Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Age Of War Is Coming. (In Part Courtesy US Oil.)

June 20, 2019

Yes, Earth’s climate is changing a little bit. Soon it will change enormously, and at a torrid pace. US politicians and their “Democratic” and “Republican” followers are mostly to blame: while North Americans and Australians emit more than 20 tons of CO2 per person, per year, a country such as France makes do with 4 tons (and the UK has collapsed it emissions, down to 6.5 tons now). Listen to the “Democratic” candidates: even the supposedly “anti-war” Tulsi Gabbard from Hawai’i (an intense fossil fuel state), already rejects the responsibility on other powers about doing something against climate change. Says pretty Tulsi:”The United States alone can’t accomplish this“. (Supreme hypocrisy: most of the CO2 crisis was originated in the USA!)

US led inaction is really a splendid spectacle: Trump is rightly accused, however the excellently disguised Obama did the heavy lifting, to further the CO2 production, by pushing for massive fracking (“bridge fuel to the future” he called it). Now the US is back to its usual position of world’s first producer of fossil fuels.

So the climate will change further… and will become ever more favorable to war.  


Parthia came out of nowhere, a small kingdom SE of the Caspian Sea. it invaded the Greco-Roman world gigantically. As with Scythia, just north, the Romans proved unable to address the problem. That can be directly traced to the assassination of Julius Caesar. Caesar was ready to kill both empires in one fell swoop. Instead, after his assassination, his army, the best Rome ever had, turned against itself and against the Roman Republic, ultimately pushing Caesar’s great nephew and adoptive son to become “First Man” (Princeps)

In history, there are calm periods, and periods when all hell breaks loose:

So it was between Romans and the Sassanids (Persia). War would erupt, often because the Sassanids wanted Rome out of Mesopotamia. “Mesopotamia” means between the streams, the Euphrates and the Tigris.  

Historically, monstrous Achaemenid Persia had lurched west, conquering Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Black Sea area, Athens resisted, and defeated the Persian at Marathon (while Sparta played). Something we celebrate to this day. Athens then tried to free Egypt, but was ultimately defeated by Sparta as the hand of Persia (which financed the Spartan fleet). So much for Persia always being innocuous. With its accomplice racist, enslaving, human rights abuser Sparta, Persian plutocracy smashed Direct Democracy durably, for millennia to come (and counting!)

Alexander and his father subdued Greece. That happened only because a resentful Sparta stayed out of the crucial battle. After nine  hours of combat, a charge of Alexander and his cavalry against Thebes’ Sacred Band gave the victory to the Macedonians. Thebes was eradicated, Athens was preserved, and then Alexander destroyed the Persians, going all the way to Afghanistan, India. He had to give up on visiting the Pacific.

Hellenistic successor regimes of Alexander’s empire were in turn defeated by the Parthians, who appeared in the south east corner of the Caspian Sea.

The Parthians exerted military pressure on Rome. From the Greco-Roman point of view, those were invaders of the multi-civilizational Seleucids, successor to Alexander. Julius Caesar was on his last day before going to crush them, when he was assassinated (obviously why he didn’t expect the treachery).

By 224 CE, the Sassanids in turn replaced the Parthians. The Sassanids invaded Armenia, Syria, etc. Rome counterattacked, a Roman emperor was made prisoner…


Under Shah Abbas, Iran controlled both sides of the Straits of Hormuz. That didn’t last, but the memory of it perdures… like that of Ottoman control of much of Europe, the Middle East and Africa. And, as far as the contributions… the 1001 nights were written in Paris, and the Ottoman made printing unlawful. Right, Francois I of France would send printers to the fire, too, but that didn’t last…

Back to the Present, No Nukes Enforced:

In history, there are calm periods, and periods when all hell breaks loose. Wars between Romans and various Persian empires were separated by periods of calm after major wars.

It’s mechanical: combatants are exhausted, peace treaties are signed, causes of war disappear.

We are entering an age where billions of people, because of climate change, will become refugees. Last time this happened, the climate was also changing for the worse, and the Huns were exerting pressure in the back of all German nations, which tried to flee to within the Roman empire. Gigantic pressure on the Roman border resulted in a breakdown and invasions which destroyed the empire (and much of its economy and population; for example the Vandals invaded and occupied Africa, cutting Rome’s grain supply).

What to do in such a case? The Romans should have projected military force outside of the empire in a timely manner. This is exactly what the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius was doing, when he died (still relatively young). Marcus wanted to create two new Roman provinces, to act as buffer, and domesticate the savage, all too numerous Germans. As Caesar or Augustus, he understood that war was best, far away.

The order of the world cannot stand too many countries with nuclear weapons. Iran is going to find out that even Russia and China understand this (let alone Japan and the EU). There are already too many countries with nuclear weapons. Iranians say they have a right to them too. But those who, in the area, know long term history, will reject that. More than once the Persian Gulf was Persian all around, indeed.   

No nukes?


Yes, it will require some efforts. And, by definition, efforts are not always nice. It’s not just a matter of arguing for world government a la Einstein, shooting the breeze, looking good. We have world government. It’s called the UNSC. It’s just a bit messy, right. But better that, than the alternative. Only one way.

No nukes.


Patrice Ayme


US “Unsuccessful” Wars Are Actually Smart and Performing As Planned

June 19, 2019

Warning added after getting angry comments on the following essay: the essay below tends to enrage self-proclaimed “liberals”, “progressives”, and mutually declared “democrats”. I know why: basically the essay observes that those poor souls have been so incredibly manipulated that they believe what the establishment wanted them to believe, all the way down to their beating hearts. What credulity was that? The establishment persuaded their naive followers that sometimes the US “got bogged down in war”… when that was actually the plan!

And let me insist: it’s not because I am describing a maneuver of sumptuous Machiavellianism… that I approve of it.


One silly notion is that of the US conducting “unsuccessful wars”. Like which one was “unsuccessful”? The one against the Indians, eradicating them all? Oops, so sorry we killed you all, but thanks for the continent? Was that unsuccessful? Vietnam? The  US is now, de facto, allied to Vietnam (against you know whom). The war against Iraq from 1990 to 2003? Why would the war have been unsuccessful in Iraq, from the US point of view? Because the Iraqis don’t sell enough oil and gas to make US frackers grossly unprofitable? Quite the opposite, obviously! Afghanistan? Keep your enemies closer and in a state of complete degeneracy, test ever more sophisticated weaponry in real war conditions… How unsuccessful is that?

Contrarily to legend, the USA, as a nation is exactly where it wants to be, militarily. Economically, Trump is forcing US plutocrats out of China. Slowly, but surely. That’s also strategic. We don’t want this below to happen again… This time without back-up! (The US was the backup of France, everybody knew it in France in 1940… Although German and French fascists may have hoped, due to US careful designed “isolationism”, that time, the world war of 1939, was going to be different… )

This French B1 tank was destroyed by its crew (so it would be useless to the Nazis). May 1940

In 1936, France did a huge mistake: instead of going to war in Spain, as the Republic there, attacked by the Nazis (and Spanish and italian fascists), had requested, France listened to the perfidic Anglo-Saxon plutocracy from London and Washington… who had ordered France to stand down. Thus, after all, France, led by the Jewish Socialist PM Blum, didn’t intervene.

Consequence: in the week following May 10, 1940, it turned out that the vastly superior Franco-British forces didn’t function correctly, in part because of a number of relatively small, easy to correct, problems the French and British military were unaware of (no radio in tanks, no communications with air forces, no combat-trained pilots… and the surprise of having an enemy on speed, methamphetamines, who never slept).

By the time the French and British military adjusted to the reality of combat in 1940, a week later, 70 crack French divisions were encircled, cut out of supplies, France and Britain had lost the battle of France.

Morality: When confronted by enemies, it’s better to fight them, than ignore them. If nothing else, it keeps the training up, prevents surprises like May 1940. If France had intervened in Spain in 1936, maybe an unending low key war with Nazism would have started. It would have been better than the alternative…. A Holocaust (100 million killed, about 5% of world population), followed by the so-called “American Century”… we are more in the “American Century” than ever. Whereas France and Britain were allied and competitors of the USA in 1940, now they are just the US little helpers.

So what is next in strategy? Strategy is what decides the world, after all. Most of the French hated the Nazis, until the end of June 1940. After that, though, confronted to two million Nazi soldiers residing in France, they had to show respect. While the Nazis (and their US plutocrat helpers) killed 50 million Europeans, the US Deep State chuckled.

After the Macedonians occupied Athens, having defeated her in war, they established a plutocracy, which, arguably, lasted thousands of years. Things would have been completely different, Direct Democracy would have survived, had Athens not lost these two naval battles.

The USA understands now that it better be allied to France: the stakes have got much higher. Great, or Little Britain is not dependable anymore: watch the ridiculous Brexit. Germany, Japan are still trying to figure out what it all means, and how dependable they themselves are… Not that France doesn’t have a few things to figure out, either.  Like the USA, it may soon discover globalization was not a friend: whereas France is number one military power in Africa, it’s only seventh in trade… In other words, the French… and the Americans… are protecting increasingly Chinese interests in Africa… How strategic is that. By the way, I am pro-Chinese, my daughter is studying Chinese since pre-K.

But I also know that messes of contradictory entanglements bring war.

Take Iran: a fascist theocratic state, which provides Europe with energy. And a state where even the secular population believes it should have nukes. That will not happen: at the next attack against tankers, especially if Iran renounces the nuclear accord of 2015 with Obama (and four other nations, including UNSC permanent members), there will be a military strike.

