euro. It has to do with the markets. As can be seen at the right hand of the graph, the interest rates are now diverging… But Spain is still in the Eurozone!

So this is not a Euro crisis, as far as the friends of the Euro can see. It is mislabeled a "Euro crisis" by the enemies of the Euro. So what is it?



In truth, the crisis is a private bank crisis, which has been transmogrified into a public debt crisis, as states came to the rescue of private banks, by making good on what they had lost.

That rescue of private banks, and all sorts of “shadow banks”  was led by the Bush, Obama, Greenspan ,Bernanke administrations in the USA: trillions of dollars were made available from taxpayers to plutocrats, as plutocrats, like Atlas, support the world.

The case of Iceland is enlightening: the state tried to persuade voters to pay for the obligations of a private bank based in Iceland, "Icesave". That bank lost 4 billion Euros of savings from savers in Britain and the Netherlands alone. The British government reimbursed the British savers, and then asked Iceland to reimburse the British state. Voters in Iceland said no. (Notice that the Brown and Cameron governments agree on this, that Britain is not in the Eurozone, and that Britain has been pretty much toeing the American and rest-of-Europe line on this.)

Iceland has a tiny population, 320,000, and it has been harder for the government to hypnotize the tiny population with plutocratic arguments, as Iceland is too small to be rules by plutocrats.

Icelanders have been told that their attitude compromised their application to the EU. I don’t see why. Police banks, and don’t enslave people who have nothing to do with them.

Ireland has a crushing debt. Why? Because the Irish government decided to refloat private banks in which other European private banks had invested in (although it refused to reimburse foreign banks directly invested in Ireland…). Ireland, and the like, ought to default, and that would be the end of the story. It’s a private bank crisis, not a currency crisis. More generally, it is a crisis of the relationship between all too generous public officials, and greedy sharks in private practice known as financiers. Private French, British and German banks have invested badly, they have to pay the price, the public should not.

Whenever a bank cannot survive, its operations ought to be nationalized, and small private savers accounts guaranteed. (What "small" means can be debated, but it should be big enough to cover the upper middle class, at least, but not so large to cover the hyper wealthy, as it presently does.)

There is vast hypocrisy in Germany in particular, as Germans profited vastly from loans of German banks to peripheral countries of Europe, to buy, well, German products, making Germany the number one world exporters.

It is high time for countries, that this for the public, to follow the example of the Icelanders, and say:"ekki" to the plutocrats! And, why does not Paul Krugman talk about that, rather than obsessing about the European currency? Is it because his renown, among the rich, famous and powerful, depends upon it? Why not use talent against evil, rather than using it to suggest that European nations should try to undermine each other, with small, weak, unworthy currencies?

Patrice Ayme

Why Plutocracy Hates The European Union

December 1, 2010




The middle class of the USA has seen its income go down markedly in the last decade, while its costs, in health and education, and unemployment, have gone up considerably. It is a curious thing that, as the USA struggles with the increasing economic despondency of most of its population, many American opinion makers obsess about Europe and the Eurozone currency, the Euro. Less than a decade ago, the Euro used to be worth .79 dollar. But then the Euro doubled in value relative to the Dollar.

A massively overvalued Euro is not so bad for Europe; European exporters have so increased the quality of their products that they sell them nevertheless. Moreover, the Eurozone has no oil whatsoever, most of the oil trade is made in Dollar (particularly since Saddam Hussein hanged by the neck shortly after switching to the Euro!) Thus, after the Euro doubled relative to the Dollar, the cost of oil for the Eurozone was halved.

This ought to have delighted "liberal", supposedly left wing, nationalist American economists such as Stiglitz and Krugman. They claim that the devaluation of a currency is good, because it makes the country which has devalued more competitive (although standard European theory on devaluations, for 30 years, has been that they are always bad).

So, as the Dollar went down, by 50% relative to the Euro, American nationalists really believing that devaluation is heaven should have been singing the praises of the Euro. But not at all. Instead we hear concerted howling, all over Anglo-Saxon’s most respected media, on the sorrow of not seeing Spain devalue relative to France. It sounds like coyotes in the deep woods: fascinating, but not thinking.

American economists claims computations show that when Europe was cut up in small nations, it was optimal. Devaluation is the only way to attenuate, according to them, the Iberian peninsula supposed misery.

Honorable critters may undervalue a few facts they rarely mention: keeping notes for 27 countries in one’s pockets is confusing and time consuming to truck drivers, tourists, and prevented transnational prices comparison, let alone purchases (French who want to buy a cheap French car, shop in Spain, or Italy, because, Spaniards or Italians being less rich than the French, car are cheaper there, and they can do this at a distance, every price being in the same currency; since Spain and Italy are contiguous to France, getting the car is very easy).

However judiciously byzantine American economists computations may be, they are irrelevant to the bottom line. And the bottom line, in Europe, is not economics. Not everything in society is about money, or even economics. The main set of reasons for a European currency is not about economic optimization. It has to do with war, or more exactly avoiding its return.

It’s no coincidence that the Secession War in the USA was followed by the establishment of a single currency (which did not exist, prior to said bellicose activity). The American Civil war is the deadliest civil war that a Western country has known. It’s no coincidence that the greatest war gave rise to the greatest currency known.

The astute will notice that World War Two ought to be seen as a civil war too, as it killed around 50 million civilians in Europe. Thus, to this even greater civil war, ought to correspond an even greater currency.

American economists who trash the Euro claim that the Euro is bad because it prevents devaluations: they always mix the idea of independent currency with salvational devaluation. It is a bit as if one were deploring the law, because it prevents to kill one’s neighbor when it is handy. Why not to do the right thing economically, to start with, instead?

Verily, the present crises in the USA and EU have nothing to do with currencies, but everything to do with nationalizing the losses of some private companies which have captured the minds of the elites. Hence those particular private companies are viewed as the highest national interest. Which, of course, they are not.

Saving the top financial companies in the USA such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup cost nearly 5 trillion dollar, in the USA alone (more than a third of GDP, wasted in two years mostly through Quantitative Easing). Why? Because plutocracy has captured the psychology of the leaders. Obama went around aloud, calling some of the world’s greatest, not to say dirtiest, plutocrats "my friend", while they were stealing billions. He obviously thought that was a small price to pay to ingratiate himself to those powers that be.

Let me add two technical points here: one has to distinguish between banks, and bank holding companies. One also has to distinguish between insuring depositors (certainly innocent, so who should be saved) and those plutocrats, or plutocratic organizations, which pull the strings of the bank holding companies (and who are presumably culprit, or at least responsible). A systematic confusion has been entertained by the plutocratic media between saving depositors and their ATMs with saving the plutocrats, and their derivatives.

