Archive for the ‘War’ Category

“Free Market”Can’t Sustain Global US Military Rule: Trouble Incoming May Trump Trump

December 22, 2018

The “Free Market” is another expression for Global Plutocracy Unchained. It mauls all states, replacing the rule of law by the most basic, most cruel instincts… Even the mightiest genitor of “Free Market”, the USA, is not immune. In other words, a mess, a mess we have seen before, when Rome collapsed… from the same exact syndrome.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, whose experience and stability were a balance to the unpredictable president, resigned in protest of Trump’s decision to withdraw American forces from Syria and his rejection of international alliances.

On Thursday, in a rebuke of the president, 4 star general Mattis decided that Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw roughly 2,000 American troops from Syria was insufferable.

US withdrawal makes the other imperial Republican democratic power, the French Republic, the sole crucial provider of life for the Kurds who have been fighting and crushing the Islamist State (of which they hold thousands of dangerous prisoners, many crazed out European converts to Lethal Islam).

Now, of course, France has been under terminal economic, financial and social stress from vicious EU policy targeting the Republic, to profit so-called “free market”, actually dirty, obscure, global plutocracy. And Franco-British strength has been broken, mostly thanks to the obscure and obscured machinations of their own child, the USA!

Resources of empire. Part of the British Grand Fleet, before the war, in 1914. It comprised around 18 modern battleships, 29 older battleships, 150 cruisers, etc. By 1914, six brand new Elizabeth class battleships were under final construction, and were engaged in battle by 1916. As the British empire collapsed, these resources stopped being available. Something for the USA to meditate: if the US empire collapses, thanks to Trump, US resources will shrink… That would trump Trump.

The British Navy lost 35,000 sailors in battle during WWI. The USA, more than a century ago, enticed and supported the fascist foolhardy imperialist Kaiser Wilhelm, for the first three years of WWI.

“… Britain tread lightly in this grey area of legality because… from the beginning of the war that the U.S. would be the principal supplier of financial capital and munitions to the Entente during the war.10 Therefore instituting a full blockade of Germany imports when war broke out could have been the death knell not for Germany, but for Britain and its allies.

Britain and France established total blockade of Germany (UK) and Austria-Hungary (France), after 4 months of war, once German mass atrocities against civilians in France and Belgium became widely reported…

Trade from US cotton, camphor, pyrites and saltpetre producing states to Germany through the Netherlands, enabled the fascists German invaders to keep on making cotton based explosives (although much less than they needed, less than Great Britain which was itself less than France… By 1917, France was producing around 200,000 artillery shells per DAY, whereas total German annual  production was only a tenth of that…)

Britain and France, with a little tiny help from Italy won the First World War, starving invasive Germany into submission, thanks to their world empires… Then the USA came to the rescue of the Franco-British victory, controlling the latter in such a manner as to weaken morbidly France and Britain (vast subject).

When Europe dominated militarily: Naval forces, 1914. Notice the democracies, France & Britain together had 5 times more submarines than fascist Germany…. and nearly three times as many modern battleships soon available… Fascist Germany really went into that war without thinking, as fascist regime are prone to do…

More of the same US strategy, helping fascism through rogue US plutocrats, made the Nazi catastrophe possible (in particular by smuggling US weapons to the Nazis, before 1933…). The Nazi madness terminally exhausted Europe, enabling US plutocracy to install the so-called “American Century”, worldwide. Trump’s intuition is that this free market empire has turned out to be economically unsustainable, as the USA can’t afford the giant military establishment necessary to keep it going…. Allies don’t pay enough tribute. Devolution is needed.

Unfortunately Europeans have lost their empires thoroughly, and can’t step up, where the USA is stepping down; even China seems better able to invest in Africa than Europeans themselves… US thought empires could be replaced by “free market”. “Free market” is neither free, nor a market… And the USA, handicapped by the enormous military spending can’t afford it either (in spite of the free ride the GAFAM got so far…)

Rising powers are all over. Pakistan’s nukes, not just North Korea’s, have to be kept in mind. The world is out of control. We know what that means: it’s at the mercy of a fascist, invasive team of crazed generals, as happened in Germany in 1914.  

If such a war came. The obvious winning strategy for the USA and its closest allies would be a repeat of what the USA did in 1914-17 and 1933-1942: wait for the participants to exhaust themselves… So, paradoxically, “America First” may result in Britain, France, Western Europe getting closer to the USA in all ways…  

The past has to be harnessed to lead into the future optimally.

On the most macro-analysis, Europe let herself be manipulated into suicidal wars. Or, more exactly, Germany let itself be manipulated into Europe killing wars by US manipulators (Wilson, FDR, and a cornucopia of US plutocrats and bankers). Is Trump another of these “America-First” manipulators?

Well, at least, Trump admits it. That makes him more authentic: his reasons can be explored, debated, counter-acted.

On the face of it, Syria is a European problem: it was the wealthiest province of Rome, when it fell to crazed, mass murderous Islamists… in the Seventh Century (Islamists, after winning a crucial battle by great luck, killed all the males capable to bearing arms in Syria, just to prevent a Roman counter-attack). Arguably Russia is a European state, partly heir of Constantinople. So it would make sense that a combination of Western Europe and Russia would solve the Syrian problem, and similar problems caused by 13 centuries of fascist theology.

However, to do this, one would need Western Europe to have a military power similar to Russia’s. That can be done: French GDP, by itself, is higher than Russia’s. However, what’s lacking in Europe, at large, is the will… and more: a mind? It’s no surprise: Germany’s will was broken in the 1914-1945 war it made against France, Britain and Russia, and lost so badly, that even the sewer thinking that had become German philosophy went down the drain. And in Europe, only those three actors (supported by Belgium, Serbia, Croatia, etc.) had the clarity of mind to fight fascism.

So now Trump is saying sayonara… Just as the US refused to help democracy at crucial junctures in 1914, and 1939 (and even doing the exact opposite). The French have long proposed a European defense force, on and off. Short of that, at least other European states should let France access the means of the necessary power projection.

And if that means a 20% French deficit, let the Germans and the like, consent to policies which will make that sustainable (for example a devaluation of the Euro which would extinguish the debt by as much, etc.)  

One may think US policy unwise. But Europeans better beware: Rome came into Greece, and left, twice. The third time, it stayed. Now, of course, Rome had not been created, but inspired by Greece, whereas the USA was, indeed, created by Europe… In more way than one… France in particular is not just the parent of the USA, but also that of Britain… One more reason for the USA to give France the means to fight… By influencing other European states…  

Patrice Ayme



Extracts from General Mattis’ Resignation Letter:

Dear Mr. President:

I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense…

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model — gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions — to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time… I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians…

Jim N. Mattis


War The Architect: Who Unified Italy? Basically France! Thus, No Brexit…

December 6, 2018

France is heading toward civil war, the war of We The People against Banque Rothschild (which employed the corrupt official who rules France as a monarch presently). In the USA, starting under Obama, life expectancy is collapsing… and indication of war of the powers that be against We The People. A war is needed there (to install Medicare For All). In Great Britain, We The People got manipulated into Brexit, a trick to make Europe more friendly to global plutocracy. Time, there, again, to make war to those who led the British people astray.

Who created Italy as a unified country, for the first time in 16 centuries?… France and Savoy! How? War! War, violence is how serious things in need of seriously moving, finally move. Just ask Jesus. Let alone Muhammad.

(The sort-of-French and certainly Gallic) Piedmont (from the Duchy of Savoy) in alliance with France, defeated Austria-Hungary at Magenta (Austrian losses: 7,000) and the mass butchery of Solferino in 1859. At Solferino, 300,000 soldiers met. The French suffered more than 3,000 dead, Savoy/Piedmont, 2,000 dead, and the defeated Austro-Hungarian 12,000 killed (for total Austro-Hungarian losses of 23,000 soldiers).

French commanders commanding. The carnage was so great at Solferino, that a young, wealthy, influential Swiss who saw the battle (a few hours from Switzerland), was aghast from the massacre, and decided to found the Red Cross… Napoleon III, initially also a Swiss, and extremely involved in Italian revolutionary circles, was also shocked by the butchery (which he personally commanded…) He ended up with a weakened French army, easy prey for Prussia, 11 years later…

Twenty-one years earlier, a purely Savoy-Italian war against Austria had miserably failed, after losing several battles, during the so-called First War Of Independence. Thus the military intervention of France was crucial in creating Italy. Italy had not been independent and whole, since the 400s (except, technically, when Charlemagne was Roman emperor, and Italy was notionally united, except, and including the Republic of Venice, a vassal state with special prerogatives and a huge navy). In any case, the point is, war makes the difference. One way, here independence and unification, or the opposite (when Italy was ravaged in several military campaigns launched by Roman emperor Justinian, in the mid Sixth Century, when he was hell-bent to reconquer Italy from the Ostrogoths… A drastic crime.)

One could go on like that. Athens in her most famous period, the Fifth Century BCE, was created, ironically enough, by a war of Sparta against the Athenian dictatorship… War doesn’t just destroy for the worst, it can create, for the best.

Modern Greece was (partly) liberated in the early 19C, by fighting the Ottomans (who had conquered Greek speaking lands over 5 centuries, just after they made Islam, a war religion, their religion…) Perversely, the present Algerian dictatorship controls the gas and oil of the Sahara, let alone Kabilya, thanks to the war France fought there to acquire control (one-third of Kabiles live in France now, though) …


The entire world was forged in, and by war.

Some claimed history stopped 25 years ago, and made lots of money and reputation, with that absurd thesis, which added, of course, that “neoliberalism” had established world peace (no less), and that’s why history stopped.

Verily, Fukuyama, a student and disciple of French Theory Heideggerian philosopher Derrida, was the “Last man”, meaning the basest, as far as a modern intellectuals can go (forgetting Saint Augustine, Saint Louis, Heidegger, Carl Schmidt, and other Nazi “thinkers”)

The folly of that thesis was fully revealed by the obvious instauration of world, global plutocracy, for all to see, with the biggest actors (GAFAM, major plutocrats) going untaxed, and ever more powerful, buying “representative” politicians as if they were pets (confer the Obamas’ getting 60 millions to describe how they toasted peanut sandwiches, once… and other symptoms of what Michelle Obama herself calls the “Impostor Syndrome“: all politicians, like Clintons and Obamas, bought by plutocrats and their subsidiaries, are, indeed “impostors”… But they rule the world…)

The future will be forged in, and by war…

Except if a world empire keeps order.

Don’t laugh. There is, de facto, already, a world empire. And that’s a good thing. Because it’s mostly a good empire (as long as it sticks to its main charter that of Human Rights). 

Indeed, that world empire already exists: the United Nations. And a reason: the mightiest nations on Earth are themselves vast empires, which have everything to fear in a war. Certainly gigantic Brazil is not going to attack any country around: Brazil has natural boundaries (except in the jungle bordering Peru and Bolivia, extremely remote and relatively narrow…) Certainly Russia will not attack China, and reciprocally, they would endanger their vast territories. And so on. If the USA invaded Canada, nobody would notice, and the US certainly doesn’t want Mexico.