But remember 1936: sometimes, a little military act goes a long way, a bit like a vaccine…


The US did NOT get “bogged down” in ANY war since 1776 CE. Quite the opposite: all those wars boosted US power ever more. [1]

The only existential crisis was earlier, when Jamestown came close to extinction after 1610 CE. By 1625 CE, when tobacco started to bring revenue, thanks to newly introduced slavery and addiction (in Europe), it was clear sailing.

France got seriously bogged down in war with Germany, from around 1750 CE until not just 1945, but arguably, to this day (very low key now, as Germany has a regime similar to France, now)… Although some the roots of the Franco-German go back to the Fifth Century… or even Julius Caesar

France had to militarily confront the Nazis in 1936. Or then, much less favorably, go fight them alone with Czechoslovakia as only Ally, in 1938. In both cases, US plutocrats, who wanted Nazism to grow into a Franco-British destruction machine, successfully manipulated the French to dissuade them to declare war…

It is in the best interest of the US Wall Street-Petrodollar-Fracking establishment to shut down the Persian Gulf, and then to have it re-open thanks to the heroic efforts of the Americano-Franco-British military… Japan and others will have to be grateful…

Cynical plans don’t stop there. The self-sufficiency of the US in fossil fuel, and now even exportation, was not a Trump realization, but the work of Obama and his National Security Adviser, Susan Rice (who was personally invested). At this point, the CO2 crisis is carefully groomed as an other cause of delightful (in the sense of increased US power) wars to come. [2]

Patrice Ayme



[1] As “power” is revered in the USA, this observation of mine, that US wars were profitable to the USA, is enough to enrage the pseudo-liberals, pseudo-progressives. Indeed, if I am right, they are wrong (at least, wrong as seen from the perspective of in their own minds). What is going on here? Listen to Tulsi Gabbard, four term Congresswoman from Hawaii who served years in the US military, and tried to help Assad. She poses as “anti-war”. However, she is FOR… handguns. In other words, she is all for US citizens killing each other: power at its best. She sees nothing wrong, intrinsically, with great wealth, either: cult of power again.  So, if you tell these people wars increased US power, they hate you, because they are supposed to hate war, but also to revere the US (hence its power).


[2] The US is in the best position to maximize the crisis of the biosphere… and maximize the profits it will bring. That’s the plan. Obviously, most US citizens know this, intuitively, with their 20 tons of Co2 per capita, per year, and know enough to know that they shouldn’t know more. So they focus on Trump’s hairdo, and Trump’s tweets.

Hidden Truths About World War Two, Centered On D Day

June 7, 2019


When an ascending power finds a trick to get descending powers to fight among each others, its ascent will be easier:

The trick the leaders of the USA, its plutocrats, found in the Twentieth Century, was to help fascism, although fascism was supposedly antinomic to the USA [1]. The first truth about World War Two is that it happened because, unfortunately, it was in the deepest interest of the US American Deep State. Hence the lack of support for the French Republic, from the US side, as early as 1919. Nebulous “Isolationism”, actually pro-Nazism, deep down inside, was the main cover-up of the sinister reality that the USA was busy dividing and conquering, far from the basic principles of the Republic. (As Macron just said, the US is never as great as it is, when helping others… And so it is for us all…) 

One can say that the assault of fascism upon the world, from 1914 to 1945 was made possible by a conflict between the USA and the French Republic. The USA was trying to ascend over all (Putin and Xi just waxed lyrical on this) and European empires were in the way. Much of the world was held by the British, French, Portuguese, Dutch and German empires in 1914. All this was basically gone by 1945. Instead, the US established a world empire, where even Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh (!) were in debt to the good old Uncle Sam.

Thus the Germans, fascist or not, were played too. Hitler could be viewed as a US puppet. Seen that way, this explains why the US didn’t act on the Holocaust of the Jews (whereas Mussolini did, and sort of saved his own Jews… The comparison is telling).

In 1914-1945 European fascism has been revealed in retrospect as a tool of US plutocracy.  That was most obvious in Germany and Russia, but also present in Italy, Spain, etc. All European fascist parties were more or less sponsored or helped by US plutocracy, often in a decisive way. For example US plutocrats developed the Baku oil fields in Azerbaijan, fueling both Hitler and Stalin. Ot Hitler’s air force flew the Spanish fascist and rebellious army to Spain… using Texaco oil (Hitler used to laugh about it; it was so well-known, US Congress gave a symbolic fine to Texaco).

The French Republic (and the UK too) were in deep conflict, mostly hidden from the general public, with the US Deep State during much of the Twentieth Century, from 1914 until the Suez Canal Franco-Israelo-British war of 1956, and beyond. Fortunately this difficult phase is over. The US Deep State has come to realize France is its closest significant other… and can’t do it all alone. France is not just friend and ally, but parent. Without France, there would have been no US. Trump, Macron and spouses, June 6, 2019. Trump called Franco-US relationship “unbreakable”… Relation from parent and child are indeed unbreakable.


War is terrible, yet, sometimes, much better than the alternative:

This is why the French Republic ordered Hitler to withdraw from Poland, September 1, 1939. Two days later, France declared war to Nazi Germany. So strange were the Nazis that they backdated an euthanasia program (to kill German children) to that date. In Nazi minds, killing innocent children was a war measure.

Some will point out that Great Britain accompanied France… in the end (Spring 1939, after Spain had fallen to fascism). However most of why the fight against the Nazis was too little too late, had to do with Anglo-Saxon machinations: the UK made a Naval treaty with Hitler in 1935… This treaty violated the Versailles Treaty. Side conversations suggested to incorporate Nazi Germany economically in the Commonwealth, while telling the dictator he could do whatever he wanted in Eastern Europe. (Deputy Leader Hess’ mysterious flight in 1941 may have been a desperate renewal of that understanding.) Next year Hitler invaded the Rhineland and the Spanish Republic, which asked France for help. France decided to help, until blocked by Great Britain and the USA.   

The Nazis had a big problem: Germany was not sufficient in many important materials, crucial for war making, including high grade iron ore. So the Nazis had to pay for those crucial materials, but how could they do that, while devaluing the currency and starving their non-rearmement economy? By 1939, Germany was in a grave economic crisis. When the Nazis invaded France, Nazi soldiers were surprised by the relative wealth of the French. That didn’t last as Nazis stole much of the French economy and French food production, because male Germans were busy getting killed in combat while supposedly German women were making babies, to create more soldiers and breeders…


Russian And Anglo-Saxon Double Game Made Hitler Possible:

Putin, Russia’s chief,  was not invited for 75th D Day Anniversary ceremonies: France and Britain excluded him. Russia is the descendant state of the Soviet Union, which lost 30 million fighting the Nazis in WWII.

Putin was invited 5 years ago. Meanwhile, Russia interfered in elections in France, US (or attempted) to, and was perceived to plot with China in various ways.  

Some will find this scandalous.They will observe that, out of 5.5 million Nazi soldiers killed, 4 million died on the eastern Front, and 1.5 million fighting the Western Allies. 9 million Russian soldiers died. Yes, indeed. But what if the Soviets had helped, aided and abetted German fascism? They did. Since 1916.

Hitler attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941. However, in the preceding two years, Stalin had provided Hitler with everything he needed to wage his world war. Just an example: France was invaded in 1940, thanks to Soviet oil. Sweden was also crucial, providing Hitler with high grade iron.

Advanced Nazi weapons, such as jet engines, depended upon minerals Germany didn’t have, but that the USSR provided. With the rare metals, the Me 262 jet engines worked one thousand (1,000) hours. Without the special metal alloys, ten.

The cooperation between Russian fascists (the Soviets) and German fascists (the Kaiser, the “Second Reich”, including Weimar, the Nazis) dated from 1916. It enabled Germany to re-arm unlawfully in the 1920s. When the French government said it was going to do something about it, Churchill threaten to bomb France (in 1929; however he had no political position at the time).


The hostility of the UK and US against the French Republic in the 1920s and 1930s was the most major factor in enabling the success of the Axis: (Germany-Italy-Japan… with discrete support from Stalin) to become strong enough to risk a world war.

For example although Japan had invaded China for decades, and then up the ante, and invaded French Indochina (where it would kill two million), the USA was the main provider of oil of Japan. When, finally, the US cut off the oil, Japan had just enough oil for one attack… towards Indonesian oil, securing its flank with the hare-brained Pearl Harbor infamy.

D Day had a very high probability of failure. In a repetition in England a few weeks prior, 1.300 soldier were killed when nine Nazi fast boats attacked.. across the Channel. However, on D Day everything went miraculously right for the Allies… just as everything went wrong in May 1940. In 1940, God was Nazi. In 1944, God was on the side of Victory.


D Day: 60% of British and Canadians, 40% US Landed: 

The Brits and Canadians landed 75,000 troops, the US 57,500. A total of 3,400 were killed in action on D Day (KIA + MIA).

Moreover 20,000 paratroopers were dropped (with debatable effect due to fog and low clouds)..

The assault force on D day comprised 2 US divisions, 2 British divisions, and one Canadian division. The Normandy invasion would grow to 39 divisions, including 12 armored divisions. The very experienced French armored division, with several years of combat experienced and its Polish analogue would encircle the Nazis to great effect two months later.  

3058 French soldiers took part in D Day (including 200 fighter pilots, many experienced aces; good pilots were very much in demand, the Allies had plenty of them). However the French High Command had not been told in advance about D Day, as per the usual hostility then between Roosevelt and the French, Free French or not.


La France a été traitée comme un paillasson”.