Verily, the plutocrats do not have to be saved: they played dead and dying, but it was all a trick, or more exactly a CONSPIRACY. If they were dying of anything, it was of indigestion, or the anxiety they had about realizing their next plan, the boldest so far. The plutocrats deliberately engaged in the whole financial disaster operation, knowing full well that the greatest risk to society was actually the greatest profit imaginable to themselves: leveraging themselves more than ever, using the full power of governments as the ultimate lever. What they basically did was steal all the money, hide it, for their private enjoyment, and then observe there was none left for the normal functioning of society, and order the people to bring those necessary funds, or else civilized society would be shut down…

Obviously depositors of the non plutocratic type ought to have been saved, and the ATMs and managements of the banks themselves kept open (this should have been done by nationalizations of these restricted entities, instead of the much larger gifts made by national government to the private bank holding corporations and their plutocratic puppet masters.)

There would be no Irish crisis if some large private banks had gone bankrupt. What caused the crisis was that large BRITISH and Eurozone private banks had given to Irish developers funds for crazy leveraging, and, as the bubble imploded, they did not want to go bankrupt. So they used their political influence to make the governments (hence taxpayers) provide them with what they had lost (and a bit more for bonuses).

Then the national governments got bankrupt instead. This is the case of Ireland, or the USA.

Britain offered to pay for Ireland, with the Eurozone, and with the USA (the latter through the IMF). All this because our so called democratic leaders cannot stand the private pain of the plutocrats. Plutocrats in pain is the end of the world as they know it. Our democratic leaders would do anything to prevent that: without plutocrats to give them a future, how could they have a present.

So the world financial crisis is all about plutocracy not currency.

So why so much talk about China and its currency, and why the obsession of so many opinion makers of the USA with the doom and gloom of the Euro? One month they feel the Euro is too weak, the next, they see it as too strong. In all and any case, it is the dollar which stays weak.

Plutocracy talks about currency, as the end all, be all, because it deflects the conversation from itself.

Plutocracy is out to destroy the European Union, that is, Europe, because, once again, it sees the danger that the force of democracy, which is strong there, rebels and fights back. As it ought to.

As I have tried to explain in many essays, plutocracy hates democracy. In essence the wars which wrecked Europe in the period 1853-1945 were an attempt, by plutocracy and its insanely murderous servants, to destroy democracy and replace it by plutocracy (hence the elaborate relations between fascism and its corporate sponsors).

The European Union was precisely designed, initially to prevent the return of war and fascism. But who had caused, animated, organized and supported the later? Plutocracy. The European Union fathers did not want to confront plutocracy directly, so they used other names, as they built an institution to fight it.

Lo and behold, a plan presented by France and Germany requires the plutocrats ("lenders") to be responsible when the ventures they engage in fail. But only starting in 2013. Why give the plutocrats three more years?

What we contemplate now is the vengeful return of the ultimate cause of the wars in Europe, namely plutocracy (this theory was well known in July 1914). Hence the continual verbal attacks, in the USA, against Europe, its Union, and its currency. The plutocrats could well instigate still another war as a better distraction, and source of funding, if verbosity is not enough, and the government of the USA is not as compliant as it used to be.

It may be time for Europe to address the real problem, plutocracy, instead of ignoring its attacks, while throwing it all the fresh meat it howls for, as if it was going to appease it.

It will not. Appeasement only encourages plutocracy, as once upon a time, its servant, Hitler, used to be encouraged by every kind gesture coming his way, to become ever more insane.


Patrice Ayme


The Worst.

April 16, 2010



In two sentences: Below is to be found a kaleidoscope of many problems: Pakistan, religious fundamentalism, fascism, nuclear explosives and their technology, quakes, volcanoes, the Middle East… united with the common mood of not looking at the possible catastrophes, as much as one should. The Obama administration has adopted many a correct stance, though.


Abstract: Pakistan is, by far, the greatest danger in the world at this point. Some people claim there are no dangers, just paranoia, and that what did not happen recently will not happen tomorrow. I have a volcano to show them.

The Obama administration (contrarily to previous US governments) seems aware of the danger posed by Pakistan, and has been doing something about it. Pakistan, a Muslim regime, hence a dissembling fanatical dictatorship, should be defanged (in the Qur’an it is said that lying for the faith is no sin, thus Pakistani shady types lie about everything, including assassinating PM Bhutto, as the UN officially determined). Suicide ready bellicose primitive superstitions detonate best with thermonuclear fuel. Just crashing planes into buildings is amateurish.

A scenario is easily imaginable when the immense disaster of a nuclear war of Pakistan with India, besides having drastic consequences on the climate and environment, worldwide, could well throw the entire world in a nuclear war. So Pakistan needs to be defanged, ASAP.

The nuclear disarmament of Pakistan will have to be entangled with Iran: both have to respect the Non Proliferation Treaty. But then what of India and Israel? Well, a worldwide nuclear disarmament is necessary, but it depends upon a fail-proof monitoring regime (as I have long advocated). The peaceful use of nuclear power will help, both in promoting inspections, and in imposing measures decreasing the stores of dangerous nuclear explosives. Moreover, it is impossible to explode in a bomb, what you have already burned in a reactor: 10% of American nuclear power comes from Soviet nuclear explosives reprocessed into fuel, and quite a bit from American bombs (reprocessed in… France).

What we are talking about here is building a pragmatic, partial form of world government. It is much better than nuclear war.

Pragmatism is the way the European construction works: establish supranational structures, when and where needed, but still keep the entanglements of national safety nets and bilateral, or multinational accords below… as long as they are compatible with the highest supranational system.

This model of integration works magnificently in Europe.

Some obdurate neo conservatives doubt that international accords work. But European construction works, and the absence of all out war, worldwide, in the last 65 years, is due in great part to the respect of international accords. No important international accord was violated in the last 65 years.

The last massive violations of international accords were made by the Nazis, when they violated the Versailles Treaty several times, ultimately attacking powers created by Versailles such as Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. (They had been encouraged by Great Britain in 1935, and the USA, though…)

However, the Nazis themselves respected international accords in the case of neurotoxic weapons of mass destruction (and millions of surviving Nazis were sure glad, after the war, that so they did… because they would have been annihilated otherwise!)

The Nazis also more or less respected the Geneva Conventions on the western front (but for the occasional savage mass assassination of French and African troops in 1940, and US troops during the Battle of the Bulge). So even fanatical idiots of the worst type can be brought to some international respect. By contrast, the Nazis justified their savagery in the USSR by arguing that the Soviets had not signed the Geneva Conventions.

Let’s notice that international relationships resting on reason can be long lasting: France has been at peace and collaboration with the USA since its creation, and both France and the USA have been in equally good collaborating relations with Britain since 1815. Let’s apply this strategy now to the likes of Pakistan, by forcing them to become our friend, and that means less ready to kill us all.




