Archive for the ‘War’ Category

NEW IDEAS: NOT FROM CROWD HOWLING TOGETHER. CREATIVITY: WAR AGAINST CROWDS, Yesterday’s Culture…

November 10, 2018

DARK IMPULSES ENABLE INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY, HENCE CURIOSITY, COLONIZATION, THUS HOMO. AS LOVE IS A GIVEN, THIS HYPER AGGRESSIVITY, AT THE ROOT OF HOMO, CAUSES AN AMBIVALENCE…

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

WISDOM: IT ENCOMPASSES OF ALL EMOTIONS, EVEN RAGE CAN BE DRAFTED AS AN ENGINE OF CREATION:

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!

 

Massimo

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: 

Massimo,

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…)

***
Massimo

May 13, 2018 • 4:26 pm

Patrice,

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

WHY THE WEST NEEDS TO REARM!

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.

Conclusion?

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). https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_du_programme_nucleaire_militaire_de_la_France

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

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/philosophy-feeds-engineering/

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:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

(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. https://aeon.co/essays/why-young-men-queue-up-to-die-in-the-french-foreign-legion

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):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

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:

A MESSAGE OF THE COMMANDER OF THE BRITISH AIR FORCE TO THE GERMAN PEOPLE:

“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’

Judaism, Fanaticism, Empire, And Self-Destruction

August 31, 2017

Our Civilization Is Not Just “Judeo-Christian”, Far From It, Yet All Too Many Think It Is:

Judaism contained the initial versions of Abrahamism. 2,000 years ago it gave birth to Christianism (in its many versions) and later Christianism was adopted as “Orthodox Catholicism” by Roman emperors as a metaphysical version of, and indomitable support for, their secular fascism.

Many scholars have argued that Christianism was the straw which broke the back of the Roman state. (Although it seems likely to me that Christianism gave an excuse to a much deeper rot, which, in turn, caused the altruism of Christianism.)

13 centuries ago, Meccan Arabs rejected their 365 gods polytheism around the goddess Moon, and adopted instead a hard-core desert version of Abrahamism, Islamism. Some go around, claiming that our civilization is “Judeo-Christian”, although neither Jews nor Christians invented the alphabet (Egypt, Sumer, Phoenicia did), nor basic mathematics (Egyptians, Greeks, Indians did), nor basic physics or engineering nor the idea of fairness embodied by the law (Babylonians did), nor basic state organization (Egypt, Sumer, Achaemenids), nor welfare (imperial Rome).

This cult of “Judeo-Christianism”, however mistaken, precisely because it’s so mistaken, has to be addressed.

Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, Largest (Herod’s) Version. Destroyed in 70 CE. King Solomon Built Part of It, A Millennium Earlier. Solomon was married to the daughter of Pharaoh. Only a 488 meters long retaining wall is left today, while Christians and Muslims built churches and mosques on top of the emplacement, in an apparent demonstration of whom owned what, the old fashion (jungle) way!

***

Paleologue O asks me in Aeon: “I would be interested to hear more about how the intolerance of the Jews led to the Judean Wars and their subsequent dispersal. What’s your thesis?”

Answer: More exactly it was the intolerance of some Jewish faction leaders, especially Simon bar Giora. Although the revolt started in part for tax reason, Simon instigated the war, if I remember well, with the surprise massacre of more than 600 Roman legionaries.

Simon was captured alive, although he fought to the bitter end. He was brought to Rome and executed by very public whipping (the leader of the Zealots, John of Gischala was condemned to life imprisonment). The first approach to the period is to read the (huge) entire work of the historian Josephus, adoptive son of emperor Vespasian. Josephus had been elected general by the Jewish People, but, after much valorous fighting, was besieged and had to surrender to (then) general Vespasian and his son, general Titus.

In general, the attitude of the Jews made little sense, except if one believed, as many Jews did, that they had a deal with god. Under Rome, the Jews could practice their religion, and even apply some of their most abusive theocratic laws: witness Saint Paul, a Jew named Saul who committed the (fatal) sin of having visited the Jewish temple in Jerusalem with a bodyguard who was not a Jew.

