Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Trump, Globalization & The Fall Of The Roman Republic

September 27, 2019

Trump has demolished much of the international plutocratic order which exported jobs, power and Intellectual Property to distant powers, first of which, China, a dictatorship. This exportation of all power overseas was a major betrayal and, had it proceeded further, would have lethally wounded democracy.

The Roman Republic fell precisely from the same mechanism. Because power was diverted from Italy to overseas territory, by the wealthiest Romans, for the wealthiest Romans. In particular, that exportation of power made local Roman law, and taxation, impotent. That process quickly made the average Roman citizen unemployed, or sub-employed, impoverished, exploited, begging, powerless. It all came down to “panem et circenses” as Juvenal said around 100 CE.

Hence Trump’s demolition of the unhealthy relationship with China (inter alia) was a laudable, extremely important task. Far from acknowledging this the “Democratic” elite has rolled it out as Trump crime number one. By contrast with Trump international democracy mitigation, the Biden business in Ukraine and China is the paradigm, the epitome of what is wrong with the old global, Davos plutocratic order: political elite doing business with political elite, exchanging wealth, power, relationships, in the process. The goal of reining in global plutocracy, all progressives, such as yours truly, who want no more billionaires, applaud.

The Fall Of Rome was no accident. In truth it took well above 550 years… to fall in the West… So I say, this is one of my pet ideas. By the time Rome assassinated and exterminated Carthage, Corinth, Numantia, Rome was mostly controlled by a rabid plutocracy (although it would wait another century, with the assassination of Caesar, to acquire full control). It took another 1,000 years, for Rome to fall in the Orient… By then it had been distanced and rendered obsolete by its Frankish offspring…

Trump’s posturing on climate is grotesque, but of relatively small consequence, so far: US states still proceed towards a green economy. Arguably, Obama’s encouragement of fracking was the real hurt on climate, and Trump bellowing for coal (which Obama tried to export), is just funny: plants are closing anyway from lack of profitability, lawsuits…

The editorial board of the New York Times recognizes it has long decided Trump was “unfit for office” (see September 27, 2019: “Why the Trump Impeachment Inquiry Is the Only Option“). That i equivalent to saying the anti-democratic world plutocracy is fit to rule. The board says the president should have made a request to ferret the Biden corruption through  the FBI… because the board is indignant that the president uses his office to help with his re-election… something all presidents running for re-election have done. OK, but we are in extraordinary times. A top French scientific panel came out a few days ago with the possibility of a seven meter (23 feet) sea level rise. Democracy needs to be boosted. That’s done by passing progressive laws, not by trying to turn into a martyr a clown in chief coming for re-election in 13 months.


This was a comment of mine to the NYT (which claims they read them all, so I am clinging to the ridiculous hope that they will understand what I am alluding to, from the pinnacle of civilization’s pterosaurian eye view). A reader sort of disagreed:

O, MD, @Patrice Ayme:

“OK, I can actually agree with some of this. Especially the part of no more billionaires, the export of jobs, etc. 

But Trump is most definitely not the answer, and he is anything but someone who wants to destroy the plutocracy. How could he be, if he signed a 1.5 trillion dollar tax bill that was aimed toward the rich?

How could be that, if he selects craven billionaires as part of his cabinet?

The fact is that he campaigned on, and then re-enforced with this inaugural address, that he was the champion of the lower classes. And then proceeded to govern in exactly the opposite way. 

And I most certainly cannot agree with the comment “…US states still proceed towards a green economy.” Did you miss the headline last week that the administration is seeking to revoke the California exemption?

I fully understand how a certain percentage of people who express the ideas you have expressed above voted for Trump in 2016, but I cannot understand how all of them do now not understand that they were tricked.”


Answer @O:

The war between Trump and California is interesting: both sides are correct, and hopefully, both will win, where they are correct. The piles of excrement and squalor in San Francisco Bay Area streets, which the EPA condemned are facts. I live there, and also observe that excrement and squalor are not found where the millionaire “Democratic” loud mouths live. This has got to stop, even the WHO said so. Now California is proceeding with green energy: starting January 1, 2020, all new homes have to have solar. Trump and California can even concur: the administration found the hydrogen fuel cell buses operating around Berkeley-Albany worked beyond all expectations (Obama had killed hydrogen fuel cell research… a US tech which got Apollo to the Moon [1]). The main problem California is having with green energy now is how to store it (34% of the electricity is green now, ahead of schedule). Trump of course is a billionaire, and was made so by US banks, part of a corrupt system lending to the wealthy. His cabinet, like Obama’s is full of extremely wealthy people and even more pull the strings, as under Obama. Depressing: that was supposed to a “Democratic” administration. But Trump is different. He is more like a viper one can make good anti-venom with. Global plutocracy escapes local laws: this is how Rome fell. If Warren becomes president (which I wish), she will be able (Congress willing) to tax US billionaires. Global wealth is more of a problem… which Trump is mitigating now.

Patrice Ayme



[1] Why Obama killed hydrogen can only be explained by corruption: it would prevent storage of sustainable energy. I had vicious exchanges with plutocrats who stood shoulder to shoulder with French or US presidents about that. And I was actually retaliated against! (My lawyer would probably prevent me to say more)

Brexit Will Happen, Here Is Why, Why No Big Deal

September 20, 2019

I used to say that Brexit will not happen, because it was racist in essence. Yet Brexit’s true motivation was that British and world plutocrats wanted to escape the EU law which says that, within three months, egregious tax evasion by EU citizens, within the EU, will be illegal… so the UK will exit 2 months exactly before that deadline.

Bexause exit it will: now things have changed. An article claimed “Boris Johnson Is in Trouble With Brexit. Many Voters Don’t Mind.” Here is my comment, a New York Times “pick”

Don’t underestimate Boris Johnson. He likes being PM too much. There will be Brexit. With an accord. That will consist in putting much of the EU/UK border in the middle of the Irish sea. No more backstop. Parliament will have to vote for it, under the threat of annihilation.

