Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

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

WHICH TRAP Are We In? Viciousness!

July 10, 2018

Abstract: The Thucydides and Kindleberger “traps” are brandished by academia to inform world politics. Those “traps” are mass-psychological setups which result in predictable behaviors, massive, catastrophic holocausts. So they are prone to be repeated, their proponents explain. They attribute the Sparta-Athens war to Spartan fear, 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.

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 explain. I claim that Thucydides was disingenuous, and Kindleberger, who was deliberately vaguer, was distorted.

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

In the case of the rise of fascism, US “unwillingness”  was no accident (“unwillingness” is the exact concept of Kindleberger; today’s analysts subtly deform this into “indifference”, which is not what Kindleberger said, and a telling bias). 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.



Stoicism Is The Philosophy Dictatorship & Plutocracy Welcome

July 5, 2018

Modern “stoicism”, in the end, doesn’t seem significantly different from what modern no nonsense philosophy should be.

Overall, for me, stoicism was a philosophy made to go hand in hand with dictatorships: all stoic philosophers, think of it, operated under dictatorship. Had I been a dictator, like the Macedonians, I would have looked to the stoa mildly… Whereas Antipater and others wanted Demosthenes to die under torture. Were I Domitian, who expressed his hatred of philosophers, and, with his ultra wealthy friends, celebrated how they controlled Rome, I would have looked at Epictetus teaching in a benign fashion: they made us believe virtue was possible in a lethal dictatorship where not toeing the one and only party line meant death.

Domitian tolerated Stoicism. And killed any other creative thinking.

Do we need this now? Do we need to placidly contemplate and hone our own virtues while a few guys in charge prepare thermonuclear war, and civilization is under threat of imminent deconstruction? Or do we need passion, and start first with a feeling of rebellion, and proclaim that enough is enough?

For me the later, passion. And enough with my virtues, or those of other individuals I have come across: they are plenty enough. What we need is a virtuous government for the planet, and that request doesn’t come from humility, but rebellion and bold assertion of myself, and my ilk, as a role model!

The ultimate stoic is Seneca. He taught Nero, by age 11, and thereafter. Seneca covered Nero’s crimes, Seneca excused Nero’s crimes in front of the Senate. Seneca always say obvious things, prettily. Seneca is philosophical comfort food. Seneca is sucking on sweets all day long.

Stoicism is not just the philosophy dictatorship & plutocracy welcome, looking at the chronology and the evidence, one could say they invented it. So does stoicism have a future? Maybe, but then we don’t.

Patrice Ayme

Learn History Correctly, Repeat After Me: French Sun King Louis XIV Was an Abominable Butcher & Catastrophe

July 4, 2018

France is the historical core of civilization (the Frankish conquest of Europe didn’t happen just militarily, but philosophically). What exactly happened in French history and why informs the nature and evolution of civilization, it is way too important to be left to the French. Just a recent small example: This is because of the French obsession with Equality that “All men are created equal…” was added to the US Constitution, as its 14th Amendment, July 9, 1868 (belatedly following “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Constitution of 1789…)

Naturally, it turns out that some received truths in French history are atrocious lies. Many died, many more will, lest one explains what went wrong, one can dissect it now, thus enlightening future guidance through similar situations which will arise, or have already arisen.

Learning history is abominable, when it is fake history, whereas, it is excellent when it is correct history. Who, what, decides what is correct, and what’s not? The debate! It is wise to consider that those who refuse to debate, and whose logic is missing some dimensions keys to the debate are fake.  (I am having a one way debate with the plutocratic universities, so hopefully, they will lose!)

Studying historical texts is called historiography. It is increasingly helped by archeology, and new techniques such as histology, chemistry, genetics, nuclear physics, etc. It is also helped by the infusing of thinking by modern police methods.

Under Philippe IV Le Bel, by 1300 CE, a modern police force had evolved: all the Templar Knights were arrested at the same time (catching them by surprise, preventing armed resistance). The usage of torture was systematic, and gave excellent results in the pliers of dedicated specialists to find out what happened.  