(“France was treated as a doormat”) said De Gaulle. Roosevelt’s plan was to occupy France as if it were an enemy country… an example of FDR’s perfidy, as the US was the first to recognize the putschists of Vichy, and sent there his right hand man (4 star Admiral Leahy). If FDR had just barked in 1940, the war would have gone very differently. Once again, it’s the impression the Nazis had of a wedge between France and the USA which made the Nazis behave as foolishly as they did in 1939-1940.

A US instrument, the Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories (originally abbreviated AMGOT, later AMG) was supposed to take care of France, complete with fake French currency.



French Second Armored Division Traffic Jam After Hard Fighting to close the Falaise Pocket, early August 1944. The 2nd Armored Division is regrouping before dashing towards Paris. The tanks are US Shermans. But the troops are French, and many of the officers are veterans, with more than 4 years experience fighting the Nazis. Hence the Blitz of “Deuxieme DB” towards Paris. After all, the French (De Gaulle) had been the first to theorize what came to be known as Blitzkrieg… And practice it plenty thereafter. When French general Juin broke through the Hitler line in italy, he asked for more troops, pointing out he could be in Austria within 3 weeks. That was refused. Meanwhile the US were blocked in a pocket at Anzio, south of Rome….***

Why Roosevelt Couldn’t Occupy France In 1944, as he had planned to; a Large French Army and His OWN Generals Were In the Way:

Hundreds of thousands of French soldiers had seen combat by August 1944, many of them very experienced. That enabled De Gaulle to make his US colleagues (Marshall, Ike, Patton, Bradley, etc.) inform FDR that AMGOT was not possible.

Indeed, by 1945, the French army in the West was 1.5 million when the Allies in totto had 4.5 million soldiers on the Western Front. A French army crossed the Rhine under fire, for the first time in generations, and dashed through South Germany. But it was no cake walk. That First French army alone suffered  more than 50,000 dead during the end-of-Nazism campaign, the last nine months of the war.(All together, France lost several hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed in WW2… However much less than the 1.4 million killed in WW1, and less than the US 400,000 killed in WW2.)

By August 1944, the Allies had a problem: no serious port to unload the millions of tons of equipment and materials needed. The small ports captured had been sabotaged by the Nazis., However, the First French army besieged and freed the two enormous ports of Marseilles and Toulon. That was done swiftly and spectacularly. In some places, French heavy artillery was fired in an ambiance of feast, soldiers been feted, wined and served by the locals, while pounding away at the Nazis.

My own Dad was an officer in that army, in a flak company. He did the breakthrough Italian campaign and the French one. He saw action several times, including twice against Nazi jets (Me 262), which tried to destroy their Anti Aircraft unit. He was always extremely modest about it, and never wanted to talk of it. A native of Algeria, he arrived in France armed and dangerous…


Surprise, surprise: There Were No Higher Up Nazi Generals In Normandy:

Marshall Rommel, incredibly, had gone back to Germany to celebrate his wife 50th birthday (maybe he was actually plotting about the upcoming coup of july 20, that he was supposed to lead?) German meteorologists predicted a storm, their enemy colleagues predicted the front would stall offshore (which it did). Otherwise D Day would have had to be put off by two weeks, and, by then, the truth about the location of D Day may have been revealed (Patton was in charge of a inflatable balloon tank army facing Calais; Hitler knew about that fake army, thought it to be real; Patton was the tank professor at west Point).

Even more incredibly, Rommel’s immediate subordinates were also away, taking part in a Kriegspiele (wargame). Thus no senior Nazi generals could be local, observe, and realize D Day was the real thing. For many days, the Nazi High Command was persuaded that Normandy was fake news. Thus major unit were not moved from northern France to Normandy.


Nazis Couldn’t get Armor to Normandy From Resistance and Bombing:  

Overall, during the Normandy campaign, 130 Nazi Tiger tanks confronted 8,000 US Sherman tanks, plus thousands of excellent British tanks. The Nazis had thousands of Tigers, but the French Resistance, combined with Allied aviation, made it impossible for German armor to get to Normandy in a timely manner. By day, Allied fighter-bombers attacked the Nazis, at night, so did the Resistance.

In the 24 hours around D Day, under orders sent from Britain, the French resistance accomplished more than 1,000 acts of sabotages. Soon, only three railroads engines were in working order in France… The bombing campaign was intense; 20,000 French civilians got killed in Normandy alone, mostly by bombing. When the Allies couldn’t capture Caen, cleanly, they destroyed it (the idea was to kill the Nazis inside… although they were the mostt fortified).

The Nazis were always one armored division short of victory in Normandy. One month was necessary to take Caen (July 9). It was supposed to be taken right away, but the Nazis succeeded to sneak in a few Tiger tanks.

Sabotage and aerial attacks is why the Nazi armored divisions were prone to massacre civilians: the FFI (Forces Françaises de l’Intérieur) suffered 14,000 dead in combat (or summarily assassinated). Most of these combats were surprise attack of FFI on Nazi troops.


Don’t Smirk At the 177 French Commandos of D Day:

Once a reader made fun of the fact that few French (3058) took part in Overlord.  I will assume that readers are familiar with the basic story of D Day: on June 6 1944, in a window of less bad weather, between storms, called perfectly by Allied meteorologists, 150,000 soldiers disembarked on the huge Normandy beaches east of the Cotentin peninsula. Half of the troops were US, the other half UK and Canadian. The French high command had not been informed and only 177 elite French commandos landed in the first few minutes. They were first in their sector and neutralized Nazi heavy guns. Within seconds, four were dead, and ten gravely wounded.

On D Day, 3,400 Allied soldiers died. Overall, 200,000 Allied soldiers were dead or wounded during the Normandy campaign. 5,000 Canadian soldiers died in Normandy. Trump, perfectly relaxed, celebrated his “exceptional” relations with the French president, while visiting a US territory along the coast in France adorned with more than 9,400 US tombstones. Things sure have changed since 1944, when the relations between French and US presidents were execrable… To make sure France would humiliated and made easy to occupy, Roosevelt was keen to have no French military involved in France. Thankfully, his own generals knew better: the French army had played a crucial role in Tunisia and Italy. Ike and Al. intended to use experienced French and Polish armored divisions and they performed superbly. Not content with freeing Paris, the French Second Armored division would free most of Alsace all by itself (after US Third Army troops, Patton had cleared some defense lines in the Vosges), in another armored dash which prevented the Nazis to organize defense lines. 


French Military Exploits In World War Two:

The Battle of France of May-June 1940 killed more than 50,000 Nazis, and the very best of them.Within seven months, though, Free French forces were capturing Kufra in Libya (Axis controlled oasis city). By the time of Bir Hakeim, June 1942, the Free French had strategically defeated the Afrika Korps (because the small French army saved the British 8th army from encirclement)  

However, a few weeks later the elite and very experienced French Second Armored division of General Leclerc would play a crucial role in the western campaign. General Leclerc, the French Desert Fox, nominally under the US command of Bradley and Ike, acting on his own, made a fulgurant strike towards Paris taking the Nazis (and the US!) by surprise, securing the liberation of Paris by the resistance before four Nazi divisions could get there. (Bradley and Ike decided


P51 Mustang, The US Superiority Fighter of Franco-British Origin: 

D Day was made possible because the Allies had destroyed Nazi Air Supremacy in months prior. This was made possible by massive bombing raids over Germany, and the hunting, mostly by superior long range US fighter-bombers, foremost of which was the P51 Mustang. Interestingly the Mustang was initially broadly designed by the French and British military which contracted with a lesser known US manufacturer with unused capacity: the idea was to mass produce such a plane overseas to supplement the production of Franco-British planes… hence the superior characteristics, because the best Franco-British planes were already better than their Nazi opponents.

France and British influence played a crucial role in World War Two, and not just because France launched the nuclear bomb program in January 1938.

The P51 Mustang was designed with a narrow fuselage and a laminar flow wing, giving it greater speed, and, or, greater range. When the US military realized that the plane ordered by thousands for the Royal Air Force was so superior, they mass produced it for the USA. Mustangs, equipped with supplementary tanks, accompanied the bombers, and then started to roam all around occupied Europe, hunting for German war planes.

In May 1940, the French and British Air Forces had been surprised by the Nazi Luftwaffe. Basically, the Germans were fully trained: they had acquired combat experience, starting more than four years before, fighting the Spanish Republic. The French and British pilots and their high command acquired experience within a week or so. But by then the battle of France had been lost, and only Dunkirk could be won. The following Battle of England clearly couldn’t be won by the Nazis: after losing nearly 2,000 planes during the Battle Of France, they would lose even more (and the air crews!) over England. The Spitfires were better planes than their Nazi opponents (574 of the Allied aircrews fighting over England were not English, but Polish, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc.)

In May 1940 was that the Nazis had air supremacy for a few crucial days, just at the place where it mattered: the Meuse-Sedan area. In contrast, the Allies had total air supremacy all over Europe by June 1944.

When Marshall Erwin Rommel travelled by day on July 17 1944, his car was attacked by an allied plane, and he was gravely wounded (skull fractures). Unfortunately that severely impacted the 20th July 1944 coup against Hitler (Rommel was supposed to head the plot, as the highest general of most of the Nazi forces in the West).   

Allied air supremacy forced in turn Nazi forces to move mostly by night… when they could be hit by the French Resistance most effectively.

The French Resistance played a huge role to facilitate the disembarkment: Nazi generals evaluated that the Resistance occupied at least 17 Nazi divisions.

