Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Plutocracy Caused The European Crisis, & Why Fascism Comes In, As A Double edged Sword. How to remedy…

February 17, 2019

Plutocracy is the rule, not just of money, but of evil (that’s the full sense of “Pluto”, successor of Hades and ancestor of Satan). Plutocracy is amplification of the human Dark Side by Civilization itself. In particular plutocracy shows up in evil corporations which employ politicians. This is not new: (elected) king Francois I of France and his rival Charles Quint (born a few miles away) were, de facto, owned by their respective banks, many around Florence for the former, and mostly in Germany, for the latter. Charles Quint got elected “Roman” emperor, because he spent even more bankers’ money than Francois.

Plutocracy turns into an oligarchy so extreme, it uses evil to keep on ruling. Oligarchy, the rule of a few, is intrinsically fascist and inhuman, because only a few rule… Whereas human genetics has evolved to be ruled by none except love of all and the reason of many… but for the exception of actual combat.

This brings us to the fascist instinct (also something honed by evolution to enable otherwise weak primates to survive). Fascism is not just a tool for plutocrats to go on with their power and terror. Fascism is an old instinct which dominates human behavior when, submitted to a threat of extinction, primates group up, and follow the leader, in all ways, because, so doing, they act as one, and are more coordinated, thus stronger in combat, as they act as one superorganism.

The fasces (“bundle”) symbolised the imperium power of the Roman magistrates (later the emperor) to inflict corporal punishment (beating with the rods) or even death (beheading by the axe), although no Roman magistrate could summarily execute a Roman citizen after passage of the laws of the twelve tables (but Roman “imperators”, top generals, could, on their soldiers). To be executed in Roman “old style” meant being beaten with rods while tied to a x-shaped cross, or the head stuck in a fork, and then beheaded (or self-strangled). This was the punishment that the Senate ordered for the emperor Nero, which prompted him to commit suicide.
The fasces appears to have originated from the Etruscans, as evidenced by surviving artifacts showing a thin bundle of rods surrounding a two-headed axe that may have been influenced by the labrys, the Minoan double-headed axe (the tradition may then have passed to the Franks, as the “Francisque” was a double headed axe). Under the Roman Republic, the fasces developed into a thicker bundle of birch rods, sometimes surrounding a single-headed axe and tied together with a red leather ribbon into a cylinder. The fasces suggests strength through unity, since a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break.
The lictors were special officials and bodyguards who carried the fasces and preceded the magistrates or emperor. The highest magistrate, the dictator, was entitled to twenty-four lictors and fasces, a consul to twelve, a proconsul eleven, a praetor six (two within the pomerium), a propraetor five, and the curule aediles two. During a triumph (victory parade) the fasces was decorated with a laurel wreath. The “fasces” is the origin of our modern word “fascism” to denote totalitarian power. But it is used by many Republican organisations and governments merely as a symbolic continuation of Roman style authority, law and order, of We The People above the universe.




Hence the rise of fascism among those who fight plutocracy. It’s a defensive behavior. Thus fascism is used in contradictory ways. But that’s not surprising: to fight those with swords, one can’t use flowers, one has to use swords. Nazis didn’t get persuaded by logic. 5.5 millions of German soldiers defending Nazism had to be killed, and even more than that had to be injured or imprisoned, for Nazism to stop.

We saw this sort of complexity arise in the 1930s: Italian, German and Spanish fascists were financed, enabled, and manipulated by plutocrats (most of them from the USA)… However, the fascist leaders were riding an… anti-plutocratic wave! (Hitler and company claimed to be fighting “plutocrats”, as they themselves said… while being financed and even armed, by… the same plutocrats they were stridently excoriating in their public discourses!)


We have a similar situation now. Bankers, the financial sector, are more powerful than ever (due to a deliberate mismanagement, by bought-off politicians, of “Quantitative Easing” and “TARP” by US and EU governments). Plutocrats manipulate media, the British media, the least trusted among 33 countries polled, in particular (British media is owned by plutocrats who fear european legislation taxing and regulating them… worldwide, so their plan was to weaken Europe fatally…)


The situation is thus very complex, and cannot be acted upon without prior correct analysis. This is true in Europe, and in the USA. Just complaining about “old political” parties is besides the points.


In particular, Brexit was a manipulation. Corbyn, 45 years ago, was the sole anti-European Labor politician, thus is probably even more anti-Europe than May (also he is married to a banker, below all his marxist-like rhetoric)….

The way out is much more referendums: motivated, We the People will start analyzing the situation more thoroughly. The best place to start is to re-run the brexit referendum, this time making it “legislating” (last time it was consultative). Plutocrats don’t want this third referendum on Europe in the UK, because they know that We The People will vote to stay in the European Union.

Patrice Ayme



This was in answer to George Soros
Europe, Please Wake Up

Feb 11, 2019 GEORGE SOROS
The first step to defending Europe from its enemies, both internal and external, is to recognize the magnitude of the threat they present. The second is to awaken the sleeping pro-European majority and mobilize it to defend the values on which the EU was founded.

MUNICH – Europe is sleepwalking into oblivion, and the people of Europe need to wake up before it is too late. If they don’t, the European Union will go the way of the Soviet Union in 1991. Neither our leaders nor ordinary citizens seem to understand that we are experiencing a revolutionary moment, that the range of possibilities is very broad, and that the eventual outcome is thus highly uncertain.


Oumuamua (1I) and Vega

February 11, 2019

Last year saw the first out of Solar System object zoom by. Some said it was obviously an extraterrestrial starship considering its shape and speed and origin:
The subject of planets around other stars is as philosophical as philosophical can be: Giordano Bruno was tortured for 7 years, and burned alive, after mutilations, just for claiming there were other star systems, with planets… (that offended the Jesus myth… Did each inhabited planet come with its own little green Jesus?)

We need hope, a wider perspective: the cosmos provides them, even if we don’t get there, we can dream of it… Dreaming leads. Good dreams do best…. And displace nightmares… Loving the cosmos displaces hating neighbors
Planetary formation is a subject in formation… and crucial, for giving us humans cosmic hope and purpose, an arrow for civilization…. Seems to me Dr. Ian Miller is saying that HABITABILITY, usually interpreted as the zone in a Solar System where liquid water can be found on the surface, also influences planetary formation crucially. I like it, a lot.

My own original idea on life creating planets is that they need to be in the radioactive belt… Habitability is a different notion:


Oumuamua is a small asteroidal object somewhere between 100 – 1000 meters long and is considerably longer than it is broad. Basically, it looks like a slab of rock, and is currently passing through the solar system on its way to wherever. It is our first observation of an interstellar object hence the bracketed formal name: 1 for first, I for interstellar. How do we know it came from interstellar space? Its orbit has been mapped, and its eccentricity determined. The eccentricity of a circular orbit is zero; an eccentricity greater than zero but less than one means the object is in an elliptical orbit, and the larger the eccentricity, the bigger the difference between closest and furthest approach to the sun. Oumuamua was found to have an eccentricity of 1.1995, which means, being greater than 1, it is on a hyperbolic orbit. It started somewhere where the sun’s gravity…

View original post 1,293 more words

Of Those Pseudo Democrats Hiding Their Plutocracy Behind B Series Actor

February 5, 2019

After chastising some fakery claiming to be advanced philosophy for not being advanced at all, but a form of cretinism, lets’ go back to basics: One thing that was definitely wrong with lots of “democrats” was their professed admiration for Reagan (Obama was of that persuasion).

Bill Gorrell:“The regime elected in 1980 was the Reagan/O’Neill administration. O’Neil and the Dems voted for all the stuff Reagan gets slammed over. We’d be in a lot better shape now if O’Neil, the Dems and the unions would have stood up to Reagan. UPDATE: I have thought that Reagan’s popularity terrified the Dems and unions. I know think that Reagan gave them cover to continue the deregulation that began with Carter and it allowed union leaders to start cooperating with management with “team” unionism.”

Inequality USA: during most of its rise, democrats were in control…

Patrice Ayme to Bill: Absolutely what I have been saying for more than a decade. I discovered this when my (personal) friend Obama became president. The change was amazing: the big boys were in charge. It was as if Obama had just been hired by an incredibly powerful corporation hidden from the sight of the public. My closest family members immediately lied to me in an extravagant way: they had been told my influence on Obama was “unpredictable”… If there is an individual one want to be able to predict, it’s the president, when one is a donor. There is no way out of this, but for the institution of DIRECT DEMOCRACY running in parallel. Direct democracy means the We The People vote LAWS directly. Congress would then be charged with refining the laws in question. That system already exists in Switzerland. It is increasingly used, and it’s a great success. It explains why Switzerland is so wealthy while at the same time, much egalitarian legislation has been passed recently (with more to come).

Chris Tafoya to Patrice Ayme:

Your friend was a disappointment. Actually. Sorry for your loss.

Patrice Ayme Yes, a huge disappointment. Made me completely depressed, for years. Especially as it doubled with family betrayal (they loved to go the White House)

Chris Tafoya to Patrice Ayme:”No. Pity him.

PA: I grew up in Africa. I saw crocs eat. I don’t pity them. Nor do they expect pity.

In the Qur’an, one of the main targets are hypocrites:

Surah At-Tawbah – Verse 68

  1. 68. “Allah has promised the hypocrite men and the hypocrite women and the infidels, the Fire of Hell, to abide in it forever. That is enough for them, Allah has cursed them, and for them is a lasting chastisement.”

Hey, once in a while, I even agree with the Qur’an, and verily, that’s no hypocrisy.

Patrice Ayme


Why So Much Love And Admiration For Heidegger? Because He Was What Nazism Came From

February 2, 2019


Nazism was not just being so racist and full of hatred and great vengeance, that one had to go mass murder people. Nazism was also about being stupid: it was pretty obvious the Nazis sang of victory (“Sieg Heil!”) but all they tried to do was to lose a world war. Death, their own, is what they were looking for. Around 8.5 million Germans (at least) died in World War Two. (German government estimate of 2005, boosted by best 5.3 million soldiers killed estimate).

The Nazis won the Battle of France of May 1940 because of extreme, surreal luck; after that, they ran out of otherworldly luck. It couldn’t be otherwise: the probability of winning WW2 was very low, the probable consequences, catastrophic. As happened. So the Nazis were complete idiots, immensely mentally weak. At the same time, therein, in this blatant stupidity, their main seduction: they confused wishful thinking and thinking, by using idiotic concept (like the “Dasein”: the famous “there-be”).

Nazi thinking, like Heideggerian there-be, “Dasein” thinking is self referential. Thus Hitler vomited the Jews, whom had spoiled his Dasein, but how did he know he was not a Jew by his own definition, and how did other Nazis knew he was not a Jew who became head of the German hating Jew just to destroy the Jews? Hitler’s family background had been destroyed… by the Nazi regime.


Just to Illustrate the Madness of Nazis: Were The Nazis Self-Destroying Jews? Some Came To Ponder That: 

Lest some believe I have become all too imaginative, reality beats fiction: the Nazis themselves spread the rumor that Nazism was a … Jewish conspiracy. The Nazi governor of Poland (overseeing Auschwitz), Hans Frank would call Hitler a (probable) Jew (after an enquiry Hitler would have secretly ordered, he said). (There are independent elements supporting this thesis: modern genetic analysis in no less than 39 of the late Fuhrer’s relative show that Hitler had North African and Jewish ancestors, the sort of people all too many Germans wanted to exterminate. Hitler’s regime killed 2/3 of European Jews, and many of them, having ancestors who became Jews by choice, were certainly more Aryan than most top Nazis, including African Jew Hitler!) 