However, statements made under torture couldn’t be used in court, by law. A century later, any torture of the famous warrior Joan of Arc was discussed and rejected, because the judges didn’t want her declarations to be stained by duress. By 1600 CE, torture was rarely used in France: the police methods were much more clever and the statements made were legally admissible.

Now historians going over 25 centuries old texts, using modern police smarts can guess what was really going on. For example at some point in Herodotus, a discourse of Themistocles the Athenian arch-general, famous victor of Salamis, there was what is after careful consideration, clearly a typo: a “your” was replaced by a “our”.  Police methods are used: general suspicion. For example Plutarch wrote extensively about Themistocles, but that is now put under the light of his systematic bias against the great Greek strategist. 

Louis XIV sent Dragons to live with Huguenots. Caption: Who can resist me is very strong; Force primes reason; “New Missionaries Under the Order of Louis The Great. The gun appears as an invincible reason, and the heretic signs his conversion…


Louis XIV was an abominable butcher and dictator. Louis XIV, on the face of it was a (“civil”) war criminal, a human right violator on such a scale he should have got life in prison. This is my overall opinion, although I do roughly agree with many of the compliments one usually offers to that monarch. However one tends to omit important dimensions of Louis XIV’s reign. Once one integrates them, the resulting overall mood is extremely critical.
Louis XIV was imprinted by the Fronde and his arrogant mother: “Monsieur, nous ne sommes pas en République” did she say to the head of the Paris Parliament (“Sir, weren’t in a republic”)

Louis XIV exhibited a first clear case of misbehaving when he cancelled the inquiry in the Affaires des Poisons, when it implicated his de facto second wife (“mistress”). He threw the whole file in the fire.

He also decided not to consult with the People anymore (“Etats Generaux”), and even cancelled consulting with the 17 or so Parliaments. Louis XVI would go back to these, a century later, but, by then, it was too late, after a century of autocracy.

The major disaster of Louis atrocious rule was the “Revocation de l’Edit de Nantes”, an edict of his grandfather making possible the life of Protestants in mostly Catholic France. The Revocation made life impossible for two million Protestants in France (10% of the population, often the most gifted). Most of them left, weakening France, and storing fuel for wars against Louis XIV, that is France. The result was the (world war) of the Spanish Succession, which ravaged Europe. That brought more than 1.2 million killed, a high percentage of the european population, and France lost sizable territory.

The admiration of the all too many French for Louis XIV is just as immoral and demented as the admiration for Napoleon (who stole the revolution for his personal profit), or Joan of Arc (a pawn of the queen of Aragon and the three other kingdoms, who relaunched the “100 years war”, initially a civil war, between the French and the French, which lasted, as a result, nearly five centuries)…

Louis XIV finally got some divine justice visited on him: nearly all his heir died, and he felt culprit of the death of his somewhat transgender brother. He took three weeks to die of gangrene, getting to smell as bad physically as he did spiritually. He accused his bad advisers to have misled him about the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. To his only surviving heir, his 5 year-old great-grandson, Louis XV he said, on his smelly deathbed: “Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects.”

This being said, some of the early wars of Louis XIV’s reign were good wars: the war with Spain had to be finished: Spain, a theocratic fascist state had fought France for two centuries, and was initially on a land grab motivated by extreme greed. France, after helping to give birth to the Netherlands, in an eighty year war, finally defeated the “Spanish Squares”. The specific badness of Spain emanated from the religious fanaticism of Catholicism. Louis XIV would marry the Infante of Spain, settling the confrontation, after Spain’s military defeat.

Louis XIV’s self-diagnosed disastrous reign explains why so many somewhat rabid German generals, for centuries to come had French names: they descended from French Protestant refugees… It also explains why France went from unquestioned first power in Europe into a questionable, much less enlightened entity. Now that process was already launched by Louis XI and Francois Premier. Francois Premier insisted to burn printers (although he stopped short of attacking directly famous surgeon and writer Rabelais..) The case of Louis XI, famous for putting his famous enemies in cages, is even more interesting: Louis XI protected the Huguenots with the French army!

