Archive for the ‘War’ Category

Dispelling Lies Exalting 1776 To Smear 1789.

July 5, 2019

It’s traditional among Anglo-Saxon historians and pundits of the sort who get on the payrolls of the “best” (that is, wealthiest, most plutocratic) universities, and top media, to spite the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, and propagandize against it…

While celebrating the US Declaration of Independence of 1776. It’s condemning apples to celebrate death caps. 1776 was anti-plutocratic, right, yet tribal: it didn’t free the slaves. 1789 is universal, and did free the slaves. Ironically, the US Constitution also appeared in 1789… but was not as universal as the French constitution, so that US ersatz has been hardly mentioned ever since as a competitor to France 1789… Most US citizens, pundits and propagandists don’t realize the French and US Constitutions were elaborated simultaneously in 1789… And everybody knows about the French one, because of its universal claims.  

Typical of the plutocratically inspired spite for 1789, is this from the New York Times, July 4, 2019: Robespierre’s America

We need to reclaim the spirit of 1776, not the certitudes of 1789.

You mean we should forget the certitudes of the United Nations’ charter? And the New York Times to insist: 

“Armed with the ‘truth,’ Jacobins could brand any individuals who dared to disagree with them traitors or fanatics,” historian Susan Dunn wrote of the French Revolution. “Any distinction between their own political adversaries and the people’s ‘enemies’ was obliterated.” 

Amusing, if said in elementary school, by an exalted toddler, but not funny if considered to be serious scholarship. And even less so when it is used, as it is, to smear the entire French Revolution. When one speaks of the Terror one speaks of a period during which the French Republic was at war with the rest of Europe, which was controlled by bloody plutocrats threatening to kill millions, and boasting of it, to further their rule of terror. The counter-terror of the Republic festered only during a short period in 1793, and part of 1794… and it arose for reasons exterior to France. The word “Jacobin” was initially an insult, and was invented well after 1789.[2]

Pseudo-humanists can say whatever catches their fancy, completely irrelevant to any sort of reality: this is how the United Nations Charter was born, at Valmy, September 20, 1792… Thanks to superior French explosives… And the Republican élan…

The French Revolution of 1789 was such an excellent thing that the Charter of the present day United Nations is founded on it. However, in their will to hatred, and plutocracy, many smear the Human Rights and Citizen Rights Proclamation of 1789 with what happened in 1793: total war, invasions by several monarchies, the Jacobins tearing each other up, the Terror, 17,000 executed. They also omit to say that, in the meantime, all of Europe monarchies had attacked France in 1792, promising Paris “military execution”, and that the king and queen had betrayed the country, France, that they had been put in charge of leading. [1]

Smearing 1789 with 1793, omitting 1792, is conducive to… hatred. Hatred for progress, human rights, etc.. Thus smearing 1789 is to embrace the love of plutocracy, inequality, fracking, excess CO2, over-exploitation of resources, disregard for human rights, or even human lives (see US life expectancy going down, ever since the latter rule of Obama the Great), etc. Exactly the agenda the English North American colony leaders tended to exhibit and cherish since 1610 CE.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] On the Valmy Battle, September 20, 1792: After threatening Paris with “military execution”, the coalition plutocratic army invaded France. France was still a monarchy, and France was still led by the king who launched the revolution, Louis XVI, who had been king for EIGHTEEN (18) years.  

The military execution threat was made in July 1792, raising the stakes of the total war of plutocracy against the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/how-genocide-starts/

Just over half of the French infantry were regulars of the old Royal Army, as were nearly all of the cavalry and, most importantly, the artillery,[3][5] which were widely regarded as the best in Europe at the time.[6][7] These veterans provided a professional core to steady the enthusiastic volunteer battalions.[8]Combined, Dumouriez’ Army of the North and Kellermann’s Army of the Centre totalled approximately 54,000 troops.[9] Heading towards them was the Duke of Brunswick’s coalition army of about 84,000, all veteran Prussian and Austrian troops augmented by large complements of Hessians and the French royalist Army of Condé.[9]

 

The invading fasco-plutocratic army of proto-Nazis handily captured Longwy on 23 August and Verdun on 2 September, then moved on toward Paris through the defiles of the Forest of Argonne.[6] In response, Dumouriez halted his advance to the Netherlands and reversed course, approaching the enemy army from its rear.[3] From Metz, Kellermann moved to his assistance, joining him at the village of Sainte-Menehould on 19 September.[6] The French forces were now EAST of the Prussians, behind their lines. Theoretically the Prussians could have marched straight towards Paris unopposed, but this course was never seriously considered: the threat to their lines of supply and communication was too great to be ignored. With few other options available, Brunswick turned back and prepared to do battle.

 

When the Prussian manœuvre was nearly completed, Kellermann advanced his left wing and took up a position on the slopes between Sainte-Menehould and Valmy.[6] He centered his command around an old windmill, which he quickly razed to prevent enemy artillery spotters from using it as a sighting location.[11] His veteran artillerists were well-placed upon its accommodating ridge to begin the so-called “Cannonade of Valmy“.[3] Brunswick moved toward them with about 34,000 of his troops.[9] As they emerged from the woods, a long-range gunnery duel ensued and the French batteries proved superior. The Prussian infantry made a cautious, and fruitless, effort to advance under fire across the open ground.[3]

The French troops sang “La Marseillaise” and “Ça Ira“, and a cheer went up from the French line.[12] Confronted to this discouraging and thoroughly unexpected élan, to the surprise of nearly everyone, Brunswick broke off the action and retired from the field. The Prussians rounded the French positions at a great distance and commenced a rapid retreat eastward.