An example was the Vercors, a high mesa like mountain range south west of Grenoble, with 9 maquisards camps as early as 1943. By May 1944, it was fully liberated. A first fascist attack in June 1944 was repelled. Then a full Nazi assault in July 1944 on 5,000 Resistance fighters remobilized 15,000 elite Nazi troops, including SS paratroopers landing on the air field prepared for allied troops. Around 1,000 FFI and French civilians got killed

L’Armee Africaine in Provence:

260,000 African soldiers under the French flag, the African army, disembarked on 14 August 1944 (one of the soldiers was a Marseilles soccer player, Benbellah, later Algerian “president”; an officer was my own father). The first wave was US. An entire paratroop US detachment was dropped in the sea by Saint Tropez.

Overall, if one adds the official resistance troops and the French African Army, one gets 1.4 million combatants. In comparison, all the Vichy fascist troops and their collaborators were 400,000 (and they were well paid in a country which was starving as the Nazis rob france to feed Germany.  

Into the Jaws of Death“, a famous picture of D Day. (It was colorized recently.) Notice the bodies on the beach… US troops landing, paying the price of the US Deep State manipulations and the coming “US Century”… If the US had helped France in 1939-1940, none of this would have been necessary.

The German army, the Wehrmacht was under assault in the West, under assault in the east, the “Bagration Operation” led by Marshal Zhukov”, and the uppercut came from the assault from the south, in Provence. That provided the ports they Allies needed. “Bagration” was launched with 166 “Rifle divisions”, 1.25 million soldiers, and soon grew to twice that. It annihilated 28 Nazi divisions and happened simultaneously with Normandy. Clearly Hitler had made too many enemies…

Whereas, the entire German army was launched against France in 1940, with two-third of the forces concentrated on a few kilometers west of Sedan, and all the experienced Nazi air force was concentrated there too. The British and French High Commands had never seen such a thing, and couldn’t figure it out. By the time they understood, a few days later, it was too late.

1944 was the exact opposite. Germany had no more aviation, and only a very small fraction of the Nazi army was in Normandy (5% of the 228 Nazi divisions on the Eastern Front)…. instead of having nearly all of it on a very small front.

Nietzsche famously said there were no facts, only interpretations. Well, yes and no. Plunging one’s naked hand in boiling water will result in skin damage: a fact, not an interpretation. 

War is an excellent situation in learning to make distinctions between facts, truth, fake news, lies, dissembling, and how public opinion is led astray by carefully controlling the ecology of logic itself. Knowing that Nazi Germany engaged in euthanasia against its own population by Fall 1939, should have been enough for the USA to join its parents, France and Britain, in fighting infamy. Why this was not the case, questions the deepest values animating US society.

What is sure is that, had the US joined France and Britain before June 22 1940, dozens of millions of people who got killed, and astounding horror would not have been unleashed.

By 1944, most of the German army had been soiled by Nazism, and was fighting with utmost despair the hour of reckoning with its own crimes. Luckily, D Day worked.

Fascism in the Twentieth Century was rendered possible because of the deep, hidden conflict between the two great Republics of France and the US. The source of this conflict was that the US Deep State, misguided by its own plutocrats, took the easy route to deny the very principle of the Republic, to satisfy the greed of an elite (it’s the same Republic in France or the US).  Indeed, the same philosophies (say Montesquieu) inspired both nations to renew with the psychological mechanics which made the Roman Republic possible. By having much of the US leadership collaborating with fascism in the Twentieth Century, the Republic of the USA turned its back on the very principles which made it rise… and turned its back on its parent, France. Clearly a mistake.

It is reassuring to see that the present US leadership increasing understands this.

Patrice Ayme


[1]; The most famous case of US plutocrat engineering Nazism was Henry Ford, who basically created Hitler, by inspiring and financing him handsomely, as early as the early 1920s. Ford’s book on Jews was free at the Nazi headquarters in Munich.


Could France and Britain have defeated the Nazis in 1940?

Considering that D Day would have well failed without the Resistance, the Allied air superiority, or the Nazis realizing earlier that D Day was the real thing, how can one ask whether France and Britain could have defeated the entire Nazi army in 1940? But the truth is, the Nazis SHOULD have been defeated in 1940, had the French High Command gone according to the most basic book on normal military operation: one keeps a reserve. Had the Mobile Reserve of General Girault been kept in reserve, or, more generally, had the advance in Belgium been made more carefully, French armor would have cut behind the Nazi Panzer thrust. At that point the Nazis were pretty much finished.

In any case the Nazis suffered enormous losses during the battle of France of 1940.


75% of Jews in France were saved. The Jews who died were mostly refugees. In Italy 85% of Jews were saved. Because, when Mussolini, who had passed racial laws, learned that the Nazis were killing Jews, he refused to surrender his Jews to the Nazis. In contrast, disingenuously the Anglo-Saxon tried to claim they didn’t know Jews were being systematically assassinated…









European Parliamentary Election: Avoid European Leaders Imposing Hard Core Wahhabism

May 22, 2019

Remember the Wahhabist Friendly Powers That Be In The European Union. Such As Jihadist Judges at the European Court of Human Rights!

The European elections are next weekend. People have approached me, and asked me who to vote for. I have two answers about who NOT to vote for:

Don’t vote for “ecologists” who are against nuclear energy. 93% of the energy of the world at this point comes from making CO2, nuclear deniers are ignorant, lunatics, hypocrites, or all the preceding. CO2 is warming the planet too fast, and acidifying the oceans, evolution can’t follow. The combination could lead to the ultimate catastrophe; collapse of the oxygen making system. Nuclear energy from fission, Thorium and fusion, has to be deployed ASAP. (I am also 100% for solar, etc.; but they will be too little, too late…)

Don’t vote for those who consider that Wahhabism is NOT a danger. Wahhabism (literal Islam) is intrinsically terrible, but also a Trojan horse against reason pushed by global plutocracy. It is part of a complex plot (deliberate or not, conscious or not) to subjugate the world, by the powers that be (often in finance).

We should go back to fundamentals. Clearly the creature is a fruit of synthetic biology…

[Wahhabism is generally confused with “Islam”… something which should infuriate, and often does, the other one hundred other types of Islam… All the more as Wahhabism was so hard core primitive, that it was already outlawed in 12 C Egypt, five centuries before Wahhab was born. But Wahhab made a symbiotic alliance with the Saudis, so here we are…]

The debate of what Islam exactly was started during Muhammad’s lifetime. Actually, people closest to the Prophet tried to kill him by pushing his camel off a mountain path. (Muhammad knew who they were, but refused to say, lest they be killed, and Islam fractured.) Right after his death, things got way worse: the announcement of his death was delayed until Muhammad started to rot and balloon up, some verses of the Qur’an got eaten by a goat (Aisha told a furious sexist Omar), and so on. Omar and Abu Bakr (“brother” and father in law of Muhammad) grabbed power, and their version of the Qur’an. However, Uthman imposed his own Qur’an later, and an all-out Muslim against Muslim war started, with the closest people to Muhammad at each other’s throats… that war goes on to this day…

The Qur’an is around 80,000 words (I counted them myself!) It was controversially written/re-organized under the 4th Caliph. However, Islamist follow millions of “sacred” words often written many generations after the so-called “messenger’s death…


European Court Of Human Rights = European Court Of Islamization

A woman referred to as E.S. was convicted in Austria for talking about known events in Muhammad, the so-called “Messenger” of god, the great bully in heavens. In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld this woman’s 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold that Muhammad’s third wife, Aisha, was 6 at the time of their marriage and 9 at its consummation. That too, is not contested by the most hard core Jihhadists, Salafists, and Wahhabists: it’s in the sacred texts.

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s (the age of the Prophet is quite uncertain, it turns out; don’t believe those who tell you Muhammad was exactly 54…) The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in prison. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

The ECHR wants us to lie about Islam, when telling what is in Islam texts is inconvenient. If we don’t, we have to go to prison:

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s. The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in the slammer. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

Tell the truth about Muhammad Having Sex With Children, and the European Court of HUMAN RIGHTS will send you to prison for 60 days. Nevermind that these historical facts are front and central in the most basic Muslim texts. Solution? Bring political power to bear on these so-called “judges”.Here are some of the original texts from the Hadith:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”


The New York Times published a long article on anti-Judaism coming back to Germany. Long description, but zero explanation in depth. I sent a comment providing necessary depth:

The Abrahamic religions started with Judaism. Christianism was born, in Greek, during the war of fascist Rome against Judea. Christianism was friendly to Caesar, and enemy of Judaism (some view initial Christian texts as Flavian propaganda). Six centuries later, Islam appeared, considering Jews as even more wrong on Abraham than the Christians. Thus, both Christianism & Islamism have a strong antipathy to Judaism… Yet arose from it, so can’t just annihilate them, most of the time. Hence the ongoing scapegoating of Jews. This will go on as long as Abrahamism rules in the background!  

It got published, but not so the second one:
The moods created by religions it itself brought to life, caused much of the mood against Judaism (Roman imperial rage against Israel helped the process). Western anti-Judaism was greatly caused by Christianism. A common myth among intellectuals, Muslims and others who don’t know Islam well, including occidental islamophiles, is that Islam has nothing to do with anti-Judaism. Some academics even lie. As the NYT says: “Many Muslims criticize the notion of “Muslim anti-Semitism” as wrongly suggesting that hatred of Jews is intrinsic to their faith. Muhammad Sameer Murtaza, a German scholar of Islam who has written extensively on anti-Semitism, argues that European anti-Semitism was exported to the Middle East in the 19th century and was only “Islamized” starting in the late 1930s…”

This is gross disinformation, fake news. There is massive anti-Judaism in the Qur’an…. And it is found in later, “Meccan”, abrogating verses (so nice, pro-Jewish verses don’t count). An example is from the second and longest chapter of the Quran, the Cow: Quran 2;61 says: “And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them [Jews], and they were laden with the burden of God’s anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.”