That puts the fanaticism of Louis XIV, two centuries later in an even more brutal light. I repeat: Louis XI, often derided as a cruel king,  actually protected the Protestants (by the way, that was before Luther, who was born in 1483, the same year when Louis XI died… showing that, to the surprise of the Anglo-Saxon-centric view, Protestantism was much older than Luther, and emanated from France. So Louis XIV destroyed a remarkable French invention. He was not just a destroyer, he was anti-French. Yes, I repeat: who is, for some the quintessential incarnation of Frenchitude, Louis XIV, was actually anti-French! His wanton destruction of France was no happenstance, but a system (something he recognized, as accused his “advisers”, at the end of his life)


Louis XIV could be prudent: asked by the king of England to help him out against the rebels, with the French army, the world’s mightiest, he declined (but accepted his family as refugees). However that one backfired as the Dutch new king of England was determined to destroy Louis XIV (always that revocation: the Netherlands was full of Protestants).

And Louis XIV did some good things: He financed a lot of arts, intelligentsia and science (famously financing the Dutch physicist Huyghens, the earliest theoretician of waves…)

But, once again, what matters first is the first order of things: Louis XIV was a disaster for France and Europe.

Louis himself said it, as the disease was devouring him and he rotted away. His doctor asked him if he hurt. Louis replied:”What hurts me even more is to see my people suffering.”

Well, one has to get it right cognitively speaking. Out of brutish ignorance, grows pain.

And for those who, to this day, don’t see Louis’ reign for what he saw it: there is something wrong with your cognitive system. Louis XIV was not just about France. France was central to the Enlightenment, and Louis wore its clothes roudly, claiming to be Enlightened him: that’s implicit in “Sun King”! However, Louis XIV set up the mood for Hitler. Actually Prussia became racist against Jews and Poles AFTER Louis XIV hunted the Huguenots as if they were poorly educated pests. Successful hatred and racism breed and multiply. Those who still tolerate the Self-worshiping Louis XIV are part of the problem. They may say, they will say:’Oh, we didn’t know!” However, then, why do you admire who you don’t know? Because you admire the thought systems which make worshiping strong men glorious? But isn’t that a more general, hence greater evil?

Patrice Ayme

Trade Deficit Madness, From Ancient Rome To Modern Trump Card

June 27, 2018

Warning; Roman Semi Direct Democracy Collapsed Because Of Global Trade:

Trade is a crucial subject: it’s about who has work, thus who has power, and who has an occupation deemed worthy. In the last massive global trade system we had, with 25% of world population, the core, Italy and Greece got emptied, in nearly all ways, by global trade.

This made “We The Peoples” of the core of the empire weak, unmotivated, incompetent, and finally completely impotent in all ways, especially politically: Rome went from a somewhat Direct Democratic Republic to  a military and then dynastic dictatorship.

I explained all this in great details in many essays: the similarities with the present planetary situation are more than alarming. Roman plutocracy exploded, when the wealthiest and their corporations were able to evade Roman laws by going global. Just as US and EU laws are evaded by going global.

Unsustainable. This is not just dinero they are taking, or work, or power, its the very substance of the essence of democracy.

Obama, in particular, put lipstick on that global pig, by passing outrageous, highly visible banking laws which amounted to saying that only plutocrats could span the world: everybody else who pretended to live on both sides of an ocean, was a criminal.  

Unfortunately most people talking about the subject of trade are hyper partisan: they just want their own networks to gain, or conserve power so they can profit from it. It’s true from the right wing globalist exploiters long in power and their servants (Krugman, etc.) and its associated overlords of the Deep State.

There is also the fact that seriously deranged hyper partisanship has become big business…


So Trump imposes tariffs on Europe. Europe retaliates, as threatened, imposing, among other things, tariffs on (extremely polluting) Harley Davidson motorcycles. Harley Davidson CEO Matthew S Levatich says:

Our decision to move some of our operations is 100% based on President Trump’s tariffs. Mr. Trump knows nothing about economics and even less about trade. The man is a moron.

Supposedly left-wing organization like “Occupy Democrats” are so happy:

Complete anti-Trump hysteria by ignorant twerps. The owners of that site are making money hand over fist.