Never doubt the efficiency of the Marseillaise…

The First French Republic was proclaimed the next day in Paris, as the news of the victory arrived.

French troops soon struck forward into Germany, taking Mainz in October. Dumouriez once again moved against the Austrian Netherlands and Kellermann ably secured the front at Metz…

***

[2] I studied on the exact street from which the word “Jacobin”, initially a put-down, comes from. There was an old Catholic institution partisans of the secular Republic took over, to work from. It was on rue Saint Jacques… So the enemies of the Republic called the secularists that way, to make fun of them, as if they had embraced Saint Jacques (now, as in 1789, French topmost high school and the Sorbonne bracket the rue Saint Jacques).. 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Given the Situation, They Forced the Most Humane Solution

July 5, 2019

The Bomb as a friend of humanity: who would have thought? I have some family problems with inheritance, an interesting moment when greed is revealed to trump all other considerations, in some individuals, and one experiences the sadness of finding out what really makes them cockroaches, tick… The kind of situation when one seeks comic, or, if that doesn’t work, cosmic, relief. 

Further sinking me deeper, a friend, a tenured research physicist from a top institution, so really a brain, told me he couldn’t read my essays, they were too deep. I must admit the pressure is great, I am without any doubt, a creature of the abyss, similar to Damascius, the last philosopher of Antiquity, who had to flee Athens in 529 CE, chased by the rabid Christian terrorists… And went to seek refuge among the Sassanids.

Paradoxically deep and dark, where the light and explanation needs to be brought in, but hasn’t been brought in yet, provides the relief of tragedy. When one compares one’s sedate life to the tragedies visited onto others, immediate relief ensues. So it is when the climber finally finds a flat, grassy meadow.

***

My friend Chris Snuggs, is visiting Japan: Hiroshima, Nagasaki… Yes, Chris, a polyglot, and professional teacher of many a nation, turned at some point into a fanatical Brexiter, and he has been baffled by my fostering the evil fascist EU when so many of my own lessons brought him to condemn it! See, how tolerant I am:

Chris Snuggs: “Had to visit the Peace Memorial Museum, but it was as expected not a bundle of laughs. It is beautifully done as one expects in Japan, but too sad. I have to do some research. I tried already, but it is all a bit confusing and I have no definitive answer. Patrice might know! The thing is, did the Americans HAVE to drop a second bomb after Hiroshima? Was the Emperor really so stubborn not to order his men to stop fighting after Hiroshima? Or were the Americans trying to make a point to the Russians and/or just practising with their new toy? 

It is true that after the first bomb, the Japanese still DID NOT surrender, but could not the Yanks have bombed an uninhabited island to drive the point home that surrender was the only option? In Nagasaki (only chosen because the primary target that day – Kokura – was obscured by cloud), 70,000 people died instantly when the bomb exploded, ALMOST ALL CIVILIANS, including thousands of Koreans, Chinese and others, as Nagasaki was/is a major international port and entry point to Japan. Another 70,000 or so died in the days, weeks and months that followed, and an unknown number of cancers years later. 

But the terrifying thing for us today is that the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TINY compared to what exists today…”

***

It wouldn’t take many of those for civilization to have really a bad day.

The Strategic Nuclear Bombings Were Planned with Extreme Care:

Yes, Patrice knows, Patrice has written a lot on the subject, for an immense variety of reasons, not limited to the way people react to the subject!

Atomic Bombings Were An Emergency. More Than 10,000 People Died Each Day, From Japanese Occupation, all over Asia:

Only 672,000 Japanese civilians died from World War Two, virtually all of them killed in American air raids (including the two atomic bombs).

To draw a thoroughly inappropriate laughter, one could say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were emergency care in more ways than one.

The rest of this essay will address the questions Chris brought, with my usual method to dig deep here and there. But the short of it is that the nuclear bombings were nearly miraculously timed to force Japanese leaders into a different state of mind, which imposed peace to their agitated selves. Overall, the nuclear bombings, the way they happened, saved millions of lives. 

Atom bombing an uninhabited island would have made the immensely tough generals and admirals leading Japan laugh at the stupidity of the Americans. It would have given them hope that they were fighting imbeciles. So, maybe, after all, they had a chance to defeat the idiots…

Top Japanese leaders knew, from the in-house Japanese nuke programs, that the Americans couldn’t have that many atom bombs. Militarily, the Japanese cities were production centers (differently from Germany which, because of heavy British and then US bombing, had to displace production out of cities). Kokura’s arsenal was the target of the day. The Japanese navy, with thousands of fully functional medium to small ships and hundreds of small subs was a big problem for US war planners, as they approached the Japanese archipelago, with its inner seas and complex waterways. 

Many options, and would even say, all the options were discussed before the atomic bombings, including a demonstration atomic bombing at night over Tokyo Bay, to enlighten the Japanese leadership. Or bombing a deserted island. Or tell in advance of a demonstration. Or forget the bomb. Each option had drastic negatives…

What if the bomb was a dud? Would the evil dictators of Japan laugh out loud? What if the Japanese air force brought up 100 fighters to oppose the B29s, after they were told where and when they were coming? What if the damage to rice fields failed to persuade?