One exception? Pakistan versus India. There the borders are not natural, not historic, and the protagonists are nuclear armed. That Pakistan is an Islamist state is a further risk… A calming factor is that India is a representative democracy. World safety rests in the other nuclear armed superpowers containing the problem, avoiding propagation, should local nuclear war break out….


Advice going forward?

Reverse Brexit, by a second referendum. The first Brexit referendum was illegal (it was announced as “consultative”). A referendum on the British EU membership that is announced to have force of law will terminated the stupidity of Brexit (that doesn’t mean the existing EU system is tolerable: it’s not, we need British help to make it right).

What does Brexit have to do with the preceding?

Germany has proven, once again, a bad actor. OK, not as bad as in Namibia, more than a century ago, and not as bad as in 1914-1945. However, it looks as if Germany has learning difficulties. Germany used the EU as a boosting mechanism, forbidding constructive debt, and constructive construction in southern Europe, reducing the Untermenschen there to poverty and depopulation.


Mein Herr, Ich liebe dich nicht:

A personal example you will not find in plutocratic media? In the huge Alpine valley where I live, the potential for solar energy is huge: 300 days of high altitude sun, every year. However the French state, strangled by German fiscal strangling, has cancelled subventions for solar energy, years ago. So, basically, not one new solar panel.  

However, there are plenty of brand new tractors for agriculture. Mountain agriculture is not profitable, so it’s highly subsidized by the governments. Yes, governments, with an s. The French government gives heavy subsidies for mountain agriculture… So does Brussels, that is, the EU government. The result? I saw fields, tended in full forest, with an angle so steep, only skiing looked appropriate. Ah, and what is that flood of subsidies for? Buying tractors from Liebherr, and originally German family business, now partly ensconced in Bulle, Switzerland. Liebherr family members are billionaires. They sold for dozens of millions of Euros of equipment in my Alpine valley, in the last few years.

Twenty years ago, there was not one Liebherr tractor in the entire valley (which is 300 kilometers long; Hannibal used it, to cross the Alps… And when he left it, he was ambushed…)

How do Liebherr profits profit France? Not all. But they profit Bad Wurttemberg and Switzerland… It’s the same all over Europe: a locality in Greece was the one with the highest density of Porsches… in the world. Some will cackle that this was a Greek problem: not just so. The freedom of European governments is restricted, in all sorts of ways. Meanwhile German industry, subsidized by small bankrupt German banks, profits.

Meanwhile, a German minster, one of Merkel’s minions, suggested that France should give up her permanent UN Security Council seat to… the European Union (namely, in the present state of affairs, Germany!)

Similarly, if Brexit happened (it won’t, I always said, because it’s way too insane), Great Britain would have broken apart (Northern Ireland and Scotland, which voted against Brexit, would secede). Thus, exit the UK permanent seat at the UNSC, too. Hence the pressure for France to abandon hers… from Germany. Funny: is Germany behind Brexit too? (Of course and in more ways than one.)

This sort of instabilities is worse than the ones that many fear Trump is causing. Notice that much of the instability comes from Europe, not the USA. The funny part is that the USA is often acting more like the United Federal Europe one needs… than Europe itself….


Some may scoff. However, mentalities are inherited. France and Britain, initially the same polity for several centuries, have been at the forefront of civilization for most of the last millennium. France did more, not surprisingly, being central to Europe, geographically, historically technologically, ethically, demographically, economically, politically and militarily. Europe is pretty much what the Franks fabricated (they even invented the word “Europe” in the sense it is used now).

The Franks opposed at the outset Christian fanaticism (Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Century; popes surrendered in the Eighth Century), unifying Europe, and pushing the Islamists out. The Normans (Franks) and Angevins (Franks) pushed Byzance and especially the Muslims out of Italy and Sicily. This how France got into Italy.

Meanwhile, Trump is having fun. After diagnosing  3 weeks ago that Macron’s problem was his lack of popularity, he now adds:

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

I am glad that my friend @EmmanuelMacron and the protestors in Paris have agreed with the conclusion I reached two years ago. The Paris Agreement is fatally flawed because it raises the price of energy for responsible countries while whitewashing some of the worst polluters….

Yes, well… Facts are facts, Trump us not, they do. The Paris Accords made no sense in all ways. Now everybody can see they didn’t work: world CO2 emissions augmented by 1.6% in 2016, 2.7% in 2017. (They are diminishing in the USA, not in France or Germany; OK, from a much higher basis…) In France, unbelievably, non transportation diesel fuel was supposed to rise by 50% in January, according to Macron’s insane, economy and life killing proposal (he put a “moratorium” on that insanity today… while warning of “killers” coming to Paris this weekend… thus demonstrating he, Macron, is still insane).  

In France, only the president can propose a referendum: that’s of course outrageous (it takes just 100,000 Swiss…) Let’s make a war to change that.

Wars happen between nations, but they also can happen inside, that’s always the only way to progress.  The USA, the UK, not just France, had gigantic inner wars, civil wars… Often for the best… Even for the bloodiest…

The Climate Catastrophe will bring formidable wars.  And they won’t be wars of unification… At least, at first. War is best, when it confers civilization meaning. At this very moment, it means war in France to try to break this insufferable unilateral world plutocratic order. The French government just announced it would tax the GAFAM world monopolies on its own in 2019, even if Germany disagrees.

It was high time.

The wonders burning a few cars among the wealthy bring…

Patrice Ayme



November 10, 2018


Evolution is not Politically Correct. Evolution just is. But evolution is our creator. Some have said: we are not evolution. Yes we are not just evolution, we are also the culture ourselves and our predecessors, evolved. But still, we have to understand this evolutive part we are entangled with… and which gave birth to our cultural capability, if not directly, our culture.  

New Ideas, wisdom, or even the love of wisdom, never come from a crowd howling together. However, we now live in times of crowds howling together on social networks, sharing silliness, superficial love and “likes”. But, even more enthusiastically, those crowds share hatred towards those they don’t want to understand, so that they can hate some more. Genuine creators have to make war to those brutish crowds, otherwise they won’t be able to create anew, that is above and superior.

Can’t escape War: war is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity.War is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity: that’s not really a problem, it’s tied in with Homo (or then Homo itself is viewed as a problem, and that’s nihilism). However, it’s a problem if, as “humanism” so far did, it’s ignored. Christianism viewed evil of curiosity, the original sin, tellingly contradicting Zoroastrianism.


Stupid people howling with relish didn’t start yesterday: just look at the way Christianism took over the Greco-Roman empire, one burned library at a time. More recent examples: generations ago, philosophy was heavily contaminated by so-called brainless structuralism, or “French Theory”, a medieval harking back to the times of no-thinking (which lasted more than a millennium before that, thanks to Bible). Before structuralism it was Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism which destroyed debate, and replaced it by lethal mob rule. Now, things are getting worse: increasing plutocratization depends upon stupidification (and thus the push towards controlled social networks, Communitarianism, Islamization, etc.). Wisdom, and its love, are on the wane.

Communitarianism is an enemy of wisdom and mental creativity. It categories people, and make these categories what’s most primordial about people. Instead of categorizing people, one should categorize ideas. If an idea is good, wherever it comes from, it’s a good idea. Roughly all thinkers have had some good ideas at some point, even Hitler or Saint Augustine! Thinking is about ideas, not howling together.

John Michael Gartland commented: “Thank You. One of the most astute observations I have seen in a long time. The insane fanaticism of the tribal political party narrative with no deviation from the party scriptures permitted no matter how fantastically fictional and politically convenient, steeped in the fantasy of something masquerading as the common good and self-righteousness has become a worldwide contagion.”


A dirty little secret of humanity is that, absent friendship, one can always befriend hatred itself. As social networks, paradoxically, have increased loneliness, they incite more individuals to partake in hatred and pack attacks. Hence the increasing venom in said social media!


In the Spanish Civil War, Republican forces arguably had more losses fighting each other than the devastation that they suffered from the Nazi and Italian fascist armies and Franco’s rebel army. The entire take-over of Spain by mass murdering lethal, church allied fascism, was financed by US plutocrats and corporations (many car companies and oil companies such as Texaco, which provided the Nazi air force in Spain all the fuel it needed to transport Franco’s army…

By allying itself with Islamists now, the left is making the error it did then, allying itself with Stalinists! Stalin and his goons ordered the killing of all the left. At the time, Stalin was secretly in a crucial military alliance… with the Nazis, on Russian soil.

Actually, the present alliance with Islamists is even worse than the alliance with Stalinists: the Soviets could claim to foster a new system of thought. A new man, let alone a new woman. Attacking the USSR in 1941, Italian tankers were amazed to find female Soviet tank officers, killed in action.

Instead, Islam was a new ideology… In 632 CE, in savage and primitive Meccan Arabia, which had been kept away from the major civilizing influences from all around (to the north, Rome, north-west, Egypt, north-east, Persia, west in Ethiopia, south in Yemen, and east in India). The Muslim prophet, speaking in the name of the great vegetable in the sky, ordered men to change in such a way it led to a demographic explosion, most militarily profitable (for example it was suggested not to kill girls, and have sex with slave girls…)

The success of Islam long baffled top Christians, such as this Byzantine emperor who debated an old Muslim scholar. In 1391 CE Manuel II Palaiologos debated a Persian scholar and recorded the exchanges in a book he authored (See dialogue 7 of “Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian”) in which the Roman Emperor stated: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Right, the whole point!

Many Muslims were offended by this characterisation of Muhammad, and protested against it. For others it may simply have been false indignation or the assumption that non-Muslims had been offended by it, and they had to look outraged, to keep the reputation of Islam as peace.

In his book, Manuel II, apparently a personal acquaintance of “god”, continues: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”

Well, we know better. Our creator is biological evolution and our creator used war to conquer the world, and shape up our genetic and epigenetic. War made us, not just love. Islam understood that perfectly well, hence its success.

War, hatred and extermination have propelled humanity through evolutionary gauntlets (leaving lots of genocides behind). Evolution intelligently selected those strategies, from the first ape who braved the savanna, and forged human neurology with them. Ignoring them is ignoring not just wisdom, but incoming fate!

Humanity is more complex, and more perverse, than humanitarianism has imagined so far. Ignoring that complexity ignores the opportunity new technology (“social networks”) offers for old fashion hatred. There is an architecture an evil, and humanity was built with it.

To demonstrate here the aggressivity of advancing wisdom, let’s victimize Albert Einstein a bit. Einstein famously said:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” (One could call this definition, “Einstein Insanity”). Guess what? Nonlocality predicts that, indeed, doing the same thing all over again, will lead to different results. And that’s how the universe work, experiences & logic show. So Einstein was as wrong as wrong can be. He missed the point entirely, by assuming the veracity of its opposite, which is false. And Einstein was clever enough to realize that what he called “spooky action at a distance”… could be true, by just evoking its possible existence.

Tying evil, strife and mental creativity exaggerated? No. Unavoidable. Morality and the principle of precaution have to admit it.