I have advocated the catastrophic calculus instead of the usage of probability on important matters. This is very practical, and the applications go from Pakistan, to building codes, to the so called “climate change” (where “The Economist” just adopted the same exact reasoning in its lead editorial) to what the French state and law call the “Principle of Precaution”.

It is wiser to use the catastrophic calculus rather than standard probability for earthquakes. Buildings are made half as strong in Seattle than in San Francisco. Why? Because earthquakes are half as frequent in Seattle than in San Francisco, the authorities decided Seattle buildings would suffer half the damage, over, say, a century. This is completely stupid. The correct reasoning is so obvious, that one could view this as criminal

The correct catastrophic calculus is, instead, to forget about computing probabilities, and just finding out if there is a plausible catastrophic scenario, and how catastrophic it could get.

In the case of Seattle versus San Francisco, the result is simple. Bad quakes around San Francisco seem to top out at 8 something, Richter. In Seattle: 9 something, Richter. At least 10 times more powerful (this comes from the nature of the faults: horizontally slipping in San Francisco, whereas Cascadia adds a vertical flipping component).

So, instead of making them much less strong, the buildings in Seattle ought to be much stronger. The last mega quake in Seattle was in 1700 CE, causing a giant tsunami which wiped out countless native villages, and struck Japan. This “Cascadia” quake may have been as much as 9.2 Richter. Seattle skyscrapers may collapse.

Thus catastrophic events should be measured by the catastrophe itself first, and not the exact value of the “probability”. Rare events happen because of a conjunction of factors, the probability for each impossible to compute if one did not even imagine it first. Thus the importance of imagining scenarios rather than computing away from trite assumptions.

Another example. Last year I explained that dinosaurs probably died from earth core volcanism, not an asteroid. One of my motivations was to show that injecting SO2 in the atmosphere to cool the planet would be insane.

An example I gave on the way was an eruption in Iceland in 1783, which killed a quarter of Iceland, 250,000 people in Europe, and increased the financial deficit of the French monarchy. Reading this, some could scoff, and say we are not in 1783. But actually massive catastrophes have impacted civilizations in the last 4 millennia, from giant volcano exploding: Crete, to possible cometary impact (or maybe submarine volcano?), under Justinian, to a terrible drought killing the Maya, to the Little Ice Age, etc.

So now we have a volcano erupting in Iceland, and air travel is stopped over Northern Europe. Most expect a momentary inconvenience. But, in truth, all we know for sure is that, someday, a volcanic eruption in Iceland will exterminate most of Northern Europe’s fauna. It clearly smacks of something that ought to have been studied before. Don’t forget that the mid-Atlantic ridge is the most formidable convection feature on earth (with the belt of fire around the Pacific; which drives which is not clear to me).

It is easier to find a scenario allowing Pakistan to get more people killed, though, and pretty soon.



President Obama gave a wrap up news conference after the nuclear summit. As required by the seriousness of the matter, he did not smile. His delivery was perfect: highly presidential, sober, well informed and as frank as he could get away with. He had a good answer for everything. He quoted Baker about Palestine and Israel: “You can’t want peace more than they do.” Well, a great part of the Israel-Palestine problem, starting way back during the Roman empire, has been superstitious fanaticism (aka Judeo-Islamism). The Romans, exasperated by Judeo national-tribalism, promoted the word “Palestine”, to help forget about Israel. The Latin Palestina came from the Greek Palaistine (Herodotus), itself from the Hebrew Pelesheth “Philistia, land of the Philistines”. So Palestinians speak Hebrew. Whatever. Anyway, back to more serious, but related, problems.

Obama also pointed out that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a threat to the security of the USA, and had a cost in blood and treasure. Well, same for Europe, and same for the West-Islam conflict, which is partly fed by the Arab-Israeli problem.

A deal could be made: Israel nice, calm and friendly in its box in quid pro quo for literal Islam outlawed (as it was in Egypt in 1300 CE, something the fanatical Islamists know all too well!).

This can all be solved: the European Union and the USA can put Israel in whichever box they please, whenever they want, if they act jointly. Arab countries could get more economic activity from the EU… As long as they accept the mental and intellectual, not to say civilizational, activity that go with it, and a few more things direct from Israel, as the following Saudi prince suggested…

Indeed recently, the Saudi foreign minister was asked about the Iranian nuclear posturing, and he declared soberly that “the introduction of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would be a disaster”. This is superior diplomacy at its best; if the prince had been completely truthful, and less crafty, he would have mentioned instead the official introduction of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Everybody knows, and especially the Arabs, that Israel has plenty of nuclear warheads, around 200, enough to wipe out all the Muslims, and any other contradictor.

Maybe the prince considers Israel to be its implicit nuclear shield against big bad Iran? Iranians and Arabs have detested each other, and this long before they came, through the most violent means, to share hostile variants of Islam.

Rising to the challenge of superior Saudi diplomacy, President Obama said that “the worst” would be a nuclear attack by terrorists. Well, he has to say this, at this point. However, the word “terrorists” could be interpreted with a broader meaning than the usual one, and that is why the US administration, with the European leadership, is insisting so much about the Iranian nuclear problem. Terror states exist: for example, most fascist states turned into terror states.

The Washington conference was centered around bombs terrorists could grab, or contrive, using radioactive materials. Nasty elements wrapped around a simple explosive could cause tremendous damage, by transforming an area inside a city into a mini Chernobyl. More important, though, is the fact that world leaders were brought to admit to the seriousness of nuclear materials. Simply banning them is no panacea, because: 1) it can’t be done. 2) nuclear materials, properly used, may be just what the doctor ordered.

Radioactive elements are the most concentrated energy sources or reservoirs known (liquid fuels are an extremely distant second). Nuclear technologies are the only ones presenting us with new, clean, powerful energy. Contrarily to intuition, they could augment, not decrease, nuclear safety. But they need capital to be developed, and that means that banks will have to stop sending created capital to the netherworld of shadow banking and its derivatives.



The 50 Megatons Tsar Bomba mushroom cloud, towering over the Arctic, 64 kilometers high, 40 kilometers wide. It could have been made, easily and cheaply, much more powerful (see below). The USSR deployed ICBMs equipped with 50 Megatons warheads.

97% of the power of the Tsar Bomba came from thermonuclear fusion, which lasted 40 nanoseconds, during which its output was 1.4% that of the entire sun. It was more than 3,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, and, if exploded over its center, would have completely annihilated the largest megalopolis on earth, all its distant suburbs, all its 30 million inhabitants.



The worst man-made danger on earth is posed by Pakistan, a brutal regime founded on exclusion, hell bent towards stuffing itself with nuclear weapons (it is building a new reactor designed to make 50 Plutonium “pits” a year, i.e. 50 bombs).