In any case it was the population of Japan who needed to feel the heat, and that heat needed to be transmitted to the young officer corps. Only them could persuade the military dictators of Japan to surrender. As it turned out, Emperor Hirohito’s courageous intervention prevented the third planned strategic nuclear bombing (the third Pu core, the Demon Core, was ready by August 16 to be dropped on August 19. Japan surrendered the 15th).

***

After being attacked for two hours by hundreds of US aircrafts, super battleship Yamato, on suicide mission to Okinawa, explodes. The mushroom cloud rose seven kilometers high. More than 3,000 crew pulverized.

We have bigger and better today:

Indeed a typical warhead in a French or US nuclear tipped missile is 250K, about 17 times Hiroshima. Each submarine missile can carry up to 10 atom bombs. The new Sarmat heavy Russian ICBM whose capabilities Putin said “are much higher” than the Cold War Soviet SS-18 ICBM because it will carry “a broad range of powerful nuclear warheads” and the Sarmat “has practically no range restrictions.” The Sarmat is reported by the Russian state  as capable of carrying 10 warheads of 800-kilotons or 15 warheads of 350-kilotons. 10 warheads of each 40 times Nagasaki…

In theory there is a limit of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, for the USA and Russia, each. But how to check that? Considering that Putin gloated about having a nuclear propelled, indefinite range cruise missile, the Russian leadership sounds wacko. Yes, nuclear propelled, that’s what Vladimir said. I am for nuclear propulsion… but in space. Running tests of such devices in the atmosphere is idiotic. 

***

The Japanese High Command Intended To Fight To Death For Another Year:

Japanese nuclear bomb physicists saw the Hiroshima mushroom cloud rising. So a highly qualified part of the Japanese government knew immediately that a nuclear bomb had been used. Looking at its evil red streaks, the physicist could immediately tell that it was a Uranium 235 device.  

The population in Hiroshima had no doubt what happened: within hours 35 US prisoners were dead at the hands of the vengeful populace of the Hiroshima metro area. 

The Japanese high command had no intention to surrender. It had launched the war, it intended to finish it. As it is, Japan has just two places favorable to a large disembarkment. One is next to Tokyo, and the Japanese high command had massed an extravagant quantity of weapons, including 5,000 planes underground in one facility alone. The other places, the southern tip of Kyushu, the southernmost island, was so heavily defended, the Japanese high command couldn’t imagine how the western allies could land. Moreover, three Japanese emergency nuclear bomb programs were making very fast progress, and Japanese generals hoped to use a nuclear bomb on the US troops.  

While Japan no longer expected to win the war, Japan’s leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies, leading to an armistice rather abject surrender. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦 ketsugō sakusen) (“Operation Codename Decisive”). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resist the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for “The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million” commenced.[48] The main message of “The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million” campaign was that it was “glorious” to die for the god-emperor of Japan, and every single Japanese man, woman, and child should aspire to do so when the white devil Americans arrived.[48] Analysis by both American and Japanese officers at the time indicated that the Japanese death toll would have numbered in the millions. Scaling up what had happened at Okinawa reinforced the dismal prospects: at Okinawa, stupid civilians gathered around grenades, and blew themselves up, rather than suffering being ordered around by big ugly American monsters they were conditioned to excoriate.

***

The US planned to land in Kyushu, Operation Olympic, and the Japanese knew it: US command knew that the Japanese military, expecting 90 US divisions, was massed there, Iwo Jima style (plenty of tunnels). The Japanese armed forces ready to reject the US in Kyushu numbered one million… and 10,000 kamikaze planes, which would be harder to detect on radar than at Okinawa, because of the mountains. Japanese planners expected to sink one third of the invasion forces’ transport, from the Kamikaze alone.

So the US command planned to use not just five (5) million men, 42 fleet aircraft carriers, but also massive quantities of neurotoxic gas, and nuclear bombs. US planners expected up to one million US casualties. Seven Fat Man-type plutonium implosion bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. American troops were advised not to enter an area hit by a bomb for “at least 48 hours”; the risk of nuclear fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.

***

Because of cloud cover, the Nagasaki bomb dropped into the wrong valley. One of the biggest Roman Catholic churches in Asia at the time, the Urakami Cathedral was hit by the nuclear shockwave. It was rebuilt in 1959.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Psychologically Rammed the Japanese Leaders Into Where They Would Not Have Otherwise Gone: Peace

Hiroshima, a Uranium bomb, then Nagasaki, a Plutonium device. The next one to be atom bombed was supposed to be the capital of the north, Sapporo. After the second strategic nuclear bombing, the emperor, a scientist, had all he needed to explain to the generals that this had to stop. And the only way to stop it was unconditional surrender. Hirohito was the formal leader of the co-conspirators of the war of imperial Japan onto the world, and he was supposed to be a god, so… 

The emperor ordered an end to the suffering, a ceasefire of all Japanese forces, “bear the unbearable. The other war criminals didn’t take it lightly. The top general actually tried a coup, 4 days later (by then the US had been told of the coming surrender, and the Sapporo bombing was delayed) . When he realized the enormity of what he was doing, he committed seppuku:”My death is my apology for my crime”. This was the first time the Japanese heard his voice. The entire Kamikaze command, including the famous admiral leading it, took flight in dozens of planes, and was never heard of again. They probably all plunged into the sea somewhere. 