So I was just nasty to Einstein, in a sense (after all, I’m saying I see something that could be seen in Einstein’s day and age… And Bohr saw some of it…). I can do better: I can spite all mathematicians between Euclid and Bolyai. Gauss made a point to spite Bolyai, daring to say that recognizing and flattering Bolyai’s work would be to flatter himself… as he had, he claimed, secretly got the same results (but didn’t reveal them as he “feared the cries of Boeotians”, a classic allusion to Athens northern neighbors… whom Athenians thought honorable to view as stupid). Here is Gauss, in full nastiness mode: “To praise it would amount to praising myself. For the entire content of the work…coincides almost exactly with my own meditations which have occupied my mind for the past thirty or thirty-five years.” In 1848 CE Bolyai discovered that Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky had published a similar piece of work in 1829 (but only on hyperbolic geometry). Discouraged by Gauss, Bolyai published only 24 pages, ever, out of the 20,000 pages of math he wrote…

In reality, after Euclid, mathematicians forgot that there was a wheel, a sphere, or even a cushion: Aristotle’s works contain SIX (6) theorems of non-Euclidean geometry (one hyperbolic, the rest elliptic). For all to see! Thereafter, in spite of these demonstrated theorems, an idiotic debate on the parallel axiom unfolded, for 21 centuries . Even worse, Non-Euclidean geometry had been used to measure Earth with great precision, around 300 BCE, in Marseilles, by Pytheas!

In the same vein, I have dared to stand all of mathematics on its head, and shake, by pointing out the infinity axiom makes no sense.

Any debate, in a sense, is a fight. Refusing all and any fighting, is refusing all and any debate. Hence, refusing us, the essence of what made us. It shouldn’t be a debate…

Patrice Ayme

Rage Can Be Good: Reflecting On the Iliad’s Achilles

May 20, 2018


Achilles’ rage is the engine of Homer’s Iliad, it makes the story much more interesting, including the tragic figure of Hector, who does everything right, just to be dragged around the walls, as a piece of garbage. A frequent mistake is to identify rage, the engine of creation of the Iliad, with the cause of much unhappiness among the participants.  Actually, Homer attributes a cause to the rage, and, it’s… forgetfulness. Thus Homer condemns, ultimately, not a basic emotion, rage, but the erroneous logical processing of Achilles: Achilles forgot what he was there for.

What is the nature of wisdom? How all-encompassing is wisdom? Some want to clip wisdom’s wings, consign it to something tame, with few emotions. This is completely erroneous. Wisdom should encompass, and work with, all emotions. Including rage. Homer’s work and the Vedas,the Knowledge, (1700 BCE!? to 500 BCE),  teach us this.

That rage is sometimes optimal, the episode of the 1930s, appeasing the Nazis and other fascists, should have taught us. But many are still the subjects in history which justify our ire, and it should motivate us to explore them. For example why the criminal Louis XIV of France could get away with expelling all Protestants of France, and torturing the rest, or why slavery was re-introduced by Europeans in the Americas… a full millennium after being outlawed  in Western Europe (by the Franks who ruled most of it). This is one of the reasons why anger is good.


No Achilles, No Iliad:

Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are Europe’s oldest literature (India’s oldest wisdom in writing, the Veda, is older). That oldest work from the 8th century BCE can still move us today is a testament to the genius of old thinking, and, in particular Homer (whoever he, or they, was/were).

Both works are full of larger-than-life figures, among them Achilles in the Iliad, and Odysseus in the homonymous epic. As Massimo Pigliucci discussed in the past, Odysseus was considered by all the major philosophical schools, each interpreting his story to serve their mentalities. For the Stoics, Odysseus was a role model.

Greco-Macedonian Phalanx, Ready to Promote Civilization, Gender Equality and Democracy

Massimo says: “But what about Achilles? I must confess, I never liked the guy. All brawns and no brains (exactly the opposite of Odysseus), he never appealed to my nerdy self. And I always thought his treatment of Hector’s body after their epic battle was irredeemably shameful. More recently, though, I started thinking about him specifically from a Stoic perspective. Particularly the pivotal episode near the beginning of the Iliad, when Achilles gets pissed off at Agamemnon, the head of the Greek expedition to Troy (and brother of Menelaus, the husband that Helen left for Paris, thus allegedly triggering the war itself).

It’s worth recounting the episode in some detail. Agamemnon has taken a woman named Chryseis as his slave. Chryseis’ father, however, is a priest of Apollo, and he asks the god to return his daughter. Since Agamemnon refuses, Apollo sends a plague to the Greek camp to make a convincing case. The prophet Calchas diagnoses the problem correctly, but refuses to speak up unless he secures Achilles’ protection. When the hero grants it, Agamemnon is forced to return Chryseis. Petty as he usually is, he takes revenge on Achilles, demanding the latter’s battle prize, Briseis, in reparation for the loss of Chryseis. It is now Achilles’ turn to get pissed off and petty: out of spite, he goes on strike and refuses to lead the Greeks into battle. Hence the famous opening lines of the Iliad:

“Sing, Goddess, of the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles,

the accursed rage that brought great suffering to the Achaeans.”

(Sounds better in Italian, I think: “Cantami, o Diva, del pelide Achille / l’ira funesta che infiniti addusse / lutti agli Achei.”)

That rage quickly leads to the death of Achilles’ intimate friend, Patroclus, who had donned Achilles’ harmor to lead the Greeks in a desperate attempt to push back the advancing Trojans, and was killed by the Trojan prince Hector (who will later, in turn, be killed by Achilles).

What would the Stoics think of Achilles’ behavior? One clue is in the word “rage” used by Homer: as we know, the Stoics thought that anger was the most devastating of the pathē, the unhealthy emotions, to be avoided at all costs. But we don’t have to speculate much, as Epictetus addresses the episode directly:

“And when did Achilles come to grief? When Patroclus died? Far from it. But rather, when he himself yielded to anger, when he wept over a young girl, when he forgot that he was there, not to acquire mistresses, but to make war. These are the ways in which human beings are brought to grief, this is the siege, this the razing of the citadel, when right judgements are overturned, when they are destroyed.” (Discourses I.29-24-25)

The “citadel” being razed here is not Troy, but the very same one so often mentioned by Marcus Aurelius in the Meditations: our ruling faculty, the hêgemonikon, a term closely related to Epictetus’ favorite one, prohairesis (our capacity of judgment). Achilles’ true loss did not occur when his friend was killed, but when he himself lost the way of reason (assuming he ever had it, since there is little evidence of that).”


Achilles: the Wrongs and Rights of Rage:

One can live big now. Yes, it requires sacrifices. Yes one can die from it like in old times. Yes, that’s how really new, bold and deep ideas appear, and otherwise they will never blossom.

Rage can be bad, rage can be good. It depends upon circumstances: how the rage arose, if it is justified, what it will achieve. As all human emotions, it is present, because it has evolutionary value. All revolutions were propelled by rage, and without them, there would be no advancing civilization.

Achilles increasing rage is an example of the wrong sort of rage, which scrambles a proper consideration of reality. Yet, Achilles’ problem is not so much rage, than having a wrong hierarchy of motivating factors in his logical processing: he “forgot”. Consider the revealingly truncated quote of Epictetus:

when did Achilles come to grief? …when he forgot that he was there, not to acquire mistresses, but to make war. These are the ways in which human beings are brought to grief, this is the siege, this the razing of the citadel, when right judgements are overturned, when they are destroyed

Basically, Achilles came to Troy and then engaged in the wrong activities: that shaped his mind wrong, “overturning right judgements”.

Achilles forgot that, when one makes war, one makes war, not love. Love making scrambles his war logic, his hierarchy of motivations, and cautions, he overlooks the fact that his absence will force his friends to take desperate measures endangering them. (After the death of his friend which he caused, Achilles further compounds the problem by directing further rage at the stoic Hector, whom he uses to hide his own culpability… from himself!)

Conclusion: our logical systems are shaped by our experiences. Examining one’s logic is not enough for the wisest: the logic can be perfect, and still wrong in a more general setting. One has to examine one’s entire mental input, that is, one’s entire life, to find out where one’s logic comes from… And judge it optimally.

Some will sneer that I spoke of rights and wrongs of rage, and then just mentioned wrongs.

But, of course, Achilles is famous, and awesome, because of his rage, and how destiny changing rage is: Achilles’ rage wins battles… Achilles, the Iliad, is a poem about how rage is the maker of destiny, thus, how Greece won… and how the West, in more than one sense, was won… From anger, not just meditation. Accursed rage, yes, but then there is rage of the other sort!



May 10, 2018 • 1:58 pm

“Rage can be bad, rage can be good. It depends upon circumstances”

Not according to the Stoics, there are no circumstances under which it is good to shut off reason, which is what rage does.


Patrice Ayme:

Massimo: Thanks for the answer, it made me think. As often in matters philosophical, semantics is at the core of the debate.

I would suggest that rage doesn’t shut off reason, necessarily. Instead, it switches reason to the combat mode, a form of reason which enabled the human genus to survive, when it sustainably invaded and occupied lion territory. The real question is whether combat is justified. Any reasonable human would say that, quite often, there are situations where combat is justified. Socrates, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius said so, explicitly.

There are many ways to use a brain. There are many forms of reasons, and many reasons, and even forms of reasons, used by working brains. If I drive a car, while making an impassioned discourse about Rome’s Second Triumvirate, two sorts of reasons are at work: one quasi-automatic driving, the other, historical. However, the part of my brain operating the vehicle works flawlessly: otherwise I would have an accident.

When in combat, reason is still there, but it mobilizes the full combat brain: after a Greek phalanx uttered the Alala or a Roman legion the Barritus, shaking the plain, terrifying the enemy, the only “reason” that’s left is the reason of combat. It is akin to rage: consider the furia francese, the “berserker” Viking, the “amok” Malay or Indonesian. A human being in full combat mode is an awesome sight which makes even lions think twice (when lions see a Masai warrior, they take to flight).

Combat thinking is particularly important for philosophical, or any sort of mental, moral, progress. It is no accident that so many top philosophers were combat ready, or otherwise obviously unafraid, although they faced enormous threats, including, of course, death. Socrates came first to fame through his military exploits. And, as many a philosopher, he pursued his work, confronted to threats on his life:

…”take Socrates and observe that he had a wife and children, but he did not consider them as his own; that he had a country, so long as it was fit to have one, and in such a manner as was fit; friends and kinsmen also, but he held all in subjection to law and to the obedience due to it. For this reason he was the first to go out as a soldier, when it was necessary, and in war he exposed himself to danger most unsparingly. (Epictetus, Discourses, 4.1)

Combat mentality, akin to rage, enables, motivates, mental breakthroughs, because any mental breakthrough is, if formidable enough, something that tramples other minds, forcing them to reorganize, a form of ultimate aggression. The entire Iliad and Odyssey is there to tell us, first, that the deepest understanding only blossoms out of turmoil. Because a higher, more optimized mental order can only arise, after destroying the one before. To cut the Gordian Knot of obsolete reason, violence is the only way, whether we like it, or not, as Alexander pointed out.