Occupy Democrats” is actually a for profit site. It was founded by twins born in Mexico, one of whom became an investment banker.  They won’t talk money, but they are thriving. BuzzFeed’s Silverman estimates they could be making six figures in advertising revenues every month. The site is dogged by fact-checkers, sued by a competitor, mocked by conservatives. But nevermind, hordes of the tribally hating march in unison, excoriating Trump… for things Obama did, or the US long did.

US has a gigantic trade deficit with… Ireland! Why? Tax evasion! Ireland is one of many tax havens within Europe, encouraged by the EU, so many US corporations use it that way. Per head the deficit of US with Ireland is 32 times what it is with France…

Trade deficit US with EU is $122 billion. With China, $375 billion. EU-China deficit: $176billion. Are those irresisted increases in deficit sustainable? No. What’s the main cause? Evasion by EU & US corporations of tax & work laws in EU and US. Harley claims it has to leave the US because of European tariffs, but it  is going to India, not Europe! Wrong! And an obvious lie: Harley long prepared its move to India.

Now agreed, India, a high tech country with cheap labor should be freed to receive Harley, and Harley to go there. So far, so good. However the trade with India should be balanced. Otherwise it is colonialism, pure and simple. Not just colonialism, bad colonialism.


Why is the situation with China alarming? The ignorant out there, have been properly misinformed by the plutocratic media which loves them to death. Total sales of Chinese products in the USA is above 500 billion dollars. What’s the total sales of products in the USA? 1.5 trillion dollars, triple that. So for the value of three products sold in the US, one third of this value is made in China. And typically this represents high added value. And the reciprocal is just 20%. How long can the working class take this?


The globalists who engineered Obama and his ilk are besides themselves with anxiety at this point: the global trade system is how they are gathering power, same as their predecessors in Rome, 21 centuries ago. Collapse them, collapse the future they had set-up for themselves and their descendants.

Globalism, its tax avoidance, and avoidance of laws and regulations, its exploitation of oversea territories, making deals with local potentates, is how plutocracy is getting ever more powerful. Yes, they demonstrated their power by giving a Nobel Prize to Obama which the whole planet could see he didn’t deserve. So Obama did what they wanted him to do: demonstrate further power by droning babies to death in countries the USA was not even at war with. Yes, they are mighty, but the struggle is not over. We are mighty too, we are mighty still, and enough with their lies!

Patrice Ayme

Existence Means War: the Case of France, Western Civilization

June 25, 2018

No country, arguably, has a fiercer and longer military history than France. Only China compares…However, not really since China, like India was composed of several very different ethnicities, until very recent times (whereas France was all united under the Romans for centuries, before she went from “Gallia” to “Francia”… even then, the language, the lingua Franca, didn’t change; France had one language, Latin, and three underlying Celtic languages; China had around 100, although with one writing system… India, several, of both).

The history of the world is the history of victories, military or philosophical. Countries such as the Central State, China, exists, because they didn’t lose crucial battles, or when China did lose to Genghis Khan, and then Ogedei, China awed the Khan enough for him to spare it (it had been proposed by Mongol generals, after the crushing Mongol victory, to eradicate China’s population and ecology, solving the Chinese problems many Mongols thought they had).

The Mongols did annihilate several highly original civilizations. And mauled others beyond recognition; for example the Mongols eradicated the Republican spirit in Russia, along with all its independence, for three centuries.

France is the successor state of Rome: the first king of the Franks was Roman imperator (he had the “imperium”), and Roman Consul. France could only exist through a long string of victories.

Most notably against the Muslims; considering what the Muslim invaders and their Islamist ideology did in North Africa, a total eradication not just of history, but of the will to civilization, the defeat of Islam was the defining moment of Western history. As the great historian of Rome Edward Gibbon put it:, had the Muslims won at Poitiers in 732 CE (or Toulouse, in 721 CE or Narbonne in 737 CE, the city itself being evacuated by the Islamists in 759 CE):

“the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

Instead, as I have alleged, the repeated Muslim exterminations in France brought the collapse of the Arab Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE (destroying the myth of the Arab Caliphate just then: after that the influence of Iran was overwhelming…)

But for Russia and Ukraine, which were abandoned to their sad fate when the Mongol “Golden Horde” invaded them in the 13C, pretty much all of Europe was molded by Francia. (Including more or less directly Scandinavia, as the kingdom of Denmark waged a long war against France, starting under Charlemagne when it refused to return Saxon refugees and lords.)