Saul had persecuted the Christians (supposedly) before becoming one himself. Saul’s work on behalf of the Gentiles infuriated Jewish theocrats.

So Saul was condemned to death, and arrested by the authorities. He was imprisoned 2 years by the Roman governor of Judea. As Saul was also an important Roman citizen (a prosecutor), he successfully asked to be judged in Rome, and not by the order of the High Jewish Priests, the Sanhedrin. Paul disappeared in Rome around 67 CE or 68 CE (executed by order of the evil Jews, said some Christians, or the evil Nero, said others, if he was not exfiltrated to Spain say still others…)

Meanwhile, by 66 CE, fanatical Jewish factions, the “Zealots” and “Sicari” took control of Jerusalem (full of hatred for each others, not just the Greco-Romans). When other Jews tried to flee the city they were crucified (with as many as 500 crucifixions in one day!)

In general, Abrahamism stinks, as the founding legend, Abraham, was ready to execute his son, just because his boss asked him to. (Imagine Google, aka God ask you to kill someone dearest to you?) Whereas I say that when a God asks for the death of one’s child, or any child, He should be told: F U! That’s a question of basic morality. If a god doesn’t deserve respect, it should get it.

One can compare how Celts, Punics and Jews reacted to the rise of civilization (in its Greco-Roman version). The former two laid low superstitiously speaking: they stopped pretending that they had better metaphysics than the Roman Republic (the Saxons would do the same after being beaten into submission by Charlemagne for 30 years).

After the Romans defeated (some of) them, Celts and Punics condemned their own religions, they said OK to Rome, and they helped build a constructive empire (defeated “Gaul” was the most important and powerful province of Rome after the First Century, and the relationship of Italy and Gaul got inverted, pacifically; soon enough, Carthage was again one of the Greco-Roman empire’s greatest cities).

Whereas some Jewish factions in Jerusalem opted to resist fanatically and murderously the Greco-Roman empire. Not all Jews did so, thus Judaism survived the eradication of the fanatics (differently from the Samaritans who fought as one, later, so only 3,000 are left, now…) Those vicious factions were based in Jerusalem, but not present among the dozens of thousands of Jews in Alexandria. After the second Jewish war, in 132-135 CE, the Jews were dispersed out of Israel, rebaptized “Palestina” on the occasion, so here we are…

***

Paleologue replied: “Thanks for the Cliff Notes version. I hadn’t realized they’d started off by killing 600 Roman soldiers. A fatal tactical blunder. Obviously the Zealots didn’t have a proper diplomatic corps, to put their case in more reasonable terms. Had they followed the advice of some in-house Gandhi figure, to suggest the non-violent way, they might have met with greater success. (They certainly couldn’t have done any worse.)

I do have a nice copy of Josephus sitting around. But it’s so heavy I have so far put off reading it. I do have kind of a long reading list already. Maybe I should bump it up a hundred places.”

Not just that, but an entire Roman legion, Legio XII Fulminata, was sent to re-establish order, and then, after evacuating Jerusalem, fell into an ambush. This time more than 6,000 Roman soldiers died, shocking the entire empire.

Reading Josephus is a must. One of the greatest classics ever, which even the crazed-out Christian monks found valuable enough to save. The Zealots, Sicari and others were into hatred and killing (as they showed by killing each other). Being out there to kill humans en masse is one of the most instinctive, if not the most sacred, mass behavior of humans. Because, without it, humanity would not exist anymore than it would, without love. Yeah, right, it’s crazy. But even more crazy to ignore it.