Considering Boris’ popularity and the British First-By-The-Post voting system, Boris I should get a majority after elections, because he is insured of 50% of the electorate, roughly…

Another point in favor of Brexit is that Macron (who joked around with Boris, who put his shoe on the French Elysee palace furniture, more or less at the suggestion of the french president…) also wants the UK out by October 31 (preferably with a deal, and J-C Juncker is supposed to get it) The Franco-British relationship is too important and close to not do what the British PM wants, especially when the French president wants it too…

Well, actually, it was a joke… Mr Macron joked with Mr Johnson and telling him the table could be used as a footstool… inciting him to make a fool of himself..

So here we are: Brexit started as a plutocratic ploy for the wealthiest to escape the egalitarianism of the EU (equality is not just in the French Constitution, but also in the Charter of Human Rights of the United Nations, both enshrined by the EU). To rally popular enthusiasm in the abysmal project of sparing taxes for the wealthiest, the usual tribal call, in other words, racism, was used:’We have to get out of the EU because of immigration of dirty Europeans inside the UK’ (in truth most immigrants to Britain didn’t come from the EU).

Enter Mister Johnson: he decided to push for Brexit after long hesitating: perfectly French bilingual, Boris, brought up in Brussels, knows very well Britain is in Europe, and can’t really get out, but he also knew Brexit offered a plausible ploy for him to become PM. So here he is: PM at last!

Boris’ plan is obviously to formally exit the EU without really exiting (because that can’t be done… but something like Switzerland’s arrangement with the EU can be done).

Boris showed this clearly by going to visit a thermonuclear reactor, MAST, saying Britain was going to sell such wonderful machines all around the world, thanks to scientists coming from all around the world from immigration reform (in other words, more of what Brexit was supposed to cure!)… MAST is actually financed by EURATOM, which is part of the EU, which the UK is supposed to Brexit… That may sound like colossal hypocrisy, but it’s a ploy: Boris will turn around and say the UK is European a la carte… Europe is good, when it finances the likes of MAST (compare with Switzerland getting EU financing for the EU Brain Project…)

Meanwhile Boris doesn’t have to speak about all this money the UK owes to the EU.

And what does Macron gets if Brexit happens forthwith? Simply to succeed, thanks to Boris, where Napoleon failed: unite continental Europe against Britain…

What is there not to like?

Seriously, Brexit may be good by bringing in some welcome competition… For most of the last millennium, the world’s most important competition was between France and England [1] (the English monarch renounced his claim to the French throne in 1815… So 1337 CE to 1815 CE; before that there was the struggle between Plantagenet,  king of France, Aquitania and its Eleanor, etc…)

After that exit with a provisional deal, the real treaty will have to be worked on… It will probably end with some other referendum…

Curious world ruled by men putting their shoes on tables, and joking about it, while we are supposed to call this democracy. Tyrants can spit in the soup, and the common folks are only too happy to have the honor of eating it.

Patrice Ayme



[1] For a tiny example: steam power. Denis Papin, soon a Protestant refugee from France, student of physicist Huygens (financed by Louis XIV!), taught steam power at the highest level in England… And the Brits stole his (and Huygens) steam invention (see Watt for the unit of power… It should be the Papin…)

Another example is “Newtonian” mechanics, which was pretty much an Franco-Italo-English show (from Buridan to Laplace… from 1350 CE to 1800s)

Understanding Quantum Mechanics: Why It Didn’t Happen Yet, And Why It Matters

September 9, 2019

Conflict Mentality, Militarism, Petty nationalism Got In The Way Of Quantum Understanding:

Abstract: Civilization advances by jumps, a bit like Quantum Mechanics. Most places, most of the time, contributed nothing to civilization. Look even at Antique Athens: it is mentally creative only over a few generations. Even after a century of Macedonian imposed plutocracy, when Second Century BCE Athens was free and prosperous again, covered with new monuments, having recovered the heart of its old empire (Delos), its famous intellectual class was also present, but amounted, in the end to… nothing. Why? Because the hyper power, the fascizing Roman Republic turning into a plutocracy, is lurking in the background, making Athens gifts it can’t refuse.

Quantum Mechanics was built by Europeans from various conflicting tribes (hence a desire to avoid finding too much truth). Starting in January 1938, the French “War Ministry“. following the lead of Nobel Irene Curie, imposes complete secrecy on the French nuclear bomb program, launching a new mentality of secrecy and military financing of physics festering to this day. So no wonder, the “Shut Up And Calculate!” mentality completely overwhelmed physics: even a top iconoclast physicist such as Feynman grew up working and breathing the Manhattan (nuclear bomb) project.

High energy physics” was of course military financed: always has been always will be: the more energetic military wins…

However, nowadays, it’s possible to do Quantum Foundations physics, experimentally. They will require to push tech further, just as the detection of gravitational waves did. Actually, many obvious Foundations experiments will have to use similar tech, with refined optics.

Pushing for an understanding of Quantum Mechanics is not just that, it is pushing for what deeper understanding is, in general, and why it’s what humans do. The “Shut up and Calculate” mentality is just a glorification of intellectual fascism, and that, per se, is enough to reject it.


I spent most of my life, decades of it, trying somewhat obsessionally, to understand Quantum Mechanics. It made me lots of enemies: I still remember a friend of mine, a Fields Medal sneering that I “meditated too much” after a seminar on Black Holes I gave at Stanford Physics department. The gist of my drift being that understanding Quantum Mechanics was crucial to Black Hole theory. At the time, although Hawking radiation was known as a possibility, it looked as if I mixed the unmixable… I found better recently: General Relativity itself depends on Quantum Mechanics [1]. What I didn’t understand at the time is that intellectuals are for sale, and the first thing they sell is the mood of conventionalism, not thinking too deep, as this is crucial to the sustainability of the establishment. Digging deep into Quantum Mechanics is the ultimate debasement of conventional thinking. In particular the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM rests on mystical intellectual fascism:”Don’t ask, don’t tell…” (Same as Clinton’s policy with “gays”)

Sean Carroll in New York Times, September 7, 2019: Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it.

By Sean Carroll (Dr. Carroll is a physicist.

“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman. That’s not surprising, as far as it goes. Science makes progress by confronting our lack of understanding, and quantum mechanics has a reputation for being especially mysterious.