Naturally the Hadith went further. Islam in its fundamental texts is lethally anti-Judaic. Here is an example: the following is part of Hamas’ constitution.  

This is Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”

The verses in the Qur’an nasty for Jews are from the 13 year long Meccan period, after Muhammad 10 year stay in Jewish city Yathrib (now Medina). Thus they abrogate the earlier verses.

It is high time to realize that the elites in charge of the European Union have been serving themselves, and the conception of elite, the Davos Club, they profit from. In particular, not enough Euros have been created. In particular, Europe has not been defended against exporting jobs, most of them to China. Make no mistake: I am pro-Chinese. However, at this point, China is on its way to the Moon, and Europe on its way to oblivion.

Macron may mean well, but he acts weak, because he is fundamentally a creature of financial plutocracy, which has been ruling the world (but not China). A few months ago, I would have advised to vote Macron. But that was before he absolutely refused to enable RIC, Referendums on Initiatives from the Citizens (in his last version, he still wants 182 French MPs to agree, plus one million signature; one million should be enough… the number of signatures is roughly in line with California)

We need tougher solutions in Europe, don’t vote weak.

Patrice Ayme



[1] Here is the introduction and beginning of the ECHR’s judgement: on the face of it the judges of the ECHR take us for terrorized idiots without dignity. The gist of it is that if an Islamist marries a 6 year old, and has sex with her when she is 9, that does NOT show the Islamist “has had paedophilic tendencies”… and to say so hurts Islamists, and that latter fact is against European law.


In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.


Principal facts The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”. On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate”


Here is the name of the Wahhabismophile so-called “judges”.


Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President, André Potocki (France), Síofra O’Leary (Ireland), Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan), Lado Chanturia (Georgia), and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar


The European Court Of Human Rights seems as confused as a group of six year old children. Here is the core of their decision. Notice the absurdities:


“The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”


So “applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”


So the ECHR thinks that relating what is in Islamist texts demonstrate Muhammad is not worthy of worship?” And why should a human rights court care?


[The ECHR] “agreed… Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.


Now why would one worship someone who children (pedo) love (philia) so much in a perverted way they have sex with them at age 9? Can the dimwits at the ECHR give us one, just ONE, other historical example. Just one, “Human Rights” buffoons, in the entire history of civilization (examples of royal children married early exist, but they were between the children themselves, and were not consummated, be it only for the good and simple reason prepubescent children are not sexually equipped.


Muhammad was a child rapist, and, moreover, his followers were so blind, they didn’t notice to this day, although the facts are in the very book they allegedly got from their so-called “god”, through aforesaid child rapist.


OK, agreed, Muhammad was an excellent, good natured, gifted and enlightened rapist; Aisha ended up loving him sincerely, and he let her roam, and being strong and free. Aisha famously asserted Muhammad was much less sexist than his successors….


More from the mental dwarves at the ECHR:

“The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression

The judgment is available only in English.”

Why only in English? Because it were in Austrian language, which is German, it would use the same buzz words as the Nazis? Yes, it would! The ECHR dimwits, so ignorant of history, obviously do not know of the strong connections between nazism and islam, enduring to this day. Right, Nazism is dead, but the Muslim Brotherhood it helped to create, is alive and well!


P/S: A reader reminded me of an enormity: Muhammad died when Aisha was eighteen. The enormity? The Qur’an itself ordered that she should never re-marry:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL. Qur’an, Surah 33, Verse 53:
“O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.”

Nazi Germany Had, Then Lost Air Superiority: Philosophy Explains Why. Otherwise, Germany Would Have Been Nuked.

May 20, 2019

The air defeats of France, Britain, and then Germany in WWII were driven by various philosophies. And there are deep lessons therein. 

History and wisdom are entangled. They feed each other. The great historians Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, Tacitus were all philosophers and historians. Let alone those who made history, like Consul Cicero and leaders such as Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, Julian. Recent history has been even richer in mental intricacies: it involved more actors in much more complex situations.

We focus here on issues connected to air supremacy in World War Two.

It may look as purely technical, and military. But actually philosophy dominates. Just as it dominated in the 737 MAX scandal: the US government got so penetrated by the “Neoliberal” principle that private enterprise knows best, that it let a private company (here, thanks to Obama’s admiration for Reagan, which, no doubt percolated down his administration). Same idea as when the governments decided banks were the best regulators of banks (Many administrations were involved, starting with Clinton’s.. And extended to the EU.)

The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.” Marcus Tullius Cicero (lawyer from a wealthy family, and too fierce by half Roman Consul, enemy then friend of Caesar; rediscovered in part by Petrarch, 14 C, helping the Renaissance)


Germany and the USSR conspired to slaughter the democracies, immediately after WWI:

At the end of WWI, the French Air Force was the world’s largest. The German air forces (land and marine) were disbanded in May 1920 as a result of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles which forbid Germany to have any air force.

During the interwar period, German pilots were trained secretly in violation of the treaty at Lipetsk Air Base, 440 kilometers south of Moscow. Notice this: it indicates cooperation between German fascists and Soviet fascists, well before the Nazis came to power. So much for the Soviets being innocent bystanders savagely attacked by “fascists”, as they used to say. Fascists love each others, no doubt.

The Messerschmitt 262, world’s first jet. If hundreds of Me 262s had been flying in May 1944, only the nuclear bomb could have enabled the democratic allies to win.

The Luftwaffe was officially established by the Nazis on 26 February 1935, just over a fortnight before open defiance of the Versailles Treaty through German rearmament and conscription would be announced on 16 March.[9] How could that happen? Roosevelt’s Washington officially detested the French, thus the Nazis, being the enemy of FDR’s enemy, felt protected.

Then rogue Spanish armies in the Canaries and Morocco entered into an insurrection. The Spanish Republic called the French Republic to the rescue, and the French announced they would help their little sister Spanish Republic. However, the UK and the US told the French to back-off. Now, at that time, France was led by a Socialist Jew, Leon Blum, who was busy passing plenty of progressive reforms. That, plus outright pro-nazism in the UK and US, made the French back off. Huge mistake.

Using Texaco fuel and Nazis planes, the rogue fascist armies of treacherous general Franco and company got transported above the blockading Republican Spanish Navy.

Thereafter the Condor Legion, a massive Luftwaffe detachment sent to aid Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War, provided the Nazi Air Force with a valuable testing ground for new tactics and aircraft.  

This would make all the difference in May 1940: the Nazis had honed air force fighting tactics, surprising the French and British high commands, air forces, and armies. The French and British learned very fast, in about a week, how to integrate ground forces and aviation much better… But, by then, the Battle of France of 1940 had already been lost. Modern war goes fast. Although that’s not necessarily new: Athens lost the 30 year war against Sparta by losing her entire beached fleet, and that happened in a matter of hours… And, just like the Franco-British defeat of May 1940, it may have been the result of a combination of treason and certainly, gross incompetence of the high command)


Superior Planes Make Superior Democracies & Reciprocally:

In 1935, Great britain was Hitler’s best friend, and they shared the world in a “Naval” Treaty violating the Versailles Treaty. However, in 1936 Great Britain decided that to have a Nazi king and Nazis all over London was not a swell idea. A change of heart started… Not fast enough to avoid the Munich capitulation to Hitler: in 1938, France had the choice to go war alone with Czechoslovakia against Hitler, without any Anglo-Saxon contribution (not a nice perspective for the French to fight the crazed and mighty Germans, with the treacherous English in their back, plotting their latest version of Brexit…).

By early 1939, Spain fell to the fascists, and Great Britain finally got the message, and  aligned itself with France.

Churchill had been all for the rearmament of Germany ten years prior, and weirdly anti-French then, in Boris Johnson exuberant style (he threatened to bomb France in 1929, if France talked of preventing German illegal rearmament… Churchill was not PM then, but very influential…) By 1938-1939, Churchill had the opposite of what he used to be, and become loudly anti-Nazi. He wanted massive aircraft production… with old types. PM Chamberlain opposed that, and imposed, rightly, to wait for the new Spitfires and Hurricanes. Meanwhile, Germany was mass-producing slightly less advanced planes. This would make the difference during the Battle of Britain in the air: Spitfires were superior to any German fighter.

When Goering, the obese head of the Luftwaffe, himself a WWI ace,  asked the head of the fighter command, Galland, was he needed most, the latter, one of the greatest air ace, himself with 104 certified kills, coolly replied:”Spitfires”.  

Britain had also superior long range bombers (of which Germany had no equivalent whatsoever in quantity, or even quality; when Hitler visited Finland in a German long range Condor, the plane caught fire on landing….). And soon entire, the Royal Air Force would send German city busting fleets of these…

Britain produced superior planes systematically. An example is the De Havilland Mosquito, made mostly of light wood, which flew higher and faster, by a significant margin, than any Nazi plane (until the jets arrived).

The superiority of the British planes deployed in 1939-1943 is an expression of democracy at work: many engineers, politicians and soldiers were managed in a democratic way in the democratic system. Such a system has more checks and balances. That brought more restrained creativity. The same thing happened in the USA. US planes soon proved vastly superior to Japanese and German planes, because they were conceived and produced more intelligently.

In particular the North American P-51 Mustang… initially a plane ordered to a US company by the British Royal Air Force (and the French), it broke many preconceived notions, and ended up very maneuverable, faster, and longer range than any Nazi plane, with laminar flow thanks to NACA (the future NASA)… The prime air domination fighter of 1944-1945, Mustangs accompanied bomber streams, and soon were hunting all over Germany: they were superior to existing German propeller planes.