LouisFerdinand Céline, an MD and famous writer, had an obsession with the Jews (expressed in such an exaggerated way that it looks, comical). So he was tight with the Nazis and got invited many times at the German embassy. At one of these dinners at the German embassy in early 1944, it was obvious the Nazis were finished. Céline spoke openly of the coming German defeat, and claimed that Hitler had been replaced by a Jew. It is hard to imagine the Nazis allowing Céline to insult their Third Reich so brazenly. But all what Nazi ambassador Abetz did was to ask the servants to leave the room.   

Heidegger (marked with a cross) went around the university he headed in SA uniform. In other pictures, he wears oak leaves, Nazi style… He threw the Jews” out of his university (they were not really “Jews, because secular… Whereas Heidegger was a real Catholic, for his first three decades at least…)

By the way, Heidegger, although married to his Catholic wife, herself a Jew hater and Nazi, had sexual intercourse with the 100% certified Prussian (secular) Jew Hannah Arendt for quite a while (and they stayed close, when all was said and done…) All very complicated murky thinking…

Thus, how did the Nazis think? Well, like Heidegger. How did Heidegger think? Like a Nazi. Both Nazism and Heidegger fascinated, and fascinate weaker minds, for the same exact reasons: muddle thinking is easier than clear thinking, and what’s easier is nicer to the weak minded.


Heidegger and Nazism: Words Self Referencing The Will To Say Nothing Intelligent. Illustrated By Jewish Nazis and Nazi Jews:  

I confess that I am no specialist of Heidegger. I am a specialist of Nazism. Each time I read Heidegger, I am instantaneously bored by his second rate Nazism (I prefer the real thing).

In a famous passage Heidegger characterizes his mission in his most notorious work, “Sein und Zeit” (Time and Being, as if he had studied Relativity, he, the would-be seminarist!). Notice the muddle, self-referential thinking:

“‘Being’ is not something like a being… Being is what determines beings as beings, that in terms of which beings are already understood.”

Right. Now replace the word “Being” above by the word “Nazi”:

“‘Nazi’ is not something like a Nazi. Nazism is what determines Nazis as Nazis, that in terms of which Nazis are already understood.”

Sounds crazy? It is! And it was exactly what happened. Hitler decided that 35,000 Jews were actually “Honorary Aryans”… they were typically servants of the regime, thus Nazis.

See: Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, the Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military. Bryan Mark Rigg, U. of Kansas, 2002, Lawrence, KS.

There were actually more than 185,000 “Jews” (using the Nazi definition of “Jew”) in the Nazi war machine. Including highly decorated veterans and high-ranking officers, even generals, even in the SS (!), and admirals, even horrendous Nazi marshals (like the one who massacred Norway in 1940, or Luftwaffe Field Marshal Milch, etc…).

With Nazis or Heidegger, contradiction was no objection. Goebbels was hurt because a Jewess rejected him, Heidegger slept with Arendt (an anti-Nazi Jew).

Heidegger’s being a verbal diarrhea was nothing new, all Nazis thought, and felt, like that: a big diarrhea of words, dramatically empty metaphysics applied to the essence of the Dasein, anti-humanity, anti-progress, anti-technology (and of course anti-Judaic, anti-1789, anti-French). Coming from knowing all too well the Nazi side of history, I recognized immediately in Heidegger the monstrous anti-logical logic characteristic of Nazis, and their hatred of anything different from the original savagery they imagined themselves to have come from.


Heidegger In His Own Words:

Heidegger, 1933: “the German people is now on the brink of rediscovering its own essence and making itself worthy of a great destiny.” Nazism went well beyond German borders: it had been called upon to realise his longed-for “destruction of modernity“and Jewish “rootlessness”, “distance from the soil” This preceded the Nazi state: on 2 October 1929 in a letter Heidegger opposes “growing Judaisation within German spiritual life

Heidegger viewed Weltjudentum (“world Judaism”) as one of the main drivers of western modernity, which he denounced. Heidegger claimed the Jews had launched World War Two… whereas the French Republic (seconded by Britain) declared war. The Nazis, who by 3 September 1939 then had already assassinated hundreds of thousands (if not millions, including Spain and Poland which they had attacked) are who truly launched WW2.

Read the Nazi Heidegger’s own bloody words, dripping with hatred and racial superiority: “World Judaism is ungraspable everywhere and doesn’t need to get involved in military action while continuing to unfurl its influence, whereas we are left to sacrifice the best blood of the best of our people”.

Heidegger writes that the Jews, with their “talent for calculation“, were so vehemently opposed to the Nazi’s racial theories because “they themselves have lived according to the race principle for longest“.

Whatever the “Jewish” race theories Jews were supposed to have, as alleged by Heidegger, they didn’t imply killing other races. Actually, in the Bible, God tortures King David (a Jew) for refusing to exterminate a people (which the God of catholics like Heidegger had ordered David to kill).

The concept of “world Judaism” was launched by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious Czarist forgery purporting to reveal a Jewish plan for world domination. Adolf Hitler presented the conspiracy theory as fact in Mein Kampf, and Heidegger goose step behind his great Guide.

Heidegger drew philosopher Karl Jaspers’ attention to the “dangerous international association of Jewry“.

After Heidegger became “Fuhrer” of his university in 1933, he casted away the Jews, including WWI decorated veterans (that taught them to have fought for racial fascism of plutocratic nature!) Said the Nazi Heidegger:

The spiritual world of a people… is the power that most deeply preserves the people’s earth- and blood-bound strengths as the power that most deeply arouses and most profoundly shakes the people’s existence…. Blood and soil are certainly powerful and necessary, but they are not a sufficient condition for the Dasein of a people.” Yes, one needs to hurt people too, as Heidegger did at his university, depriving them of jobs, careers, livelihood, country…. Heidegger loved battling away, in the name of his race:

“University study must again become a risk, not a refuge for the cowardly. Whoever does not survive the battle, lies where he falls. The new courage must accustom itself to steadfastness, for the battle for the institutions where our leaders are educated will continue for a long time. It will be fought out of the strengths of the new Reich that Chancellor Hitler will bring to reality. A hard race with no thought of self must fight this battle, a race that lives from constant testing and that remains directed toward the goal to which it has committed itself. It is a battle to determine who shall be the teachers and leaders at the university.”

In context, it was a battle of extermination. Including extermination of the Jews that was printed black on white, in “Mein Kampf” (ten million sold!)… all educated Germans knew it well at the time.

Heidegger was fanatical about “the German” even as late as 1943, when it was clear “the German” was a mass murdering racist assassin, hated by the entire planet, as the Nazis had written they should be. Heidegger in his lecture on Heraclitus, 1943:   

The planet is in flames. The essence of man is out of joint. Only from the Germans, provided they discover and preserve “the German,” can world-historical consciousness come.”

Same year: “…all agreed that something decisive must be done… our situation is such that only dangerous decisions can change it”(Herr Doktor Goebbels’ Diaries, p327).

Heidegger “Black Notebooks” conflate his antijudaism with Anglo-Saxon culture, which he describes as Machenschaft (“machination” or “manipulative domination”).

Heidegger claimed that “world judaism”, Soviet communism and British parliamentarianism should be seen as part of dehumanizing, “most dangerous” western modernity, which has to be DESTROYED:

Heidegger: “The bourgeois-Christian form of English ‘bolshevism’ is the most dangerous. Without its destruction, the modern era will remain intact… What, other than engineering and metaphysically paving the way for socialism, other than commonplace thinking and tastelessness, has England contributed in terms of ‘culture’?”

Those who know little may like the last passage, and insinuate I have said the same. But, actually, Heidegger is parroting Nietzsche here… But, clearly Nietzsche was jokingly painting it blacker than it is, whereas Heidegger is dead serious… especially dead, and just a parrot. Most of Heidegger’s most intriguing thoughts are straight Nietzschean parroting… So he looks like a genius, but he is a genius of thievery. And the rest is standard Nazi thinking… Itself picked up from an impressive litany others (including French and British racists, and the poor sampled and mutated Nietzsche).  


Wisdom Rests On The Right Moods:

Mills, as a good British merchant, evoked the “marketplace” of ideas (everything is for sale, a very “Neoliberal” idea). The world of the mind is a jungle actually, and the weak gets devoured. It extends to the alien & deeper neurobiology of sentiment, feeling, emotion, tropism… which are the true foundations of systems of thought. Thinking deep necessitates  to deconstruct the emotional logic below.

Leo Strauss about Heidegger :
Phenomenal intellect joined to a soul of kitsch… Luther, Hamann and Heidegger seem to be the most conspicuous examples of high class intelligence and low class of character which are probably more characteristic of Germany than any other country.

That’s of course too generous: Heidegger initially wanted to become a professional Catholic, he was a lower sort, not wise at all. Moreover, one can’t be truly intelligent, in the way of wisdom, when one as base as he was. Same for Luther, famous author of “On the Jews and their Lies” hated Jews (he wrote extensively on this. See: Luther, Hitler, Unelected)


Why was Nietzsche Parrot The Nazi Heidegger, Admired… Whereas the Anti-Nazi Nietzsche viewed as a Nazi?

Paradoxically, while Heidegger the Nazi was lionized by, say, French intellectuals (most of them; not Camus, not Aron, not Cavailles) Nietzsche “was considered a black sheep in respectable circles“. Respectable circles made of idiots, as most of them were, then. Or is there more? Were they idiotic on purpose?

How come the one who hated nationalism, racism, German nationalism, and anti-Judaism, namely Nietzsche, was vilified, while the authentic Nazi, Heidegger, was lionized? Could it have been not an accident, but a system?

It was: Nietzsche was open minded, anti-system, and not an intellectual fascist. Most of the admirers of Heidegger, whether they knew it or not, embraced intellectual fascism, or what brings it along, the incapacity to think and feel clearly. While claiming great fuzzy conceptions of no validity and a penchant for malevolent conspiracy theories.

Example: the famous French pseudo-intellectual Jacques Lacan turned in the 1950s to Heidegger’s Dasein for his characterisation of the psychoanalyst as being-for-death: (être-pour-la-mort). How more Nazi than that could one be? Being for death! Death Dasein! Analysis of the mind as a form of death! (When I hear the word culture I pull out my Browning, as a famous Nazi minister said…)

A recent article equated Nietzsche, the anti-totalitarian thinker, with Heidegger, calling both “totalitarians”. Whereas Heidegger was just a racist thief: Nazi Heidegger invented no wisdom of his own, most of his ways being straight Nazism, or then borrowed from Nietzsche!

The same author professes its admiration for Heidegger… And the older legal author and law professor Carl Schmitt. That tends to be a natural opinion, it turns out. Both as respectable as Nazis can be. Indeed, how did Heidegger think? Like Schmitt, Nazism’s ultimate legal mind. Indeed  the article dares to flatter both Heidegger ”Like Carl Schmitt, another highly intelligent Nazi party member”. “Schmitt, Highly intelligent Nazi” is an oxymoron. Nazis were all total imbeciles. For what they did, they should all have hanged prophylactically. That would have saved dozens of millions.

The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. … whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.