A few days later, the first US soldiers showed up in a tense, but disciplined, subdued Japan. The nuclear bombing gamble had worked. 4 months later, McArthur, head of the US/UN forces in Japan, learned of the Japanese nuclear bomb programs, thought he had been lied to, and infuriated, ordered all and any Jap nuclear equipment to be destroyed. The New York Times, learning of the cyclotron thrown at the bottom of Tokyo Bay, not privy to the reason of the general’s rage, accusing him of war crimes.

*** 

We have bigger and better bombs today, and this is THE major problem:

Yes, even more than biosphere collapse. The MAD doctrine doesn’t just rest on mutually assured destruction, but on the fact Russia and China and the USA are giant land empires. The other two official nuclear weapon states, Britain and France have gigantic maritime Exclusive Economic Zones (France has the world’s largest, about 8% of total world EEZ). The USA, controls around 21 million square kilometers of the planet, only behind Russia, which controls a total of around 25 million square kilometers.

So the permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) have no interest to disturb the present world order, which they profit from (this makes Brexit even more infuriating, as it threatens the UK, hence the present structure of the UNSC…)

However, war is possible by short circuit, because of idiotic launch-on warning systems which the US and Russia have… That should be discontinued ASAP.

Restricting nuclear weapons to a few states which have neither historical inclinations, nor any interest to launch a world war, has been a factor of peace.  

But things are changing.

***

Savage Japan got away lightly from the mayhem it launched in Asia, up to 50 million killed: 

Even the German Third Reich lost only around 10% of its population, killed. However, civilizations completely annihilated in rather short wars have happened in the past. Not just the Aztecs, or Incas, but the Assyrians, the Baghdad Caliphate (Islam with a civilized face, didn’t last), but also the Tangut empire, also known in Mandarin as the Xi Xia, a huge Buddhist empire which shouldn’t have contradicted the Mongols too much.

A catastrophic nuclear war is entirely possible. Two avenues to avoid it: arms reduction, the Non Proliferation Treaty, and then, the old fashion way, technological superiority. The US, Europe, Israel, are developing increasingly anti-missile systems. Tough, yes.

But remember this: there is such a thing as being more civilized. When Western soldiers (French, British, Dutch, Australian, New Zealander, Americans; by chronological order of apparition) surrendered to Japanese forces while they could still resist, it was viewed as a crime. Yes, you read that right. Japan Bushido code was that demanding. Actually, by 1945, the Japanese high command, ordering capital ships to make a suicide attack on Okinawa, also ordered sailors explicitly to violate the Bushido code: Japanese sailors were to save themselves, if they could, to rebuild Japan after the war,

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: rarely was the cost of saving face so high.    

Patrice Ayme

Not the first time I consider all the preceding:

LEARNING TO THINK RIGHT BY STUDYING THE ETHICS OF ATOMIC BOMBINGS ON JAPAN.

WANT HUMAN? FREE TRUTH! Instead, San Francisco Promotes Lying, While Hating History, Reality

June 30, 2019

SAN FRANCISCO READY TO SPEND HUGELY TO DESTROY US HISTORY!  

Teaching US Children the USA Was Wonderful In The Past, Knew Neither Slavery, Nor Genocide, and big bad imperialistic white men: Or when false and fake progressives reveal their true nature.

The San Francisco school board unanimously decided to spend at least $600,000 of taxpayer money not just to shroud a historic work of art but to DESTROY it. Destruction of historical art is paramount for San Francisco leaders, so as to deny, and definitively erase, the reality of what happened in the USA: slavery and genocide. According to the SF School Board, US high school students should never be exposed to such notions.

In other words, San Francisco wants to succeed where the Nazis failed: claim there was never any holocaust, no slavery. Especially not in the US. Nothing to see, nothing to learn, for ever and ever, during the great San Francisco 1,000 Year Uber Reich. 

***

The Terror Of Politically Correct Self-Contradicting Imbeciles:

One of the commissioners, Faauuga Moliga, said that his chief concern was that “kids are mentally and emotionally feeling safe at their schools.” Thus he wanted “the murals to be painted down.” Mark Sanchez, the school board’s vice president, later told the New York Times that simply concealing the murals wasn’t an option because it would “allow for the possibility of them being uncovered in the future.Destroying them was worth it regardless of the cost, he argued at the hearing, saying, “This is reparations.”

So, according to this foolish reasoning, the way to “repair” what happened in Auschwitz and several thousands other Nazi extermination camps, is to erase all memory, and any traces of it. Washington and Hitler would become great men of history, who never engaged in racism, slavery and holocausts.

Those pseudo-”progressive” people as on this school board, are truly so stupid that they are becoming insane. 

Why insane? Because they want progress, but then they claim the past was perfect. So why to progress? From a perfect past? And since when can we progress from lies alone?

In a typical posture of his, Washington, as depicted in the mural San Francisco would pay any price to destroy, orders to proceed with “Manifest Destiny”, genocide, slavery, all the blood and injustice which made the US as it is. No good US citizen should ever know that real factual truth about the Founding Fathers, say the Snow Flakes. And that the USA was established through the most successful genocidal holocaust in the history of humanity. At least this is what the school board of San Francisco believe. Hitler would have gone to their feet and embrace them.