OK, Pakistan’s military dictatorship is presently masquerading as a democracy, because the Obama administration insisted to talk about “AfPak” (“Afghanistan-Pakistan”) instead of just “Afghanistan”.

Even before the Afghan war started, even before the first defense treaty between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, “Muslim” terrorist teams were sent into Afghanistan by the Pakistani dictatorship (it long did the same with India, and persists to this day).

Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

India and Israel did not sign the NPT either, but, at least, they are democracies, and democracies are rarely outrageously aggressive to the point of suicide (at least in the onset of a conflict, because Athens became outrageously aggressive during its war with Sparta, and so did the Roman republic later, and in modern times, democracies such as France, Britain and the USA, when seriously attacked, were of an awesome ferocity).

Pakistan is a theocratic dictatorship masquerading as an Islamist “republic”, a contradiction in adjecto. Moreover, as a result of its long financing of the Taliban, and organizing Al Qaeda through its own Muslim fundamentalist “Inter Service Intelligence“, Pakistan is completely perfused with fanatics. Islamism is not Buddhism, a would be supine religion. Islamism was designed as a war machine against Westerners and authentic Persians. As long as Pakistani rockets cannot reach Europe and America, Pakistan is subdued. This will not last.

Per its unstable and intrinsically mock religious nature, Pakistan ought to be deprived of its thermonuclear fangs, ASAP.

Pakistan’s dangerousness is accentuated by its long frontier with India. India is the world’s largest democracy, and it is a secular, religiously tolerant republic. Now, when you put a fascist, self delusional, superstitious regime next to a secular democracy, the former, being secretly persuaded, while fully in official denial, about the latter’s superiority, is ready to detonate.



We have seen that situation many times before. We saw it between Macedonia and the Greek cities. Between Rome and Carthage. Between Rome and Greece. The most famous recent case occurred when the fascist German “kingdoms” (“Reich”) were sitting next to republican democratic France, putting both on a war footing, for decades (just as Pakistan and India in the last few decades). Finally the German fascists cracked, and attacked, because it was their last chance (the way they looked at it).

Notice that, at the outset, the odds of winning, for fascist Germany, were very low. The Prussian generals attacked both in the west and in the east, simultaneously. In the east was democratizing Russia, developing at blazing speed, propelled by French money. In the west was the French republic, heading an empire of 100 million men. As it turned out the Africans in that army played a crucial role, starting with the first battle of the Marne.

The French army was formidable, state of the art, and the Russian army was gigantic. The German commandment massed nearly all its forces to crash through (neutral) Belgium into France, around the French defenses, hoping to stall the Russians (which did not quite happen). All this, because the Prussian generals had decided that Britain would betray her “Entente Cordiale” with France and her status of guarantor of Belgium’s safety. Maybe they remembered too much when Britain used to bankroll German forces against France in the Seven Year war, 160 years before .

As it happened, the Prussian generals had not breathed the air of the times. Britain declared war to Germany within two days, and the French army, after mightily retreating for four weeks, helped by the African army holding Paris, and the British Expeditionary Force, counter attacked and nearly destroyed the entire German army, while the Russians put East Prussia in peril. Thus, within weeks, Germany had lost the war, and the fact that it was not a democracy, and that it started the war, guaranteed that a huge coalition would rise against it, as did (Italy soon joined France and Britain).



So here you have it: generals, left to themselves, tend to be delusional. They miscompute. They are brutal; as they moved through neutral Belgium nearly two million armed men, the Prussian generals threatened the population, and, when they got shot at, or so they said, they engaged in large scale, deliberate, ordered-from-the-top, atrocities.

Democratically supervised armies (US, all the British commonwealth, Italy, France, etc.) were never caught in the blatant atrocities the fascist supervised army engaged in Belgium in August 1914 (from there to what happened with the Nazis is just continuity: more of the same).

Fascism is intrinsically unpredictable, because only a few men from a small clique take all the decisions, or, more generally, the interpretation of a small exclusionary ideology (such as Islam as a governmental system) is the pretext used for arbitrary decisions. Since such a regime rests on military force inside, it is natural for it to attack outside (hence the attack of various German fascist regimes on Europe, or the attack of the Argentinean dictators on Britain, fascist Italy upon Ethiopia and Greece, the USSR onto Finland, etc…).

Fascist regimes are paranoiac because, resting on force, nothing holds them up, except more force; they are standing on one leg, and a single leg can kick, that is what legs do. (By contrast, democratic regimes rest, and are inserted in various democratic institutions and authorities, which buttress them in many ways, but also restrain them.)

Why are fascists mad? Because fascism is a human instinct, but to be used only in the case of war, when stress and combat hormones are sky high. Living day in, day out, with those stress hormones decay brains, both in the submitting and the submitted. Moreover, human brains are best when free, so the mental performance of fascism is second rate (as demonstrated by the German attack on the rest of Europe in 1914: it was hare brained). That, in turn, creates further problems, with further stress, increasing the combativeness and further stupidity resulting from it.

Unchained fascism rests on the metapsychology of ultimate violence, it lives by it. The top guys, and their underlings, reign by force, so they fear force, and use even more, to make sure they stay on top. Thus they advocate the metaphysics of force, and learn to justify it as an ultimate good, day in, day out, so, in the end, they are anxious to prove how omnipresent force is, and they are drawn to prove it, by visiting it upon themselves, because it’s all they know. (This analysis translates to plutocrats and their Wall Street.)

This is why the Nazis kept on fighting against all odds, against several vengeful military powers, each of them able to eradicate them, from German city to German city, each of them completely destroyed, in the last five months of the war. By fostering their own destruction, the fascists justify the core of what made their rule possible, thus, they justify themselves, to themselves.



Thus Pakistan presents an extreme danger, much greater than Iran (The fifty years old Pakistan has a history of aggression, whereas Iran has a much longer history of being attacked, but not striking out, in the last few centuries).

All of this makes a nuclear attack of a fanatical, Islamized, fascist and paranoiac Pakistan onto India probable, in the fullness of time (15 years or so).

As I said, we have seen that movie before: as Pakistan sinks, and a democratic India blossoms ever more, next door, the rage and fear in Pakistan’s leadership can only grow. It does not matter that Pakistan would become a radioactive hell, and would be utterly destroyed, if it attacked India. It only compounds the attractiveness. Fascism is attracted by the bitter end, like the butterfly by the flame.


As Russian artillery barrages could be heard in the distance, the Nazi elite went to listen religiously to Wagner’s Gotterdammerung in the Berlin opera house, complete with holed roof. Fascists live like Gods, giving death arbitrarily, thus they want their dusk of the Gods. 