What’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have.

This has to do with how Quantum Mechanics evolved, from a number of intellectuals, who knew each other very well, united by debating physics, although they were also deeply antagonistic to each other, below the surface (some were Jews, secular, or hidden, some were Nazis, blatant, or fellow-travelers, some were Germans, some French; they ended up working on nuclear bombs against each other…). Here is Sean Caroll:

Quantum mechanics, assembled gradually by a group of brilliant minds over the first decades of the 20th century, is an incredibly successful theory. We need it to account for how atoms decay, why stars shine, how transistors and lasers work and, for that matter, why tables and chairs are solid rather than immediately collapsing onto the floor.

Scientists can use quantum mechanics with perfect confidence. But it’s a black box. We can set up a physical situation, and make predictions about what will happen next that are verified to spectacular accuracy. What we don’t do is claim to understand quantum mechanics. Physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device.”

Good analogy. Now the difference between somebody physics minded and someone who is not, is that the former wants to understand. Under-stand, stand-under. 

There are two problems. One is that quantum mechanics, as it is enshrined in textbooks, seems to require separate rules for how quantum objects behave when we’re not looking at them, and how they behave when they are being observed. When we’re not looking, they exist in “superpositions” of different possibilities, such as being at any one of various locations in space. But when we look, they suddenly snap into just a single location, and that’s where we see them. We can’t predict exactly what that location will be; the best we can do is calculate the probability of different outcomes.”

The reason for behaving differently when looked at, is that looking at is itself what I call a QUANTUM INTERACTION. The observation used to be called “Wave Packet Collapse”, then, in an effort to tone down controversy, got to be less ominously named”The Measurement Problem”. 

My own SPQR theory deals with the brutal switch over from linear waves to particle, by spreading out a Linear Real Wave (LRW), the GUIDING linear part of the DELOCALIZED particle, all over the “phase space”. LRW is proportional to the usual Quantum Wave (QW)… But LRW reacts nonlinearly to poking by other QWs, and then contracts at a speed greater than 10^23 times the speed of light

The immense speed gives the impression of being in several places at the same time. 

The discovery of the Double Slit (above) by Polymath MD Young impacted physics hard: Laplace left the particle theory, thus removing his BH prediction…[2]. After that, light was viewed as wave  Aragot’s attempt to deny waves by predicting a spot, which was indeed observed![3] Light being E-M waves (Maxwell), “explained” interference… until Einstein claimed the existence of “Lichtquanten), a rebirth of Newton’s light corpuscule (as used by Laplace). Einstein insisted the photon was localized in space. SQPR, instead says the photon is linearly extended with “most” of it nonlinearly concentrated, but guided by the linear part, thanks to the nonlinear behavior the “linear” part is ready to exhibit (for those who shake their heads here: this is how oceanic waves, which are nearly linear behave… the slight nonlinearity make some wave go faster than others, generating rogue waves…

Sean Carroll, poking at Textbook Quantum Mechanics  (TQM) finds that:

The whole thing is preposterous. Why are observations special? What counts as an “observation,” anyway? When exactly does it happen? Does it need to be performed by a person? Is consciousness somehow involved in the basic rules of reality? Together these questions are known as the “measurement problem” of quantum theory.

The other problem is that we don’t agree on what it is that quantum theory actually describes, even when we’re not performing measurements. We describe a quantum object such as an electron in terms of a “wave function,” which collects the superposition of all the possible measurement outcomes into a single mathematical object. When they’re not being observed, wave functions evolve according to a famous equation written down by Erwin Schrödinger.

But what is the wave function? Is it a complete and comprehensive representation of the world? Or do we need additional physical quantities to fully capture reality, as Albert Einstein and others suspected? Or does the wave function have no direct connection with reality at all, merely characterizing our personal ignorance about what we will eventually measure in our experiments?

Until physicists definitively answer these questions, they can’t really be said to understand quantum mechanics — thus Feynman’s lament. Which is bad, because quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory we have, sitting squarely at the center of every serious attempt to formulate deep laws of nature. If nobody understands quantum mechanics, nobody understands the universe.

Then Sean hits the nail:

“You would naturally think, then, that understanding quantum mechanics would be the absolute highest priority among physicists worldwide. Investigating the foundations of quantum theory should be a glamour specialty within the field, attracting the brightest minds, highest salaries and most prestigious prizes. Physicists, you might imagine, would stop at nothing until they truly understood quantum mechanics.

The reality is exactly backward. Few modern physics departments have researchers working to understand the foundations of quantum theory. On the contrary, students who demonstrate an interest in the topic are gently but firmly — maybe not so gently — steered away, sometimes with an admonishment to “Shut up and calculate!” Professors who become interested might see their grant money drying up, as their colleagues bemoan that they have lost interest in serious work.

This has been the case since the 1930s, when physicists collectively decided that what mattered was not understanding quantum mechanics itself; what mattered was using a set of ad hoc quantum rules to construct models of particles and materials. The former enterprise came to be thought of as vaguely philosophical and disreputable. One is reminded of Aesop’s fox, who decided that the grapes he couldn’t reach were probably sour, and he didn’t want them anyway. Physicists brought up in the modern system will look into your eyes and explain with all sincerity that they’re not really interested in understanding how nature really works; they just want to successfully predict the outcomes of experiments.”

How did such a mood grow among physicists? One thing led to another. The psychogenetics of Quantum Mechanics are fascinating:

1)Extremely respected senior Prussian physicist Max Planck solves the two major problems in physics by proposing energy emission is quantized: E = hf (f frequency of radiation). 1900; the year before Jules Henri Poincaré started to teach at La Sorbonne E = mcc from looking in detail at electrodynamics.

This is already fascinating: Jules Henri Poincaré and Max Planck devise new mechanics, Relativity (Jules Henri Poincaré) and Quantum Mechanics (Planck) by looking at translating light (Jules Henri Poincaré and light in a Black Box (Planck).