New York Times: 

“These and other explanations from the board’s members reflected the logic of the Reflection and Action Working Group, a committee of activists, students, artists and others put together last year by the district. Arnautoff’s work, the group concluded in February, “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” The art does not reflect “social justice,” the group said, and it “is not student-centered if it’s focused on the legacy of artists, rather than the experience of the students.

And yet many of the school’s actual students seemed to disagree. Of 49 freshmen asked to write about the murals, according to The Times, only four supported their removal. John M. Strain, an English teacher, told The Times’s Carol Pogash that his students “feel bad about offending people but they almost universally don’t think the answer is to erase it.”

Which makes one wonder who these bureaucrats actually seek to protect. Is it the students? Or could it also be their reputations, given that those in favor of preserving the murals are being smeared as racists?”

The work was made by a famous Communist artists, and it is 80 years old (that’s antique by California standards). The short of it is that the San Francisco Bay Area, long at the forefront of thinking, is now wrecked by the mentality of avid greedsters, who know only one thing that is greater than greed, and this is to cover-up what they are really doing. They want to erase any suspicion that they are what they truly are. So they scream they are anti-racist, or, as Google used to, order us “not to be evil”. This all started with Reaganism [1]

In this mural, African origin slaves can be observed. Female black ladies slaves are working the cotton fields in the background. So it was. The WPA paid for the work and the artist had been taught by the great Mexican master of social consciousness rising throughs murals, Diego Rivera. The WPA was the Work Progress Administration, crucial part of the New Deal, full of socialists, leftists and outright communists.

The Murals of Washington High were detested by the McCarthyists, but there was never any talk of destroying them. That was inconceivable. One didn’t destroy art, even in Nixon-McCarthy witch hunt USA.

New York Times: “By now stories of progressive Puritanism (or perhaps the better word is Philistinism) are so commonplace — snowflakes seek safe space! — that it can feel tedious to track the details of the latest outrage. But this case is so absurd that it’s worth reviewing the specifics.

Victor Arnautoff, the Russian immigrant who made the paintings in question, was perhaps the most important muralist in the Bay Area during the Depression. Thanks to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration, he had the opportunity to make some enduring public artworks. Among them is “City Life” in Coit Tower, in which the artist painted himself standing in front of a newspaper rack conspicuously missing the mainstream San Francisco Chronicle and packed with publications like The Daily Worker.

Arnautoff, who had assisted Diego Rivera in Mexico, was a committed Communist. “‘Art for art’s sake’ or art as perfume have never appealed to me,” he said in 1935. “The artist is a critic of society.”

This is why his freshly banned work, “Life of Washington,” does not show the clichéd image of our first president kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge. Instead, the 13-panel, 1,600-square-foot mural, which was painted in 1936 in the just-built George Washington High School, depicts his slaves picking cotton in the fields of Mount Vernon and a group of colonizers walking past the corpse of a Native American.

“At the time, high school history classes typically ignored the incongruity that Washington and others among the nation’s founders subscribed to the declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ and yet owned other human beings as chattel,” Robert W. Cherny writes in “Victor Arnautoff and the Politics of Art.”

***

Fighting the Red Coats, Burning Tea And Currency… More Washington High Murals

Washington was heir of a prominent military English American family. He owned hundreds of slaves. Urged by his friend and savior Lafayette to free them, Washington used weasel words, in correspondence with him, for years, to shirk his responsibility. New York Times:

“In other words, Arnautoff’s purpose was to unsettle the viewer, to provoke young people into looking at American history from a different, darker perspective. Over the past months, art historians, New Deal scholars and even a group called the Congress of Russian Americans have tried to make exactly that point.

“This is a radical and critical work of art,” the school’s alumni association argued. “There are many New Deal murals depicting the founding of our country; very few even acknowledge slavery or the Native genocide. The Arnautoff murals should be preserved for their artistic, historical and educational value. Whitewashing them will simply result in another ‘whitewash’ of the full truth about American history.”

Before any mental creation comes truth. Truth is established from real facts, not fake news, and big lies. Yesterday’s facts rule today’s horrors. If one wants to eradicate the latter, one has to understand the former.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/wrong-history-wrong-philosophy-nazi-lies-still-ruling-in-2015/

It is a fact that the North American English colony was founded, and prospered, thanks to genocide and slavery. Slavery was initially that of the whites (indentured servants), but, after a few years slavery became that of  Native Americans, and then imported Africans. Slavery permitted industrial culture of tobacco which made the English Colony highly profitable. Genocide was encouraged by New England cities which paid for Native scalps. Land was gained, one scalp at a time.    

Those brutal, homicidal social structures were transmitted to the USA, which pursued slavery and genocide on an even greater scale. That’s somewhat known… But other facts have been forgotten: the argument has been made that the true motivation of the American War of Independence was not the scandal of taxation without representation, but the fact that British authorities prevented European colonists to invade Native American lands (such as the Ohio Valley where Colonel Washington had important investments). Surely partisans of the established order will not entertain such a possibility.   

Are the facts of English American colonization, and of the USA for much of its history terrible? Yes. But the only thing more terrible than terrible history is to deliberately deny it ever happened. Happened. Indeed, the USA was born in extreme violence and that explains why, to this day, for example in health care or guns, or extreme inequality, extreme violence is felt to be the normal order of things.