From there on, Russia resented Western Europe, for child abandonment… Hence the jostling for power with France in the Middle East, which brought the Crimean War. (To some extent, Putin is repeating the pattern…)

Capture of Crucial Tower During the Siege of Sevastopol, Crimea, 1855. Notice the pretty red pants of the French army. From a Provence plant. German gunners found those scarlet pants most practical for target practice in 1914, when the French army suffered up to 23,000 killed in one day during unsuccessful counterattack (before successfully counterattacking 2 weeks later). This a painting by French painter Vernet, not plutocratic-we-own-the-world-because-we-say-so  thug like “Getty”…

The military might of France, driven by her central position, history and demography, was considerable: not only the French invaded England, creating the UK we have now, but at Bouvine in 1214 CE, a grand coalition including England and the Roman-German empire, was defeated by Philippe Auguste. And on it went: fascist Catholic Spain was ultimately broken by France, creating the Netherlands in the process.

The war of Spain against France lasted two centuries. Its initial aim was for some Spaniards to capture the French possessions in Southern Italy and Sicily which had been wrestled from the Muslims, centuries prior.

The war of France with ultra-militaristic, fascist and racist Prussia started in the mid 18C. Prussia was financed by Britain, and things didn’t go well for France, which lost the 1756-1763 world war (7 year war, “Indian and French war” in Americanese). Ultimately, though, Prussia and its thought system (racism, anti-Judaism, anti-Slavism, ultra militarization, etc.) were annihilated in 1945, in ALL ways.

Animated by a spirit of vengeance, France created the American Republic (king Louis XVI was warned that he was creating a republic in America; he shrugged that off). France won that war against the UK, but the financial cost was so great, that the French Revolution ensued (not only French agents contributed to the insurrection, but France provided more than 90% of the ammunition used by the American rebels. The war finished with two French armies (generals Rochambeau, Lafayette) converging on the besieged British army blockaded by the French fleet (admiral D’Estaing).

Since the Napoleonic era, or, rather, the Napoleonic error, France won many victories. Some were military, some philosophical (but with major military consequences). The military victories enabled France to keep on existing (Europe too). The philosophical ones, well, as Chou En Lai said, when asked to evaluate the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell how much impact they will have on humanity.


France defeated the pirates and potentates of Algeria (1830), then occupied and modernized this enormous country (half of my family is from, so I guess I am a French victory too!).

French and British armies and fleets defeated China, which had to make a number of treaties, opening up to trade and the world (1856-1860;1884-1885; UK got a tiny help from the USA).

France and Britain, mostly France, defeated Russia in Crimea (in many ways reminiscent of today’s demons.).


France crushed the Austrian empire at the battles of Magenta and Solferino (24 June 1859). That freed Italy from Austria, creating Italy as a state. And even a nation. Ironically, later the dictator Benito Mussolini would force Northern Italians to speak “Italian” (whereas before they often spoke other languages closer to French, or German…)


France lost the war of 1870–1871 with Prussia. However, when Prussia, now the German empire attacked to finish the French Republic in August 1914, it nearly lost its entire army six weeks later (First battle of the Marne). Ultimately, after enormous losses, and thanks to delayed but considerable British help, France won, and had won even before the USA came fully to the rescue of victory (France had cut off the German food supply in the south, and the entry of the USA in the war had cut off Germany from crucial US help through the hypocritical Netherlands!)

France declared war to the Nazis (September 3, 1939). Victory was delayed several years by the stupendous and improbable loss of the Battle of France (deadliest battle on the western front in WWII). That was lost through a combination of bad luck, treason (Duke of Wales told Hitler of the Allied weak point), major incompetence of the French commander (who was warned by his second in command of exactly what happened), fighting Germans battle hardened in Spain for four years (thus superior tactics and training in the first week, when the battle was lost).