***

One thing is clear to me; those who claim to love Judaism should decrease their fanaticism, and tribal exaltation:

(Besides, it’s hypocritical as the inertness of American Jews demonstrated, when confronting Nazism: it’s the French Republic, which is not Jewish, but laic, which stood in the way of Nazism, not the Jews; as Hannah Arendt and Simone Weil pointed out, making lots of PC enemies in the process… Life among intellectuals would be devoid of spice without PC, Perfect Cretins…)

In particular, genital mutilation, a hallmark of Jews shouldn’t not have to be tolerated when visited on males more than it should be when visited on females. (Yes, there are good arguments for both; but good arguments can be found for anything, whatsoever, if one changes one’s parameters to crazy enough…)

Jewish fanaticism backfired many times in history. (Christian fanaticism was, mostly, done away with, and mostly an imperial tool, anyway; but Christians never claimed to have been given a piece of land by their own private god… Only the all too secular Charlemagne gave land to the Pope…)

Now the Jews claim they own the land of Israel. They have a good historical case, but moderation is key. Punics, Celts, the Franks, and all sorts of Germans and the Saxons saw the light, when confronted to higher civilization, and, after fighting it, learned the mistakes of their ways, and embraced it. (By 950 CE, the Saxons had become the pillar of the Franco-Roman empire, while Western Francia disintegrated in 63 political authorities…) 

The problem with, and the force of, Judaism is tribalism. Tribalism without a higher cause is just racism. Some will say the god of the tribe is enough of a higher cause. Not so. The tribal god himself needs a higher, universal cause: this is why Catholicism became universal (Catholic means universal). This is also why Islamism became universal (it has universal pretense, although it’s to call for the killing all sorts of people)

Now, pleasing the empire is more important than ever. Because the empire, and its enemies, have never been more powerful. A mistake or two, and billions of people could end up dead.

Thus those who cultivate tribalism and exclusion, as if they were delicate flowers of the greatest value, tickle the dragon. The thermonuclear dragon. Let us remind them their gods are of the highest immorality.

Patrice Ayme’

Lessons From Sparta, Thebes, Athens, Macedonia, Rome, Greece, Franks, On How To Beat the Dark Side (In North Korea)

August 6, 2017

Countless intellectuals, for example Salman Rushdie, hold that the those Sanders supporters who didn’t vote for Clinton are contemptible idiots. But then he admits that, when Trump was elected, he realized he didn’t understand the USA. Verily, Rushdie didn’t understand the most important thing. He reminds me of a parallel universe with Jews advocating voting for Himmler instead of Hitler.

Rushdie claims the “left” is obsessed with purity. And he rightly points at Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, Maoists. Whatever: the same can be said of the extreme right, Nazis, Fascists, etc… Or even the center (that’s why there is no center in the United Kingdom).

In a French philosophical magazine, Rushdie claims that “we have entered the era of the impossible”. Little does he seem to know. The impossible made history countless times.

Part of the Famous Chigi Vase, Showing Hoplites In Formation. Complete With Musician. Upon Hoplites, Freedom Rested. Similarly, Constant War Made the Italian Renaissance, Starting With the Florence Republic Issuing Bonds To Pay for Its Army (killed centuries later by Medici plutocracy).

Actually, Rushdie understands nothing in exactly the same way as Trump, Macron, the Clintons and Obama didn’t understand anything most important: people have had enough of the inequality which is degrading civilization.

When asked why he didn’t reveal his work on (Gaussian) curvature, the tremendous mathematician Friedrich Gauss sneered in a letter to Bessel in 1829, that:”It may take very long before I make public my investigations on this issue: in fact, this may not happen in my lifetime for I fear the “clamor of the Boeotians.”

Boeotia was the city state, capital Thebes, north of Attica. Athenians viewed it as dull, insipid and brutish. They shouldn’t have. With crucial Athenian military help, Thebes destroyed Spartan supremacy forever by freeing the lands, and at least one city-state, that it had enslaved, for centuries. Sparta’s downfall was propelled by the same mood which had brought its war against Athens 80 years prior. Namely, obstinately taking itself for a superpower, and imposing that at all cost (a bit the same as Putin’s Russia nowadays; Sparta was also led by a charismatic king, Agesilaus II, who stayed popular in his eighties, although Sparta was clearly going downhill, big time).