In Nazi Germany, the Holocaust of the Jews was rendered possible only because the (Nazi) authorities succeeded to hide the truth enough from most of the German population that plausible denial could be brandished. The will to hide the truth is as inhuman as it gets: indeed, it defeats the essence of human beings, who are truth machines (Eat enough mice, and truth will come out)

Truth can be, often is, inhuman, it’s most human to uncover it… And then one needs to explain it, prior to re-engineer the reality that truth was depicting into something more humane. There is nothing more important to teach to children… through countless examples. 

Instead, nowadays, a mood has arisen that truth should be hidden, guided by the will to total comfort all the time: hedonism gone mad, not just lazy. This deplorable mentality is what is needed to keep on going with the mass extinction of the biosphere, doing nothing about it.

That mood festers particularly in the San Francisco Bay, a land of contradiction. How come so many contradictions? Think of it: to commit a crime, it’s generally easier, or even necessary, to hide it, so one needs a cover-up. The cover-up is best, when it completely hides reality. So crimes and cover-ups denying them tend to cohabit. And the more, and deeper the crimes, the more outrageous and extensive the cover-ups. 

A lot of the business model in high tech applications has consisted in running ahead of the law, with the complicity of bought off politicians (such as found in the Obama administration [2]).

***

It All Happened Before: Rome Also Collapsed in an hypocrisy called Christianism so immense, and so insane, that all of desired reality came to be known as the “Apocalypse”: 

Covering up reality with its opposite fosters insanity, because the appearances are the opposite of reality, and then people have to engage in ideologies enabling this schizophrenia. See Brexit [3]. This is exactly why Roman Catholic Orthodoxy (Christianism) became the state religion of the collapsing Roman empire, where the truth was that a tiny .1% minority, the plutocracy, in combination with the military dictatorship, was exploiting nearly all the GDP, while the rest of the population was living in ever more horrendous conditions… 

To deny that reality, Christianism said it was all for the best, as the collapse of civilization would bring the apocalypse, and then the Messiah would return. And only then (the same schema holds in Islam).

Real progressives assess reality better than those stuck in the past. To fail to discern between the depiction of a thing and the endorsement of a thing one learns to do when one is a small child. To look at the painting above and to conclude that it “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” is apparently an example of how folly brings infamy. But the motivation below this may be even worse. There may be a method to the folly: greed once again…

The San Francisco Bay Area is increasingly dominated by the ideology of pleasing the wealthiest men in the world. The first thing those plutocrats want, is that we take leave from reality and our common senses. That plutocratically fostered insanity starts with saying art is not art, and history didn’t happen, because it shouldn’t have happened.

The rest of the world is forewarned: the world’s center of high tech is becoming mad… Yes, remember the fish rots by the head (same happened to France, not so much in 1940, rather than after the Second World War, during so-called “decolonization and “French Theory”, as I have explained extensively). 

The assault against reality was planned by the powers that be, and instigated by their sycophants masquerading as “antifa” or “progressives”, or “liberals”, “snow flakes”, etc. Verily, they are just obnoxious pigeons obsessed by crumbs, ready to feel and think anything to get some more… of whatever they believe they desperately need. 

Want human? Free truth!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] In the 1980s, top Democrats came to collaborate with Reagan (except for Trump, who fought Reagan to death). It was all a huge and gigantic lie. David Stockman, Reagan budget director, explained that “trickle down”, Reagan economic program passed by O’Neil and other Democrats, the policy of advantaging the wealthiest was all hidden below a big lie: 

“It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

— David Stockman, The Atlantic…

Thereafter, all the way to the end of Obama’s second term, Reagan was the big lie which kept on giving… to the plutocrats, and an increasing unequal society.  It’s no coincidence that Trump, who opposed Reagan, came up and screamed to all they didn’t know what reality was. Notice I am not embracing Trump here. Simply pointing out that Alternative facts and Alternative Reality, didn’t wait Ms. Conway to rule contemporary politics.

And here is the crux: As that big lie, that the Reagan policies would help the Commons, whereas in truth, they were designed to foster plutocracy, worked basically four decades, all of society, even the rabid low lives opposed to it, learned to lie…

***

[2] Some have accused me to have Obama Derangement Syndrome (I invented the TDS diagnostic, so that was amusing). However, I observed with glee, that, in the last few weeks, a bipartisan and Democratic Congress-Trump White House effort has been launched against the top tech monopolies that Obama took his orders from, and which are now the world’s most powerful companies… and most stealing companies…

***

[3] Brexit claims to want to Make England Great Again, but all the MEGA it will bring will be British implosion (and that’s bad for the UNSC!) So it self-contradicts: the way to keep the UK strong is to make it the spine of Western Europe, with nuclear armed France….

 

Why Iran Can’t Have Nuclear Weapons

June 9, 2019

I talked to a young US citizen, who is also an Iranian citizen. He studies International Relations. He used to visit Iran continually (his family has various property in Iran, including farmland up north). But now no more: he is old enough to be drafted in the Iranian army, and he doesn’t want that to happen. He is secular, and not thrilled with the theologists in Iran. However, considering nuclear weapons, he said: “why can’t we have them?” As most Iranians, he feels that to be deprived of nuclear weapons is a strident injustice. Who doesn’t want to partake in nuclear fun?