Even Christ knew this: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. [Matthew 10:34]


Massimo, on May 12, 2018, replied:

Patrice, two objections. First, we are not often in a combat mentality. Arguably, outside of actual combat, we shouldn’t be. Hence the idea of not relying on rage.

Second, Seneca rightly says that sure, an angry soldier is braver. So is a drunk one, but we don’t want our soldiers to be drunk on the job, because it would impair their decision making. So does rage.

Intrigued, “Chuchu” intervened, May 13, 2018: Is rage necessary for combat?

Massimo interestingly observed that:

Chuchu, Yes for Aristotle. No for Seneca. Seneca says that an angry soldier may be courageous, but he is also going to act rushly [sic] because of his rage. He makes the parallel with being drunk: that also gives you courage, but it impairs your judgment. We wouldn’t want drunk soldiers in the battlefield, right?

[Yeah we surely should use Seneca, a giant plutocratic vulture, Nero’s teacher to tell us right from wrong…One of the very wrong aspects of present-day Stoicism: all too busy justifying moral monsters…]


Patrice Ayme: 


Top mental creation is in combat always. That’s nearly its definition. A really new idea, especially if true, requires mental reorganization of those submitted to it, so it will always be perceived as an aggression… be it only because it requires work, either to repel it, and even more, to accept it.

Also top thinkers tend to walk their talk. Thus, many of the most famous thinkers found themselves in combat situations: after the Vatican imprisoned and tortured Giordano Bruno for seven years, he was tortured in public and burned alive (1600). That persuaded Galileo to submit. Those two were among dozens of intellectuals killed in that generation, just between France and Italy. And it keeps on going: hundreds of intellectuals and artists are listed in Wikipedia as killed in the period 1940-1945. So, whether they want it or not, top intellectuals often find themselves cornered like Cicero or Boetius. Milder forms of combat exist: the US physicist Bohm was out of a job (at Princeton), thrown out of the US where he was born, and denied the Nobel Prize (he experimentally demonstrated the Gauge Field importance in quantum physics)… just because he refused to collaborate with Senator McCarthy.


The Human Species Would Not Even Exist, Without A Proclivity To Combat, & It’s Neurologically Deep:

Not to say it has to be approved. It’s just a fact, a major one, and we have to consider it.

Rage is not necessary for combat, but an even worse state is. In real combat, or in situation where one’s life is in extreme danger, the ideal state is a total neuronal commitment to survival. So the perception of pain (of oneself, or others) disappears, completely. The mental concentration mobilizes the entire brain, enormous strength appears, dedication to the task at hand is the only thing that exist. I have myself experienced this more than once, either under attack, or engaging in solo climbing or deep-sea apnea diving. This is why dangerous thrills are addictive. it is also why and because reason shrinks in combat, and forms a lance to pierce the enemy.

Unwarranted rage is a state derived from maximal combat ardor, a neurohormonal and brain state which is such that the combatant doesn’t fear death, at all. Thus rage is combat readiness, without the release of actual combat. In that state, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have stormed walls on top of wobbling ladders, pierced by arrows, drenched by boiling liquids.

Human brains are pickled with reward centers. Hatred, rage, combat, risk taking, life endangerment (of oneself and others) are all behaviors which come with rewarding neuronal mechanisms. Once engaged in these behaviors, they are, all too often not perceived as evil by the perpetrators.

Avoiding hatred and anger at any cost brings an opportunity to do it much more, for those whose good pleasure is to so indulge. As one gets killed by a cruel tyrant, pitying said tyrant with all of one’s might, doesn’t redress the situation, it makes it way worse, it even enables evil, as Hannah Arendt courageously observed (she was pretty much hated for daring to point that out…)


May 13, 2018 • 4:26 pm


it is simply not true that rage is the only way to get people focused. While it is true that rage has all sorts of negative side effects, especially on one’s moral judgment. Which is the point of the Stoic criticism of anger.


Massimo has a 3 day reply limit, let’s we get too deep in a subject, so I didn’t reply. I have been in combat situations, or situations akin to combat, more than once. I have also been angry more than once. The neurological statuses are related. Refusing one totally, is refusing the other. All revolutions were based crucially on rage. Refusing revolutions is refusing evolution, and getting rid of parasitic elements in society, such as plutocracy, and the more organized the plutocracy, the harsher the, necessary, revolution.

All stoics were plutocracy compatible: the invention, blossoming and thriving of Stoicism coincide with the Hellenistic dictatorships. Seneca was a terrible person. Had a Nuremberg like tribunal been held after Nero’s destruction (on order of the Roman Senate), Seneca would have been condemned to be hanged (hopefully as slowly as Von Ribbentrop, Keitel and their ilk). I am not angry, or enraged, writing this: the fact is, examples have to established better paradigms. Had such a tribunal been held, the Republic, a more democratic Republic, could have been re-established. Instead what we got is more of the same: Vespasian and Titus were correct emperors, but Titus died within two years and was succeeded by his brother Domitian, who reigned for two decades of terror, in particular, philosophical terror. Under Domitian, Epictetus  and his “Stoicism” thrived in Rome…meaning “Stoicism”, revered by Massimo, was Domitian compatible (Domitian was very aware philosophically, he knew very well how and why to kill most philosophers and philosophies…)

Now, of course, it is easy for me to say all of this, because “Stoicism” is not my tax-deductible business… So I am free to see it for what it is: like rage, stoicism is sometimes indispensable. Yet, as Socrates correctly raged about, conflating teaching and income leads to very poor wisdom, and thus the fall of the City… The deer eaten by the wolves has to be stoic, yes. But then, we shouldn’t be deer.

Achilles’ rage is the engine of the Iliad, thus of history, and a good story. Yet, it’s not rage which drove him astray. It is forgetfulness. That’s Homer’s wisdom, in full. Without rage, and his amazing combat performance, which is related to it, Achilles simply would not have been, and the Greeks would not have defeated Troy, 12 centuries ago.

Rage is here, it is around, peoples, nations, governments, not only experience it, they compute with it: watch the recent exploits of Hamas and Israel, which got scores of civilians, down to an 8 months baby killed: Hamas computed that rage would break the fence. Israel replied that its own ferocity was too great for Gaza’s rage to overwhelm it psychologically…

Considering humanity without considering rage, is to miss the biggest picture… The first hominid who got enraged against lions, tried to do something about them. We would not be here without her (or him)…

Patrice Ayme



Note: “People are unjust to anger – it can be enlivening and a lot of fun.” Philip Roth, famous US author.

Superior Civilization Needs Superior Weapons (Collapse Series 1)

March 16, 2018


Military Non-Superiority Is The Civilized way To Collapse:

Si vis pacem, para bellum!” (If you want peace, prepare war) the Romans used to say. Indeed, implementation of civilization, like sausage making, is no pretty sight to behold. It requires a stern consideration of the human condition, mind fully open… to the most awful possibilities, those which, precisely, can undo civilization. In recent years, the two oldest Republics, the USA and France have coldly executed some of the worst Jihadists… using legislative powers going back 25 centuries, to the beginning of the Roman Republic (the Consuls had the right to execute whoever they decided to execute when it had to do with military operations; thus US and French presidents have right of life and death against enemies of the Republic).  

If an advanced civilization has no crushing military superiority, contact with a vicious society can cause collapse. This happened many times. This happened to Egypt, more than once. Egypt recovered fully, more than once, until it didn’t, each time more diminished. First with the Achaemenid Persians, then the Romans, Christians, and most irretrievably, with the Muslims.

Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) warheads streaking to the ground at 16,000 kilometers per hour. They all come from one rocket. Against those only some weapons not yet in existence could be effective. Impacts of warheads from just one missile can be hundreds of kilometers apart. Each warhead can be 300 kilotons of TNT, 20 times the Hiroshima bomb. Precision is less than 100 meters.

An obvious example of collapse caused by the failure of military superiority is Rome. The Western Roman empire of 40 million people was ravaged, most of the population eradicated, by at most 150,000 barbarian savages ferociously invading, fighting and destroying as if their lives depended upon it, because it did.

Constantinople, the Eastern Roman empire, would know a similar fate, in slower motion. The Romans lost most of their territory to savage Islamized Arabs, and, four centuries later to the recently Islamized Turks, before being terminated by the later, another four centuries down the line. No wonder the flag of Saudi Arabia has a curved sword on it.

Roman Egypt surrendered to the Third Caliph, Omar, hoping for a promised lenient treatment. Three years later, Egypt realized that the Muslim conquerors had lied, and were most abusive. Egypt revolted. Too late: the library was burned by Omar and his ilk, and ever since Islamist terror has reigned therein, diminishing the minds so much, as Napoleon discovered to his dismay, that the very notion of progress had vanished in a superstitious, theocratic haze. 

Sophisticated, enormously populated (40 million?) Northern Song China fell to Genghis Khan’s Mongols, who were no more than 150,000 cavaliers. It had been invaded and occupied before. However, Mongol generals proposed to kill it all, and even change Chinese climate and ecology, but the conqueror in chief wisely rejected the suggestion. Two decades later all of China, and even Vietnam, ended down under the Mongol boot for a century.  


Superior Minds Need Superior Defenses:

A contributor to this site, SDM cogently asked: “Why make rearmament a priority when it would appear there are more than enough weapons already to destroy mankind? Are you implicitly promoting a revamping of military weaponry rather than just more of the same old stuff?

Answer: Yes, precisely. Precisely because we have all those terrible weapons to destroy mankind, we need smarter weapons to prevent the use of the most terrible ones. I am talking about superiority of weapons as factor of security.

Destruction of mankind is not a new thing. When the barbarians invaded the Western Roman empire they caused up to 90% eradication of the population. When the Mongols of Genghis Khan finally defeated the Western Xia empire, they killed 100% of the population, leaving only sands behind. When the Muslims invaded Spain, they eradicated 100% of the Goths, and 25% of the Catholics (except for a tiny corner of the Cantabrian mountains where they got blocked by heroic defenders). Ancient warfare could bring 100% exterminations, go ask the Assyrians (Babylon and its allies, unable to defeat the Assyrian field army, decided to destroy the Assyrian population first, to starve its army ).  

More precise weapons are needed. Take nukes. In the 1960s, the USA and the USSR made gigantic thermonuclear bombs, up to 25 megatons of TNT: if they wanted to destroy an objective, they were not sure of the precision of detonation, so they made giant bombs. Not only that, but they made more than 50,000 of them. Using a fraction of that arsenal would have killed billions.

For example the USA had planned, in case of war with the USSR, to explode giant bombs on the Soviet submarine pens found next to Leningrad. Their detonations were expected to destroy the populated part of Finland, as well. President JFK was informed of this collateral damage, for his eyes only. Later, precision of ballistics came down to one meter. At that point, a smaller nuke could take out the same sub pens, without taking out Finland. Standard French, British and US thermonuclear warheads are now around 200 kilotons.