The next crucial French victory was Bir Hakeim, a modern Thermopylae, but with a much lethal, yet positive outcome (June 1942). The French were around 3,300 men (and one woman!) Those heroes resisted incredible pounding, preventing Rommel’s Afrika Korps from encircling the defeated British Eighth army, by stopping him for weeks. Half of the force was evacuated in the end, half died on the spot.

The French Republic won the Algerian war, militarily (using torture, true, but so did the other side, which was also in terrorist bombing against innocent civilians). However, De Gaulle was an epistolary racist and wanted Algeria cut off from France. France was also getting enormous pressure from the USSR and the USA to become a secondary power (“decolonization”), so he treacherously gave Algeria to a party of thugs, the FNL (which still has it, complete with the last surviving character from the 1950s as dictator).

There were other French victories, of a more subtle type: the leaders of Communist China and Vietnam were instructed, not to say indoctrinated by French Communists in Paris. When negotiating with them, French Socialists gave them half of Vietnam. Many in France viewed the “defeat” in Vietnam as a victory (of French Communism!).

The greatest French victory of all was the establishment of the United Nations (the SDN, prototype of the UN in which the US refused to partake, was actually a French idea from 1916, later captured by US racist president Wilson, the guy who operated a U-turn in World War One, when he saw that the Franco-British victory was in the cards… said victory was delayed by the collapse of Russia, itself due to the Kaiser allying himself with Lenin and his henchmen…)


Conclusion: The history of the West, post-Rome is pretty much the history of France. By 800 CE, Francia had officially “renovated the Roman empire”… And the Eastern Roman empire, saved by the annihilation of three successive Islamist invasions of France (721 CE to 748 CE) could only agree. In 846 CE several Frankish army  annihilated the Muslims who had raided Rome, burned the Vatican.(one army was headed by Frankish Dux Guy… often Guy is presented as a “Lombard” because the Franks decided they were Lombards… after, and because having defeated the Lombards. Actually Charlemagne proudly wore their Iron Crown; the Lombards, Long Beards, had come into Italy from Northern Germany, and occupied it for two centuries before the Franks consented to submit them to stop the whining of the Popes, who the Franks tortured… through the Lombards…)

And what of China? China, by my own reckoning, spent 6 centuries under foreign occupation, most of it under the “Jurchen” later self-relabelled as “Manchus”. However the Mongol invasions and occupation were a near-death experience. China is mightier than ever


Morality: Sometimes, war should give peace a chance. Yet, without war, by those states most advanced in matters philosophical, not only peace has no chance, but nor does civilization. Philosophical correctness means you can’t have your dictator and eat it. If you want to eat it, you have to make war. That’s French lesson number one.

Patrice Ayme



Note 1: I allude above to one of the scariest moment of history. The most capable and efficient general Subotai was put in charge of the assault against the Jin in their emergency capital of Kaifeng. Subotai wished to massacre the whole of the population, and change the ecology (from agricultural to pastoral, Mongol style). But fortunately for the North Chinese, general Yelu Chucai was more humane, wiser, and under his advice Ogodei rejected the cruel suggestion of eradication which had befallen many civilizations which opposed the Mongols, including the longest existing and mightiest Buddhist empire of the Xiaxia.


Note 2: The preceding essay was motivated by an impudent, ignorant, dumb and offensive (“troll-like”) question in Quora: Did France have any major combat victories since the Napoleonic era?”



June 20, 2018

Hatred is a loving mistress… Let’s thank those nasty enough to advertise the notion (in the USA a famous PC actor suggested to rape the son of the president)… But there is worse than the excesses hatred brings: one could verse in the opposite extreme, and lose passions enough to sink in the morass of mercantilism, while the spirit of the highest passions breaks down (liberty, critical thinking, fraternity, equality).