Dictatorship, and superlative German engineering incited more adventurism in Nazi Germany, fostering remarkable designs (one is reminded of the tyrant of Syracuse giving full powers to Archimedes to design death rays and the like…) However, because of the nature of the German dictatorial system, such designs were at the mercy of a few men, and their fancies of the moment. This resulted into the development of hundreds of types of unrealistic planes and rockets, dispersing resources. In contrast, the American Boeing flew the B 17 in 1935, and later produced 12,731 of them. The plane was crammed with guns and armor, carrying only a fraction (⅓) of the quantity of bombs the highly flammable British bombers carried.


The Messerschmitt 262, a bi-engined jet, shark shaped with a flat belly, was superlative. The commander of the Luftwaffe’s fighter force, General Adolf Galland, flew the Me-262 in May 1943, he reported that his flight in the jet was like “being pushed by angels.” With a speed of over 540 miles per hour and combat capability far superior to any Allied plane these aircraft were hailed as the Reich’s best chance of turning round a lost war.

The Me 262 was going 200 km/h faster than the fastest Allied planes. Never more than 25 in the air, though. Too little, too late…

But Hitler slowed down the Me 262 production by maybe two years (said Galland), as he worried about its fuel consumption, and he diverted resources into trying to turn it into a bomber, and, more fundamentally, by wasting enormous resources towards long range drones (V1) and rockets (V2).

My own dad was an officer in an anti-aircraft unit, in 1944-45, and was attacked twice by bombing Me 262s… They moved very fast, indeed… 

Hitler acted as an enemy of the Nazi Reich by spending all its efforts on useless weapons. Besides the tremendous Me 262, Hitler didn’t develop the Wasserfall anti-aircraft rocket, in as speedy a fashion as it could have been developed. That guided supersonic rocket, with an enormous warhead, would certainly have brought havoc to Allied Bomber streams and formations…

US intelligence estimated that the Me 262 would have enabled the Nazis to recover air superiority by June 1945… But it was produced too little, too late.

There were never more than 25 operational Me 262s at any given time, Galland said. It is no secret that continuing engine problems, shortages of fuel, and Allied bombing and strafing of airfields and manufacturing facilities took a toll on the number of available jets.

The number of victories achieved by the jet pilots, which may have totaled more than 500 before the war’s end. Galland remained firmly convinced that the fighter jet could have been put into combat “at least a year and a half earlier” without Hitler’s interference, “and built in large enough numbers so that it could have changed the air war.”

The Me-262 was well ahead of its time. If the Nazis had had greater access to special metals for the jet engines, more fuel reserves, and more time, then things might have played out somewhat differently toward the end of the war. The engine were unreliable because the Nazis had run out of special metals that had to be imported. So they tried to make do with tricks. Similarly, to save metal, outright, a silly glued together wood jet was developed. It came unglued on the first flight, but the ace pilot was able to land it. On the second flight in front of many top Nazis, an aileron came unglued at 540 miles per hour, the jet rolled, killing the same pilot.


What would have happened if Germany had plenty of Me 262?

I do agree with Galland’s assessments. What do they imply? With a fleet of hundreds of Me 262s, the bombing of Germany would have become impossible, so Germany would have had again access to oil (made from coal by a US process).

The disembarkment in France would also have been impossible: it depended crucially upon air supremacy; even with total air supremacy, it was a close thing, for a month. On the Eastern Front, the Nazis would have re-acquired air supremacy (which they lost spectacularly in late 1941, as Siberian cold prevented the Luftwaffe from flying).

In May 1940, over France, the French and the British were taken by surprise, because they had stayed out of the fascist aggression in Spain, forsaking gaining experience in actual combat and coordination with ground units. It’s actually poorly made reconnaissance which enabled the Nazi victory of 1940.

This speaks to  a principle for peace and comfort: having democracies engage in war, in a timely manner: not too late. As it was, it could have been worse: by launching the world war in 1939, France and Britain acquired the mastery of time, preventing the Nazis to develop and mass produced the more advanced weapons they had planned.

And here is the paradox: I claimed that democracy makes for more intelligent engineering. What about pure science? In January 1938, two top French physicists informed the Ministry of War, that an atom bomb was possible: Irene Joliot Curie had found the nuclear chain reaction. Thereafter the French and then the British, and then the Canadians and Americans pursued that program, which came to be known as the “Manhattan project.

If the Me 262 had been mass produced by Spring 1944, the Allies would have had to use the atom bomb over Germany: large suicidal raids could have gone through German defenses, with one bomber carrying the nuclear bomb, and others defending it. In 1945, the Allies could mobilize 1,000 bombers and 1,000 long range fighters, in the same raid.

So the result would have been the same as for Japan in August: an atom bombed Nazi Germany would have had to capitulate. But maybe with conditions, as Japan did (in Japan the emperor was saved in his apparent position, although he was a war instigator, thus a war criminal).

More democracy, better science, better war making…

This why Athens was able to win so much, so long, and discover so much. However, faced with the coalition of Sparta and its allies, financed by Persia, Athens was defeated. Eighty years later, a recovering Athens was defeated by the enormous resources of the Macedonian empire…

Democracies and smarts are superior, but they are not everything, and brute force can overwhelm them.

It nearly happened in 1914-1918 and again 1936-1945.

It would not have happened if Germany had been a democracy and a republic (Weimar was technically the “Second Reich”, not a republic…). Now it is.

But then who else is getting superior technologically, and economically, while not being officially a democracy, and not really a republic, either? Yes, across the Pacific, a big problem.[1]

And the Me 262? It ushered the jet age, that was blatant by May 1943, when Galland flew it. The ground-breaking jet set the course for the future of aviation.

Were Germans and other victims of WWII lucky it was not mass produced 18 months earlier as Galland thought it could have been? Because, if that had happened, the Reich would have been able to turn the war around? And thus the Allies would have nuclear bombed Germany? Maybe not. Indeed, the bombing campaign over Europe would have come to a halt, as the Me 262s would have held off the Allies.  The conditions in Germany and in other parts of occupied Europe, would not have been as dire, and, arguably millions would have been saved… Until the Reich, atom bombed, would have had to surrender suddenly as Japan did… cutting off the nonsense.

Who said nukes couldn’t possibly have no ethical use?   

Patrice Ayme



[1] Yesterday, as an example in a tweet, I mentioned that China occupied Tibet (or words to that effect). Some French people immediately unfollowed me. I checked them up, they were involved with China. They know they can’t even look associated with me on Twitter. Does this remind you of something?


Evil Is Most Human, So Sometimes It’s Smarter To Be Most Evil. Therein One (Evil) Spring For Morality

May 3, 2019

Theologians and those who want a world they can understand in its entirety, claim there must be one single, ultimate source in the long and lengthening chains of causes and effects.

And there is one such an ultimate source of everything alive: biological evolution. It’s logical, and it’s alive (bio)! Like the proverbial god! Just more logical!

Science finds ultimate foundations: the axioms of science. Right, as science becomes deeper and more truthful, those axioms change, improve, as they become ever more explanatory.

From the axioms we presently have, biological species arise. Clearly, each species’ behavior is attuned to its survival. That’s exactly the fundamental definition of morality. Thus, one could define the fundamental morality pertaining to each species, as the set of behaviors which ensure its survival. (Morality comes from “mores”, one’s disposition, itself related to the Germanic word “mood”.)

The worst evil is most human. Just as being all too human, is most evil. Yes, headaches all around. Even for Satan.That morality, fundamentally, as given by evolution, human ethology, is made to insure survival, may sound too simplistic, but there, just there, is the default morality, even in humans. It (nearly) means sometimes anything goes, and we feel best about it. It means we are made to feel moral, when anything goes.[1]

This observation has huge consequences. First it means that many behaviors legitimately viewed as monstrous (like the usual suspect, Hitlerism), are actually normal, deep down inside… They are just answers to existential threats. Thus one is not dealing with pathology, not with a disease, but with life threatening circumstances. Second, to react optimally to such situations, one should work on those initial threats. Third, by piling up existential threats, as we are doing now with wild abandon, we are feeding future monstrosities.

Is that all there is to say about morality’s fundamentals? Of course not. Love is essential… considering younger humans are fully dependent for the first decade of their lives. However, ever since the Great Mother deity, and Diotima of Mantinea, that subject has been well covered. The other leg, evil’s foundation, I just mentioned, and it better be understood, lest the great statue of humanity collapses in dust… [2]

How cosmic is that all? Well, life probably didn’t originate in the Solar System…. As it has been recently revealed, that interstellar objects go through said system, and apparently collide with Earth frequently. If morality arises from the simplest mechanisms  ensuring survival, panspermia makes it so that it is then a cosmic phenomenon. 

Patrice Ayme



[1] This why WWII Germans kept in fighting for Hitler, even after it was clear the Nazi regime was monstrous. (Had it been made clearer, they may have stopped.)

[2] Part of the understanding of evil enfolds the connection between ecology and apparently inhuman monstrosity. Turns out the latter ensures the survival of the former, hence the species. The devil is not just in the details, sometimes it’s in the logic.


Think America Campaign, Not Hate America!

April 24, 2019

Many have a problem differentiating hate from thought. To train those critters, with new criterions, emotional provocation is best. Here is an important concept, related to “fake news”. The LYING QUESTION. This is an example which was sent my way, found on Quora:

Why do the French fail to recognize the US help during WWII?