China and Russia have developed very small nukes, which could destroy crucial military objectives, without too much collateral damage. Thus tempting to use: once one’s headquarters, or storage of weapons have been taken out, one may not feel inclined to escalate…   

Right now if some “leader” in a nuclear weapon state decides to do away with a large city, he has a good probability to succeed: only US cities, to some extent, and Moscow, have Anti Ballistic Missiles. Destroying missiles with missiles is a very expensive, even ruinous, and certainly chancy business.

However, powerful laser batteries would destroy ballistic missiles cheaply, and at will. Thus lasers would annihilate MAD, the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine… which is a crime against humanity.

More practically, precision ammunition have proven to be a real progress. Recent battles against ISIL killed not even a tenth of what would have been before. In Mosul, it is said 12,000 civilians died. A conventional extirpation of the Islamist State would have killed many times that. Mosul has more than one million inhabitants. Instead, with advanced weapons, strikes could be directed exactly where the snipers were inside buildings.

Developing superior weapons means to invent new technology, in a way no other civilian demand will do. The car got invented because the French army of the Ancient Regime liked the idea of what we now call tanks. Black powder and rockets were perfected by the Mongols and Europeans, because they wanted superior weapons (China had a more festive approach to explosives than the Mongols and French). When they invaded Eastern Europe, the Mongols used field batteries of rockets. Soon Europeans found ways, thanks to saltpeter, to augment the explosive power of black powder. Around 1430 CE, two French brothers invented field guns, small enough to be rolled to a battlefield and beat English foot and archers into submission (that was the final phase of the “100 years war”). Some rabid pacifists will smirk. However, all this explosive tech not only built roads, but now it enable us to send robots around the solar system.  


Falling Behind What’s Needed, Or How Xi Became Crazy:

SDM asked: “Is it your position that the “West” is somehow behind the weapons technology curve in comparison to …..China? Russia? Anyone?

No doubt that the west is under the sway of corporate neoliberals to the detriment of the vast majority of the people because of climate change denial, austerity, tax giveaways, wage stagnation, lax financial regulation, etc. etc. Are there data that shows the US/EU weapons are inadequate?”

There are plenty of indications that the West is in military peril. Some of the West’s main weapon systems may be obsolete, vulnerable, or ill-conceived. Vulnerable and obsolete: the giant aircraft carriers of the USA may be vulnerable to ballistic missiles: the Chinese developed a specific carrier killer. Obsolete: the US Navy is supposed to use the F35, a “stealth” flying bathtub. The F35 may be fully visible to some radars.

Western Quantum radar goes up to 20 kms, the Chinese one 100 kms (from better detection of single photons, they said, so progress in fundamental physics)… A good quantum radar going 1,000 kms would make the F35 fighter completely inoperative. They are supposed to construct more than 3,500 of these turkeys, and defend the entire West with it (but for France).

Knowing that he will be able to deny the West air supremacy has got to have a bad effect on Xi’s psychology… Now he may think he can takeover the world, or at least the South China sea, Taiwan, hey, maybe Vietnam, which, after all was long Chinese…

China and Russia have stealth fighters. The Russian one is faster than the Western one. Russia has shown pictures of test firing of a HYPERsonic missile. Hypersonic missiles go too fast to be intercepted by any existing defenses (one can imagine more advanced lasers could do it). The point here is that the hypersonic missile could turn into the nightmare the Romans knew all too much: arrows from recurve bows, which the Parthians, Sassanids, Sarmatians, Alans and Huns had. They could penetrate Roman armor.


A civilization can get destroyed in a few hours:

Rome never recovered  of the battle of Hadrianopolis in 379 CE. The crucial part of the battle lasted minutes, not much longer than it took for the US Navy to set on fire the four finest fleet aircraft carriers of the Imperial Japanese navy at the Midway battle in 1942 (ending any hope of the Japs to avoid defeat in WWII).

At Hadrianopolis, Roman emperor Valens got killed, the Eastern Roman field army was annihilated, the victorious Goths were on the loose, the empire shaken in its deepest psychological foundations, the barbarians elated, and meanwhile enormous concessions had to be made to the Sassanids. The battle happened in a few hours, and by accident. The left Roman wing was in the process of destroying the Gothic foot and Gothic camp, when, suddenly, disaster struck: the rested Gothic cavalry, 15,000 strong, charged in the flank of the left Roman wing, which then fell on the Roman center compressing it to the point soldiers couldn’t use their weapons, let alone maneuver, like at Cannae, sic centuries earlier.

Skeptics may bleat that the Goths surrendered to the Romans in 382 CE, after sacrificing king Fritiggen and others culprit of the victory of Adrianopolis. Thus, those historians may insist, no untowards consequence from the crushing defeat. But the peace treaty is revealing: the Goths could settle, but as Goths, under Gothic law, not as Romans. It’s a bit as if Muslim Fundamentalists destroyed half of the US Army and then were allowed to settle in Ohio under Sharia. Sure enough, a generation later, the unassimilated Goths took great umbrage, and were on the march again. This time, in 410 CE, they sacked the city of Rome, and settled in Gaul and Spain.(The Goths got ejected from Gaul by Frankish king Clovis in 507 CE, after being crushed at the battle of Vouillé. To thank him, for having annihilated, at long last the Goths who had tortured Rome since the catastrophe of 379 CE, the emperor made Clovis into a Roman Consul for life!)


What was the world’s strongest army on May 10 1940?

The French army. Although the Nazi army had doubled its tank force with Czech tanks, the French army had 50% more tanks, and the French tanks were better: many were impervious to German artillery. The best French planes were equal in quality to the Nazi planes, and there were hundreds of them.  

However, by May 15, 1940, although the French army had lost just one division out of one hundred, it had lost the Battle of France: the “torrent of German tanks” (as the head of the French army said) was flowing towards the sea, unimpeded, and the main French armies, plus the British Expeditionary Force, had been cut from behind.

What happened?

The Allies didn’t see that the entire Nazi army had advanced on three small roads in the Ardennes forest, under a thick canopy of springtime leaves. One Spitfire pilot saw it, but he wasn’t believed.


Accidents happen.

France was ultimately saved by her ungrateful brat of a child, the USA. The other brat, Britain, although helpful in 1940, had been derelict in 1933-1938, when it was more or less aligned with Hitler. The fact is, the British Second Armor division was supposed to be in the way of the Panzer thrust on May 10, 1940, just behind the French infantry B division, which was attacked by three Panzers… but the Brit 2nd Armor had not arrived! If it had, the battle would have been just the opposite, as the French would have had time to reconfigure their armor.

The French and British air crews couldn’t get their act together in the week after May 10, 1940. They  got it after that, but it was too late. The Nazis had been training in Spain where they had intervened in 1936, they knew how to operate with ground crews.

Another factor in May 1940 was that the US and Britain had 200,000 soldiers. France had six millions, and Nazi Germany ten millions. In other words, USA and UK were disarmed, the French Republic was supposed to do all the work. If Britain had in May 1940 as many soldiers as it had in 1944, the defeat of May-June 1940 wouldn’t have happened. That would have been a disaster for the USA, agreed…


Conclusion: Democracy has to be defended. Plutocracy is always around, conniving, eager to rise further. If plutocracy sees weakness, plutocracy will pounce. Just watch Putin and Xi. The latter may be much encouraged by what experts in the Chinese military perceive, correctly as weakness in the Western military, which is pretty much reduced to the USA, Britain and France… As in 1940. Weakness in democracies encourages fascist dictatorships, as Hitler himself said many times. When hell itself speaks, wisdom should listen.

Patrice Aymé

France Started Nuclear Energy, & the Nuclear Bomb Program (in 1938).

January 4, 2018

Abstract: France launched nuclear energy, thanks to one of Irène Curie’s discoveries. This overlooked page of history is revealing in many ways.  The cover-up was prompted by the difference between the French approach to civilization, and the so-called “Anglo-Saxon” approach to eradication. (Actually by “Anglo-Saxon”  is meant little more than the mood of the West Country Men of the sixteenth century, a band of investors who decided to reap all the benefits conquest could bring, using all means necessary.)


Nobel laureates Irène and Frederic Joliot-Curie had discovered artificial radioactivity. They contacted the French ministry of war in 1937, informing it was possible to make a nuclear chain reaction bomb. By January 1938, the program was launched and the ministry discreetly withdrew from public view all the patents on splitting atoms.

The chain reaction had been discovered by Irène Curie. She informed and debated with Otto Hahn about it for years (he didn’t believe her, initially). Hahn got the Nobel in 1944, for the discovery Irène had made! After all, Hahn was male and a German (his female Jewish collaborator, Lise Meitner was ignored for the Nobel, being a vulgar female, and, I guess, by 1944 Swedish/German racial standards, not really a German! By the way, Hahn was anti-Nazi, so he didn’t reveal too much of Irène’s discovery to more Nazi sympathetic colleagues such as Heisenberg! The Nazi physicists were stunned by Hiroshima; we know this, as they were all confined in a mansion stuffed with US microphones…)

French scientists Hans von Halban, Lew Kowarski,  Francis Perrin and Frédéric Joliot-Curie had demonstrated experimentally for all to see that uranium bombarded by neutrons emitted more neutrons than it absorbed, the mechanism for a chain reaction (published in Nature, 22 April, 1939).

For the chain reaction to happen, fission neutrons had to be slowed down. It was known that heavy water would do so. The French were given all the heavy water made by the Norsk Hydro plant in Norway (the director refused the considerable compensation a French agent proposed.) The heavy water was ostensibly put in one plane, secretly transferred to another, which flew to Scotland (and then France). The Luftwaffe intercepted the first plane, forced it down in Hamburg, and Nazi intelligence was rewarded by boxes of crushed granite. Three weeks later, Hitler attacked Norway.

When France fell, the heavy water, accompanied by several collaborators of the Joliot-Curies, left for England. (Irene had tuberculosis, so Frederic decided to stay with her in occupied France, as she would get better treatment there. She lived another 16 years, and died from leukemia.)

The British received the French savants with maximum enthusiasm, immediately starting a massive nuclear program (“Tube Alloys”). The king insisted to have the heavy water sit with the crown jewels in the deepest, most secret vault of the kingdom.

Irene was a seriously hard worker, Nobody contributed more to bring the age of nuclear fission. Although she got the Nobel for creating new elements, she certainly discovered the nuclear chain reaction through fission. She was also nearly first on several other discoveries, including the neutro. She said:“The more an experiment is further from theory, the closer it is to the Nobel.”

Later on, during the “Blitz”, the nuclear bomb program was transferred from the UK to Canada, and to… Manhattan (much of it at Columbia University). Hence the name “Manhattan Project”.

(More details are in the new book “Last Hope Island”, or buried in my site. “Last Hope Island” asserts correctly many truths blissfully ignored by US and English supremacists including crucial start-up contributions of France and poland in cryptography and the decipherment of the Enigma machine. “Last Hope Island” asserts definitely the truth that, without the French nuclear bomb program, there would not have been a Manhattan Project, and, in particular no nuclear bomb in 1945).