Carl Schmitt

Heidegger’s work and admirers are pretty much all Schmittian, or, to put it in simpler fashion, Nazi. Those who admire Heidegger’s “different” thinking truly admire the essence of Nazism, malevolent cretinism, and they don’t even know it. Heidegger love is the essence of respectable Nazism. They can be Nazis, that is, full of hate, moronic generalities and simplification to the point of cretinism, and claim they are not! Hey, they are even philosophical! Heil Dasein! 

Oh yes, because I forgot; the sort of muddled thinking Heidegger produced was in evidence all around Germany. For example german nuclear physicists were affected by it: they claim, after the war, that they had prevented the Nazis to get the nuclear bomb. However, they had been secretly recorded in the mansion in which they lived in captivity. The recordings made clear that, just as with Heidegger, their true state of mind was just the sort of hateful nationalism Nietzsche condemned so much.

Nationalism, too, is a simplification: it was half of Nazism. Watch the tragicomedy known as Brexit, full of petty mindedness and self-destructive hatred, just like Nazism, for a contemporary example.  And, just as Nazism, it oozes with stupidity, all over.

Heidegger? Ethereal essence of Nazism for would-be intellectuals. Or when “Dasein” being smacks of nothingness, eternally fit for fascist minds with few real dimensions.

Patrice Ayme

Now for that surrealistic dinner with Céline… Nazism was surrealist. Just as much as Céline made it to be. [English translation below…] This scene is happening among people who engineered, desired and plotted the death of 100 millions (and it would have been more if the French Republic had not tried to block Nazism as early as 1939…)


Céline soudain explose : Assez ! dit-il, assez ! En frappant la table de ses deux mains au point de faire vibrer les verres. J’en ai assez d’écouter vos conneries ! Vous n’y êtes pas du tout… Vous croyez faire les malins, vous vous triturez les méninges autour d’une table bien servie, tandis que le monde s’écroule… Ma parole, vous avez une taie nacrée sur les yeux, du plomb dans les oreilles. Si vous construisez quarante mille avions, les Américains en construiront deux cent mille. Si vous construisez cent mille chars, ils en construiront un million. A vos armes secrètes, ils opposeront des armes plus secrètes et plus meurtrières encore. Vous n’y pouvez rien : ils sont la masse et la fonction de la masse est de tout écraser. Pendant ce temps, sournoisement, vous nous cachez l’essentiel. Pourquoi ne nous dites-vous pas qu’Hitler est mort ?

  • Hitler est mort ? s’exclame Abetz en écarquillant les yeux.
  • Vous le savez aussi bien que nous ! Seulement, vous ne pouvez pas le dire. Mais on n’a pas besoin d’être ambassadeur pour le savoir : ça crève les yeux ! Les juifs l’ont remplacé par un des leurs !

[…] Abetz, Drieu et moi en avons le souffle coupé. Nous connaissions l’audace de Céline. Mais nous ne pensions jamais qu’il pût la pousser aussi loin. Maintenant qu’il est lancé, où s’arrêtera-t-il ? Dire que l’ambassadeur nous avait invités à passer avec lui un agréable moment de détente !

  • Je vous dis que c’est plus le même homme, poursuit Céline. On l’a changé du tout au tout. On a mis un autre à sa place. Regardez-le ! Chacun de ses gestes, chacune de ses décisions sont faits pour assurer le triomphe des Juifs. Alors, faut être logique ! Les Juifs ont réussi un coup fumant, la plus grande mystification de l’Histoire ! Ils ont fait disparaître Hitler dans une trappe et l’ont remplacé par un type à eux. Remarquez qu’il se montre de moins en moins en public. C’est pour qu’on ne s’aperçoive pas de la différence. C’est idiot, d’ailleurs. Personne n’est plus facile à imiter. Mon ami Gen Paul, ici présent, l’imite à merveille. N’est-ce pas, Gégène, que tu l’imites bien ? Il est marrant quand il fait ça ! Il lui suffit d’une pincée de scaferlati [tabac] qu’il se colle sous les narines, pour remplacer la moustache. Allons, mon bon Gégène, te fais pas prier ! Ici on est entre copains. Montre-nous comme tu sais bien faire ton petit Hitler…

Gégène hésite un peu. Mais il finit par s’exécuter. Il sort une blague à tabac de sa poche, en tire une pincée de scaferlati, la malaxe entre trois doigts et la place sous son nez. Puis, d’un geste brusque, il se rabat une mèche de cheveux en travers du front, prend une pose napoléonienne (une main dans le dos, l’autre dans l’entrebâillement de son gilet), roule des yeux furibonds et dit d’une voix gutturale :

– Raou, raou, raou, raous !

Il ressemble étonnamment à Hitler. Aussi à Charlot, à Groucho Marx et à Félix le Chat. Abetz ne sait plus quoi faire. Mais il est pris, comme nous tous, d’une irrésistible envie de rire. […] Abetz est sur des charbons ardents. Son chauffeur est entré dans la pièce.

– Vous allez reconduire M. Céline chez lui, 4, rue Girardon, lui dit l’ambassadeur. Mais roulez très doucement, car il est souffrant. Vous repasserez chez lui demain pour lui apporter quelques fruits et prendre de ses nouvelles… »



Céline suddenly explodes: Enough! he says, enough! Hitting the table with both hands to the point of vibrating the glasses. I’m tired of listening to your bullshit! You’re not there at all … You think you’re clever, you knead your brains around a well-served table, while the world collapses … You have a pearly pillowcase on the eyes, lead in the ears. If you build forty thousand planes, the Americans will build two hundred thousand. If you build a hundred thousand tanks, they will build one million. To your secret weapons, they will oppose more secret and more deadly weapons. You can do nothing: they are the mass and the function of the mass is to crush everything. Meanwhile, sneakily, you are hiding what is essential. Why do not you tell us that Hitler is dead?

Hitler is dead? exclaims [Nazi ambassador] Abetz, widening his eyes.

You know it as well as we do! Only you can not say it. But you do not need to be an ambassador to know it: it’s obvious! The Jews have replaced him with one of theirs!

[…] Abetz, Drieu and I are breathless. We knew the audacity of Celine. But we never thought he could push it so far. Now that he is launched, where will it stop? To think that the ambassador invited us to spend with him a pleasant moment of relaxation!

I tell you it’s not the same man, continues Céline. One changed him completely. One put another one in its place. Look at him ! Each of his actions, each of his decisions are made to ensure the triumph of the Jews. So, you have to be logical! The Jews have achieved a smoking blow, the greatest mystification of history! They removed Hitler in a hatch and replaced him with a guy of their own. Note that he shows himself less and less in public. It is so that we do not notice the difference. It’s stupid, by the way. Nobody is easier to imitate. My friend Gen Paul, present here, imitates him perfectly. Isn’ it, Georg, that you imitate him well? He’s funny when he does that! He needs only a pinch of scaferlati [tobacco] to stick under the nostrils, to replace the mustache. Come, my good Gégène, don’t make us beg! Here we are with friends. Show us how well you do your little Hitler …

Gégène hesitates a little. But he ends up doing it. He takes out a tobacco pouch from his pocket, draws a pinch of scaferlati, kneads it between three fingers and places it under his nose. Then, with a sudden gesture, he slips a lock of hair across the forehead, takes a Napoleonic pose (one hand in the back, the other in the crack of his waistcoat), rolls furious eyes and says a guttural voice:

– Raou, raou, raou, raous!

He looks amazingly like Hitler. Also at Charlot, Groucho Marx and Félix le Chat. Abetz does not know what to do anymore. But he is caught, like all of us, with an irresistible desire to laugh. […] Abetz is on hot coals. His driver entered the room.

“You are going to take Mr. Celine back to his house, 4, Rue Girardon,” said the ambassador. But ride very slowly because he is ill. You will go back to his house tomorrow to bring him some fruit and ask about his health … “


Why To Kill God: Because Deicide Will Help Limit Wealth Absolutely

January 28, 2019

Humanity, the genus Homo, did well for 5 million years without God. Finding food, water, and surviving were good enough deities to get the genus Homo’s psychology by.

But now we have individuals going around, proclaiming the absurdity of life (Camus and his ilk)… To find meaning, they need lions to show up, so they can think upright, and they don’t know it. They have become like sheep, as Christian propaganda insisted their were… whereas lions ran away from their distant ancestors. Running after lions was all the religion our ancestors needed, when they showed up.

If humanity is so ferocious, and self reliant, why would humanity have ever needed gods? Men were the gods.

Who needs gods? The difference is civilization, and, more precisely, its military aspect and the cancerous growth known as plutocracy.

When one is a tyrant, the last thing one needs is to have as subjects, men who believe they are gods… And this is true for bankers, today’s real gods, and they hide their malevolence behind their arrogant deluded little boys: Clinton, Major, Bliar Blair, Bush, Obama, Trump, Macron… And they half demented girls: Thatcher, Merkel, May…

Catholicism was invented and imposed by emperor (“Saint”) Constantine, and his tyrannical successors (in Arabic: caliphs). In turn, Catholicism was the proximal cause of the military collapse of the Roman state, without any question. Islam was a bellicose ideology of Muhammad which enabled him to seize Arabia. Muhammad’s two immediate successors, companions and accomplices, Abu Bakr and Umar were immediately capable of building a gigantic empire, thanks to that immensely ferocious religion. They crushed the Persian and Roman empires, in a few years. Believers in Islam believe they sit with god after death, if they fight for Islam, or Muhammad.

Don’t think it’s over: watch Indonesia, where Islam is creeping back everyday some more (the president there suggested recently to release the mastermind of Islamist terror there…)


Our ancestors at work: no need for Gods to chase cats. The story there is that the cheetahs were hunting impalas next to a dam. Jackals gave the alert, and baboons decided to encircle and then suddenly charge the cheetahs, to remove them from the premises…Baboons will act that way, even against lions. Our ancestors were expert at that, even 20 million years ago. I have met chimpanzees in lion territory with very few very small trees around, and they tried to frighten me (differently from the lions, who just went away).

Catholicism profited Roman Catholic plutocracy:

Those who think Catholicism didn’t bring the collapse of the Roman state should know the major facts (they don’t). It did, 100% (although the cause of Roman Catholicism itself was Roman military fascism, itself a consequence of plain old Roman financial fascism… for contemporary banks, see below).

In particular Roman Catholicism was proximally causal in the fall of the empire, when the Occidental part of the empire was led by Frankish generalissimo Arbogast. Arbogast had long been emperor in all but name. His Frankish nature prevented him (at the time) to be elected to the Purple. The emperor Theodosius had established terror decrees against “heretics” since 380 CE. Those led to the devastation of the empire’s intelligence, culture, libraries, books, spirits, and intellectuals… Let alone the Jews and whoever Theodosius wanted killed.

Arbogast tried to reestablish religious plurality, and civilizational sanity. So the Catholic fanatic, emperor Theodosius of the Oriental part, went to war. The mostly Frankish Roman army of the West got, barely, killed by Theodosius, thanks to a hurricane and the Goths, at the battle of the Frigidus river, September 5-6, 394 CE.


No More Western Roman Army… So Back to More Savage Franks:

Result? After Arbogast’s soldiers got killed at Frigidus, so was the Roman army in the West (although Germans were constantly attacking the Roman Germanias). Theodosius, sole emperor, died in 395 CE. Within six years, the government of bishops which by then led Rome, called onto (much less Romanized) Franks to protect the provinces of Gallia and the two Germanias; but in 406 CE, 12 years after the disaster at the Frigidus, Germanic nations broke through the Frankish curtain, and invaded the Western empire. In particular, the Vandals invaded all the way to Africa, et present day Tunisia. There they established a maritime empire, and blocked grain supplies to the gigantic city of Rome, and most of Italy. Rome fell to the Goths in 410 CE. Actually the king of the Goths, Aleric, had commanded the Gothic forces fighting the Romanized Franks at Frigidus. Small world: the eternal return of the same, just as bankers nowadays.