After a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India killing 100 million people or so, India would come out swinging, with a bloodied, but very powerful military, resting on a very stern, determined, aggrieved population, little inclined to be pushed around by fascism again.


And guess what, speaking of non democratic regime? China sits next door, arguably occupying territories it does not really own historically. Moreover China was Pakistan’s ally, in those times not so long ago, when it, and China, were at war with India .

Thus, China could well be blinded by the contempt for democracy fascist regimes are inclined to feel, and feed (it would be similar to the contempt the Nazis had for the Western democracies; fascists believe only them can take tough decisions, because they do not know that the very concept of fascism was invented by a democratic republic, Rome, during her best days).

Thus a future somewhat fascist, or, let’s say, insufficiently democratic governmental structure in China, could well decide to strike victorious (but heavily mauled) India, as it mops up Pakistan. Then the West would have to threaten China unambiguously. And, if need be, go to war against China.

This scenario, is, by far, the most probable of the most dangerous scenarios on earth. And it looks more likely than not.

Not only would a nuclear war between India and Pakistan turn China crazy. It may well turn the rest of the planet pretty crazy too: a nuclear war, by exploding thermonuclear fission-fusion-fission devices over cities would nearly guarantee a nuclear winter, and a radioactive one at that. For a scientific study on this, see:

It is probable that, should such a scenario rise above the horizon, many countries’ military would scream for their own nuclear arsenal. To maintain an edge the present military nuclear powers would then engage in an all out arms’ race. This time, instead of a duopoly USA-USSR, it would be a many body problem (as physicists call it). In such a problem, there is guaranteed long term instability (it’s a mathematical theorem). In other words, guaranteed generalized nuclear war. Thus: No NPT = Armageddon.

On the good side, nuclear Armageddon would save the biosphere, because human civilization would collapse, perhaps not to be seen again. Indeed, civilization’s rise depended upon cheap and abundant crucial minerals such as copper, and iron, and coal and oil. They used to lie thereabout, but now we can only extract them by spending first enormous energy. Cut the availability of that energy, and the bronze age will be remembered as El Dorado. Rarely again will the whale have to fear the steel point of the harpoon, as the last iron rusts away.

On the bad side, well, Earth would join the countless planets, in this galaxy alone, where intelligence failed for this, that, or the other reason. A forever Paleolithic mankind may well ultimately be wiped out by the many cosmic disasters that Earth has so far avoided, by sheer luck.

So Obama is right: something has to be done to set up a worldwide nuclear monitoring regime.



In the past, the USA ruled by dividing, and Muslim fundamentalism was found very handy that way. Now we should rule by superior reasoning, as in the past.

9/11 has demonstrated, even to the obdurate American leaders, the unpleasant side of the strategy of encouraging brutal criminals of the fanatical type. Bush was all confused about it, but Obama’s insistence to deal with “AfPak” as a single entity seems to exhibit a deep understanding of the tragedy in waiting, should one do nothing.

Under the clueless Bush, the USA funded part of the nuclear weapons program of Pakistan. Besides being insane, that was, supposedly, under the pretext of helping with nuclear safeguards. Obama expressed his confidence in the latter, which, with all due respect, is about as smart as trusting the Nazi government in 1933. (But, once again, Obama has to be diplomatic… and I don’t.)

Pakistan was a long favored by American diplomacy. This theocracy was considered to be a counter balance to India, which was viewed as too socialist, too friendly to the USSR, too inimical to Western plutocracy. Pakistan was part of the general American strategy, started under president FDR, to use Muslim fundamentalism against democracy.

Time to correct all this. Forcing Pakistan to nuclearly disarm ought to be the number one priority, before North Korea, before Iran, before Israel…



So what of Iran in all this? Iran is a theocracy, a religious “republic” giving even more place to Islam than Pakistan does. So it is paranoiac, and preoccupied with preoccupying the people with exterior conflicts, to justify its military rule upon it. It also has the suicidal component of fascist psychology.

Iran, although an oil exporter (in particular, to thirsty China) is incapable of having enough refineries, and imports the gasoline it needs.

A complicating factor in Iranian psychology, is that Iran is not just a country with a 4,000 year old history, it was, for many millennia, one of the most important civilizations. In particular the old religion of Persia, was refurbished by Zoroaster maybe 3,300 years ago, with a very advanced philosophy which obviously impacted Greek thought, Judaism, and, later, Christianism and Islam.

The last 13 centuries have not been fun and games in Iran. After the Muslim invaders took control of Sassanid Persia, a sad defeat, a severe civil war erupted between Muhammad’s family and some of his generals. The generals won, Muhammad’s family members were either defeated or assassinated, creating the schism between Sunni and Shiite, with the later severely mauled. Persia followed the Shiites, sad defeat, multiplied by the violent death in combat and assassination of Ali’s sons, who led the Shia, another sad defeat. Revenge followed soon after, as the Syrian-Arab Caliphate, exsanguinous after three catastrophic invasions of Francia which had shredded its military capability, fell to the Persians, who moved the Muslim capital to Baghdad.

Then the Mongols came around, wrecking nearly everything, snuffing Baghdad, destroying the elites. The elites got replaced by superstitious low quality leaders who had hidden in the wilds. Finally, in the 20C, Palahvi Senior, following the lead of Ataturk, took severe measures against superstition (maybe inspired by similar, but even more severe measures taken in Russia against superstitious religion by Czar Peter the Great).

In recent decades, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq attacked Iran, after the later turned Shiite fundamentalist. The perfidious Euro-Americans incited Hussein to do so, helping him with all sorts of military capabilities, from dual use chemicals (of German origin, handy to gas Kurds and Iranians), to outright battle planning operations with satellite data, courtesy of the USA, taking into account Iraqi chemical attacks, and advanced supersonic interceptors (French Mirages) and bombers (French Exocet armed Super Etendards to block Iranian oil exports; it is said that some particularly difficult missions were flown by French pilots).

Meanwhile, Reagan was selling American weapons to Iran secretly, for his pocket change. The capitals of Iran and Iraq got bombed by rockets, and the war killed about a million people. No wonder Iranians are a bit leery of the West’s lenifying discourses.

But, of course, Iran is a signatory of the NPT, whose spirit is not just to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but eradicating them in the long run.



So what to do with existing nuclear weapons? Well there are still thousands around, mostly in the USA and Russia. They ought to be reduced ASAP. Global zero nuclear weapons ought to be the aim, and, in theory, it is the aim of the NPT.

However, nuclear reduction towards zero can proceed if, and only if, absolutely certain monitoring can be established. Only crisscrossing the world with military inspectors, of the diverse powers, both in one on one more or less standardized bilateral treaties, and, independently, from UN inspectors, can insure this. Maybe a global nuclear weapons transparency treaty ought to be signed by all powers, and enforced at will, by any signatory. During the transition, the wasting asset of the nuclear striking capability of the five permanent members would insure encouragement, enforcement, and dissuasion.