40 year old anti-fascist Italian Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi (who discovered beta decay, fermions, and the neutrino) became the scientific head of the Manhattan Project. However the input of French and British scientists was crucial. The Anglo-Canadian nuclear bomb project was headed by the French Halban, and stuffed with French scientists (for example Pierre Auger, Jules Guéron et Bertrand Goldschmidt). They informed the Manhattan Project scientists. They also informed De Gaulle, head of the Free French Forces. They even gave De Gaulle a conference on nuclear bombs, July 11, 1944, in Ottawa:”Une bombe, une ville”. (A bomb, a city.) VP Truman learned of the nuclear bomb the day he became US president… So a full year after De Gaulle..

Anti-French hatred, and the will to replace the European empires by an American one, rendered the relationship between the Franco-British and president Roosevelt’s administration so bad, that the collaboration became one way, and then interrupted. US anger was increased by greed: the US capture of three French patents fundamental to nuclear energy (the third patent, on nuclear bombs, had always been secret, but was communicated to the British and then US governments). By excluding and robbing the French, the US captured all the profits of the nascent nuclear industry (in particular, they captured in 1944 all of the Congo uranium production, in theory going to France since 1939).  

Next time Nazis come around, France is ready! 14, 335 tons Le Terrible Strategic Sub, 100% made in France. 16 missiles, M51, each with 10 independently targetable warhead of 150 kilotons+ (ten times Hiroshima). For a total of 25 megatons on board in up to 160 H bombs… Aside from these hundreds of “T75 Warheads”, inside the equivalent of the US Trident, France has cruise missiles warheads. France has officially around 300 T75 nuclear warheads deployed, but that doesn’t count more than that in even more powerful, not yet deployed, “Tetes Nucleaires Oceaniques”, “Nuclear Oceanic Warheads”, and cruise missile warheads…

In August 1945, De Gaulle ordered the construction of French nuclear bombs. However, that decision was suddenly opposed by all prominent French nuclear physicists, who, now that the Nazis had been defeated, turned from nuclear war mongers, into pacifists (or, as the Americans were inclined to say “Communists“). However, the USSR exploded a bomb in 1949, and the UK did so, in 1952. By then it became obvious that the USA and the USSR were dividing the planet among themselves, in a greedy splurging, and France needed bombs to get some respect, or even, a chance of survival (a nuclear device would have solved the encirclement at Dien Bien Phu in 1954; the French asked the US for one; the US, which had helped the Vietminh, ignored the French request; in a striking contrast, to land in Kyushu in 1945, the US planned to use massive gas and 15 nuclear bombs…)

Franco-American nuclear dissuasion collaboration started again in 1970, when the French asked for US help, and the US agreed to help. (The collaboration has been going on ever since, it is massive, but extremely secret; it involves the world’s largest laser systems in Lawrence Livermore, and Bordeaux, France, to stimulate explosion conditions).

In 2017, the British nuclear arsenal has been reduced to three nuclear strategic submarines, with a reduced number of US made Trident missiles inside. The French Republic has four strategic nuclear subs (with more silent jet propulsion), equipped with French missiles and French bombs. The French Air Force has also supersonic bombers equipped with supersonic stand-off cruise missiles (a sort of weapon even the USA doesn’t have). Moreover the six very large (100 meter long), super silent Barracuda nuclear attack submarines are capable of launching nuclear armed SCALP cruise missiles.

So, at this point, the defense of the proverbial West depends mostly on France and the USA. The other Western powers mostly cooperate by calling the US president names, and insisting that France shouldn’t have a deficit, and should pay by herself the anti-Islamist wars in more than half a dozen countries she is presently waging.

Misrepresenting history is not just unfair to dead people or their descendants. It is also unfair to cognition and logic. The way discoveries are made highly depend upon not just their contexts, but their philosophical environment. It’s no accident that French exiles such as Descartes or Denis Papin (a professor inventor of the steam engine, and the first steam-propelled boat) contributed so much to civilization. If one wants more such contributions, one has to reconstitute similar mental ecologies

The Anglo-Saxon realms tend to systematically underplay French contributions to philosophy, science, and technology. The agenda is deeply plutocratic: it enables them to claim that the so-called “neoliberal order” (greed at every corner), is superior to the more intellectual French approach.

Thus the end result of berating France and its continental neighborhood, is that greed is viewed as superior to civilization. It’s true in a sense: France was kicked out of North America, although the first French colonies there were established decades before the first English-speaking one. French “colonization” rested on strong trade and civilization principles, respecting the Natives was primordial. That haughty approach proved vastly inferior to lies, holocausts, dissemblance, bloody massacres, and generous distribution of the savages’ lands to European colonists…

It is fashionable, among the PC crowd, to belittle war. This (greatly) Anglo-Saxon habit of recent vintage, maybe a way to disguise the fact Anglo-Saxonia’s realm rest precisely, on oh, so much war. And war of a type one better forgets. After more than 30 centuries of war, the place now known as France, at the confluence of so many paths, all over geography and history, should always remember one mood the Qur’an insists upon: war, jihad, all too often is a sacred duty upon everything depends.

The same French scientists who, in 1945, turned pacific and refused to build nuclear bombs when De Gaulle asked them, were the same individuals who, in 1937, were grimly determined to atom bomb Berlin. There is no contradiction, just civilization, and the distinctions it enables to bear between Nazism and necessary war, on one side, and calm peace, and appeasement, on the other. However, by 1954, it became obvious that it was not towards a better civilization that the Soviet-US monopoly was heading. With Stalin-Beria on one side, and Nixon-McCarthy-Dulles on the other, it was high time to reaffirm a higher sense of civilization! 

On pense, donc on se bat! We think, therefore we fight.

Patrice Ayme’  

Islamist Death Cult Propaganda: Destructive To Truth, Humanity

December 30, 2017

A university professor in Northern Ireland, historically a place of religious hatred, wrote an essay for Aeon which is pro-Islam in what supposed to be a smart way: Beyond Liberal Islam. Western liberalism is not the apex and terminus of human history, and it ought not to serve as the measure of Islam. Can Islam help to produce an appealing alternative to liberal societies? Is it time to look beyond the idea of liberal Islam?”

The author keeps sneaking in as obvious, enormously debatable, not to say deeply erroneous concepts. Such as: “The fallacious arguments of Islamophobes”, “the fact Muslim regimes are backwards for historical rather than metaphysical reasons”.

Of course not true. Islam is an extremely dangerous and reductive superstition. All too many people are ignorant of the fact the “West” was NOT Christian. The Frankish empire pretty much covered all of Europe, including Britain after 1066 CE… except for southern Spain.

The West was not just “Christian”. Whereas Islamist countries were just Islamist. More exactly, and differently from Islamist countries, where law and governance were Islamist, law and governance was not “Christian” in the West. The fundamental laws of Europe under the Franks were mostly Roman law plus (Latin written) Salic law. Both were secular laws. The leadership was also secular (although Charlemagne gave to the Pope some territories in Italy in 800 CE).

The superstition wants to kill or subject most of humanity:

Islamist law, the Sharia, contradicts UN law, itself an extension of “Western” law. It is, literally, outlaw.

K Vora answered my preceding comment in Aeon. Before I get to that reply, let me add the following map:

548 invasion main battles by Islam Jihad in 250 years. Initially, the green area, Islamist by 900 CE, was Greco-Roman (or associated civilizations, Seleucid, Etruscan, Latin, and, or Punic) for more than a millennium. After the invasions, non-Muslims were the subjugated, oppressed majority for many centuries, causing what’s paradoxically, and misleadingly known as the “Golden Age of Islam“!

I listened to the following video, which is accurate on its main points:

(There were other crusades, against non-Muslims, such as cathars and Prussians, that’s the main inaccuracy of the video, which is irrelevant to its main message.)


K Vora

I appreciate your well reasoned comment. Unfortunately, it will be distorted by well known probably paid commenters (one can search the names and see how many well reasoned comments have been obfuscated by them). We must accept Islam for what it is: A tool for the rogue elements of humanity (mostly males) to subjugate all others, in person and in thought. I hope Aeon does not block this response because we must confront our genetics in our evolutions (many paths) and if we critically analyse the behaviors of islamic regimes and societies, we have to explore rogue genes, whether y, or x, or corrupted.


Thanks K Vora! Yes, those paid commenters are a problem, and not just with Islam, or religion.

Paid commenters are a problem all over the Internet. And not just the Internet: universities and governments too. Legislation needs to be drawn, because what we have now is a sort of Orwellian 1984 of greed, where “Big Brother” is a compendium of the worst demons of our nature, and rules our information system.

Yes, we must confront our genetics, or, more exactly, the misuse of our genetics by our massively changed circumstances, namely the rise of civilization. (The word “mass” is literal here: the mass of humanity has gone up by a factor of a thousand from what it was during the evolution of the genus Homo…)

The very rise of Islam was entangled with a military strategic observation. Muhammad considered that the tremendous war between the Greco-Roman and the Sassanids, which had just concluded, had weakened both civilizations so much, that, for the first time in 1,000 years, Arabs could hope to raid the Fertile Crescent. Again. The Prophet was right. Desert raiders went according to rougher morals. For example, they used to kill girls liberally. When not enslaving them crudely (for future sale). Muhammad condemned the practice of killing girls, and encouraged slavers to impregnate their girl captives. Both measures led to a population explosion of young males, who became the young, fanaticized warriors of the invading Muslim Arab armies.

So not all is negative about Fundamental Islam. But even the positive, inasmuch as it reinforces Islam, can be negative. Because, indeed, as you said, Islam is about making the rogue, or at least, hyper-violent side of humanity into a religion. The most intriguing part is that the individual devoted to Fundamentalist Islam doesn’t perceive that way. Instead what they perceive is a totally organized life, dawn to dusk. One should read “the final rituals” (and the full three parts description of travelling to Medina and Mecca):

“Hasan stopped me on my way to the lavatory carrying a roll of tissue; he explained with lively gestures – words not sufficing – that I should cleanse myself with water after defecation. Islamic toilet etiquette calls for pouring water with the right hand and wiping oneself with the left. I nodded to him in agreement and continued on my way, with the paper. It felt like a small victory for Western civilization.

On a related subject, Mina has the most appallingly inadequate sanitation facilities. They are plentiful but so filthy that most pilgrims prefer the outdoors. Mecca and Muna both being located on hills and in valleys, streams of urine and waste water flow across great distances at considerable speeds. The Grand Mosque, where some 75,000 pilgrims sleep each night of the hajj, has no public water facilities except the Zamzam well. While no one excretes in the mosque itself, many do so just outside it, even against its walls. I myself did this once; though feeling terribly conspicuous and expecting a reprimand, in fact no one paid me any attention. I found it strange that the Grand Mosque and the Hill of Mercy, Islam’s two holiest spots, also serve as lavatories for the faithful.”

The reason for that totally organized life in Fundamental Islam is exactly the reason why military life is totally organized: it is the most basic training for obedience, core of the ability of the warrior. It’s why some view the Foreign Legion as a death cult.