Later, though, Alexander burned Thebes to the ground, while Athens watched (that led to the eradication of democracy). Demosthenes had warned against the Macedonians. Recently I read a history book, just written, which claims that Demosthenes was the bad guy, as Athens should have submitted to Macedonia, more readily.

This is to forget that Athens did submit to Alexander, but not really Macedonia. Antipater took the succession of Alexander after the latter’s death. The resulting war between Antipater and Athens brought Macedonian victory and the establishment, by Antipater, of a plutocracy in Athens (only the richest could vote: destitute citizens, most of them, got deprived of their citizens’ rights).

The Theban army, around 36,000 men was roughly the size of Alexander’s. The battle was long uncertain, as Thebes fought with the energy of despair, knowing it faced annihilation. If the Athenian army had joined Thebes, the Macedonians would have been annihilated.

The Macedonians were intrinsically fascist, because of their way of life: plutocrats owned vast domains where horses were brought up, gold mines, etc. The Greeks to the south lived in cities, from more intellectual tasks, where ideas hence democracy were more productive. The opposition was total, it couldn’t be remedied: either the Macedonian brutes would conquer intellectual Greece, or Intellectual Greece would defeat the brutes. Because the Greeks didn’t act when they could, with the Macedonians as they had with the Persians, democracy and intelligence got defeated by the rule of malevolence (which is what “plutocracy” means)

***

The lesson for today’s world?

The military side of things should not be neglected. One battle can decide the world. Nor should the endurance of plutocracy, and the mind control it can exert. After Antipater submitted Athens, the mental subjugation was such that, to this day, people have forgotten all what democracy consists of. They came to call countries “led” by Obama, Trump, Macron, let alone Putin and the Queen of England, “democracies” Whereas those countries are parodies of what the ancient Greeks called “democracy”.

Contradictors would point out that Athens had only 80,000 citizens at most, with plenty of slaves and subjugated women.  However, the subjugation of women was a phenomenon specific to Athens, not to all Greek city-states (Spartan women personally owned much of Sparta, as Aristotle whined).  The fact that, at the height of her power, during the Fifth Century BCE, Athens was attacked by the greatest powers, first Achaemenid Persia, then Sparta, then Sparta allied with Achaemenid Persia, has a lot to do with it, in my opinion.

In this world war, fascism against democracy situation, Athens was first a military empire fighting for survival. When Athens sent an expedition to Egypt to free her mother civilization (yes, Egypt) from Persian subjugation, it was no time to ponder who deserved to be citizens or not (in its final struggle against Alexander, Thebes made her slaves citizens). Ultimately the Egyptian expedition failed, but it was another fracture in Persian armor (later to be exploited by Alexander).

So what to say of today? The entire world is reminiscent of Greece plus Macedonia. The “West” consists in a number of nations (including Japan). That would be the equivalent of the Delian league, headed by Athens.

Except that, nowadays, the world is militarily led by the USA while intellectually led by Europe. That was exactly the Greco-Roman arrangement which lasted for 1600 years, until it was replaced by a Franko-Greek arrangement by 800 CE, to Constantinople’s fury; however, while Rome was a always mental subset of Greece, with a superior fascist republic, the Franks came to dominate Constantinople in all ways, precisely because Constantinople versed into fanaticism, for much too long and too deep.

Indeed, as everybody knows, Constantinople, Oriental Rome, went down. In no small measure because, by the Eighth Century, the Franks looked down on Constantinople’s Christian fanaticism. Whereas all what Constantinople could see what that the savage Muslims below its walls were successful because precisely they were fanatically religious savages, so they duplicated that global mood.

***

Conclusion: Debate and Think, in a Timely Manner. Change Moods:

Sparta’s failure to change its global mood in a timely manner led to its military and then demographic disappearance (the same fate threatens quite a few countries nowadays). Worse, Sparta nearly eradicated Athens, and certainly destroyed her remarkable mood of total inquiry, all azimuths. it would have been better to mimic Athens than try to destroy civilization.