The government of bishops viewed those who were not fanatically Catholic, and obedient as heretics to be destroyed. They didn’t just destroy independent individuals, but the entire Republican organization, by destroying culture, libraries, books full of (non-Catholic) wisdom. The destruction, by torture, of individuals such as Hypatia and major libraries, such as the one in Alexandria are examples of this situation.

Less well known, is that the bishops forbade the death penalty. Thus highways were thereafter paralyzed by bandits: incarceration, besides slavery, was not possible in antiquity. Also plutocratic families (which often had a bishop) couldn’t be forced to pay taxes.


Catholicism and Islam were most profitable to the leaders claiming to “believe” in them during the Middle Ages:

Catholicism brought the collapse of the Roman empire in the West. The Franks, in the late Fifth Century, took over completely, and  reestablished the situation by reimposing a modicum of tolerance, and then a lot of innovations. And, first of all, mandatory secular education between the Sixth and Eighth centuries (generally uniquely attributed to Charlemagne, erroneously, as the fighting against the Papacy was during the Sixth Century). This Frankish spirit of overture and advancing civilization was weaponized to conquer Europe. Main events: elimination of the Goths, 507 CE, final colonization and domestication of the Saxons by Charlemagne in a 30 year war, 800 CE; reconquest of Britain and Southern Italy, Sicily, late Eleventh Century.

However, the conjugation of grievous Frankish civil war (Battle/massacre of Fontenoy) contemporaneous with multiple simultaneous deep invasions by Viking, Avars and Muslims, brought a disintegration of the empire. It’s not that the empire collapsed like the Assyrians in 614 BCE, or Nazi Germany in 1945. Instead, West Francia, exasperated by the military inefficiency of the empire, broke away from the rest, and then exploded in turn into around 60 states of diverse natures, through militaristic localization, also known as the Feudal Order.

Great lords of the Eleventh Century were plutocrats who would have been without justification for except the violence of their military feats… if not for the heavenly justification of violence by the Bible. Hence Bible god came back: a resurgence of terroristic, mysogynistic and pedophiliac Catholicism, starting around 1026 CE (when an entire religious establishment of a French city was burned alive by the Papacy… Crusades followed, two generations later…).  


So “god” provided the metaphysical backup for degenerating Roman plutocracy and the Feudal Order. What about more modern times? Why were Americans so Christian “god” obsessed?


God provided solace after giving reasons to eliminate the Natives:

The Bible is full of holocausts ordered by god, and king David is punished most horribly for refusing to destroy a nation: his son is tortured to death by god, over a week.

Hence, when the “Pilgrims” got to the New World, they extolled the riches of America (relative to Europe) to their kind left in Europe, urging them to come… And space the Pilgrims made by killing, enslaving and scalping the Natives: it was the Bible all over again: grabbing the “Promised Land”, by extermination of the preceding inhabitants…  

God enabled to do what Constantine or Muhammad, and their successors did with it; kill one’s opponents, because god ordered it. Falling asleep while the bankers make deals with Hitler, Franco, and their ilk? Indeed! Once one has eliminated the Natives (as was done in the Americas and Australia), what is left of the need for god? Acquiring the mentalities of lambs!


God as Daddy or Mummy for baby lambs:

For modern Americans God became just a guarantee of perpetual infancy. The god-thing obsession? If we please a superior being, we will do better, s/he will take care of us. In other words, babyhood, all over again.


Attali to the Rescue:

Before the US Revolution, many Americans believed in a much more natural form of divinity. It turns out that, when a deity dictate what is right and wrong, it’s actually “The Man” who decides what is right or wrong.

Now we have a more serious situation than pleasing The Man.

In particular, bankers are in command of the planet: Clinton, and then Obama made sure of it. Their rewards were colossal, and much appreciated by their tiny mind.

However, the times for gravitas has come. Jacques Attali, who is in very good position to know about bankers (he headed a totally major European bank, among many high level positions he had), warns us that a financial calamity, just like the preceding one, is around the corner.


Democratic Illusion and Capitalist Cynicism

(I will write an essay on it, if I find the time…)


Attali says the bankers are back to industrial sized evil, worse than 2008. Why are the bankers back to their nefarious ways?

In part because Obama would finish all his discourses, certifying, like G. W. Bush, or Clinton, that “God bless America”. So the US lambs were satisfied, and have been bleating contently ever since. Their bankers’ boy, Obama, was excellent, as the color of his skin testified, they said, with characteristic, we-believe-in-bible-god psychology.



(Ex-Harvard law professor) Senator Elizabeth Warren is running for president. To my surprised amazement, she rolled out her financial program last week: she proposes enormous taxes on the super wealthy. 2% of wealth above 50 millions, and even more, higher up.

Senator Warren’s wealth tax would be the way I would implement limiting wealth absolutely.

Let’s keep our cynical fingers crossed that Warren’s wealth tax is not just a trick to keep Sanders from running again…  (She used to be way milder, nearly timid…)

In France, Rothschild merger and acquisition banker Macron, another boy president, ignorant of all, but for manipulating the lambs, removed the wealth tax (the yellow jackets want it reinstated). That particular wealth tax was too restrictive, I say. But Macron said the wealthy French would then flee to other countries… like the USA. Well, with Warren as president that would be easily fixed…

The USA taxes worldwide already: so wealthy US citizens won’t be able to escape (all the more as the French Republic is also learning from US ways and means…)

And for that change of taxation, what do we need? We need for US citizens to realize they have been kept in infancy by their increasing plutocracy (“In God We Trust”, borrowed from the Nazi army, was installed in US minds by the US Congress only in 1954…)

For Americans to graduate from infancy, they need to reject “god” and go back to their revolutionary roots… which were decidedly secular, we have that secularism in writing, from the most official documents by the US Founding Fathers… Philosophical infancy was nice, but it’s all over, the lions of fate are onto us now.


Patrice Ayme


Trump Derangement Syndrome: Popular Among Fake Progressives

December 4, 2018

If Trump is so incredibly bad, as we are told night and day by the plutocrat owned media, how come the other recent presidents committed mass murder? (Obama with his drone campaigns, Bush invading Afghanistan, Iraq; Clinton killing through drug boycott half a million Iraqi children, at least, over 8 years; OK, I will give a pass on Reagan and GW Bush, who didn’t kill that many that outrageously…

But then there is the case of Carter, the saint who started the Afghan war:  

Even Nixon, whom I, of course, detest, didn’t start the Vietnam War (but he started the EPA… and the despicable US health “care” system we have now, fabricating the HMO system with Nixon’s friend, the plutocrat Kaiser… Who then got plenty of money from Nixon for his HMO)

An abyss can present itself as a rise. (BTW, the Daily Kos, founded by a CIA operative, banned me, for life, more than a decade ago; so it’s fake progressive too, spending most its time barking up the wrong trees, to the delight of plutocrats…)

Ah, the Vietnam war… The US actually started it in 1945… by, counter-intuitively arming the Viet Minh Communist Party. That was a time when the USA was behind Stalin, giving him half of Europe. Initially, the 1945 US intervention in Vietnam was an anti-French maneuver, which degenerated over generations (as it was a bit self-contradictory… But now English has definitively supplanted French in Indochina, and the USA is Vietnam’s ally, against China, and France has been brought back to the fold, arming Australia… The world is complex…)

Overall, the USA, creating the “American Century” swung from war to war, helping dictator after dictator, in a succession of quick maneuvers to displace and replace European powers, worldwide. The US actually instigated and certainly sustained the fascist imperial ultra racist genocidal “Second German Empire” during the first three years of the First World War:

The US population which was less than Japan in living memory, is more than twice Japan now, thanks to enormous immigration. I saw California go from 17 million to more than 40 million now. Completely unsustainable, but sustained.

So Trump in all this? Not much. Trump doesn’t try to modify the US Constitution (he can’t) as May in the UK, or Macron in France, tried to, in the name of global plutocracy. Merkel, in Germany, organized a huge refugee flow (equivalent to 6 millions unattached Muslims coming to the USA… That would nearly triple the US Muslim population, and Merkel’s folly caused Brexit, as the Brits understood those Merkel Muslims were heading their way, for cause of English-speaking)

Certainly the situation in the USA doesn’t compare to that in the European Union presently. The attempted (ridiculous) Brexit and the insurrection in France are symptoms. There is real suffering in Europe, and the EU has been managed cruelly (much more than in the USA) in the last ten years. Obama ran huge deficits (up to 15% of GDP)… and Trump has an official deficit of 6%… That means the  US government creates money directly to sustain the people and the economy. Europe, with a block of deficits at 3%, doesn’t.

Trump’s main axis in economic thinking he had against Reagan already in the 1980s. At the time, Reagan was governing with the Democrats of O’Neil (who controlled Congress). Trump pointed out that nationalism should come before globalization, when it is a question of survival of We The People… If one employs slaves overseas, We The People at home can’t even be slaves…

So now we have Trump fighting the central bank (the Fed). The Fed argued that the unemployment rate (3% in the USA, 10% in France) was too low, and interest should be jacked up, to bring the unemployment rate back up. Trump was (rightly) furious, and intervened… US presidents aren’t supposed to second-guess the Fed, which is dominated by the biggest private banks (which lend mostly to the richest and most polluting). Anyway, Trump won that one, the Fed conceded that interest rates were nearly right. So the US economy will keep on growing at a rate four times faster than the EU… and that facilitate the US transition to renewable energy: California already achieves now what the big, most eco-correct European countries hope to achieve in 12 years…

And what of the climate? Trump used to believe in climate change. He still does, saying now “we will have a super climate”. It’s true that up north, ultimately, after the permafrost melts, warming will be for the best. This is a point of view nobody talks too loud about (until Trump!), but leaders are acting accordingly (Putin, Canada).

One has to look at what is done, not at what leaders say. Obama talked ecology, yet he was the great fracker, fracking away, changing the world that way: now the USA is number one, again, in producing fossil fuels. Thanks to Obama. So far, Trump anti-Obama policies are mostly very loud smoke and mirrors. The most important factor is fracking, Obama’s signature achievement. Trump is mostly using Obama’s fracking as a tool, say against OPEC. True, production will augment, because of new pipelines. But mostly the cats in those bags were released by Obama.

I used to be against fracking. Now I have changed my position, in light of new elements. Providing plenty of energy now can facilitate the switch to clean energy (basically what Obama said, and I used to disagree with). Trump is not the dictator on climate change: US states and cities have maximal leeway (and use it!) The US is definitively improving on CO2 emissions (went from 24% of world to 17%…)

If one wants progress, really, one should suggest progressive measures: financial transaction tax, “me too”, universal healthcare (“Medicare For All”), destroying outrageous monopolies (which were favored by Bush, Obama), etc. Insulting a guy who believed already 40 years ago that globalization shouldn’t destroy nations, is a red herring (and I am an anti-nationalist). This is why so many who have Trump Derangement Syndrome are actually conservatives in disguise (they often don’t like Sanders, and voted Goldman-Sachs-Clinton): talking Trump 24/7 enables them not to propose anything really progressive.