2) Opportunistically, in typical Einstein style, extending Planck’s supposition, Einstein supposes that light travels as a quanta (“Lichtquanten”), and thus energy gets absorbed in packets, explaining the photoelectric effect (discovered by some Frenchman 80 years prior; documented in detail by Hertz who promptly died). His sponsor Planck the Prussian hates Einstein for the photoelectric effect, but then Einstein gets the Nobel for it in 1921.

3) Bohr proposes a half baked atom theory (1913)… 

4)…spectacularly explained by De Broglie in 1924, with the invention of QUANTUM WAVES.  Bohr and company could only dislike the irruption of this medievalist, a hyper wealthy Prince, with the famous experimental physicist brother… Einstein, enthusiastic, himself confers the (recommendation for) De Broglie’s thesis.

5) A group of germanoid (Danish, lots of Germans, Austrian) physicists around Bohr then captures all of QM genesis… But they are careful to hide the connection with De Broglie: most of their work is an obvious consequence of the French Prince’s work…

As Sean Carroll puts it:

This attitude [not really interested in understanding how nature really works]can be traced to the dawn of modern quantum theory. In the 1920s there was a series of famous debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory. Einstein argued that contemporary versions of quantum theory didn’t rise to the level of a complete physical theory, and that we should try to dig more deeply. But Bohr felt otherwise, insisting that everything was in fine shape. Much more academically collaborative and rhetorically persuasive than Einstein, Bohr scored a decisive victory, at least in the public-relations battle.

Roughly it was a battle between Einstein, well-to do archetypal international Jew, allied to the cosmopolitan, immensely cultured and fortunate, sophisticated French Prince, against a Germanic horde not inclined to subtlety (mostly made of crypto Jews and Nazis, or Nazi sympathizers, not a crowd too inclined to dig deep in its own motivations…).


“Not everyone was happy that Bohr’s view prevailed, but these people typically found themselves shunned by or estranged from the field. In the 1950s the physicist David Bohm, egged on by Einstein, proposed an ingenious way of augmenting traditional quantum theory in order to solve the measurement problem. Werner Heisenberg, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, responded by labeling the theory “a superfluous ideological superstructure,” and Bohm’s former mentor Robert Oppenheimer huffed, “If we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him.”

Around the same time, a graduate student named Hugh Everett invented the “many-worlds” theory, another attempt to solve the measurement problem, only to be ridiculed by Bohr’s defenders. Everett didn’t even try to stay in academia, turning to defense analysis after he graduated.”

As I am hinting above, tribal strife (French against German; Jew against Nazi) was one of the main reason the search for the deepest knowledge became irrelevant to the elaboration of present day physics. Unfortunately, Sean Carroll just fed it some more, just above: the “Bohm” theory was actually invented by Louis De Broglie (Nobel, 1/1, 1927). But De Broglie is French, Bohm US born, so much better, never mind that Bohm was thrown out of the USA during McCarthyism…



“A more recent solution to the measurement problem, proposed by the physicists Giancarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini and Tulio Weber, is unknown to most physicists.”

As Wikipedia puts it: GRW differs from other collapse theories by proposing that wave function collapse happens spontaneously. GRW is an attempt to avoid the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It was first reported in 1985…. Yes, “first reported”, but, well, as far as I am concerned, I got and advertised the idea first (in Stanford, Berkeley). Today’s SQPR is much more sophisticated and deep than GRW (and thus can explain Dark Matter)


These ideas are not simply woolly-headed “interpretations” of quantum mechanics. They are legitimately distinct physical theories, with potentially new experimental consequences. But they have been neglected by most scientists. For years, the leading journal in physics had an explicit policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were to be rejected out of hand.

Of course there are an infinite number of questions that scientists could choose to worry about, and one must prioritize somehow. Over the course of the 20th century, physicists decided that it was more important to put quantum mechanics to work than to understand how it works. And to be fair, part of their rationale was that it was hard to actually see a way forward. What were the experiments one could do that might illuminate the measurement problem?”

My own SQPR implies Dark Matter: that’s an enormous, super massive implication (not at all like the tiny, but crucial, postdiction of the Mercury precession by GR, and the prediction of light deviation by the Sun being double of what Newton got…).


“The situation might be changing, albeit gradually. The current generation of philosophers of physics takes quantum mechanics very seriously, and they have done crucially important work in bringing conceptual clarity to the field. Empirically minded physicists have realized that the phenomenon of measurement can be directly probed by sufficiently subtle experiments.”

Applied French Physicist Michel Devoret, purchased by Yale, revealed the Copenhagen Interpretation is hogwash. See Absence of Presence Is Not Presence of Absence: QUANTUM JUMPS PREDICTED, Copenhagen Interpretation SHATTERED


“And the advance of technology has brought questions about quantum computers and quantum information to the forefront of the field. Together, these trends might make it once again respectable to think about the foundations of quantum theory, as it briefly was in Einstein and Bohr’s day.

Meanwhile, it turns out that how reality works might actually matter. Our best attempts to understand fundamental physics have reached something of an impasse, stymied by a paucity of surprising new experimental results. Scientists discovered the Higgs boson in 2012, but that had been predicted in 1964. Gravitational waves were triumphantly observed in 2015, but they had been predicted a hundred years before. “

Well, Laplace predicted gravitational waves in the Eighteenth Century. Poincaré made them relativistic in 1905. Then of course they appear in GR, a spacetime wave theory. 


“It’s hard to make progress when the data just keep confirming the theories we have, rather than pointing toward new ones.

The problem is that, despite the success of our current theories at fitting the data, they can’t be the final answer, because they are internally inconsistent. Gravity, in particular, doesn’t fit into the framework of quantum mechanics like our other theories do. It’s possible — maybe even perfectly reasonable — to imagine that our inability to understand quantum mechanics itself is standing in the way.

After almost a century of pretending that understanding quantum mechanics isn’t a crucial task for physicists, we need to take this challenge seriously.”

We humans are understanding machines. denying us understanding is denying us humanity. However, few places, and then rarely so, were devoted enough to understanding, to develop it, in spite of everything else… Which is, what it takes….

Patrice Ayme



P/S: Sean Carroll (@seanmcarroll) is a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology and the author of the forthcoming book “Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime,” from which this essay is adapted.”