The question present as a fact, something that is a lie: the French recognize, ALL TOO MUCH, US help in World War Two (they should read me more, but they don’t understand English as much as they should). Entire avenues in France are named after US president Franklin Roosevelt with what is for me the gratefulness of the ignorant. A real picture of what really happened in WWII leaves with a completely different mood.  

If the USA wanted to avoid Auschwitz and the destruction of Europe in World War Two. all they had to do was to join the French Republic and declare war to Hitler, September 3, 1939. Instead the greedy, unprincipled, cowardly US leadership waited until Hitler declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941. 4 days after Japan did the same.

This massive and painful truth didn’t please the dumbfounded:

81 views 0 Upvotes

Typical Scene in May 1940: Nazi troops, on foot and with horse, pass next to a demolished French Char B1 Bis. Those monster heavy French tanks, couldn’t be defeated by Nazi tanks, they were among the 3,000+ tanks of the French army. They were destroyed from the air. A failure of air supremacy caused the French and British to lose the battle of France in 5 days, starting May 10 1940. That was entirely avoidable, had the Nazi army been detected in a timely manner.

Moreover Ohio Attorney Bryan Reo intervened

Have you considered the possibility of taking your “Hate America” propaganda on an international tour? You could burn an American flag in Cairo and then shout “DEATH TO AMERICA” in Beirut.

My answer to Mr. Reo: It’s rather a THINK AMERICA campaign. It starts by learning to distinguish between “Hate” and “Think”. I know it’s hard for simple beings… One has first to understand that one is not anti-American, nor “French”, just because one deplores once All-American activities, such as McCarthyism, segregation, Jim Crow, Civil War, slavery, genocide of the Natives by the invasive Europeans, etc Neither one is a Jihadist… I was banned by several US media for… Jihadism, a testimony of the lack of education of journalists, lawyers, etc. In their incapacity for deep thought, they couldn’t even tell that my views were rather the exact opposite of what they claimed they were. My view on basic Islam: VIOLENCE IN “HOLY QUR’AN”.

Right, thinking is necessary for hating. However, the two notions should not be confused. It’s not because one hates, that one thinks.

We think, therefore we distinguish. 
Patrice Ayme

Homo, Naturally Born Capitalist

April 19, 2019


Capitalism presided to the evolution of the genus Homo. First, apes are territorial. They have to be to survive: land and its resources do not reproduce at will, yet species do. But species can’t survive without land or resources. So, unfortunately, survivors exist, because they have defended successfully land and resources.

As a study by top experts put it in Nature: Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts.

Chimps On War Patrol. The species can’t survive without war. Or then, in a zoo!

The apparition of tools and weapons extended the notion of property crucial to survival to other capital. That coincided with a bigger brain and the rise of the genus Homo.

During those millions of years of human evolution, some limits to inequality were intrinsic, because the group could only survive if all worked for it, and that could only be done willingly. Force was not an option to ensure collaboration, because force was needed against outside threats and enemies.

Civilization threw these evolutionary conditions off, as the increasing powers it yielded enabled the apparition of a superior class capable of fighting enemies, foreign and domestic.

The monopolization of the means of production by these superior types included intellectual capital, which, in turn, brought superior weapons. However, intellectual capital grew the more, the more intellectuals, scientists and engineers were at work. Thus oligarchic regimes, by monopolizing those mental powers found themselves less militarily inventive than democracies, which unleashed those mental creative powers (hence developed better weapons).

Therefrom, the old struggle between  oligarchies and democracies.

How to create democracies? By outlawing runaway oligarchies. Thus the Roman Republic put an absolute limit on wealth. Enforcing equality is the fundamental reason for taxation.

Continually, the naive arise, and ask for an end to war and capital. When they get better organized, those plaintiffs succeed to hold ultimate power for a while. Spartacus, the Paris Commune, and Lenino-Stalinism are examples. However, that very organization, which put them on top, is itself from superior capital and war capability (however ephemeral). For example the Kaiser, and later Trotsky (head of the Red Army) took the military actions necessary for success.

Capitalism, war, democracy, oligarchy and plutocracy all belong to the same space. One can’t leave it. It, and only it, provides the human experience. Thus simplistic slogans have to be put to rest. It’s the correct analysis of subtlety which should rule, not this, or that idea, let alone person…

Patrice Ayme



From the Nature article about the killing of chimps by chimps in the wild:

“Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing… Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates1,2,3,4,5

…Several robust patterns emerge from these data. Killing was most common in eastern chimpanzees and least common among bonobos. Among chimpanzees, killings increased with more males and higher population density, whereas none of the three human impact variables had an obvious effect. Male chimpanzees killed more often than females, and killed mainly male victims; attackers most frequently killed unweaned infants; victims were mainly members of other communities (and thus unlikely to be close kin); and intercommunity killings typically occurred when attackers had an overwhelming numerical advantage. The most important predictors of violence were thus variables related to adaptive strategies: species; age–sex class of attackers and victims; community membership; numerical asymmetries; and demography. We conclude that patterns of lethal aggression in Pan show little correlation with human impacts, but are instead better explained by the adaptive hypothesis that killing is a means to eliminate rivals when the costs of killing are low.”


OPEN SOURCE LOBBYING Should Be The Only Legal Lobbying

April 13, 2019

Those afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome hoped that Mueller would describe the object of their hatred as an agent of Putin. This didn’t happen: Trump was explicitly exonerated from being a Russian agent. Instead, Mueller fingered out a number of super lobbyists, working with, or more exactly for, both ironically called “Republicans” and “Democrats” (in contrast to what, “Monarchists”?)… the US super lobbyists also worked for all dictators you can possibly imagine… And their targets were not just the powerful “leaders” in Western states, but public opinion (it’s managing public opinion which caused and enabled the Kaiser attack of 1914, and that was explicitly planned, in writing, as early as 1912; since then we enjoyed more of the same, the molding of public opinion to produce Maoism, Nazism, McCarthyism, Brexit, etc.).

The New York Times wrote an article on this: “Gregory Craig, Ex-Obama Aide, Is Indicted on Charges of Lying to Justice Dept.”

My reactionI claim that ONLY OPEN SOURCE LOBBYING Should Be LAWFUL.

Draining the swamp, one lobbyist at a time. Just to understand how hard it is going to be, going that route: there are 40,000 officially registered lobbyists at the European Parliament.

Why should lobbyists who receive compensation (financial or otherwise) for their work be tolerated, in a democracy? Why not, instead, outlaw lobbying pay to play entirely? It’s easy for lobbyists to implicitly offer plenty of indirect contributions in the future…t

The only lawful lobbying should be Open Source lobbying, where the lobbying effort would be posted on the Internet, and made completely transparent. Moreover, a government agency (related to the Justice Department)  should review the lobbying and explain its plausibility, veracity, impact, etc… Similarly to what is already done in California when propositions come to referendums (the voters’ official pamphlet comes with pros and cons, and a California government official analysis, for each single proposition… that, feeds, in turn, healthy debates in the public, and moves the voting intentions).  

Democracy, People Power, can’t happen when only a few men have all the power. In this case, these few men empowered a quasi-dictator in Ukraine determined to crush, even kill, the ex-PM, a woman. This is not just a question of money, not just a question the law, or politics, but of basic human rights.  

Patrice Ayme



Notes: 1) The question of Referendum Initiated by Citizens (RIC) is related, as I said in the comment above. In Switzerland, referendums can be contested judicially (and have been: 5 out of 10 last year, 2018!) The US State of Oregon is introducing a system according to which a state commission made of citizens selected by lot would overview the argumentation submitted to referendum. The same could be done for lobbying. Such a system of overviewing by lot was already used in democracies of Ancient Greece. 

2) Many European “leaders” have been in the employ of top plutocratic corporations. Here is a particular case of lobbying. 

Why do Pluto corporation legal “persons” enjoy greater rights than the average citizen? They exert special access of VIPs in secret (see Europe, below). We’ve clear indications of malfeasance, the “revolving door” between government & business… Just over two years! This is the official (real was probably much higher) intensity of a few US Obama-favored technological monopolies. Legally those are viewed as “persons” (the idea, and law originated in France, became US law recently).  Revolving door became blatant in 1920, when German assets were offered to US plutocrats by the US government (the building with the transactions conveniently burned in 1922, or so…)

3) The corrupting nature of lobbying is beyond understanding. Schroeder, once Chancellor of Germany, became the head of the Russian-German gas project, which insures the good fortune of Putin, Schroder, and the CO2 catastrophe. Ultimately pipes were built-in the Baltic Sea sea floor to bring Siberian gas to Germany.  Schroeder made millions… More are built. Merkel claimed she saved the world from big bad nuclear, while enriching the Russian petrostate dictatorship. No doubt she will be rewarded when she resigned the Chancellorship… Just as her corrupt predecessor.

4) Context from NYT: In an indictment that seized the attention of the capital’s K Street lobbying corridor, Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, was charged on Thursday with lying to the Justice Department and concealing information about work he did in 2012 for the government of Ukraine.

The indictment of Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

The charges represented a continuation — and an expansion — of a new focus on a long-neglected law governing foreign influence operations in the United States, which the Justice Department has begun prioritizing in part because of scrutiny related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation…

By Thursday afternoon, the indictment and its implications were a hot topic for Washington’s lucrative lobbying and communications consulting industry.

The charges will prompt even more diligent review of possible compliance obligations by consultants who represent foreign clients, said Thomas J. Spulak, a partner at the King & Spalding law firm who advises on lobbying compliance.

“It’s pretty significant,” he said. “It’s not just trying to influence the government; it’s trying to influence the American public.” He added, of Mr. Craig’s case, “If they can establish the facts, then I think it’s a pretty serious violation.”