This collapse of the towering will to liberty, critical thinking, fraternity, equality happened to Athens at a vulnerable point of her history. Thus a dispirited Athens didn’t fight to death, as she had many times before. The Macedonian dictator Antipater, senior general of Philip and Alexander, was able to take advantage (although it required two sea battles). We, humanity, lost Direct Democracy. We haven’t recovered it yet! (Losses on the battlefield of the best Athenians may explain some of the lack of enthusiasm)

In an imaginable history, Athens would have durably installed her empire, as a constellation of allied Direct Democracies all the way to Massalia, and beyond, incorporated later Rome as junior partner… Etc.

However, it’s not too late. We need to recover what the Athenians had, and do it better, and on a planetary scale. It’s like talking to Kim Un Jung, chairman of nuclear armed North Korea: no choice. And much more important.



Consider how Greece went from democracies to kings: after Thebes won a costly tactical victory at the battle of Mantinea, in 362 BCE, which was a strategic defeat, Thebes and its Boeotian League saw its influence wane, and Athens became supreme again. One would have expected Athens to use the occasion to rebuild vigorously its empire.


The power of Athens is overlooked today. Here it is, in picture. Panathenaic stadium by the Athenian statesman Lykourgos (Lycurgus) c. 330 BC, primarily for the Panathenaic Games. It was rebuilt in marble by Herodes Atticus, an Athenian Roman senator, by 144 AD and had a capacity of 50,000 seats. The stadium was used for the relaunch of the Olympic Games by Baron de Coubertin. The Olympic Games, started in 776 BCE continued for nearly 12 centuries, until Catholic thus Super Fascist Roman Emperor Theodosius I decreed in 393 CE that all such “pagan cults” should be banned.

An alternate history where Athens leads civilization is entirely conceivable, and we came very close to that. For example the battle of Chaeronea of Greek city states against the invading Philip of Macedonia, in 338 BCE, could have been won. The battle was in balance for several hours, before the Macedonian crushed both wings of the poleis. Indeed, Sparta was not at Chaeronea. Had it been there, it is likely that Philip and his self-made army would have been extinguished. but, well, Sparta was clearly dispirited, after two defeats at the hands of Thebes (Leuctra and Mantinea).

Athens population (whole of the peninsula of Attikḗ, including women, children) was probably 300,000, and the Delian League also known as the Athenian empire was more than one million (a population comparable to Rome then, and a much greater area, lots of it, sea, and a state which was the world’s most advanced technologically… differently from Rome, which, then, didn’t even have one warship!).

Athens had industry (manned by slaves), its added value products were highly valued in antiquity. She also had a large population with lots of foreign borns. It needed lots of food, but Attica, one of the driest part of Greece, couldn’t produce it. So Athens imported “grain” from the Black Sea shores which came through, thanks to its ally Byzantium. When that occasionally faltered, grain would come from the Greek colony in Cyrenaica (yes, Libya). In any case, long trade routes enabled Athens to exist.

Athens needed an empire to survive. (Differently from the present USA, which is, like Russia, a self-sufficient empire… more so than say China.. However Europe is not self-sufficient, as long as it is fossil fuels dependent… it gets its oil and gas from all around, from Algeria to Siberia…)

There was another problem in the Fourth Century BCE: no Greek polis (= City-State) was powerful enough to dominate Greece, and thus to become sizable enough a power to resist the colossal power of the fascist Persian empire to the east. The Persian empire was a global plutocratic power, a violent hierarchy of tyrannies and mighty governors, all at the mercy of cruel end-of life treatments such as being split by trees slowly, or even more slowly, eaten by worms while entrapped, well fed, between boats). The potentiality of such violence guaranteed its precautionary usage, as soon as possible (the Macedonian courts worked pretty much along the same one, and thus it’s no wonder Macedônia, led by Aléxandros ho Mégas, conquered Persia: qui se ressemble, s’assemble….)

Persia ruled from the Mediterranean all the way to modern Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the Mediterranean shores,  Persia was occupying and terrorizing the Greek democracies spread along what is now the Turkish coast.

Persia was a superpower, but it was a fascist plutocracy, somewhat malevolent, civilizationally and spiritually opposed to the Greek poleis. Plutocracy (Persia) is antagonistic to direct democracy and a mentally creative civilization (as found in the greatest Greek cities).