[1] I sent that General Relativity (GR) depends upon QM, to a well-known physicist, on her well-known site… She apparently didn’t publish it… Probably to present soon the idea as hers (she has a physics career, as a pigeon has a career eating crumbs)… If she didn’t do it already. My reasoning in a nutshell: Special Relativity (SR) can be deduced from Local Time. But Local Time (LT), the photon bouncing around, itself is the essence of QM. So GR, as its locally SR, depends upon QM, through LT. Nobody made these simple remarks, before yours truly… 


[2] When 2 slit appeared, light looked like waves, so Laplace reasoning about Black Hole looked fishy, so he removed it from his book.


[3] Aragot predicted destructive light interference behind a sphere. That was viewed as unlikely, implausible, and was bound to destroy the wave theory of light: light + light = dark? Impossible! However, that Aragot spot was observed… After that, waves ruled, until Einstein 1905…

Pluto Propaganda Censors Critics Of Obama The Great

July 8, 2019

Anti-Trump Pundits, Lying About What Their True Aim, Use Methods Which Should Be Illegal: Censoring Comments….

Machiavellianism is doing something for all to see, to get what one is truly looking for, the opposite effect.

Everybody asks me: who do you think will win the presidential election? The answer should be: which ideas do you think should win the next presidential election? Trump’s answer is: America First and MAGA. That will win the election… Except if better ideas can be imposed… Say America First and MEGA (Make Earth Great Again).  

The reason Brexit is such a mess, is that British media lied for so long, that the British public can’t even feel, let alone think, right anymore.

Brits are now a bit like those Germans who believed all their problems came from the Jews and the French. 2019: Boris Johnson, the future PM, said ‘I’m wrenching Britain out of Europe, I think the French are turd…” 

The point of view that all what ailed Germany were the French and the Jews (and the Poles, etc.) was so prevalent before 1888, that Friedrich Nietzsche wrote dozens of pages about it… to harshly criticize it and declared prophetically it would bring the greatest wars… As it did: 1914, 1939, and the Holocaust. Nietzsche didn’t write that much, so this is all the more striking… He dined himself as a “good European” rather than a “good German” (there couldn’t be such a thing according to him, pointing out his family came from Poland…). 

I will consider a small and telling example of the attention plutocratic propaganda pays to detail: an article of the New York Times from Roger Cohen raged against Trump, after identifying The Donald to Boris Johnson. Silly:  Just 0.3% of registered voters will pick the next UK’s Prime Minister. They are mostly white, aging and male – the Conservative Party’s grass roots members. Boris Johnson is all about Brexit, something grotesque… [3]

Whereas many issues tackled by Trump have value as serious problems. Obama wrestled with many issues presently handled by Trump: North Korea, Iran, Immigration, space colonization. A specific Trump issue is crucial: globalization, and the Chinese invasion of intellectual property (an issue I have seen close at hand)…

Trump was voted in by nearly half of voters, not .3%. The core of Cohen’s editorial closely embraced critiques I made more than ten years ago. Thus my comment pointed out that the mistakes were made ten years ago, not by Trump the Dismal, but by Obama the Great. 

My comment was censored. The intolerable mood I tried to convey? That many things plutocratic didn’t originate with Trump, but with Obama the great, of before. This is of import as the Democrats try to fight what ails the US and the World. The disease, and why it was left untreated, better be defined correctly first.

Media pundits, are very well paid, very influential individuals working to please the plutocrats who own the media they work for. Just from their very definition, they are not working for We The People… But for the world’s wealthiest, or most powerful, people (from Gates to Putin). 

Censoring my comment violated the new comment policy of the  NYT (which supposedly checks only for “civility” of comments, not whether the ideas therein are pleasing to editorialists).

Censoring, or massively delaying critical comments matters, because, by putting our collective heads in the sand, loudly anti-Trump pundits are actually preparing for Trump’s victory. How does that make sense? As I said in the beginning of this essay, Machiavellianism is doing something for all to see, while arranging for the opposite effect to triumph.

Harris demolishing Biden by throwing buses at him, while Sanders, looking aghast, caught in the crossfire, wished he would die peacefully, in a galaxy far far away…

Willie Brown was the Democratic Mayor of San Francisco, for years… When he was 60 years old, his girlfriend was… Kamala Harris. [1] I agree with his opinion below.

Willie Brown June 29, 2019:
Bad news for Democrats — none of these candidates can beat Trump.
The first Democratic debates proved one thing: We still don’t have a candidate who can beat Donald Trump.

California Sen. Kamala Harris got all the attention for playing prosecutor in chief, but her case against former Vice President Joe Biden boiled down in some ways to a ringing call for forced school busing. It won’t be too hard for Trump to knock that one out of the park in 2020.

Biden did himself zero favors by telling Harris that he opposed only busing that was ordered by the federal government. It was a weird endorsement of states’ rights and local jurisdictions’ right to segregate schools. That’s the best argument he could marshal against busing little kids miles across town?

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders came across as Rip Van Bernie, looking and sounding as if it were still 2016.”


In response toTrump, Johnson and the Hole in the Doughnut. Will two charlatans and narcissists with hollow centers lead the free world?

I sent the following comment censored by New York Times, July 6, 2019. To fully appreciate the comment, one has to read the gist of Roger Cohen editorial… with which I agree. [2]

“Confusing Trump and Johnson has merits, but only so far. Boris Johnson helped cause Brexit: short of the dismal Cameron, and the perfidious British Parliament (which retrospectively made the Brexit poll legislating), Johnson was the most important actor in Brexit. Trump didn’t cause most of the surrounding disasters

Trump didn’t cause the rising inequality in the US and the West. Nor did Trump cause the decrease of life expectancy in the USA, which started under Obama the Great thanks to the excellent Obamacare he instituted (which prevented our family doctor we have had for 30 years: it would cost us $700 to do, for each visit). Nor did Trump cause the impunity of the bankers: here again you have to thank Obama the Great. And the destruction of the financial safeguards instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933 happened under Clinton, another “Democrat” well to the right of Reagan.