Patrice Ayme

Pétain, Racism, Treason, Racist World Wars, USA, Macron: the Eternal Wheel of Hateful Infamy, & Smugly Ignorant Complicity

November 8, 2018

The young, yet arrogant merger and acquisition banker turned French president, Emmanuel Macron, decided to honor Marshall Petain. Parroting Chirac, Macron said Petain was a hero who made “funestes” (lethal) choices (funeste comes from the Latin “funus”, namely a burial…)

Macron’s infamy encountered an outcry, in particular from Jewish organizations.

Indeed Petain’s criminal organization (“government”) passed a number of racial laws in particular against the Jews.

Petain had succeeded to hold the German fascist invaders at Verdun in 1916. (France had plenty of other generals who could have done the same.)  

The Battle of Verdun fought from 21 February to 18 December 1916, was the largest and longest battle of the First World War on the Western Front between the German and French armies. The battle took place on the hills north of Verdun-sur-Meuse in north-eastern France. The German 5th Army attacked the defences of the Fortified Region of Verdun (RFV, Région Fortifiée de Verdun) and those of the French Second Army on the right bank of the Meuse. Inspired by the experience of the Second Battle of Champagne in 1915, the Germans planned to capture the Meuse Heights, an excellent defensive position with good observation for artillery fire on Verdun. The Germans hoped that the French would commit reserves to recapture the position and suffer catastrophic losses in a battle of annihilation, at little cost to the Germans in advantageous positions on the heights.

The Germans captured Fort Douaumont in the first three days of the offensive. The German advance slowed in the next few days. By 6 March, ​21 French divisions were in the RFV and a more extensive defence in-depth had been constructed. Pétain ordered that no withdrawals were to be made and that counter-attacks were to be conducted, despite exposing French infantry to fire from the German artillery. By 29 March, French artillery on the west bank had begun a constant bombardment of German positions on the east bank, which caused many German infantry casualties.

In August and December, French counter-offensives recaptured much of the ground lost on the east bank and recovered Fort Douaumont and Fort Vaux. The battle had lasted for 303 days, the longest and one of the most costly in human history. In 2000, Hannes Heer and K. Naumann calculated 377,231 French and 337,000 German casualties, a total of 714,231, an average of 70,000 a month. In 2014, William Philpott wrote of 976,000 casualties in 1916 and 1,250,000 suffered around the city during the war.

World War One had been launched deliberately by the German imperial fascists in early August 1914. Their aim had been to destroy France first, then Russia, and finally, after it got an army together, force Great Britain to surrender. However after smashing into Belgium, and crushing northern France, the racist fascist invaders suffered a brilliant counterattack at the First Battle of the Marnes between 6 September and 13 September 1914.

Fascist German Troops Fighting the French REPUBLIC At Verdun, France, 1916. Ultimately more than 1.2 million casualties at Verdun alone, in a radius of a few kilometers.

French Commander In Chief Joffre was able to bring General Michel-Joseph Maunoury’s newly-formed Sixth Army into line northeast of Paris and to the west of the BEF. Using these two forces, he planned to attack on September 6. On September 5, Kluck learned of the approaching enemy and began to wheel his First Army west to meet the threat posed by the French Sixth Army. In the resulting Battle of the Ourcq, Kluck’s men were able to put the French on the defensive. While the fighting prevented the Sixth Army from attacking the next day, it did open a 50 kilometer (30-mile) gap between the First and Second German Armies.

Utilizing the new technology of aviation, French reconnaissance planes quickly spotted this gap and reported it to Joffre. Moving to exploit the opportunity, Joffre ordered General Franchet d’Espérey’s French Fifth Army and the BEF into the gap. As these forces moved to isolate the German First Army, Kluck continued his attacks against Maunoury. Composed largely of reserve divisions, the Sixth Army came close to breaking but was reinforced by troops brought from Paris by taxicab, buses and other motorized vehicles on September 7. On September 8, the aggressive d’Espérey launched a large-scale attack on Bülow’s Second Army driving it back.

By the next day, both the German First and Second Armies were being threatened with encirclement and destruction. Told of the threat, Moltke suffered a nervous breakdown. (The breakdown lasted months and was kept secret; Moltke had been the main fascist behind the foolhardy German attack onto the world and civilization.) 

During that week on the Marnes, 80,000 French troops died, and so did 68,000 Germans. (1,700 British, fighting under French command, also died.; the BEF, equivalent to a French army corps was not aggressive, because of its commander, also named… French. That enabled the german invaders to escape…)

The German retreat at the Marnes marked the abandonment of the Schlieffen Plan, that sneak attack on civilization. Overall German commander, and war plotter Moltke is said to have reported to the Kaiser: “Your Majesty, we have lost the war.” In the aftermath of the battle, both sides dug in and four years of stalemate ensued.

I went into some length about the First Battle of the Marnes to explain that, relative to these great feats, by great generals, in a war of movement, Pétain’s work pales into obscurity: his main battle, Verdun, was one of fortresses. One kilometer here, one kilometer there… But there is worse.


So yes, Pétain was a hero at Verdun. But he was put there, under orders from higher-ups in the French hierarchy. Pétain was following orders. He organized supply lines (Voie Sacree), got French soldiers executed.

When I heard of Macron’s temporary collapse of reason, I sent a message to a number of organizations.

Marshall Pétain obeyed at Verdun. However, when dictator of France, he chose to set up racist anti-Jewish laws. A crime against humanity. Pétain also agreed to a pro-Nazi ceasefire in June 1940, instead of pursuing the war from Algeria (Nazis couldn’t seize that). So he is a Nazi traitor to France & civilization, worthy of death!

Pétain was indeed condemned to death in 1946, and struck with national indignity.

Let me repeat my points:

  1. When Pétain was a hero, he was actually not just executing soldiers, but executing orders. Executing soldiers? The orders not to retreat were given using the old Roman method of executing those who disobeyed.
  2. When Pétain was on his own, in June 1940, he betrayed, first the Republic (France was a Republic fighting a lethally racist invading tyranny, the natural scion of the despicable tyranny of 1914… Not to speak of the holocaust in Namibia earlier…). Then Pétain betrayed civilization with his racial laws.  

In 1940, France had been the victim of her own commander-in-chief, who didn’t see the trap Hitler and the German High Command had led him in (although his second in command told him it was a possibility). A number of incredible coincidences made the situation worse (for example the absence of the Second Armored British division, which was supposed to be where the Nazi tanks passed). In 40 days the Battle of France (as it came to be known) caused 360,000 dead or wounded French soldiers, and around 164,000 casualties on the Nazi and Italian side (a bit more than 6,000 Italian died, and more than 50,000 Nazis).

Considering perhaps the callous disregard the USA showed for the peril in which France and britain, its parents, were. Pétain called for a ceasefire.

Asking for a ceasefire with the Nazis in 1940 was a mistake: it made the French empire weak, when it was far from defeated. The French fleet and French aviation were ultramodern, mostly intact and in great numbers. Retreating to North Africa, they could have prevented indefinitely the Nazis to get to Africa (the British, with much smaller forces than the French had, all by themselves, succeeded to nearly do so).   

Paradoxically, by holding Africa (and the Middle East), the French Republic would have been in better situation to protect French citizens in occupied France.

But then, of course, the population of France in 1939 was less than in 1914. Thanks to the butchery of WWI. Many French didn’t feel like dying for another war whose great and only victor was going to be the USA again… French die, US profits. (And you tell me Trump is bad? Relative to what?)

So why didn’t Pétain choose that route? Because he was a racist (against Jews, at the very least). A closet Nazi. It’s also for the same reason that De Gaulle, also a racist (this one against North Africans), was so fond of Pétain’s memory.

Actually, Pétain was filth. He should be celebrated as such. And only as such. His glory in WWI is nothing: it was ordered to him. Pétain clearly deserved death much more than King Louis XVI. Ah, but then, Macron said France couldn’t get over the execution of the king (although Britain clearly had). And that France still longed for a king… So, if Louis XVI was not that culprit, then neither was Pétain…

US citizens, reading all this, could smirk: who cares? Well, the French Republic, and her multiethnic empire twice saved the world by fighting to death German lethally racist fascism in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Pétain was Hitler’s soulmate. It’s important to be able to distinguish who was with Adolf and his ilk, and who was against.

The USA played a crucial Deus Ex Machina role in both world wars, encouraging & enabling lethal fascist German racist militarism in many ways. Now many (pseudo-) progressives in the USA vent hatred at Trump. As if Trump were culprit of what the USA did for real with its German proxy in 1914-45! It’s clearly unconscious, but those (pseudo) progressives would gain in power if they knew what truly happened, in the real world of real fascism and real racism, and how US plutocracy enacted its hatred.

In 1914-1917, the USA helped the Kaiser (and then did a 180 degrees as it became clear France and Britain were going to win). In 1933-1941, the USA and its plutocracy helped Hitler (and arguably more, as many US firms collaborated with Hitler, throughout the war… IBM, for example, from New York, through Geneva, kept on managing all the computers of Nazi Germany, all the way to May 8, 1945…)

Those who judge others, as if they knew history, should learn it first.

To finish with the traitor Pétain, traitor to France, the Republic, civilization and humanity, rightly condemned to death and national indignity. Pétain’s greatest glory in WWI was to order shot to death panicked soldiers, to make French soldiers fear their own generals more than the robotic racist fascists they were fighting. The least that could have been done, was to give him some of his own medicine, all the way. (Some, who were much less culprit than Pétain were executed; France executed up to 40,000 Nazi collaborators in 1944-45-46…)

Because it was not done, now we have ignorant, arrogant twerps telling us Pétain was a great man, at some point. One can be great, according to Macron, although one engaged in racist genocide. If Pétain had been executed, as he should have been, Macron would have reviewed his copy, before uttering his racist drivel.

Patrice Ayme



The French REPUBLIC suffered 1.4 million KIA and 4.2 million wounded, including 15,000 “gueules cassees”, soldiers with atrociously destroyed faces.  Ten billion letters between French soldiers and loved ones were exchanged.


From the “Deep State” to the “Steady State”: Anti-Trump Derangement Reaches New Lows…

September 7, 2018

The New York Times published an anonymous essay claiming to be authored by a “senior administration official”, to the effect that Trump is a flaky child, and the country is saved by “resistance” inside the Trump administration by the “steady state”. Trump is not just immature, but: 

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision-making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

Free markets”? What is “free” about Chinese market domination? 375 billion dollars of deficit in 1917! … With the US alone. Adding the European deficit, one gets more than half a trillion dollars in deficit. So many good jobs, and know-how lost! … And the consequences are major, even ecologically: France, for example, has no recent development of solar PhotoVoltaic, the cheapest unsubsidized energy in 2018. Why no French PV? Because, argue the French higher-ups, the solar panels are made in China, and purchasing them would aggravate the already catastrophic French trade deficit! 

Chinese market domination is enabled by governmentalism:

Governmentalism works: all serious civilizations have known this. The Greek city states, especially Athens, practiced governmentalism extensively. So did its enemy, the Achaemenid empire. Rome practiced governmentalism, even more so. Western Europe also did, led by the Merovingians, Carolingians, the French monarchy, and the Anglo-Normand state.

Governmentalism was practiced for so long, it spawned a trade subsidiary: mercantilism.

So why doesn’t the West practiced it as much as it used to?