Hence the war between Persia and (mostly) Athens: it was directly related to the mental creativity of Athens. By the third quarter of the Fourth Century (after circa 350 CE), Athens and Persia had been at war for 150 years, much of it with Persia using its gold to launch other Greek city states against Athens (such as Sparta, which won the Peloponnesian war against Athens in the end because Persia bought it a fleet so big and good, it destroyed the Athenian navy, by surprise).

The war between Greece and Persia had been caused fundamentally by the irremediable antagonism between intellectual fascism (Persia) and mental creativity (Athens).

However, by 360 BCE, Athens’ creativity and mental exuberance had been broken. Meeting of the Ecclesia were more like shareholders meetings (it was written at the time). Instead of writing new, rash literary works. “Classics” became an obsession, and the “classical” mood paralysed new mental creation: none of the writings then have survived, or then they care more about gossip than grand conceptions. The art, even in simple pottery, also decayed, going from manly themes to superficial stuff. Some “feminists” and PC or New Age imbeciles may object to what I just said, and would call be names (that’s what they do best). However, they don’t understand that it’s brute force which enables them to exist.

(Canadians, for example, love to pose as pacifists, equal opportunity, wealthy from honest work. But their wealth and peace comes from having massacred the Natives and the environment, and also the French… In general European colonies of the Anglo-Saxon type find easy to give moral lessons, as they eradicated, annihilated and holocausted their potential opposition, prior… Some will scoff: but watch Trudeau: he speaks PC, while exploiting the dirtiest oil on the planet. Money speaks best, when it makes its victim believe its lies)

Indeed, when you are surrounded by barbarians, and, even worse, Persians, half-civilized, half-savage, horrendously efficient in war, the military aspect of civilization has to be prime (something the USA has understood very well… for centuries, and France, for 17 centuries, clearly: the Frankish confederation was primarily a military organization, and succeeded to do, on a much grander scale what the Greeks tried to do: consider the Athenian empires, and the Boeotian federation).

Some will object that I called the Persians, “savage” (and that’s not PC! And Phocion started it, and he was a very good man). But they were. Savage. The Persians. It’s not just about Persians. The Athenian general Phocion, learning that the Ecclesia was going to take measures against Macedonia, exclaimed:”Why would you provoke that savage man?” The “savage man” was the twenty year old Alexander (soon to be “the Great”). Alexander (with Antipater, and thousands of Athenian prisoners just liberated) had visited Athens. The Athenians met Alexander in person. Alexander had crushed them in battle with his cavalry. Phocion was right. Soon Alexander annihilated Thebes: killing all men, and boys, selling surviving women and children into slavery. A sort of warning to Athens, and everybody else, no doubt.  

Plutocracy has imposed itself, worldwide, by disguising its existence. The massive and crucial support of US plutocracy, between 1914 and 1945 to the worst animus in Germany, has been successfully obliterated from the official version of history.

These propaganda coups and massive distortions of real history can be sleekly done, because we don’t have Direct Democracy anymore: after all, we don’t have an ecclesia, an assembly of We the People, where everybody can debate. Raucous disagreement, as Athens had, has disappeared!

I cannot go out there, as many a philosopher in Athens did, and open up on the powers that be, for all the people to see (Socrates didn’t do this, instead his students established a dictatorship in Athens; but Socrates’ present repute is much exaggerated; other philosophers, including several close friend or married to Pericles, played a much more important role than Socrates, in the evolution of civilization; for example Pericles’ second wife, from the Ionian coast, established the notion of “Open Society” which Pericles advertised in his famous Funeral Oration…) Instead, here I am writing hopefully for the future…

In theory we could adapt the political structures to the new technology, and relaunch Direct Democracy: human beings have adapted to new technological possibilities for more than two million years.

We could go out there, and make our opinion known: after all, the Internet gives us those powers, at least, potentially. Those powers of debate. We need Athenian Direct Democracy back. After all, we now have robots to do most of the work (overruling an objection of Aristotle who correctly pointed out that Athens couldn’t do without slaves as the Greeks didn’t have machines for everything). We, We The People, can concentrate on the work Athenian philosophers used to do: thinking right, or, at least, better!

Patrice Ayme