This being said, there are 100 variants of Islam. Many are well aware of the preceding and ended up as far removed as possible from Salafism (=Wahhabism = Fundamentalism). However, those types of Islam are unknown in the West, and oil money has done its best to suppress them. So now, when talking about “Islam” what the ignorant mean, especially in the West, is Salafism… A type of Fundamentalism thoroughly discredited in Egypt by 1200 CE (it was subjected to the death penalty), and de facto ignored in the best parts of the “Golden Age of Islam”.

(What happened next is that savage invaders, the Mongols and Turks, decapitated the Middle East and North Africa, as they massacred the elites, and took possession of the lands: Arabic speaking intellectual guidance was lost, only illiterate peasants survived.)

Another video, a sort of baby version of what I have long written (albeit with the major blemish of ignoring the ravages of fanatical Christianism in the Greco-Roman empire):

The thesis that the islam and invasion caused the collapse of civilization is known as “Pirenne’s thesis”. Pirenne was a famous historian of the 1930s, who wrote “Mohammed and Charlemagne”.  

Henri Pirenne’s remarkable classic — published after his death — offers a revolutionary perspective on how Europe evolved as the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople evolved into the Europe of Charlemagne and the Middle Ages. I agree with most of what’s in it, but I do not view it as the end all, be all.

Departing from the standard view that Germanic invasions obliterated the Roman Empire, Pirenne advances the radical new thesis that “the cause of the break with the tradition of antiquity was the rapid and unexpected advance of Islam,” and event of historical proportions that prevented the western Mediterranean from being what it had always been: a thoroughfare of commerce and thought. It became instead what Pirenne refers to as “a Musulman lake,” thereby causing “the axis of life [to shift] northwards from the Mediterranean” for the first time in history.

The other standard view, as advocated by Gibbon, was that civilization collapsed because of Christianism.

My own version is more subtle: Christianism and the invasions were a consequence of the Roman Republic collapse and the subsequent political and intellectual fascism that resulted.

Islam itself an aftershock of all this (both the Persians and the Romans quasi-ruled Arabia; Rome traded with India for centuries through its control of the Red Sea).

Islamophilia, in the sense of the love of Salafism, is fundamentally lethal for, not just civilization, but human ethology, even intelligence.

Vigilance and subtlety should be our mantra. Today it was announced that MI5 (British “Intelligence”) tried to assassinate the Irish Prime Minister.

MI5 asked a loyalist paramilitary group to assassinate the Irish prime minister during the height of the conflict in Northern Ireland, according to claims in newly released government documents. The records show that in 1987, Prime Minister Charles Haughey was informed by a letter sent from the Protestant Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) that British Intelligence wanted him dead.

In it, they claimed to Haughey that “in 1985 we were approached by a MI5 officer attached to the NIO [Northern Ireland Office] and based in Lisburn, Alex Jones was his supposed name,” the UVF said. “He asked us to execute you.” The letter was among the Irish government archives released today. Unsatisfied with the refusal, MI5 then asked the UVF if they would accept the blame. UVF said they turned down the request, telling the Taoiseach: “We refused to do it. We were asked would we accept responsibility if you were killed. We refused.” 

Real history is more complicated in crucial ways than simpletons have it. One shouldn’t confuse the history of myths, with the history of facts. Look at Islam like you should look at MI5.

Patrice Ayme’

Abolition of Nuclear Weapons’ Nobel Not So Noble

December 10, 2017

ICAN got the 2017 Peace Nobel for advocating the abolition of nuclear weapons. Fine. However, not that simple. The world faces a “nuclear crisis” from a “bruised ego”, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) warned in an apparent reference to what is often reductively described as “US-North Korea tensions” (because the entire planet should be concerned by North Korean histrionic ideology).

The nine nuclear weapons states objected. In particular, France, the US and the UK didn’t send their ambassadors to the prize ceremony, something which never happened before.

The case those so-called democracies make is that nuclear weapons enable dissuasion, and thus make war between great, and greatly reasonable, powers unimaginable. That’s an important point: I don’t know of a span of 62 years in the last 3,000 years without war between great powers somewhere. All the wars since 1945 have been anecdotes (although some civil wars killed up to 33% of the population, as in Cambodia).

So France, the USA and the UK are right: paradoxically, nuclear weapons save lives.

A campaign led by ICAN was launched to abolish nuclear weapons. ICAN, a coalition of hundreds of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the Geneva-based group helped pave the way for the introduction of a UN treaty banning the weapons, which was signed this year.

While 122 countries backed the treaty in July, the talks were notably boycotted by the world’s nine known nuclear powers and the only Nato member to discuss it, the Netherlands, voted against. Australia has maintained a longstanding opposition to a nuclear weapons ban treaty. Russia, France, UK, USA opposed the treaty, China abstained.

The most Christian city of Nagasaki was spared not: the bomb was dropped over the cathedral. Two-thirds of the Christians in the region died. However, those 10,000 innocents didn’t die in vain: within 20 hours, Japan decide to surrender.

Only three countries, the fanatics in the Vatican, the so-called Holy See, Guyana (population less than 800,000) and Thailand (a military dictatorship) have so far ratified the treaty, which requires 50 ratifications to come into force (according to UN law).

I am also, of course for the abolition of nuclear weapons. However, first of all, even in the best of possible worlds, nuclear explosives should be at the ready, be it only to bust an interstellar asteroid, a hyperbolic comet, or god knows what else (this utterance does not mean I agree to the existence of god for the purpose of this essay).

The United Nations should have nuclear weapons at its disposal, in the present state of international politics, where nations would engage in significant wars at a distance (consider Syria, Yemen, Hezbollah, etc.). And who has nukes officially at the UN? The five permanent members, countries, which, historically, contributed more to civilization than to its opposite.


When the prize was attributed, a survivor of Hiroshima, Setsuko Thurlow, an 85-year-old survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing and now a Canadian and ICAN campaigner talked. Ms Thurlow was rescued from the rubble of a collapsed building at the time. She said that most of her classmates, who were in the same room, were burned alive. “Processions of ghostly figures shuffled by,” she said, as she received the prize. “Grotesquely wounded people, they were bleeding, burnt, blackened and swollen…This is unacceptable human suffering. No human being should ever experience what we experienced.”

I have myself nearly cried, reading the description of the suffering of little children at Hiroshima. However, probably more than twenty million children died in World War Two, a conflict that killed probably more than 100 million people (5% of humanity then). The Japanese, in particular, should be contrite: the Japanese political system, culture and general Zeitgeist was directly causative of World War Two. To this day, WWII war criminals are honored officially in Japan.

Japan killed at least in a rapport of twenty to one: for one Japanese killed, twenty non-Japanese were killed by the Japanese. Call that high efficiency. Most Japanese killed were Japanese soldiers who died from bad treatment in their own army! They died of disease, and, or, malnutrition. Officially, 3.1 million Japanese citizens died in World War Two, says the Japanese government (others say only 2.5 million).  Number of Japanese civilians killed? 550,000 to 800,000, including the victims of strategic bombing (Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.)

The full Japanese cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, hours after the Nagasaki bombing. The cabinet spent the day debating surrender. War minister Anami told the cabinet that, under torture, a captured American Mustang fighter pilot had told his interrogators that the United States possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed “in the next few days”. The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. McDilda, who had been shot down off the coast of Japan two days after the Hiroshima bombing, told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture. The lie caused him to be classified as a VIP prisoner, probably saving him from beheading. In truth, the United States would not have had the third bomb ready for use until August 19, with a fourth in September 1945 and then approximately three a month thereafter. The third bomb would have probably been used against Sapporo, to demonstrate America’s ability to deliver the weapon all over Japan.

Following a second meeting, Prime Minister Suzuki and foreign minister Tōgō met the Emperor, and proposed an impromptu conference which started just before midnight on the night of August 9–10. Japan’s inability to defend itself was pondered. No consensus emerged. At around 02:00 (August 10), Suzuki finally addressed Emperor Hirohito, asking him to decide. The Emperor stated:

“I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer. …

I was told by those advocating a continuation of hostilities that by June new divisions would be in place in fortified positions [at Kujūkuri Beach, east of Tokyo] ready for the invader when he sought to land. It is now August and the fortifications still have not been completed. …

There are those who say the key to national survival lies in a decisive battle in the homeland. The experiences of the past, however, show that there has always been a discrepancy between plans and performance. I do not believe that the discrepancy in the case of Kujūkuri can be rectified. Since this is also the shape of things, how can we repel the invaders? [Hirohito then made some specific reference to the increased destructiveness of the atomic bomb.]

“It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave and loyal fighting men of Japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war. Nevertheless, the time has come to bear the unbearable. …

I swallow my tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister.”

Japanese society, and Hirohito himself was culprit of World War Two. Hiroshima and Nagasaki cured it: within four days of the sun of satan rising over Hiroshima, Japan had decided to capitulate, and nuclear explosions were the main reason.

ICAN should learn history.

Beatrice Fihn, leader of ICAN referred to increasing tensions over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile development. “Nuclear weapons do not prevent conflicts. They caused this conflict”.

She is dissembling and lying: enveloping a lie into a truth, to help swallow it.  

The problem of war is vast. It’s related to our increasing powers. Nuclear weapons are just an aspect. To prevent war, one needs truth. When ICAN lies, it helps war. Truthiness helps war. At all sorts of scale.

Patrice Ayme’




Next Year In Jerusalem: לשנה הבאה בירושלים

December 8, 2017

Question: Is giving in to the enemies of Israel the concession that Jerusalem shall not be again the capital of Israel a concession made to whom are, effectively, Nazis? I discuss, without weasel words:

L’Shana Haba’ah B’Yerushalayim (Hebrew: לשנה הבאה בירושלים‎‎, lit. “Next year in Jerusalem“) is a phrase Jews living in the Diaspora utter each year at the end of Passover and Yom Kippur. After the destruction of the great Jewish temple in Jerusalem, by the Romans in 73 CE, the hope of seeing it rebuilt became a central component of Jewish religious and secular consciousness.

Many are upset by this attitude of the Jews, in the last 1950 years, or so. They called it “Zionism”. And many identify Zionism with racism. How, why, do the Jews want to go home, generation after generation? How dare they?

Isn’t good enough, say the Jewish skeptics, that Jews are tolerated back on the so-called Holy Land? Why do they want everything back, like the owned the place in the past? Why do they want their capital back? Don’t they have it already?

Before last year presidential election, opponents of Trump claimed he was a Jew hater. They were, they are that dumb, and, or disingenuous. Even Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate and New York Time pillar claimed that, two days before the election. The fact that of Trump’s several closest family members several were Jews didn’t mean anything to them. Such a level of idiocy means that arguing intelligently is as easily done with the Commons as with common cockroaches.

We had to build our mosques on top of your temple, to show you who is the boss, and so that you could never return. Beautiful Gold Al Aqsa Mosque Crushes Foundations Of Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. God is a terrorist, or is not.