The trade imbalance and de-industrialization of the West is not an happenstance, but a plot: Chinese market domination is enabled by collusion with global plutocracy.

As I have explained many times, the scheme was inaugurated when the Roman Republic degenerated: the Roman plutocracy became strong from not paying taxes, and weakening the core of the empire, Italy, which had given birth to it. Now we are repeating it, on a planetary scale.


So will sneer that Trump is no anti-plutocrat, but that he is not of them himself. Right. However, in disagreement with most other plutocrats (and no, it has nothing to do with Putin: Trump is on the record with his positions since 1970… If anything Trump influenced Putin first, not vice versa!)

Several ideas Trump promotes are lethal to the existing plutocratic establishment (anti-”free” trade, anti massive immigration, anti deindustrialization, denouncing the vested, biased opinion of most media, etc.) The more Trump pushes those iconoclastic ideas, the more the plutocratic establishment is hurt, because it rests on them. Soon, at this rate, lethally hurt… For example “trade”, like “art” are viewed as absolute goods by all old fashion parties be they “left” or “right”. Never mind that they are tax eschewing. No attention is paid by the media that those augment the plutocratization exponentially. And why would the plutocratically owned media undermine beliefs which enables it to exist? Instead the “liberal” establishment insists that having a Supreme Court justice who won’t fancy abortion at 8 months, for no good reason, undermines democracy.  Brandish red herrings, and thrive!


Although Trump has helped civilization to sink lower than ever, this is not the worse problem. The worst is that his opposition is worse.I replied to the anonymous editorial. Here is my comment below. It apparently baffled the New York Times (charitable interpretation!), which started by NOT publishing my ideas (the NYT published another 10,000 comments on the anonymous ed in the meantime)! Thus the readership was kept safe from subservience.


One has to look beyond Trump. One has to look beyond the present “administration”. One has to look beyond the present political system, that so-called “representative democracy”. One has to look at reality: “representative democracy” puts too much power in too few hands. This cannot end up well, because the physical power is increasing while the brain power (the few hands in power) is not.

Thus, “Representative democracy” has to be contained. Notice that “representative democracy” is a contradiction in adjecto. Demos kratia means people power. It does mean the few ruling, that’s oligarchy. Oligarchy is what we have, but we call it democracy. And when, as is the case, just one man has power, that is tyranny (rule of the one). Thermonuclear tyranny. We came very close to all-out thermonuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the two leaders had been a tiny bit more crazy…

At some point just one Russian officer, in a particular submarine by chance, prevented the firing of thermonuclear torpedoes against an US aircraft carrier.

Giving too much power to a few men was long tried: contrarily to repute, kings were often elected (such as the founders of the Merovingians and the Capetians). It is the principle of kinship, too much power for one man, which was at fault.

To contain the exaggerated power of a few men, one has to go back to DIRECT democracy, as Athens (and Rome to some extent) practiced, enabling them to advance civilization. In the Internet age, We The People can vote directly in plebiscites. This is done in Switzerland,  very successfully, albeit partly, in California. They both balance the usual representative system with the direct voting system.  


I was disappointed that the NYT didn’t publish my comment, and sneered that it was naturally more interested to exhibit Trump Derangement Syndrome symptoms, rather than addressing the deep issues at hand. Then I did something I didn’t do for a while: I sent a protesting comment. Here it is:


I sent a comment to the NYT which was cogent: the problem isn’t so much Trump inasmuch that there is too much power in too few hands, but my comment doesn’t seem to have been published (I got no notice to this effect!) The solution to too much power in too few hands is more direct democracy, not just changing one man, and vest another with the same powers. Why doesn’t the NYT believe that the entire principle of representing one country by one all-powerful man is not at fault, and not relevant to the problem at hand?


What happened? Ten hours later, the NYT published my protesting comment! … Another 39 minutes after that, a full day after submission, the NYT published my initial comment… A rare case where protesting worked.


One can see that great care is bestowed to determine which ideas We The People is exposed to… 

Obviously plutocrats hope that, or at least, hold that, if civilization collapse, they will make out like the bandits they are. This is what happened, indeed, when the Roman state collapsed: the aristocracy survived by making alliances with the invading barbarians. Thus the relative status of the wealthiest improved while everybody else suffered or died… History repeats itself. However, history repeats itself less than ever. Where it used to whisper, it now roars, where it used to crawl, it now rushes, and where it uses to advise, it now lies.

Ideas drive civilization. Sometimes they drive it into the ground. The “fittest” civilizations survived. But, now we have just one world civilization. Just as there is no planet B, there is no civilization B. That’s it. There is no alternative. Only the best ideas, better ideas can save it, by helping it to morph into a sustainable form.

One will not get there by preventing We The People to be exposed to more sophisticated ideas. Because better ideas will be more sophisticated.

Patrice Ayme


July 10, 2018

Abstract: The Thucydides and Kindleberger “traps” are brandished by academia to inform world politics. Both authors wrote fascinating books. Those “traps” are presented as mass-psychological setups which result in predictable behaviors, massive, catastrophic wars and holocausts. So they are prone to be repeated, their proponents explain. They attribute the Sparta-Athens war to Spartan fear (Thucydides), and the disastrous rise of fascism in the 1930s to unwillingness on the part of the USA to bear the white man burden of assuming the role of global Great Power (Kindleberger).

However, a detailed historical analysis from yours truly, show that Thucydides and Kindleberger omitted entire crucial dimensions of the causality of the phenomena they purport to depict and explain. I claim that Thucydides was disingenuous, and Kindleberger, who was deliberately vaguer, was distorted by subsequent critics.

In the case of the Peloponnesian war, Thucydides forgets Persia. Persia explains both why the war happened (I will sketch the explanation), and why Sparta won (although the facts are blatant, somehow conventional historians love to overlook them).

In the case of the rise of fascism, US “unwillingness”  was no accident (I say; “unwillingness” is the exact concept of Kindleberger; today’s analysts subtly deform this concept Kindleberger carefully used, into “indifference“, which is not what Kindleberger said, and thus a telling bias on the part of those who purport to report Kindleberger’s thesis). The US had interest to see Europe self-destroy: hence US plutocrats, US Deep State and US government willingness to make overseas fascisms, their intrinsic allies, be all which they could be (US plutocrats provided all world fascist regimes, including Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, but also even Lenin’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s with support… All, except for imperial Japan!)

Thus, in the end, it was not just “fear” (Thucydides) or “unwillingness” (Kindleberger) which caused these holocausts. Instead it was plain old vicious computation, and manipulation by the malevolent domineering superpower which played a crucial role (Persia 24 centuries ago; the USA in the Twentieth Century). Claiming otherwise is a coverup, and this is why it keeps on being covered up. That Persia did its best, even manipulating Sparta, to destroy Athens will not shock.

However, that the US pulled all the strings it could to incite Germany to engage in World War One and World War Two, will shock and dismay. The famed “American Century” had a price: more than 200 million dead. That the little pseudo-intellectuals who scream after Trump omit this macro aspect of history is revealing.

This analysis puts back fear and unwillingness on the back burners as the main drivers of holocausts. Instead the power (kratia) of plain old evil, hidden and hellish (Pluto) is uncovered to be the main causative agent of holocausts… as it should be.

By the way, the Nazis didn’t engage in their orgy of mass killing because they were afraid or indifferent: the Nazis were just hateful, and enjoyed it! Loving hatred is not the sort of conception civilized persons are supposed to entertain. But they should. Only thus, getting to know humanity a bit better, will civilization advance!

Last point: in the end, my analysis adds dimensions to the Thucydides Trap and the Kindleberger Trap. The concepts can still be used, as two ways for ultimate evil to get its way by carefully misleading academia on what is truly going on!


When an uncouth dictator tries to show himself as smart and cultivated:

Cultivated dictators getting top prizes in humanities is nothing new. It’s not just Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, so he could go on droning to death babies in countries the USA was not at war with. The tradition is much older than that: the tyrant of Syracuse, great friend and hater to Plato, got the top literary prize in Athens. Dionysius I won the prize for tragedy for the Ransom of Hector at the Lenaea at Athens. He was so elated that he threw himself in a debauch which proved fatal…

The “Thucydides Trap,” cited by Chinese Strong Man President Xi Jinping, refers to the warning by the ancient Greek historian that cataclysmic war can erupt if an established power (like the United States) becomes too fearful of a rising power (like China). But there is also a “Kindleberger Trap” which has now surfaced in the political semantics. That one rests, nebulously, upon indifference, unwillingness and free ridership (charming qualities Kindleberger generously attributed to the USA in the 1930s… and which are superficially true… but appearances are often contrived to be deceiving!).

Instead of all these pathetic superficialities, I will roll out my plutocratic trap theory, which covers both at once, by showing them to be cover-ups. And more. I suggest that powers, or potentates, can be animated by maximum viciousness: fear and indifference are just fake news. I will roll out several examples. Sparta was vicious, and hid that below fear (or its friends did). The Kaiser’s German plutocracy was also vicious, and feared to lose its privileges, preferring instead to launch a world war. The US hid, under indifference and unwillingness, the dirty computation that helping fascist and racist Germany just so, in both world wars it launched, and then coming to the rescue of victory, would durably sabotage France and Britain, enabling to replace them (it did). The Dark Side explains the “traps”: each time a deciding elite looking for further advantage, or preservation of its status, doesn’t hesitate to massacre countless multitude: this is also the secret of the strange collapse of the Roman State.

This thesis of mine is not really new: Hulagu Khan hurled it at the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad, accusing him to have betrayed his people through his viciousness, before putting him to death, with between 200,000 and two million of  his subjects. (If the Caliph and his followers had been afraid in a timely manner, this would NOT have happened: they tried to negotiate, but too late, when it was clear Baghdad was going to fall. By then the Mongols and their even larger Christian allied armies were hell-bent to destroy. So this is a case where the exact opposite of Thucydides Trap is true!)


Thucydides forgot Persia in his silly little “explanation”:

First to deal with Thucydides Trap, contemporary version: as China challenges America’s predominance, misunderstandings about actions and intentions could lead them into a deadly trap first identified by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, the savants diagnose, and they move their antennas with appropriate gravitas. As the learned Greek had it: “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”

US historians, prone to deeply misunderstand European history, as they obey agendas of their own ruling classes, have misidentified 16 cases in the past 500 years in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war, they say, and they munch.

Their entire causality is wrong: it’s not just “rising power” which is the origin of war. Actually, Europe has the same overall primary military power for 16 centuries, and a glance at a map shows why, so keep on munching little US historians, and collect your paychecks…


Misinterpreting Kindleberger:

Charles Kindleberger, an architect of the Marshall Plan, professor at MIT, supposedly argued that the disastrous decade of the 1930s occurred because  of the US unwillingness to get involved. This variant of the thesis of “isolationism” has been distorted from something Kindleberger didn’t say, but is now put under his name, by the plotters who drive public opinion.

Those claim Kindleberger’s Trap says that “the US replaced Britain as the largest global power but failed to take on Britain’s role in providing global public goods”. (Notice the biased implicit notions that Britain and the US were the greatest, and Britain was “good”.) The result was the collapse of the global system into depression, genocide, and world war. Then, the inventors of Kindleberger’s trap disingenuously ask, as China’s power grows, will it help provide global public goods too?

According to the usual interpretations, powers, innocently enough find themselves into “traps” which just happen to be. Both “traps” sound good, but they don’t resist examination. Thucydides was delusional and misleading, while Kindleberger, in truth, said the US did it deliberately.