Reagan and Bush Senior nationalized more than 2,000 (two thousand) banks. Confronted to a more terrible financial crisis, how many banks did Obama the Great nationalize? Zero.

But Obama the Great saw that many plutocrats had lost all their money to smarter colleagues. How could the economy, and society still function? As Joe Biden said, billionaires are nice people.  Promptly TARP (Transferring Assets to Rich People) send them trillions.  

A lot of the destruction of the Roman republic, and the present West, was caused by globalization, which enables the wealthiest to evade the laws of Republics, and makes them accomplices of overseas dictators. This happened with Hitler.

Plutocratic globalization nowadays, just as 2,000 years ago, had the exact same effect. To wish to return to the state of globalization, as in the last year of Obama the Great, is not a progressive option.”

After he was done serving plutocrats as president, Obama the Great flew out of Palm Springs on the private jumbo jet of his friend plutocrat Richard Branson of “Virgin”, directly to the latter’s private island, a tax haven.


One thing we know about plutocrats is that, as per their definition, they love to make, and, or, see common people suffer.So do their servants, and they work to make us suffer… Be it only by confusing us. It’s intriguing that the New York Times, although much of its commentariat is just made of pseudo-leftists on automatic, is so insure that its readership will realize how biased their propaganda is, that they still use dirty tricks against my comment (delaying them two days is another favorite… While checking with all secret plutocratic conspiracies?)

Patrice Ayme  



[1] Dirt California Politics; The Brown Connection:

Kamala Harris’ first significant political role was an appointment by her powerful then-boyfriend Willie Brown, three decades her senior, to a California medical board that has been criticized as a landing spot for patronage jobs and kickbacks.

Then 30, Harris was dating 60-year-old Willie Brown, at the time the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly, when he placed her on the California Medical Assistance Commission in 1994. The position paid over $70,000 per year, $120,700 in current money, and Harris served on the board until 1998.

Harris (right) advancing her career, one cuddle at a time… With Brown as cuddly bear…

The medical commission met twice a month. Harris, now a United States senator for California since 2017 and Democratic presidential candidate, missed 20% of the meetings each year, according to commission records obtained by the Washington Examiner. The seven-member board was mostly composed of late-career semi-retired former state officials. At 30 years old, Harris was the youngest appointee by three decades.

Brown, in a letter to Harris, wrote that he was “pleased to appoint” her to the board, which oversaw the payment of insurance providers for state-subsidized MediCal recipients. “I am confident that your knowledge and experience will contribute significantly to the important work of the Commission,” he wrote.

Harris had no medical background, according to the resume she submitted to Brown at the time. Her experience consisted of four years as a deputy prosecutor.

Granlund, a former California Republican state assemblyman who worked with the commission while Harris was on the board said: “The boards are considered plumb appointments as they require no work, no policy credentials, and are paid the equivalent of a full-time [state] senator for arriving at a one- to two-hour meeting each month… crewing the speaker has its rewards.” 

Brown recently acknowledged in the San Francisco Chronicle that “Sure, I dated Kamala Harris. So what?… I may have influenced” Harris’s career. “Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.” Money for nothing… Brown noted that he had helped other politicians throughout his career: And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians. Harris was the “only one, who after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I so much as jaywalked’ while she was D.A.” He added: “That’s politics for ya.”

It gets better than that. Harris and Brown broke up after Brown met 32-year-old San Francisco socialite Carolyn Carpeneti, a woman with whom he would later have a daughter

While those two were dating, Carpeneti was paid (at least, and probably much more than) $2.33 million for campaign work from a network of nonprofit groups and committees run by Brown and his associates, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

If this doesn’t cross the line, it comes awfully close,” Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause, told the San Francisco Chronicle at the time. “At the very least it seems questionable for [Carpeneti] to have free use of a public resource in her role as private campaign consultant.

That wasn’t the first or last time Brown would steer benefits to women he was dating. In the 1980s, he reportedly hired his girlfriend Wendy Linka as a fundraiser, and she was later hired as a marketing director for city commissions after Brown became mayor.

Machiavellianism again: Brown also continued to aid Harris’s political career after their split, supporting her successful 2003 campaign for district attorney (powerful San Francisco mayor, Brown knew all the powers that be in California, from present and ex governors to assembly speakers).

An spectacularly ingrate Harris called Brown an “albatross hanging around my neck” in a 2003 San Francisco Weekly profile, in which she said that the “mere mention of their former liaison makes her shoulders tense, her hands clench, and her eyes narrow… His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing … Willie Brown is not going to be around. He’s gone — hello people, move on.



NYT Cohen on Trump-Johnson to which I responded in my censored comment: 

“How did this happen? How did two nations of laws dedicated to individual liberty come around to the semiotics of Trump: It’s O.K. to stiff people; it’s O.K. to lie; it’s O.K. to wink at racism?

The answer lies in the Six I’s: Inequality, impunity, invisibility, immigration, inversion and the internet.

Inequality that has risen as workers in the bottom 60 percent of American society have seen no real wage increase since 1980 while the richest 1 percent now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

Impunity that allowed the designers of the financial weapons of mass destruction that bankrupted many millions of people in 2008 to walk away. To conclude that the system was rigged was then only logical.

Invisibility that gave many citizens living far from the wired metropolises at the nexus of globalization the impression that they counted for nothing, as their hospitals died, public transport disappeared, their schools closed and their jobs went elsewhere.

Immigration that, in both Europe and the United States, brought millions of undocumented migrants to the borders without these societies showing the capacity to agree on a policy that was humane, firm and clear — and, in the American case, that reconciled the demands of a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

Inversion of the values of what had been white-male-dominated societies, giving rise to culture wars ranging across the charged questions of race, gender and identity, with cities and the hinterland often at violent odds.

The internet that, through social media, destroyed traditional mediators of society, like established political parties, and empowered politics of the mob. What counts today is not persuasion but mobilization.

Here was the grist for Trump’s populism — and that of his acolytes across the West. Here were the sources of anger and fear that could be exploited. Here’s “the American carnage” he could leverage. Here’s why, in the name of America First nationalism, he went about trashing the multilateral postwar order America had forged. Here’s why he tweets not only of a second term but of staying in power beyond that if the masses demand it. Trump’s inner despot is like Dr. Strangelove’s arm: He can’t keep it down.