Rabid neo-conservatives, but also much wiser people may be genuinely worried about quitting an obvious equilibrium point in military terror. Indeed, there was no major war since 1945, at the cost of a Berlin blockade, firing general Mc Arthur, etc… It is plausible that this happened because of nuclear terror, but other factors were in play: the three largest powers, the USA, the USSR and China, could not believe their luck to be masters of the world, and one does not see why they would attack further. Both China and the USSR has suffered huge losses (20 to 30 million killed), and the USA reigned over the rest of the world like the fully stuffed fox over the chicken coop.

The fact remains that one single strategic nuclear sub of the type made by France, the USA and Russia, can annihilate a large part of the population of any country. This is exemplary of the power of nuclear weapons. One single powerful nuclear bomb could annihilate any city on earth, if it was cheaply boosted as a fission-fusion-fission device.

Of course, the present permanent members of the Security Council have zero interest to get into a nuclear war.

Peaceful nuclear energy can help, because it could burn the offensive materials, while concentrating on non weaponizable technologies, which have been little developed so far, but which do exist (such as the Thorium technology, or fusion-fission thermonuclear reactors, which are perfectly feasible, NOW).

A few nuclear bombs ought to be kept at the ready, using the Security Council, to handle the odd extravagant terror threat (probably deep underground), or the odd comet. I know some studies have claimed fusion bombs would ineffective against comets, but that is simply a ridiculous statement: if we have 72 months, that is what it will take, and nothing else would do it. And a fortiori, if it is just 72 hours. Remember, with thermonuclear fusion, we have the power of the sun at our disposal. No comet can resist a fireball 10 kilometers across.



Tsar Bomba detonated over the gigantic Novaya Zemlya island of the Arctic ocean. Soviet scientists did not used the cheap trick of wrapping it in inexpensive and abundant Uranium 238 (U 238 fissions when bombarded by fast neutrons produced in immense quantities by thermonuclear fusion, just as U 235 fissions under slow neutrons). Wrapping Czar Bomba with U 238 would have boosted its power to 100 Megatons, half the energy of the Krakatoa’s main explosion. It would also have caused gigantic radioactive pollution, that is why Soviet scientists did not do it. But of course, nuclear terrorists, especially of the bin Laden persuasion, do not have to show as much restraint.

In conclusion, here is the Tsar Bomba’s fireball, measuring 8 kilometers (5.0 mi) in diameter, licking the ground, and nearly reaching the altitude of the deploying Tu-95 bomber.



On the positive side, no comet could resist that.



Europe Uber Alles.

March 28, 2010



The European currency, the euro, is, foremost, a solution to a problem. War. All other problems, and the euro solves many, pale in significance relative to this one.

Many talk about "problems" with the euro, and, oozing with glee all over, perceive weakness. They are right, there is weakness, but it is not European weakness. Just the opposite.

What those skeptics are seeing with their uncomprehending neurology is the further construction of the European imperium, according to its core principle: fix what needs to be fixed, but with complete consensus of the parties concerned, which means do it just so, as needed.

The European process appears messy, because it’s democratic, and before the people (demos) can use its kratos (power), it needs to think right, which means it has to argue thoroughly. It looks like squabbling, but it is thinking aloud. Europe is not built for some parties to gain advantage anymore (as it was with Napoleon, or Hitler), but to solve problems and gain opportunities for all.

The euro is, for the first time, used as a weapon against Europe’s enemies. Hence all the squealing. Far from weakening Franco-German resolve, the recourse to the IMF adds another layer of authority to the European Communities. When the IMF, speaking in the name of Franco-German taxpayers, tell restive exploiters in Greece that they have to pay more taxes (only 6 plutocrats declare more than one million euro income in Greece, and more than 500 professions can retire at 50 years of age, whereas Germany just brought up the retirement age to 67!), they will have to submit under orders (imperare, to use the Roman notion).


When his friend Kanzler Kohl threatened to re-unite Germany right away, President Mitterand, in what was the most significant act of his 14 years as president of France, told him that he had to give something to France in exchange, something that would make France and Germany irreversibly closer than ever. It had to go beyond the Shengen agreement of 1985, which erased the borders between France, West Germany and the Benelux.

It was natural to turn the ECU (European Currency Unit, created in 1979, and itself extending its own predecessor) into a full blown mean of exchange (and not just the province of high finance). If nothing else, it would reduce impediments to travel and shopping comparisons throughout the European Economic Community. (European construction is a lot about reducing transnational impediments: the European Commission just suggested that the 350,000 transnational European marriages which happen each year were too messy, so now people with transnational loves will have to decide, prior to marriage, which country will adjudicate their divorce proceedings.)

The euro, long in planning by some European institutions, was introduced minimally, namely without the governmental apparatus generally associated to a currency. This is the way Europeans have found to progress peacefully towards greater harmony: do what is necessary, and nothing more than that, and do it with total consensus.

Everybody knew that a currency without a government to create and anchor it had never happened before, and was unlikely to endure.

That fit the European federalists just right, and could not have escaped the understanding of Paris and Berlin. As it turned out, the PIIGS’ crisis is putting back Paris and Berlin, the historical engine of Europe, back on top, and this, for an excellent reason.

"PIIGS" stand for Portugal Ireland Iceland Greece Spain. All of them ran bubble economies, partially propelled by taxes from the richest European countries (including France and Germany). It became ridiculous as, for example, Ireland was getting European subsidies while the Irish were already way richer than those subsidizing them. (OK Iceland is not in the EU, yet, but it begged to enter the Eurozone, and it has disappeared the savings of countless Brits and Dutch, which means it has some outstanding business with the rest of Europe, that it will have to sort out, after executing a few more whales, guilty as charged.)

Some acknowledge the convenience of a common European currency and easier border transits, while remaining obsessed by what they view as gigantic differences between European countries. Those quaint nationalists and parochial types obsess that core differences between countries are so strong and deep-rooted that any form of real European union is a ridiculous concept. This is triply erroneous.

First because Europeans are very much alike, when compared to other earth’s denizens. Anybody who has long lived outside of Europe and its ex-colonies (USA, Australia, Russia, etc.) knows this. I myself long lived in black Africa, and Europeans, Americans, Russians, etc. felt all the same. This is a fortiori true inside the European Union.

Second, to revere nationalism is to worship at the foot of the idea of imagined and magnified differences that caused activities such as the 500 year war between England and France, an unfathomable stupidity between cousins that was long a Franco-French civil war. The estrangement between Germans and Western Franks (roughly 945 CE to 1945 CE) was another ridiculous, and ultimately murderous attitude imposed from above (in this case, the Western Franks, based in Paris stopped bothering to send east the candidate emperor, as they were supposed to, because apparently Germany bored them to death.)