I go much further by saying that both Spartan and US leaderships connived to viciously set up traps for civilization, and covered them up with false motivations, to cover their tracks. They are the ones who build the traps, and they faked fear, or indifference. And that doesn’t resist examination: imagine Spartans being afraid, and US plutocrats being indifferent to riches…


Sparta: So vicious, and incoherent, its natural ally was Persia!

Fundamentally, Sparta was ultimately greedy: the greedy wants money, territory, thus power onto other people. The ultimate power is to own people, and kill them at will, as Sparta did. Athenians did not allow to themselves the freedom to kill an enslaved population for sport, so Athenians were more creative commercially, all the more as, Attica being so dry, Athenian industry had to create added value, to exchange for food (and timber), the great city had to get from very far away.

Thucydides was more than a bit dishonest in his interpretation: there was a first war between Sparta and Athens, arguably caused by the rise of the Athenian empire, resulting fear in Sparta, indeed. However that was followed by a 30 year peace between Sparta and Athens, during which Sparta learned to live with the Delian League.

And then what happened, what changed? Thucydides just evoke the rise of power and the rise of fear. But Athens was encountering lots of problems projecting power. The Athenian attempt to free Egypt from Persia failed catastrophically, over a period of years. Nothing for Sparta to fear, quite the opposite. Athens carried the war increasingly to Persia. Persia was not afraid, but enraged. However, having been destroyed in two formidable land battles and two formidable sea battles, and three times the Athenians were most of the enemy forces, Persia knew better than trying another frontal assault.

Thus, it’s Persian fascist anger which grew against Athens, and it was already astronomical, it grew more than Spartan fear. When Sparta attacked, Sparta was doing Persian work. Far from being afraid, confidently, the Spartan army, unopposed, attacked and invaded Attica, and the Athenians took refuge within their walls. Pericles’ idiotic plan was to wait them out. 

Athens should have won, thought Pericles, but all which could have gone wrong, went wrong. And even what Pericles admitted he didn’t think of: a plague exploded inside the besieged city, Pericles bemoaned he had anticipated everything, but not that. He put the army on ships while the plague went on, and, because of the predictable disastrous consequence, Pericles was put on trial.

Even more unexpected, and why Sparta won, is that Sparta got enormous help from Persia in its second war against Athens starting in 431 BCE. Was suddenly Sparta more motivated by fear from Athens than it was by fear from Persia? (As Thucydides would have us believe?) Neither! Sparta was not afraid. Sparta was being vicious.

Should Sparta have been, indeed motivated by viciousness, puts in a different perspective the absence of Sparta at the battle of Marathon (won mostly by Athenian hoplites, no Spartan was endangered for that movie, to Sparta’s eternal shame!)

So what was going on? Sparta was very advanced in some ways: Spartan women were liberated in more ways than one, more advanced than in the rest of Greece. But Sparta had lethally subjugated another city-state (Messenia). Sparta had three categories of people under its jurisdiction, and most of the population, the Helots, were treated worse than slaves, or even dogs: lethal Helot hunts were organized every year, just to keep them domesticated.   

Athens was the philosophical opposite of Sparta: it was an Open Society (Athenian philosophers and Pericles second wife, from Ionia, invented the concept, Pericles advertised it… and then violated it!)

Athens was more Philosophically Correct (PhC) than Sparta. Ultimately, Sparta got shun by all of Greece, and even Macedonia, and died, isolated, self-imploding (after Thebes liberated Messenia). Athens was actually maximally correct (considering the circumstances: although the Franks outlawed slavery a millennium later, well, it was a millennium later, the Franks had new tech, heavy plows to overturn the rich northern European soils… whereas Athica was very poor, the driest part of Greece… And all ancient trees cut to build a Navy against Persia…)

When Alexander annihilated Thebes, he justified that holocaust by observing that Thebes had allied itself with Persia (in particular at the Battle of Platea, but also 150 years later). Which was true. So it’s not just Sparta which thus sinned with a Persian dalliance.



In Red, Sparta and its dependencies, including enslaved Messenia. Pretty much all the rest is the made of Greek city-states of the Delian League, the de facto Athenian Empire. But that was much less solid an empire than the entire “West” is right now. In particular, Greek city-states were frequently at war, whereas the US had only two wars with Great Britain, and none, ever, with France [Undevicesimus, Deviant Art.]


USA as Sparta, China as Athens? Ridiculous! The US, considering its French ancestry, is Athens, part of the Neo-Athenian empire!

(This is not a flight of fancy: for centuries in the Middle Ages, all scholars knew very well that, in intellectual matters, a “translatio imperii” had been accomplished between Athens and Paris.) Are Chinese schools for the “Communist” elite, that bad that they learn upside down history?

By using Thucydides’ misleading “Trap”, Mr. Xi compared the US to Sparta. Considering Sparta was an extremely vicious, racist and lethal dictatorship, murderously exploiting another state, a weapon of an enormous fascist plutocracy, that’s beyond insulting, it’s misleading, programming the Chinese population with fake news. Encouraging Chinese jingoism.  

China’s Xi should learn correct history, instead of trying to teach fake history: the USA is a double progeny of France, directly and through Britain, the other French child (all a bit incestuous, agreed…). So the US is a child and colony, not an idiosyncratic monster like Sparta. Sparta was already an independent state, when it launched the Trojan war, because its king was already so obnoxious, his wife Helen had to flee, with a much nicer Trojan prince… And that was seven or eight centuries earlier, so Sparta had a long history of causing problems! Sparta was the only Greek city-states which had permanently enslaved another.


The West is the Greco-Roman empire, Germanified, Freed of Slaves by the Franks:

The present West is the Greco-Roman empire, Germanified, Freed of Slaves and “renovated” (as they put it) by the Franks. No such maelstrom of ideas and different philosophical origins is remotely comparable in the history of China… until the Twentieth Century!

Indeed, France is the successor state of Rome: Clovis was Roman Consul for life, and his father Childeric was Roman imperator, in the technical sense; moreover, the Lex Salica of the Franks was a document originally written in Latin, by Roman lawyers… Clovis’ army was definitively THE Roman army in Gallia and Germania by the late Fifth Century. And the Franks got the mandate of protecting Gallia and the Germanias, in 400 CE.

The Franks conquered Britain in 1066 CE, freed the slaves. Louis XVI decided to create a Republic in America, going over British objections, ruining France in the process. Thus, the USA, twice the progeny of France, is itself a successor state of Rome, or, more exactly, Athens: Rome didn’t have much of its own brain, all the thinking was done in Athens… and, later, Paris.

The US Congress doesn’t look like the Roman Pantheon was accident, but as a reminder, just like the Washington monument looks like an Egyptian obelisks, because Athens herself send an army to free Egypt from Persian dictatorship, and lots of Greek intellectual capital originated in Egypt (mathematics, writing, etc.)

US law is, mostly, Roman law, refurbished, modernized, after reconditioning in Constantinople (6th Century) and France (300 CE until very recently, as the US has silently adopted many laws which originated in France, well after the French 1789 CE Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations also adopted…


Pars Occidentalis: Nunc E Pluribus Unum  Imperium Romanorum:

(Studied Latin too many years!) Grandiloquent cataclysmic declarations against Trump all over, forget an important aspect, an underrated truth; Europe and her colonies, with the exception of Russia, are pretty much one, at this point: the degree of integration of Europe and her ex-colonies, including the USA, Latin America, Oceania, is something Athens could only dream of, in her own empire.


Sparta; not afraid, but vicious:

So, to come back to Sparta: that vicious state made an alliance with the enemy of liberty, and Greek city-states, Achaemenid Persia, to vanquish Athens’ direct democracy. The result was the Macedonian catastrophe, when the Macedonian dictatorship took control of Greece and Persia. Even then Sparta played a treacherous role: at the crucial battle,  the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BCE) when the armies of Thebes and Athens confronted Philip of Macedonia, Sparta wasn’t present on the side of her (supposedly) fellow Greek cities against the northern plutocratic savages.  Had Sparta been at Chaeronea, the Macedonians would have disappeared from history: Athens would have occupied the north. It didn’t happen because Sparta was driven by hatred (although Sparta had joined Athens in recent decades, the jealousy of Athens was still strong. Notice that fear (Thucydides) is different from jealousy….

Hence the behavior of Sparta has to be interpreted as risking everything to pursue its viciousness, exactly like the Nazis were ready to risk everything to risk their viciousness. It has little to do with power. It has to do with viciousness.

Another proof of Sparta’s lack of fear and plethora of viciousness? Sparta, alone among Greek cities, refused to even send a token force to join Alexander against Persia. Later Alexander had a monument made, thanking all the Greek states… except Sparta!


Athens had to be good:

Athens, for its own geographical reason, and to pursue its existence as a greater virtue, had to expand her power: she was getting her food supply from the Black Sea shores and Cyrenaica. Thus, in particular, had to control the Dardanelles (Troy) and Byzantium, and make it so that Greek trade was operational all over the Mediterranean, all the way to Massalia’s little empire, in spite of Persian, Phoenician, and Carthaginian interference. That, ultimately the elements of civilization created in Marseilles and Athens survived to this day is no coincidence: they were greater virtues.

To trade all around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, bringing in vital supplies, Athens had to seduce with her good character (something she could only understand after her excesses in the second Peloponnesian war…).

But then, what of Charles Kindleberger’s alleged little trap? That the USA just failed to assume its own great power status? It doesn’t hold water, it’s a lie: the USA pretty much dictated the Versailles Treaty as it wanted. France wanted to make sure fascist, lethal, attacking Germany would not rise again; the USA wanted the exact opposite, deep down inside! The US knew very well it was the world’s foremost power in 1918, and a fortiori, the 1930s. Actually US plutocrats used Germany as a colony, as early as 1920, the whole panoply of them, from Henry Ford financing Hitler, to JP Morgan engineering German hyperinflation (which many in France considered was created to avoid repairing the tremendous destruction Germany had visited on France and Belgium; in other words, US plutocrats conspired with the worst germans so that Belgium and france would wallop in German caused misery, even after they won WWI!).


What Kindleberger Really Said:

Kindleberger is an excellent thinker, not a racist pervert like Lord Keynes (who, in spite of his own perversity, got out-perversed by the FDR administration at Bretton Woods, to his own dismay about the dollar as world reserve currency, something Keynes didn’t want)

Kindleberger’s accusation against the USA are delicate, those of a gentleman, not those of the blonde philosophical beast Nietzsche evoked. Kindleberger is no Tyranosopher, however, he is pretty clear, for an element of the oligarchy:

The explanation of this book is that the 1929 depression was so wide, so deep, and so long because the international economic system was rendered unstable by British inability and U.S. UNWILLINGNESS TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR STABILIZING IT by discharging five functions:

(1) maintaining a relatively open market for distress goods;

(2) providing countercyclical, or at least stable, long­ term lending;

(3) policing a relatively stable system of exchange rates;

(4) ensuring the coordination of macroeconomic policies;

(5) acting as a lender of last resort by discounting or otherwise providing liquidity in financial crisis.

  • Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (2nd ed., 1986), Ch. 14 : An Explanation of the 1929 Depression

In other words, Kindleberger’s thought system is a subset of mine: the USA was UNWILLING to stabilize the world socioeconomy. The US, I said, was not this way by accident: as a continent sized country, the only such in the temperate zone, the world’s greatest producer of fossil fuel and food, US power was overwhelming, and everybody knew it.