Now Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the cockroaches are roaring to high heavens. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel for more than a millennium. Say from 1200 BCE (king David) until 136 CE.  Rome had two terrible wars with Israel, one in 66-73 CE, starting under Nero, and the other in 132-136 CE. In 73 CE, the victorious Romans demolished the great temple. In 136 CE the Romans ordered the dispersion of the Jews out of Israel,  and took to calling Israel “Palestina”. (from “Philistia, land of the Philistines”, something justified by old Assyrian inscription). In 360 CE, Roman emperor Julian ordered the Jewish temple rebuilt, but the work was interrupted by a quake and Julian’s death. During the Sassanian occupation of the area, in the Seventh Century, the Jews were again given autonomy. But then the Christians regained control, and the Jews lost the autonomy, and the Muslims followed suit, even forcing Jews to wear marks on their clothing. Jews regained autonomy, shortly after demolishing the British government’s headquarters in the King David hotel in Jerusalem.

The international consensus at the united nations was that Jerusalem was an international city. Right, a treaty was signed to this effect between Richard the Lion Hearted (representing Philippe Auguste of france, his suzerain) and Saladin. (Treaty of Jaffa, 1192 CE!)

The reason being that Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In the case of the Muslims, it’s because Mohammed flew there on top of a winged horse after his death (don’t make fun of the Prophet, or Allah may make you drink melted lead, one of his prefered punishment, says the Qur’an). Another reason is that the tiny territories given by the UN at the creation of Israel, don’t have much of the city.

However, Jerusalem is not just the religious capital of the superstition known as Judaism. As I said, it was the capital of the STATE of Israel for 1,300 years. Not as long as the 1,600+ years of Paris as capital, but close. And about as long as Memphis was capital of Egypt. Memphis was capital of Egypt three times between 2950 BCE and 664 CE.

The question is this: what is the justification for the existence of Israel? Conventional wisdom says it’s just a place for the Jews to be, otherwise they end up in ovens, and related situations. This is a silly reason: Jews shouldn’t end in ovens, because if they do, everybody will (as the top Nazis recognized, sotto voce, among themselves: the treatment they gave to the Jews, extermination, was going to be extended to others).

No, the real reason for Israel is Israel: bringing back the state by that name, made greatly, but not exclusively, of Jews. That state had Jerusalem as capital.

But what of the reasoning that this compromises peace?  Jacques Attali‏, one of France’s deepest thinkers, and close to president Macron, wrote on his twitter account (we follow each other): @jattali: “The United States’ unilateral recognition of a reunified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and of no other state, is against the long-term interests of Israel and the Middle East peace process.”

I recognize that the “of no other state” part is uselessly aggravating. However Trump said:  “We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved,” That does not seem to exclude that East Jerusalem couldn’t be the capital of a Palestinian state (having a double capital was close to a situation found in Berlin for decades).

So my grain of wisdom? The Hamas charter wants all Jews killed. Hamas rules Gaza. I have quoted this saying of Prophet Muhammad in Hadith (41; 6985)  many times.

According to the Hamas charter, Jewish people “have only negative traits and are presented as planning to take over the world.”[39] The charter claims that the Jews deserve God’s/Allah’s enmity and wrath because they received the Scriptures but violated its sacred texts, disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew their own prophets.”[40] (This mentality is straight from the Qur’an, which insults the jews, page after page, even asserting all pigs, monkeys and dogs we see are, truly, Jews…) ).

Here is a piece of the Hamas Charter, halfway through Article Seven:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.]

An essay in the Huffington post disingenuously claims the preceding Hadith does not really say what it says. Yet it’s repeated in at least 2 other places; moreover the Qur’an is extremely insulting to the Jews (although it quotes the Bible favorably to justify a “rain of stones” on homosexuals). The constantly repeated idea in the Qur’an is that Jews disobeyed “god”. Their “god”: the prophet of Islam knew better than the Jews what the Jewish “god” wanted, and he wanted them punished for it. 

In other words, the Palestinians are in denial. The Qur’ an and its murderous threats is their main problem, not the jews. The Jews have the right to come back where they were from. Recognizing this is recognizing the reason for Israel. Anything short of that tries to refute history… and justice.

here are many times more Muslims in Egypt than there are Jews in the world. The Middle Earth has space for the Jews to return.  It will enrich the place force tolerance, hence intelligence.

Meanwhile, negotiating with the most determined enemies of Israel is like negotiating with the Nazis, and literally so. One couldn’t negotiate with the Nazis, for a number of reasons. One does not negotiate with rattlesnakes. This is what the French Republic thought. France declared war to the Nazis, as soon as Great Britain changed its mind and agreed to help France militarily, if France got into a war with the Nazis.  The result is that the Nazis were forced into war 6 years early, and lost said war.

The case of Hamas is typical: read the text above. It’s straight out of Nazi central casting, the sort of declarations even the top Nazis (say Hitler, Heydrich, Himmler) didn’t dare to utter. Respecting this, and giving Hamas the concession that Jerusalem shouldn’t be again the capital of Israel is making to Nazis the concession that Jerusalem shouldn’t be again the capital of Israel. How wise is that/ How moral is that? How prudent is that? How cowardly is that?

If we want truth and reconciliation, we need truth first. The truth is that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel. It was the case for more than 1300 years, roughly as long as the superstitious ideology known as Islam. I am not a Jew, I am more than that, I am a historian. Or, at least someone cognizant with the basics of common history. It’s where the facts are.

Patrice Ayme’

Way Too Polite: ”Your Leaders Are Crazy!”

October 26, 2017

Contrarily to what old PC behavior inculcates, insults have their, irreplaceable, use. An immense occasion was missed, before World War Two. The war could have been avoided by properly insulting (and threatening) the Germans and Japanese leaders and threatening them with annihilation.

In the case of the Germans, it is certain that it would have avoided the war (as I have explained many times with excruciating details). And remember that the Japanese were following the Nazis and Italian fascists. By insulting the leaders, the populations would have realized they were going down the abyss.

In 1942, Professor Frederick Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell) was appointed the British government’s leading scientific adviser (with a seat in the Cabinet) by his friend, the very scientifically minded Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Lindemann presented a paper to the Cabinet advocating the area bombing of German cities. That was accepted by Cabinet and Air Marshall Harris was directed to carry out the task (Area bombing directive). It became a crucial part of the total war against Germany, as it deprived the country of fuel, and forced the Nazis to mobilize 30% as much soldiers in ground air defense as they had, fighting in the USSR.

At the start of the bombing campaign, Harris said, quoting the Bible’s Old Testament: “The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”

Harris, head of the British bomber command dropped a leaflet on Nazi Germany in 1942. Important notions are absent; the mass massacre, the holocaust, of civilians, in particular Poles and Jews (something that was well-known by 1942). An occasion was missed to tell the Germans that their crimes would not be forgiven, until they threw the Nazis out and capitulated to the United Nations. It would have stiffen the spines of German generals who thought the Nazis were nuts.

Here is the leaflet penned by Sir Arthur Harris and dropped over Nazi Europe in the late Spring of 1942:

First Page of Leaflet Dropped by Bomber Harris on German Cities in 1942, translate below:


“We in Britain know quite enough about air raids. For ten months your Luftwaffe bombed us. First you bombed us by day. When we made this impossible, they came by night. Then you had a big fleet of bombers. Your airmen fought well. They bombed London for ninety-two nights running. They made heavy raids on Coventry, Plymouth, Liverpool, and other British cities. They did a lot of damage. Forty-three thousand British men, women and children lost their lives; Many of our most cherished historical buildings were destroyed.

You thought, and Goering promised you, that you would be safe from bombs. And indeed, during all that time we could only send over a small number of aircraft in return. But now it is just the other way. Now you send only a few aircraft against us. And we are bombing Germany heavily.

Why are we doing so? It is not revenge — though we do not forget Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam, London, Plymouth and Coventry. We are bombing Germany, city by city, and even more terribly, in order to make it impossible for you to go on with the war. That is our object. We shall pursue it remorselessly. City by city; Liibeck, Rostock, Cologne, Emden, Bremen; Wilhelmshaven, Duisburg, Hamburg — and the list will grow longer and longer. Let the Nazis drag you down to disaster with them if you will. That is for you to decide.It is true that your defenses inflict losses on our bombers. Your leaders try to comfort you by telling you that our losses are so heavy that we shall not be able to go on bombing you very much longer. Whoever believes that will be bitterly disappointed.

America has only just entered the fight in Europe. The squadrons, forerunners of a whole air fleet, have arrived in England from the United States of America. Do you realize what it will mean to you when they bomb Germany also? In one American factory alone, the new Ford plant at Willow Run, Detroit, they are already turning out one four-engined bomber able to carry four tons of bombs to any part of the Reich every two hours. There are scores of other such factories in the United States of America. You cannot bomb those factories. Your submarines cannot even try to prevent those Atlantic bombers from getting here; for they fly across the Atlantic.

Soon we shall be coming every night and every day, rain, blow or snow — we and the Americans. I have just spent eight months in America, so I know exactly what is coming. We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end, if you make it necessary for us to do so. You cannot stop it, and you know it.

You have no chance. You could not defeat us in 1940, when we were almost unarmed and stood alone. Your leaders were crazy to attack Russia as well as America (but then your leaders are crazy; the whole world thinks so except Italy).

How can you hope to win now that we are getting even stronger, having both Russia and America as allies, while you are getting more and more exhausted?

Remember this: no matter how far your armies march they can never get to England. They could not get here when we were unarmed. Whatever their victories, you will still have to settle the air war with us and America. You can never win that. But we are doing so already now.

One final thing: it is up to you to end the war and the bombing. You can overthrow the Nazis and make peace. It is not true that we plan a peace of revenge. That is a German propaganda lie. But we shall certainly make it impossible for any German Government to start a total war again. And is not that as necessary in your own interests as in ours?”


So what happened? By 1943, the Germans were widely talking about the fact that the holocaust of the Jews had brought the calamity of aerial bombing of German cities, that it was deserved, in a sense. Later, encouraged by a Nazi crack-down, the feeling passed, and the Germans fought to the bitter end.


Leaflets Over Japan:

General Curtiss LeMay craftily and morally warned the Japanese to evacuate their cities. It was crafty because most of Japanese war production was within cities. (This was the justification for the massive bombings of Tokyo, which killed more than the bombing of Hiroshima.)

Long range B-29s US bombers dropped 10 million propaganda leaflets in May, 20 million in June and 30 million in July. The Japanese government implemented harsh penalties against civilians who kept copies of these leaflets:

“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or a friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories, which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique that they are using to prolong this useless war. Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s well-known humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique, which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace, which America will bring, will free the people from the oppression of the Japanese military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan.

You can restore peace by demanding new and better leaders who will end the War.

We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked, but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

To dare say that the fascist leaders which brought World War Two were crazy was way too polite, and it was done way too late.

True enough, thus rough enough propaganda could have done much more in World War Two. It could have prevented the entire world war and its holocausts. But of course the Anglo-Saxons would have had to want to prevent the disaster in a timely manner. They didn’t. Or, at least, their leaders didn’t want to. As simple as that. But, if the measly JFK files can’t be all released, one should not expect to examine what really happened with fascism before World War Two.

Patrice Ayme’