Third, and most importantly, the European Union already exists. French passports have "Union Europeenne" written on top (with "Republique Francaise" below). European law primes national law, such is a basic foundation of the European constitution (still a work in progress, but the foundations are here to stay).

The obsession with worshipping nationalistic ridicule was recently concentrated in Great Britain. Britain opted out of the European social contract (without much difference anyway, because Britain is extremely socialist, more than France in some important ways, and much more efficiently).

Britain could not join the creation of the euro: it had been booted out of the European Exchange Mechanism by the billionaire Soros, an ignominious submission which cost the UK 3.3 billion pounds (and brought more than a billion dollars in the plutocrat’s coffers). Britain is also hanging half out of the Shengen (border-less) zone (to which even Iceland, Suisse, and Norway belong to!)

The reason for this British aloofness to the rest of Europe was not glorious. Far from it. British financiers were anxious to present themselves as an American Trojan Horse on the shore of Europe to persuade fellow plutocrats to come over, and have a party. Asking them to pay no taxes helped (while putting London’s real estate into the stratosphere). Now that the financiers have caused great ruin in Great Britain, their mighty roar has turned to despicable yelping, while they get taxed into submission (with higher tax margins, and a special Dutch-British-French tax on financial traders).

More deeply felt still is the psychological difference between England, the most populous part of a large island, and France, part of the world’s largest continent, historically the core of the first unification of Europe, under the Franks.

In more than a millennium, England was invaded by foreign powers just twice (and the second "invasion", by the Dutch does not really count). France was invaded by everybody all the time. In particular the "100 years war" (so called, instead of the more correct "500 years war") happened on French territory. So the collective memory of Britain is that Europe, as a war theater, is rather an occasion for glory, and growth (because most of the time England grew from conflict, ending demographically as large as France, although she started very creative, but relatively tiny).

For France war has come to mean a threat of extinction. Ever since the Huns came to be cut down to size, countless invaders have tried their luck in France, ravaging the country. So building Europe as a giant France all around, has become not just strategic, but survivalist. Any move helping to build a France-compatible Europe, is viewed, in France, as excellent (except by the completely obsolete "Front National", whose trade it is to denounce anything not national).

Anti-European partisans were delighted to see the Greek deficit crisis as the tip of the fundamental issue that Europeans are aliens to each other, and European citizenship means nothing, and soon the tanks will roll, and the USA will triumph again… Rome intervened more than once in Greece, and then stayed, and send the legions to crush what the plutocrats in the Senate viewed as socialism and excessive democracy. Both came back to Greece only thanks to the European Union, more than 21 centuries later (and not thanks to the USA, which were content with the mild fascist regime in Greece).

Many famous economists, in particular, infeodated as they are to Wall Street and the world plutocracy, to embellish their pathetic little lives, were delighted to proclaim the end of Europe, and the euro. They know nothing. Should they want to learn something important, they could start to reset their mood with this proverb from the desert: "Dogs yelp, the caravan moves on."Instead of yelping like dogs, they should try to think like men, that is, with the big picture.

Europe is an imperial democratic machine which mostly started with a French desire for peace, tranquility, pursuit of happiness and cheese, and, please, no more wars. To achieve all these, a giant France all around, has long been viewed as a must (French kings in the Middle Ages multiplied military forays and long occupations of Italy, meanwhile the Normans freed the Mezzogiorno, Sicily and Malta from the Saracens).

After 1945, a deeply chastened, mentally de-Nazified Germany recognized that the French (that is the republican and democratic) way of doing politics was incomparably better than the fascist one. Everybody, even the dumbest of the ex-Nazis, could observe that the union with France was so unavoidable, that even Hitler had to resign himself to it.

How to build Europe? Maybe that is the wrong question. The correct question is: why was a united Europe replaced by squabbling potentates?

Indeed, Europe did exist before, twice. Or at least huge unified pieces of it. The Romans had united Britain with Gaul, a good piece of Germany, and the Mediterranean countries, all the way to the Arabo-Persian gulf. That was the first unification of (part of) Europe. Britain was in it for no less than five centuries.

That first European unification ended as Roman rule decomposed into the plutocratic rule of Catholic bishops. The legions were withdrawn from Britannia, as Rome, riddled by rotting plutocracy, ran out of money and brains. Within 150 years, the Anglo-Saxons were invading, and the British army had to flee to Roman Armorica, which became… Brittany (a vassal of the Franks).

The second unification occurred when the Franks conquered most of Western Europe, minus a lot of Iberia (held by Islamists who the Franks failed to extirpate from Iberia, as they preferred to subdue Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc., and make a unified whole with it). The full conquest of Europe, by the Franks, including Britannia, took at least six centuries, and was a crafty mix of brute military force, and haughty philosophical supremacy of love incarnated by the sword (with Jesus dangling naked from his cross to remind the heathens of their proximal fate, should they dare resist, be it only with their paltry minds).

Why did the second European unification fail? It did not fail militarily, or in disorder, as Rome did. Well, it petered out, under the divisiveness that the plutocrats who led it gained to foster (those plutocrats called themselves "aristocrats", as if they were the best!) Plutocracy and theocracy conspired to prevent the rise of a united democracy (in theory, and sometimes in practice, the kings of the Franks were elected!). The rise of powerful states of law in England and France put back the Pope on his knees, where he belonged, and curbed the power of independent plutocrats, but at the cost of increased nationalism (as the concept of people, populus, Volk regained the ascendency over plutocracy it had lost after the demise of the "Populus" side of the Roman republic, around the time of Caesar’s assassination).

In any case the divisiveness started with plutocracy. This is why the present European Union, and its diverse nations, are very wary of plutocracy (part of the reason for EU social democracy). More recently, it does not escape Europeans that the crowd of military aristocrats who ambushed Europe with World War One was tight with the German imperial plutocracy (a theme dear to Hitler, but even Hitler was not wrong 100% of the time!)

A lack of awareness of the extent of the extreme toxicity of plutocracy for civilization is also why Paul Krugman, Simon Johnson, and a few writers at the Financial Times have missed the big picture about the Greek crisis (which is only that the Greeks pay twice for some interest). Most famous economists, at some early point in their career, are paid to be friends to the plutocrats, exciting them just so, and the truth could only elude them later (Krugman and Summers advised Reagan, in official capacity, at the White House, as soon as they came out of high school, or so).