Athens survived because, under Roman hegemony, Athens was the place of higher learning and higher wisdom. Centuries later, fanatical Christian emperors tried to shut down Athens by shutting down its schools. The result is that the Franks decided that the “translatio studii” had happened: Paris was the New Athens, a translation of studies had occurred, centred on Paris’ Cathedral (not the present Notre Dame, the one before; the change of cathedrals enabled the university to become physically independent).

Don’t forget that fascism and its version with a civilized veneer, plutocracy, are extremely sticky: we got overwhelmed by fascism and plutocracy, 24 centuries ago, and didn’t get out of it yet.

The “West”, whatever that is (is the People’s Republic of China in it, or not?) has to be broad and open-minded, yet military threats should be eliminated in a timely manner (that is, before they can become uncontrollable).

In the past, the mightiest empire (Rome, China, the Aztecs) fell to relatively small enemy forces (the Goths and Genghis Khan’s Mongols had no more than 200,000 warriors; subsequent German invasions were from much smaller numbers). Cortez conquered the Aztecs with less than 1500 men, and was repeatedly teased by the Aztecs that he could not make it, because of his tiny numbers. The Aztecs didn’t know that the Conquistadores were making shots with copper warheads for their crossbows, industrially, having recruited hundreds of thousands of natives to do so to their specifications.

Tiny enemies, like tiny rattlesnakes, are the more venomous, the smaller they are, precisely because their small size motivates them more. Thus, full severity with Muslim fanatics (Jihadists), is fully justified.  Same for North Korea, if it pursues its plans to nuclear blackmail the world (Athens didn’t wait for Persia to attack, doing nothing; first it armed itself to the teeth; thus, when Persia asked for submission, Athens had enough might to say no).   

***

Kill Infamy While You Can:

Says The Economist, all too mildly in “How To Avoid Nuclear War With North Korea”:

“There are no good options to curb Kim Jong Un. But blundering into war would be the worst

IT IS odd that North Korea causes so much trouble. It is not exactly a superpower. Its economy is only a fiftieth as big as that of its democratic capitalist cousin, South Korea. Americans spend twice its total GDP on their pets. Yet Kim Jong Un’s backward little dictatorship has grabbed the attention of the whole world, and even of America’s president, with its nuclear brinkmanship. On July 28th it tested an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit Los Angeles. Before long, it will be able to mount nuclear warheads on such missiles, as it already can on missiles aimed at South Korea and Japan. In charge of this terrifying arsenal is a man who was brought up as a demigod and cares nothing for human life—witness the innocents beaten to death with hammers in his gigantic gulag. Last week his foreign ministry vowed that if the regime’s “supreme dignity” is threatened, it will “pre-emptively annihilate” the countries that threaten it, with all means “including the nuclear ones”. Only a fool could fail to be alarmed.”

Odd? Why odd? China uses North Korea as a form of sophisticated blackmail, why Mr. Xi tries to push the other way, namely in the South China Sea (while all these tensions stoke nationalism, hence his rule). The Economist to weakly recommend to “contain” North Korea. Just as is already done. Hitler, too, was contained. Until it became clear to Britain and France that the best choice was to declare war. Next recommendation from The Economist: breathe deep and carry on.

And why does The Economist pretend that “blundering into war” is the worst. No. The “worst” would be nuclear blackmail as far as the eye can see. Within a few decades, the young Mr. Kim could have the ability to annihilate the “West” in its entirety. The obvious remark is that a war with North Korea, a cannibalistic mafia state, now, would probably not go nuclear. Wait, and it will. Nuclear War has a high probability NOT to be contained (a strike, or attempted strike, on a US city would probably mean annihilation of North Korea and all its allies, real or imagined).

***

IMPOSSIBLE IS ALL TOO OFTEN, NOT REAL:

The impossible made history countless times. One has to be ready for the impossible, that’s how to contain it. 

History beats fiction, anytime. Want to learn something drastic? Learn real history.  It’s never weak.

Patrice Ayme’