Mr. Craig’s indictment also attracted notice because he is the first person who made his name in Democratic Party politics to be charged in a case linked to the special counsel’s investigation. An Ivy League-educated lawyer, Mr. Craig held prominent positions in the administrations of President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.

The indictment said Mr. Craig “did not want to register as an agent for the government of Ukraine” partly because he believed doing so would make it less likely that he and others at his firm at the time, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, would be appointed to federal government posts. Mr. Obama had put rules in place restricting the work that former lobbyists could do in his administration.

The indictment said Mr. Craig also wanted to hide the identity of the Ukrainian oligarch who paid $4 million to fund the overwhelming majority of the fees received by Skadden Arps for the Ukraine work.

Mr. Craig identified the oligarch as Viktor Pinchuk, a steel magnate who has portrayed himself as pro-Western, and who has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation…

The work was done on behalf of the government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine, and consisted primarily of producing a report on the prosecution and jailing by Mr. Yanukovych’s government of one of his rivals, the former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko. The Skadden Arps team also agreed to train Ukrainian prosecutors handling matters related to the case.

The work was steered to Mr. Craig and his firm by Paul Manafort, who at the time was a political consultant earning tens of millions of dollars for his representation of Mr. Yanukovych. Mr. Manafort intended to use the report to quell Western criticism of Mr. Yanukovych.


When a concept is born, the concept should have a name, that’s how neurobiology works. The concept becomes a philosophical person, so to speak. I am proud to have originated “Trump Derangement Syndrome“, let’s hope “Open Source Lobbying” will be similarly graced… I have talked in the past of the “Absolute Wealth Limit”… A concept actually invented and practiced in the Roman Republic. However, the Roman didn’t give it a name as such. Notice that the “Absolute Wealth Limit” was a particular case of another Roman Republican practice which deserves a name, the “Absolute Power Limit“. According to which persons (even Consuls in the case of Rome, or presidents in contemporary states) shouldn’t have more than a given power limit. Open Source Lobbying is a particular case.


Disclosure: Skadden is one of the premium law firms in the world. Fundamental to the plutocratic order. My spouse worked at Skadden for a few years… And I have socialized with Skadden partners… Thus I am no virgin to the subject…



Philosophy Censorship; About Socrates The Basic Truth Shall Not Be Told, Pluto Enforced By “Aeon”, A Magazine Promoting Philosophical Fascism

April 3, 2019

Owners of the pseudo-philosophical magazine “Aeon” enforce a particularly strict vision of Socrates. Straying out of it “violates their community guidelines”. This is pure censorship in the domain of the most esoteric ideas (demonstrating those are crucial to the Pluto. order!)

The gist of my comment was that the trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are pro-plutocratic philosophers, and that’s why their thoughts were so well preserved. This is intolerable to… plutocrats. And guess who is financing “Aeon”? Same as all over the world media: plutocrats!

For Aeon’s abuse, see the note. Here is my censored comment, with a picture added.



Socrates should not be considered to be the founding figure of Western philosophy:

that Socrates is the greatest philosopher is a widely held opinion that is indeed deeply flawed, considering the gigantic heritage of thought and thus philosophy, which preceded the Athenian Age of Pericles.

General on the left, great philosopher, his spouse, on the right. Aspasia (right) invented the so-called “Socrates” method (“inductio”) and the Open Society, and all great things Pericles said. All the bad policies of Pericles were his own, he admitted, begging forgiveness.

Actually, let’s hammer it again, Pericles’ second wife, Aspasia of Miletus, was arguably a better thinker than Socrates: she invented the concept of the Open Society, which K. Popper parroted recently; the Open Society is more important a notion than anything Socrates allegedly did. 

Consider the many pharaohs who were women, and discoveries such as “Pythagoras” theorem, one of many discoveries which the Greeks themselves said came from Egypt (with steam power).  Truth was revered in Ancient Egypt, and the ideal feminine, when not actual women, propelled it.

Suspicion wants to ask why, among all great thinkers of Greece only the trio of Socrates Plato and Aristotle was viewed as worth preserving so extensively? Was it because their thinking was so compatible with, and useful to, the 2,000 years of dictatorship and plutocracy which followed them? And which Aristotle personally contributed so much to install? Indeed! It’s no coincidence that Roman Catholicism was made compatible with the “Neo-Platonism” which dominated the empire (and not reciprocally).

Contemplate the many colossal thinkers of Classical Greece, such as the inventors of NON Euclidean geometry (Yes, non-Euclidean), and the engineers of mechanical computers, algebra, and of the all important atomic theory, complete with vacuum and perpetual (“Brownian”) motion. Presocratic philosopher Democritus, his teacher Leucippus, and Epicurus, over two centuries, wrote more than 100 books, mostly on the atomic theory, science, and a rational approach to the entire universe. Why were all their work deliberately destroyed?

Because Roman Catholic fascism was not compatible with rational explanations.

Whereas, of course, Socrates, with his voices in his head, Joan of Arc style, Plato, in love with tyrants of Syracuse, and Aristotle being all things to the Macedonian gangsters, were compatible with Catholicism, to the point they promoted many of its themes, five centuries before Roman emperors adopted them, that is, adopted the intellectual fascism Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were oozing with.

Athenian democracy knew so much about its incompatibility with Socrates and Aristotle, it wanted to execute both (Aristotle fled).

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were deeply entangled, in the most intimate ways, with some of the most famous and bloodiest dictators in history. It is telling that most philosophers have not noticed that horrendous, yet very loquacious, fact. So no wonder the dictators, tyrants and so-called monarchs of the next two millennia esteemed that philosophical trio from thinking hell, so much. But should we? Socrates hated real democracy, and Aristotle was, literally, the father of “Hellenistic” dictatorships which  buried free thinking and inspired Roman plutocracy to take over the Republic, and then the world.

Socrates had means, a stock inheritance from his father, which he admitted to have dilapidated, and a busy wife. In any case, he could afford the expensive equipment of a upper class hoplite, and he kept the most intimate company with Athens’ topmost golden youth. That made him tight with the dictators who ruled Athens, when they did.    

That Socrates was married early in his life with an aristocrat called Myrto explains readily why he was hanging around the uppermost echelon of Athenian society, insisted to attack democracy, and why the democratic authorities viewed him with such hostility. That Plato hid that from view is explained by Plato’s general adoration of dictators, and those who love them.

Diotima of Mantinea is presented in Plato’s Symposium as a philosopher of love, teacher of a youthful Socrates, who defer to her expertise, and she is the inventor of the concept of Platonic love.  

Thus one can see that some of the most prominent durable notions of the infernal Socrates-Plato-Aristotle trio were actually elaborated by women… So why all the reverence to the guys? Is that another case of delirious sexism?

Some British philosopher claimed that Western philosophy, the way he knew it, was just “footnotes to Plato”. Indeed: sitting in the middle of his glorious British empire, he only knew Western fascist philosophy of the plutocratic type.

To get out of this inequality trance, one needs to realize the truth: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were just theoreticians and advocates of the exploitation of We The People by the principle of oligarchy. Socrates hated democracy, Plato lauded tyrants, and Aristotle put in place Antipater, the bloody tyrant, executor of Aristotle’s will, who made Athens, after defeating her twice in naval battles, into an official plutocracy.

No philosophical education should be complete without realizing that this infernal trio are fathers to plutocratic philosophy. And, in particular, Roman Catholicism.


Conclusion (not part of my comment, which was above): Is Aeon is a magazine promoting philosophical fascism? You judge!

The sort of censorship I was subjected to reminds me of The Inquisition. Actually, it is exactly this sort of censorship which brought plutocratic rule, when the non-Roman Catholic literature was systematically destroyed by the “Men In Black” (monks).

This sort of censorship prevents people to realize that Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophies have been the backbone of plutocracy, for 24 centuries… and that so-called Christianism (and thus then its child, Islamism).

Interesting too, the no-good Socrates stole women. And who are women except nobody? The Socratic method is Aspasia’s. Aspasia understood what made civilization strong, the Open Society, exactly what Socrates detested (in the guise of detesting Direct Democracy). Socrates (Plato admits) got his (“Platonic”) philosophy of love from another woman philosopher:    

This is another indication that sexism and plutocracy are deeply entangled. I am honored to be censored for this insight.

But this is a warning: the techno fascist who rule the world now are, in some ways worse than the Inquisition. Facebook censors for obscenity works of art ordered by popes during the Middle Ages. We have sunk low, and are sinking lower.

Patrice Ayme



Note: Plato or Pluto? Is there a difference? My comment was using not one word of foul language, or slang, and couldn’t be considered abusive to anyone alive since the dictator Antipater became the executor of the will of Aristotle. My comment was polite, and highly informed at a much higher level than the author of the article (who I didn’t criticize, neither directly, nor implicitly; I actually went further in his general direction, bringing new elements).

Aeon send me this message:

Aeon Magazine

Dear Patrice Ayme,

Your comment to the article ‘Was the real Socrates more worldly and amorous than we knew?’ has been deleted because it contravened our community guidelines.

Users who repeatedly violate our community guidelines will have their membership deleted.

Unfortunately we cannot give individual feedback on moderation. Please consult our community guidelines.

Aeon calls itself a “world of ideas…Aeon is a magazine of ideas and culture. We publish in-depth essays, incisive articles…” The article I commented up was by a Oxford professor (who, let it be said in passing didn’t know much about Socrates; apparently he didn’t know how Socrates learned of the theory of love… although it’s extensively described in Plato…)



UK philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica with B. Russell,  wrote in his Process and Reality (Free Press, 1979, p. 39): “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.