Verily, there is a Greek crisis, but as far as the deepest thinkers in Europe are concerned, the Greek crisis is a golden opportunity to foster the European Union and its basic strategy. European leaders will not tell you this, though, because they talk softly, and carry a big stick. And nobody serious in Washington or Beijing can have missed the message. Here are some of its pieces, causally ordered:

1) Before the Greek "crisis", the euro was WAY too high. This was hurting European industry, and especially that of France, Germany, and their immediate satellites. At the same time, it was a life line for the exuberant Chinese economy, and the sinking American one. Although the USA is apparently determined to mimic the Titanic, the USA still has 25% of the world’s industrial base, and its only serious competitor is Europe (OK, Europe does not make cars that will not stop, as Toyota does, but it’s the only technology which eludes the EU).

The euro reached a dismal 1.60 relative to the US dollar. But the euro was made to equate just ONE dollar (by making long term comparisons with the Franc). A company such as Airbus has its expenses in euros, and most of its profits in dollars… The euro, at 1.60, was a serious brake on European industry. Germany went from being the world’s biggest exporter, to second best, as China pegged its currency to the dollar (depriving the USA from some of its devaluation advantage).

2) Europe decided, long ago, one could even say decades ago, to save fuel, and to save energy, and fight pollution. (Hitler attacked Poland in part because he wanted Polish oil.) Petroleum was the fuel of choice, having the highest energy density, in the twentieth century. The USA had plenty, Europe, very little. So Europe had to save. Meanwhile the plutocrats of the USA could use the plentiful American oil to extend their evil influence (so they gave enormous quantities of oil to Hitler to conquer various countries, ingratiating themselves to their fellow fascists of governmental type, and making tidy profits; Congress slapped a little fine on Texaco.)

As it became obvious that the entire biosphere was at risk of becoming moribund from human carbon dioxide activity, the European Union, following the Scandinavian and French lead, axed its entire strategy towards ever greater efficiency. But this effort depended upon the entire planet cooperating. At the Copenhagen 2009 conference, China and the USA made a dismal theatrical play with each other, ignoring Europe, spiting the biosphere’s future, and turning European ecologists green with fury. But many, not to say all, European leaders, have deep ecological convictions.

The Sino-American circus at Copenhagen was a huge threat for all of Europe’s strategy, for the European way of life, and it smacked, in European minds, with the sort of shortsighted hubris Europe has known in the past, which ended with tremendous world wars. After huge strategic commitment towards a sustainable future, the EU did not feel like following the lead to war and destruction provided by China and the USA. Something needed to be done. Smart European leaders could only conclude that it was time to strike back. How? Europe had a weapon: the euro (and its poodle, the pound).

If the euro was going back down to one US dollar, Europe would be affected very little: so great is European efficiency nowadays that the fact that most of the price of oil is in dollars would hit the EU not that much. On the other fist, though, the wobbling American economy would get completely smashed. Bringing the euro down a lot would bring the USA, for sure, in a double dip recession. Not a good prospect for Obama, Pelosi, and their democrats. and a calamity for the average American, considering that the economy of the USA is not equipped with automatic stabilizers (as that of the EU, Britain included, is).

3) Thus European banks suddenly discovered the Greek problem, and made a big deal of it. Imagine: the Greek deficit was even larger than the USA deficit! Think of that! Banks liked it, all the more since a socialist government had just come in to clean the mess in Greece. Greek bonds’ interest bounded up… to 6% (a perfectly normal interest rate, let’s point out in passing…)

Even after scaring the crows with the alleged Greek corpse, the euro was still way too high. President Sarkozy and Kanzler Merkel, rightly, wanted it down some more, hence their little sing-song, Germany playing bad cop, France playing good European.

4) There is a need for stronger economic leadership in Europe, with independent economic and financial authorities. It does not exist in the present constitutional set-up. So France and Germany reconstituted their Great 2,000 years Reich, and goose stepped Europe into shape. They met the day before the EU summit, and solved the Greek problem. It was logical to use the IMF; not only is it led by a very experienced Frenchman, but all EU countries belong to the IMF (which rescued Turkey’s banks in 2001, and now they are fine).

This was a return to the same old same old: the Franco-German engine got Europe started by 1948. The other countries were not coerced into joining them, but they had no choice: France and Germany (especially with Benelux sandwiched in between) form an economic superpower by themselves (French GDP alone is much higher than Russian GDP…)

To make Europe, in the past, one used to send an army. Now one sends a problem. Then diligent Europeans solve the problem with a high solution, not a low blow. This method of solving problems was actually inaugurated during the occupation of France by the Nazis (not that the lowest of low blows were not used simultaneously: hundreds of thousands of innocent French civilians were assassinated by the Nazis, including 75,000 Jews). To their dismay, the Nazis had to collaborate with the French, and many liked it so much, they organized the coup against Hitler, and de-Nazified in other ways (refusing to obey Nazi orders).

European federalists always wanted elements of an economic government for Europe. But they needed problems that these elements of European economic government would solve. Greece is such a problem. Thank you, oh Trojan Horse!

5) The euro quickly lost half of its overvaluation relative to the do-do, threatening the recovery of the economy of the USA. The Obama administration, the US Congress, and Krugman and company, seem to have got the message, and suddenly, on second thought, found the Chinese plutocratic ally not so pretty anymore. Even Google went along with the new order.

All this is good. This is an excellent crisis. Europe has never been stronger. And it is good that Europe is stronger, because Europe has made terrible mistakes, in the past, and learned a lot from them. Not everything, but a lot. And Europe learned much more than many other countries seem to have mustered.

It is better when greater wisdom has greater strength. Wisdom without strength bequeaths the ruin of civilization.


Patrice Ayme


P/S: Another simultaneous crisis is the delay by France of the adoption of the carbon tax. There too, the solution is the high exit, not the low blow.

Maybe I should explain this a bit more: Europeans used competitive devaluations against each other in the past. Krugman initially claimed that it was the solution to the Spanish economic problem (20% unemployment!). If Spain had a peseta again, it could have devalued, and eaten the lunch of its neighbors. France is the neighbor. So Krugman advised Spain to declare war on France, basically. This is the low blow solution, and it has been practiced extensively in Europe for centuries, Europeans know all about it, because, differently from Americans, they learn enough history to not goose step in their elders’ errors.

Rejecting the self interested American divisiveness advice, Spain, long ago, opted for a different path. Instead of fighting France, Spain wisely prefers to build a state of the art plane with France, the A 400 M. France and Spain are also busy fighting ETA terrorists.

The French Constitutional Court found the carbon tax voted by the French National Assembly unconstitutional, it was thus blocked, and became very unpopular in France. A lack of popularity confirmed by a rout in regional elections. So Sarkozy decided that it was useless for France to go it alone, and that it would persuade the entire EU first, and point out to the rest of the EU that the carbon tax could be used to reinforce the European worldwide economico-ecological strategy… by punishing the countries which cheat on carbon pollution. Worldwide (and this means the USA too).