The USA’s refusal to exert caution, common sense and decency at Versailles (French advice was rejected), and then in the 1920s, the 1930s, and even in 1940 and 1941 was not “isolationism”: US plutocrats were all over Germany, they bottled fed Hitler and his minions.


Pre-World War One, in the Nineteenth Century, there were several Great Powers, not just USA and Britain:

The usual discourse in the top, generally Anglo-Saxon universities, top in the way of plutocracy, that is, not necessarily in the way of Deep Thought (that will be decided in the fullness of time) is blatantly self-serving. The allegation is that the global power was Britain, and then became the USA.

However, in the Nineteenth Century, France and Britain separately, but also jointly attacked China. The joint attack on Russia, the Crimean War, was propelled by France, which had enough of Russian encroachment towards the Mediterranean. France also created Italy, mortally wounding Austro-Hungary… When fascist Germany decided to launch a world war, in 1914, it was out of fear of the irresistible rise of French and Russian power. So said the German leaders. Yes, that looks like a Thucydides trap… The only explanation is that the top Prussian generals read Thucydides too uncritically! So they followed his fake explanatory scheme… not realizing for a moment they were following a US script, and they were the Indians, and the US cavalry would come at the right moment to mop them up.

And in 1914, the country with the strongest land military was Germany (followed by France, which nearly destroyed the German army, 5 weeks after the treacherous German attack on the world…)


Forget Thucydides, the Nuclear Trap is all we have:

There is only one serious trap right now: all out nuclear war. Contrarily to what the naive believe, that could happen swiftly, and by accident. As a French physicist working hard on the nukes told De Gaulle in June 1944: “une bombe, une ville” (one bomb, one city; the French had started the nuclear bomb program in January 1938, and many kept on working when the nuke effort immigrated to America…) Nobody wants it, except for a few lunatics in second-rate countries. But it could happen by accident.


So what are the Great Powers now?

On the face of it, the five Permanent Members of the United Nations, the five of them seriously armed. Contrarily to legend, they are talking to each others, and they have absolutely no interest to make war to each other.

That doesn’t mean there is no risk. Indeed, any states with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, is, in the present state of technology where it’s hard to stop IBM missiles, in a sense, a great power. The cases of India (a great power intrinsically) and Israel (a power nearly extinguished twice, in the Second and Twentieth centuries) are special. But Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, clearly shouldn’t have nukes (especially in light of Libya, South Africa and Ukraine having wisely renounced them). This is not about fairness, but physics: a multibody problem becomes non computational if there are too many bodies: five permanent members talking to each other is one thing, 50 powers armed to the teeth with nukes would just guarantee a holocaust of 90% of humanity (to start with; cannibalism will be next). 


The risk of “Freerideship”

The anti-Trump, anti-Populist, red-hot pro-plutocratic crowd is now using Kindleberger against Trump, accusing him to have destroyed the “Kindleberger world” (!?) they claim we were living in (we were not, the financial madness of the last 25 years, since Goldman Sachs came to power, in the guise of its valet, sex obsessed maniac Bill Clinton, is unparalleled in its rise, ever since Persia gave Sparta all the money it wanted to buy itself a bigger Navy than Athens…)

Here is the real Kindleberger again:

Economic responsibility goes with military strength and an undue share in the costs of peacekeeping. FREE RIDERS are perhaps more noticeable in this area than in the economy, where a number of rules in trade, capital movements, payments and the like have been evolved and accepted as legitimate. FREE RIDERSHIP means that disproportionate costs must be borne by responsible nations, which must on occasion take care of the international or system interest at some expense in falling short of immediate goals. This is a departure from the hard­ nosed school of international relations in political science, represented especially perhaps by Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger, who believe that national interest and the balance of power constitute a stable system. Leadership, moreover, had overtones of the white man’s burden, father knows best, the patronizing attitude of the lady of the manor with her Christmas baskets. The requirement, moreover, is for active, and not merely passive responsibility of the German—Japanese variety. With free riders, and the virtually certain emergency of thrusting newcomers, passivity is a recipe for disarray. The danger for world stability is the weakness of the dollar, the loss of dedication of the United States to the international system’s interest, and the absence of candidates to fill the resultant vacua.”

  • “Economic Responsibility”, The Second Fred Hirsch Memorial Lecture, Warwick University, 6 March 1980, republished in Comparative Political Economy: A Retrospective (2003)

Free riders now? China, which let the likes of France and the US keep a minimum of order in Africa, and reap the benefits. Free riders now? All plutocrats splurging in Africa again, there again exploiting especially France. Free riders? Most European countries which, with the exception of France and Britain, don’t share in the military spending commensurate with the benefits they get from it, and their GDP. Germany especially. In particular, all European countries should support the French military-industrial complex. After all, it’s the French Republic which declared war TO Hitler (belatedly accompanied by Britain). On that one, Trump is very right, and it’s not just a big one, but the biggest one.

I drive German cars (I used to drive Fords. Until my trusted Ford “main power unit” disintegrated on a mountain road, losing all power and catching fire (!). It should have killed the family. Thanks to excellent driving skills, I pulled away from a tremendous drop. After that, I switched to Bavarian cars…) However, if Trump wants to strike German cars with stiff tariffs for strategic reasons, I can only approve.


Plutocrats Are Free Riders, and will go all the way to ultimate treachery:

 Free ridership can be global, and, or, internal, at the same time. An excellent example is the collapse of Rome. The rise of Roman plutocracy was from globalization, and the plutocrats, by the Fourth Century had become so powerful, that,  As civilization faced catastrophe, plutocrats still refused to pay taxes, preferring deals with barbarians!

Instead, really wealthy family had a bishop therein (for divine and state protection: by 390-400 CE, Rome was governed by bishops). The practical result was that, whereas Rome could have had an army of several millions, the plutocrats prefered to make deals with the small, but determined armies of invading savages, rather than to face a revolution from We the People of the Empire. The collapse of Rome was a choice the plutocrats made.   

Now there is no doubt that, often in history, when moral degeneracy, taking pleasure from the Dark Side, is advanced enough, plutocrats have preferred inflicting suffering than saving humanity. This is what the Aztecs did, having captured some of Cortez’s companions, during the battle for Tenochtitlan,  they had the idiotic idea to practice their brand of open heart surgery, with no anesthesia, in full sight and hearing of the rest of Cortez’s tiny army, on top of the highest pyramid. That was no just religion, it was viciousness, and it fed the burning hatred of the Conquistadores…

When the plutocrats (“the Optimates”) took controlled of Rome, Caesar, and the Populares (Populists), and then finally the army, revolted. After Caesar’s assassination, Augustus’ hand was forced by centurions of his own legions. One of them went to the Senate, brandished his sword and said that, if the Senate didn’t give the right answer, his sword would.

What does that have to do with the present situation? The Populus Romanus got enraged against the Optimates (plutocrats). The problems were roughly as the USA and the West experience now: stagnation of incomes, services, quality employment, and healthcare (Caesar drained the malarial swamps). All of this because the rich were getting richer, to the point of confiscating most of economic activity to serve them.

The result was the Roman Revolution which Augustus led. That Revolution was bloodier than the French Revolution of 1789, by orders of magnitude. Millions died, in a civil war (the French Revolution was attacked from the outside, by all the Great European Powers. Internally, it was more terrifying than really mass-murderous).

So the burning question now is: how far down the process of hatred are our global plutocrats? How far down in their control of things? When the Optimates, the Roman plutocrats, hiding under the pretext of Republic, went to total war with the Populares (led by Caesar), they lost to Caesar, were forgiven, did it again, and were destroyed by Augustus (who had little choice in the matter, as the legions, led by their centurions, were enraged). 

The old Optimates got killed, but their spirit lived on, and was communicated to those who profited from their destruction. The bodies die, the spirit lives on…


The Dark Side is dark, because it works only when hidden, this is why the Greeks thought Hades/Pluto could make itself invisible. The truth is simple: in any established order, be they Dionysius I or Xi, Kim or Stalin, or Mussolini, or France, they and their countless servants and valets profit immensely (during the bloody and ultimately tyrannical Roman Revolution, millions initially profited: the army and the entire military-industrial complex sustaining it). This is beyond the phenomenon of classes (which evolve, once things stabilize). All this was fun and games, one has to die of something, some, like Lord Keynes, will observe… but now the stakes are higher: the existence of the spirit itself is on the verge of self-immolation.

Patrice Ayme  

Is There Hope? Kids Are More Into Delayed Gratification

July 6, 2018

Lord Keynes famously said:”In the long run, we are all dead.” In other words, don’t worry about it. He then help setup a socioeconomic system which quickly brought nearly 200 million dead (WWII plus the likes of Maoism). This is a danger, because acting crazy removes worries about the long run, so there is a “good” motivation to do so (however crazy that may sound). Humanity has to learn to think long term. Kids today are waiting longer than ever in the classic marshmallow test

Researchers who found the effect aren’t sure what’s driving this willingness to delay gratification

The hope is that, exposed to contemplating motivations all over the place, say in movies, children are more into meta-control, because they learned that motivation can go wrong, often driven by impatience. 

The test promises double the reward, if one holds out ten minutes. Over the past 50 years, white, middle-class kids have shown an increasing willingness to delay gratification on the marshmallow test.

The willingness to delay gratification has recently bloomed among U.S. preschoolers from predominantly white, middle-class families, say psychologist Stephanie Carlson of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and her colleagues. Youngsters aged 3 to 5 in the 2000s waited an average of two minutes longer during the marshmallow test than children in the 1960s did, and an average of one minute longer than 1980s kids did, the scientists report June 25 in Developmental Psychology.

Carlson’s team offers several possible explanations, including increases in the ability to think abstractly, pay attention, plan and prioritize that have been linked to preschool attendance and early use of digital information.

From the start, the marshmallow test has examined kids’ willingness to resist an available goody while waiting 10 to 15 minutes to receive double the edible pleasure. In this case, extra treats were doled out if a child waited a full 10 minutes for an experimenter who had left to return. .

The marshmallow test cannot determine a child’s future, but it is a reliable indicator of how well kids can reflect on a challenging situation and come up with strategies to achieve their goal,” “That may portend well for school and social situations.” Carlson said.

In the new study, the team analyzed and compared data from three groups of 3- to 5-year-olds: 165 kids who completed the marshmallow test between 1965 and 1969, 135 who did so between 1985 and 1989, and 540 tested between 2002 and 2012.

The average amount of time kids were willing to wait for a treat increased in each generation — from about five minutes in the ‘60s to six minutes in the ‘80s and seven minutes in the 2000s. That trend was observed among both boys and girls, younger and older preschoolers and kids in different parts of the United States.

It’s not known if the same trend applies to kids from poor and nonwhite families. Some previous evidence suggests children on the lower end of the economic scale often choose an immediate but lesser treat on the marshmallow test, Carlson says. That behavior makes sense if children live in unpredictable settings or don’t trust adults who promise future treat bonuses.

It is striking is that nearly 60 percent of preschoolers tested in the 2000s waited out the entire 10-minute delay period, versus almost 40 percent in the 1980s and about 30 percent in the 1960s. I believe this is due to the fact children are constantly exposed to scenarios in movies they watch (including of course cartoons)… And of course preschool, where they are exposed to adults who can be trusted.

Is humanity starting to think, and emote, long range, and long term? As lifespans expand, long range thinking will be the essence of survival.