Like Johnson, Trump is not an “aberration,” as Joe Biden has suggested. He’s a symptom. He won’t go away absent treatment of the symptoms. That won’t be easy, but it’s doable because Trump’s doughnut not only has a big hole in it; it’s rotten to the core.


The preceding is indicating that Cohen is not all together well: if the situation is as bad as he describes, if Trump is a symptom, well, why not to focus on the disease, rather than the scratch, Trump which irks him so much?



[3] The EU had already been on its knees, for decades, begging Great Britain to do as it pleased, and to get ever wealthier at the detriment of the rest of Europe. Great Britain  had the best imaginable deal. (So did Switzerland, also now the object of an EU crackdown…)

The UK got a big rebate from the EU. The UK was not in the Schengen area… while profiting of an immigration which it didn’t stop, by refusing appropriate police controls (slaves for free).  The UK was an exception to the Euro currency… while being allowed to become the main clearinghouse for EURO trades. The UK was an exception to the principle of ever closer Union and would continue to be so in the future, indefinitely.

Then the EU announced the coming of new, stricter tax avoidance regulations in 2016, and a crackdown on tax havens. Suddenly the glorious British leaders, and their global plutocrat friends, with their offshore, or ill-gained wealth, decide they would rather get the UK out of the European Union, rather than having them and their friends pay their fair share of tax. For a better idea, consider many Obama friends such as Richard Branson.  

That’s all there is to know about Brexit.






Brain Death Not As Fast and Irrevocable As Previously Thought. Quandaries.

July 3, 2019

Scientists Are Giving Dead Brains New Life. What Could Go Wrong?

In experiments on pig organs, scientists at Yale made a discovery that could someday challenge our understanding of what it means to die.

If one can restore activity to individual post-mortem brain cells, what stops from restoring activity to entire slices of post-mortem brain?

This led to the revival of pigs’ brains, hours after their death. So far the revival has been deliberately kept at a low level, with a number of tricks. The long and fascinating article is in the New York Times.

There is an even worse ethical quagmire: HUMAN mini-brains. A (partial) solution there maybe NON-human mini-brains… But HUMAN cancer is one thing one can study well in human mini brains… Some of these cancers no doubt caused by the 180,000 untested human made chemicals out there. Verily, we are in a human made scifi swamp of thorny possibilities…

Once the fluid — the present form of which includes antibiotics, several brain activity reducers, and nine different types of cytoprotective agents — is ready, the brain is lowered into a plastic case the scientists have nicknamed “the football” and connected via the carotids. A small thermal unit (a miniature air-conditioner and heater) sits under the football, controlling the temperature of the organ; the pressure and speed of the perfusate, meanwhile, are governed by a type of pump. With a dull whir, the fluid begins to circulate across the arteries, capillaries and veins of the brain in a loop, exiting on each circuit through a dialysis unit that “cleans” any waste products and through a filter that removes any naturally occurring bubbles… with an automated “pulse generator,” a device that replicates the heartbeat’s pulsatility in the organs… attached to a number of custom sensors.

On 17 April 2019, Nature said: Part-revived pig brains raise slew of ethical quandaries. Researchers need guidance on animal use and the many issues opened up by a new study on whole-brain restoration…”

Yes, well, who is to provide that guidance? Professional academics, without debate outside of their closed hushed societies?

How do we know who is the wisest?

180,000 untested chemicals out there, devastating life and humans… And we worry about pig brains, dead four (4) hours prior? Here is what I sent to the New York Times:

Progress is good: it augments happiness, reduces pain. For example anesthetics have revolutionized the management of pain. no ethics board is going to come and complain that pain has been hurt by anesthetics.

Life extension is good. Life extension is even necessary, because life extension means also widom extension, ultimately. 

Hence there is a very good civilizational reason for fostering ll and any research on life extension, from life of a little finger, to life of an entire brain. Without more advanced wisdom, civilization, let alone society as we know it, will not survive. 

Once some of this brain reanimation techniques are more advanced, practical and at the ready, they will be used after accidental, or battlefield, death. There are no ethics in the way.

And, as I said, there are very good ethical reason to fight for older brains, which have seen more. Some will whine at all imaginable problems it could cause. But any progress brings problems not seen before, and the more progress, the more problems, because the more brainwork. 

The fact remains that brain resuscitation, when it becomes practical will, and should be used, and further advanced. It’s not just excellent science, it’s excellent ethics and philosophy. By fostering it we demonstrate, not just that we are smart, but ethical in the most human way: that of survival and advancing curiosity. We also demonstrate we are attached to human minds, cherish and value them, and we spite a fate we have not chosen.

Cherish souls, but then demonstrate it with great efforts to save them!

Patrice Ayme


Growing Hatred: Brexit Turning Its Back To Europe’s Best. While EU To Be Led By (Super) Women.

July 3, 2019

Suppose one has a strong positive feeling, such as loving the music and words of Ludwig Van Beethoven’s Ode to Joy. This is the European anthem. As an orchestra played it in the European Parliament, 29 British Members of The European Parliament turned their backs. They wanted to show how much they despised the following words, the 9th Symphony, and the idea of a European Union. Or maybe they just hate peace, a written constitution, true democracy? (The present selection of the clown Boris Johnson for UK Prime Minister by 160,000 people is hardly something democratic in a country of 66 millions…) Ludwig:

Joy, beautiful spark of Divinity
We enter, drunk with fire,
Heavenly One, thy sanctuary!
Your magic binds again
What convention strictly divided;*
All people become siblings,
Where your gentle wing abides.

Who has succeeded in the great attempt,
To be a friend’s friend,
Whoever has won a lovely woman,
Add his to the jubilation!
Indeed, who even just has one soul
To call his own in this world!…

All creatures drink of joy
At the nature’s breasts.
All Just Ones, all Evil Ones
Follow her trail of roses.
Kisses she gave us and grapevines,
A friend, proven in death.
Lust was given to the worm 
And the cherub stands before God.