For reference, the Japanese, who were smarter than the Nazis, knew perfectly well that nuclear bombs could be made, and had three programs, using different techniques, to make them (one was located in North Korea, rich in hydro, then Jap occupied). One idea was to have a bomb ready to drop on GIs gathered on a beach. However the crazed maniacs who had bullied their way at the top of Japan got a taste of that medicine before they got their own ready:

Nagasaki Bomb Explosion. The Christian city and its cathedral were not the primary objectives. Clouds got in the way. The shipyards initially targeted in another city were switched at the last moment. The bluff was to persuade the crazed maniacs leading Japan that there would be such a bomb every three days. They capitulated before the largest city of the northern island of Japan got atom bombed too. Ultimately, the atomic bombings saved millions of lives, mostly civilians in China being killed by the system the Jap invaders had set up…

In the 1960s, there was an important movement against nuclear weapons. The threat was clear: as weapons were not precise then, war planners had advised to make giant bombs: may be they could not land where intended, but then they would destroy everything in a giant radius, that was good enough. Standard equipment on bombers were bombs in the megaton range. The USSR produced up to 50,000 thermonuclear bombs or so.

A semblance of sanity prevailed later and thanks to Reagan (!) and Gorbachev, arsenals got reduced by 90% or so. (Compare with my useless friend Obama, who achieved no arm reduction, just the opposite…)

However, even after reductions, nuclear weapon systems are still formidable.

A French defense minister pointed out in the last few years:”We can kill 50 million people in twenty minutes, and we think that’s enough.”[1]

No solution was found to world denuclearization. The balance of terror is all the parental guidance the world is getting. [2] 

In the 1950-60s, because of the existential threat to Israel, France helped Israel develop nuclear weapons. At some point 5,000 French engineers were at Dimona, the top Israeli nuclear site. Israeli scientists took part in the French nuclear bomb program, all the more as rabid pacifism was rampant in the French intellectual community, and most French  physicists refused to develop nukes (ironically enough the same who hated the bomb in 1960 wanted it in 1938; but the enemy was not the same!)

It has been said by those who should know, that Israel has of the order of 200 nuclear warheads. During the Yom Kippur war, using nukes was considered. It didn’t come to that, in part because high precision US weapons arrived in a timely manner.

Since then Pakistan and India have developed large nuclear arsenals. Their main potential effect will be to reduce considerably the overcrowding of South Asia.

So most Iranians want nuclear weapons: why can’t we have them?

After all, Iran has existed for longer than India… (Lore and archeology indicate.)

But then is Islamized Iran really Iran? Even the Iranians don’t know from one moment to the next. Thus most of Iranian feasts are gloomy, except for Norouz (which is at least 5,000 years old).

The reason is that if Iran gets nukes, surely so will Arabia, and then why not Egypt, Algeria, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. And of course Japan could have thousands of nukes, any time, it’s just a small constitutional change away.

Nuclear Armageddon would be guaranteed.

So, unfortunately, the balance of terror and nuclear strike supremacy of the Permanent Members of the Security Council has to stay in place: only them should have nukes.

***

Why The UNSC (UN Security Council) and its five members?

One has to go back to history. China is the oldest civilization with the Western Cradle (the Indo-European civilization). Either have had organized sedentary, agricultural, states for five thousand years. Overall, France and China have been the most prominent military powers of the last two millennia. France was the modernized form of the Roman state and its continuation, and pretty much created Europe, while China created Japan, Vietnam, etc.

Chinese defenses mostly failed in the last millenium, and China spent most of the time occupied by Mongols, Jurgens, and Manchus. (OK, arguably only the Mongols (=Yuans) were really not Chinese.) In the first half of the 20C, Japan tried to invade China, and became crazed fascist from trying too hard.

Meanwhile Germany’s fascist plutocracy tried to seize all of Europe as colony, and was defeated by France and Britain. Their progeniture, the US, caused Europe more problems than it solved, and flew to the rescue of victory in wars it had contributed to launch, organize and maintain. Twice. (Yes, most historians would disagree, but they are paid to say what they say, whereas I am only rewarded with expressing the truth, a fundamental human instinct and pleasure.)  

Thus France, Britain, the US, China, Russia could pose as the main combatants against barbarity, horror, and infamy in the 20C… and they were. Moreover the first three are the champion of democracy, human rights (France abolished slavery in 655 CE, imposing that to all of Europe and later the world; then formally re-established the “Renovatio Imperium Romanorum (Renovation of the Empire of the Romans), unwilded Germany, in 1066 CE France abolished slavery in England, and French imperialists there ended establishing the world’s most advanced democracy, the British Parliament, etc.)

***

So it is OK that those five have nuclear weapons: they are unlikely to engage in crazed world conquest. To those who moan that France had a giant empire, let them be reminded that it was a “Mission Civilisatrice”… Not a joke when you look at the details. French Canada was not the English Colony in the Americas: the later, founded by private investors, practiced genocide, whereas the French colony, under tight government control, didn’t.  (This is also why the English won the war… Nothing like genocide, when you want space, as Hitler pointed out cogently, yet idiotically… because those things are better left unsaid.)

Argentina and Brazil were persuaded to drop their atomic bomb program. South Africa, too, and accepted to dismantle seven already completed bombs.

The world order we have now is not the best imaginable… But it works. Some Germans moan they would like a Permanent Security Council seat. Well, they already have it… through France. Otherwise why not Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.? The beauty of it all is that all these countries can, and have sieged at the UNSC. Just, they aren’t permanent and don’t have veto powers.