Gladly, like His suns fly
through the heavens’ grand plan 
Go on, brothers, your way,
Joyful, like a hero to victory.

Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss to all the world!

Members of the Brexit Party turn their back to the assembly as the European anthem is played during the first plenary session of the newly elected European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, July 2, 2019. REUTERS/Vincent KesslerWhat do they want? Disunion, the opposite of Union? Could war be far? Oh, many will say, this has nothing to do with war. However, after the Franks led by the “prince and duke, count of Normandy” (Princeps, Dux, Comes) conquered England in 1066 CE, France and England were united for generations. Little things led to great separations, and war between siblings. The wars between England and France, until the Sixteenth Century, were all Franco-French affairs. Nearly five centuries of Franco-French wars… which turned devastating inside France, after a while.

The show above has no meaning, but to stoke that greatest of human strengths: unbounded hatred, where small differences are turned into the most aggressive postures.

Meanwhile the European Council, that is the heads of the state of the 27 EU members (minus crazed Britain), finally decided to name two women to lead the European Union: Ursula Von Den Leyen, to head the European Commission, and Lagarde, to head the European Central Bank. Leyen was once seen as Merkel’s successor, and is long serving German defense minister. An MD with seven children, she speaks perfect German, English and French. Lagarde is the long serving head of the IMF (she put herself on leave immediately). The Council’s nominations happened after lots of haggling; an early candidate the Dutch Timmermans was viewed as anti-East European by East Europeans, for pushing for sanctions against perceived non-democratic-enough Eastern European countries; also Italy rightly condemned his anti-“populism”; thus he was rejected.

Young French Monkey-In-Chief Macron then got the great idea to propose Von Leyen (Notice: a French selects and launches a great German…) Von Leyen introduced improved maternity and paternity benefits as Germany’s family affairs minister and drove forward boardroom gender quotas. She is one of Europe’s most popular politicians (after degrees in economic and medicine, she started politics in her 40s).

Lagarde and Ursula von der Leyen, have to be confirmed by the European Parliament (suspense! But they should please everybody… but for the sad clowns above)

No doubt the British haters represented above, will have nothing intelligent to say. Britain, in truth, has no Constitution, just habits. And this is going to bring a constitutional crisis.

The United States of Europe already exists… In America. The USA has a constitution, and that Federal ensemble was created by Europeans, and their descendants, using mostly Franco-British ideas (Montesquieu, Locke, etc.) … However, individual US states have lots of freedom. In the OK Corral confrontation between California and Trump, Trump is not winning: he mostly prefers to do other things than to take California head-on.

Hence to create a federal state inside geographical Europe is just learning from the European experience in America. Said Federal State, the European Union, is federalizing ever more. Macron wants to deepen the Union before new countries join. He is right.

Having Lagarde as ECB chief is a great advance: she managed the IMF very well, and she is for easy money, or, at least enough to let the economy work (differently from the Germans, whose hypocritical lying on tight money has been exposed here… this is going to change). She is demonstrating this presently with the near catastrophic situation in Argentina… And has in general insisted that countries given IMF loans not been squeezed in vital social services.

Anyway, happily surprised by these two top choices…

Patrice Ayme



(The Brexit team stays in place…)


Immigration Horror: Father & Daughter Drowned

June 26, 2019

The picture below speaks volumes.


Father and Daughter Drowned Swimming Across Rio Grande, to get into the USA

It was actually an accident, and the father was culprit of underestimating the danger. Yet, this horror calls to action…

New York Times:

“The father and daughter lie face down in the muddy water along the banks of the Rio Grande, her tiny head tucked inside his T-shirt, an arm draped over his neck… Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez died with his 23-month-old daughter, Valeria, as they tried to cross from Mexico to the United States…

On Tuesday, Democrats in the House were moving toward approval of an emergency $4.5 billion humanitarian aid bill to address the plight of migrants at the border…

The young family from El Salvador — Mr. Martínez, 25, Valeria and her mother, Tania Vanessa Ávalos — arrived last weekend in the border city of Matamoros, Mexico, hoping to apply for asylum in the United States.

But the international bridge was closed until Monday, officials told them, and as they walked along the banks of the river, the water appeared manageable.

The family set off together around mid-afternoon on Sunday. Mr. Martínez swam with Valeria on his back, tucked under his shirt. Ms. Ávalos followed behind, on the back of a family friend, she told government officials.

But as Mr. Martínez approached the bank, carrying Valeria, Ms. Ávalos could see he was tiring in the rough water. She decided to swim back to the Mexican bank.

Back on the Mexico side, she turned and saw her husband and daughter, close to the American bank, sink into the river and get swept away.”


So what to do? The usual way is to throw a bit of money at the problem, making the refugees more comfortable. The real solution is to make it so that people from El Salvador or Sub Saharan Africa, want to, and can, stay where they live. I am not saying this because I am anti-immigrant: I was always an immigrant. I lived in Algeria, the Sahara, France, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Mali, Peru, Bolivia, Iran, etc… My places of main formative residence, historically speaking, being Senegal, France and California… And I am all for immigration. Yes, at least one I nearly got killed doing exactly what the father above did: underestimating a swift river.


But the solution to mass refugee flows is to make countries livable. Salvador is wrecked by murderous gangs. The USA, and other better endowed countries, have to take action, and fix the derelict countries. OK, it smacks of “Mission Civilisatrice”, Colonialism, Banana Republics, etc. So what? Do you hypocrites have a better solution? Well, let’s make it easier for you: there is none. No other solution. Force has to be applied, at the source. And no banana republics, by the way. Civilizing mission is no banana, facebook, Instagram, or Google, republic.

The reason the gangs are not as thick on the ground in the USA and the EU is force. Force of law, force of police, force of civilization. Remember Rome’s fasces, carried by special bodyguards, the lictors: a bundle of rods around an axe. The axe was not present for lesser offices without capital punishment authority.

Civilization is rendered possible only by the management of force… because, as technology progresses, ever more force, not to say violence, is present. And yes those countries which pollute the most and organized the present day world the most, are the most culprit…

Patrice Ayme

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…