So Iran will not get nukes. Arabia and Israel are dead set against it. Arabia tolerated the nukes of its de facto ally Israel: everybody understands Israel is very small, very hated, and has been disappeared thrice already, once by the Babylonians, later by the Romans, and finally by the Nazis. One could say they have excuses to take existence seriously.

But Arabia will not tolerate to have Iran as local superpower. Not again: they have seen that movie before, several times.

***

Shah Abbas expanded Iran back into Iraq (as happened many times prior).

Iran Was Not Always Pacific:

A leitmotiv, out there, repeated by millions of parrots, is that Iran was always pacific.

In the early Seventh Century, Iran, then Sassanid Persia, conquered most of Arabia. The backlash is that god crazed Arabs destroyed the Sassanid empire a few years later (the Romans had done the heavy lift of destroyed the Sassanids before, literally a few years before the Arabs attacked, led by their great strategist Muhammad…)    

Using an army formed in part of ghulams—Christian slaves from Armenia and Georgia who had been converted to Islam—Shah ‘Abbas re-established Iran’s borders, defeating the Uzbeks in the northeast. He would eventually expand his empire, seizing the Kingdom of Hormuz from the Portuguese, on the other side of the Arabo-Persian Gulf, and defeating the Ottomans to take control of Baghdad (Iraq) in 1623 CE. These conquests allowed Shah ‘Abbas and Iranians access to the sacred Shi’i shrines of Kazimayn, Karbala and Najaf in Iraq. It also gave the Shah complete control of trade coming through the Persian Gulf. The Shah created a magnificent capital, Isfahan, in the south. A breathtaking city I had the good fortune to visit, with some of the world’s most beautiful building (blue and gold mosques).

Not again will the Arabs say. Conscious of the fact the present world order needs to be sustain, the US and the EU agree… And no, Russia and China are not stupid enough to come to the rescue of Iran in a significant way… That’s precisely why China and Russia are on the UNSC: because they aren’t crazed too much.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Standard US and French bombs are around 250 kilotons nowadays. But they are typically on a “bus” carrying up to nine other independently guided bombs. Thus one missile on just one nuclear sub missile could destroy the largest city. for example Teheran. France has 4 of these Armageddon subs, the UK has three (the fourth was denuclearized). The US has 14 such subs, each nearly 20,000 tons (!!!), carrying 24 Trident missiles with up to eight nuclear warheads… 4 other such subs were denuclearized…)

***

2] Accidental nuclear war from a short circuit is possible, as Launch-On-Warning systems are still in existence, in Russia or the USA (France doesn’t do launch-on-warning, as it depends upon aircraft and nuclear subs). Unbelievably, supposedly progressive politicians in the West have long stopped caring about Launch-On-Warning, although such systems can launch nuclear war, Terminator style, any day…. Another deep failure of the Clinton and Obama administrations (I didn’t expect progressive smarts from W. Bush or Trump! But when the self-declared progressives are not progressive, we have a serious problem…)

Debate Islam Intellectually: That Means Don’t Massacre Muslims

March 15, 2019

There was an abominable attack against people inside mosques in New Zealand. The perpetrators explained they created violence, to lead Jihadists in turn to be more violent, amplifying the initial violence, until apartheid ensues, and all Muslims go back home (never mind that some of the “Muslims” went to the “West” precisely because they couldn’t stand Islam anymore; moreover many of the worst Jihadists are “Western” converts to Islam, as the final battles of the Islamist State showed).

The idea of the assassins in New Zealand then is that the “Great Replacement” of “whites” by “Muslims” would stop, once the violence level is high enough.

That there is a “Great Replacement” is a fact, but the cause is not Islam per se. We have seen that story before, namely when the plutocrats took power in the Roman Republic: the population of Italy collapsed. It doesn’t have thus to do with Islam, but with the replacement of democracy by plutocracy, and the discouragement which then possess the subjugated masses…

Bringing violence in, amplifying it, could work, it has worked many times before, except if everybody knows the game, because then everybody goes meta on the game, and the game changes to a meta form, another game. All the more that, in this case, this is the ultimate form of game, where people become game and get killed… thus motivating all participants (that’s all of grown-up humanity) to become much more involved and smarter.

I have been there. Magnificent. I recommend visiting Isfahan, one of the world’s most spectacular cities. An occasion to ponder the history of iran, at the time of Shah Abbas…. And why, ultimately, didn’t work… Thus why a more democratic society is intellectually, thus physically, superior…

Earlier in the week, the relevant authority in Pakistan called me all sorts of names and asked for my site to be shut down (supposedly that was partly one; I would be interested to know how many islamofascist countries obeyed…) Clearly, civilization is having a problem with debating ideas.

Some Mosques are among the world’s most beautiful buildings, and should be religiously preserved, just for that. In the name of the religion of the most beautiful art. Although Islam administered countries didn’t contribute to civilization as much as Islamophiles claim, they played a positive rle, be it only, irony of ironies, by preserving a significant part of the Greco-Roman inheritance found in the regions the Jihadists had invade.

The basic Islam ideology was the fruit of Muhammad’s life. Said life was entangled with Christianism and Judaism. Muhammad actually met his first wife thanks to some Christian whom he had met in Christian land, next to (then Christian administered and occupied) Jerusalem. Later, a cousin of theat first wife, who was one of the most famous  and proselytizing Muslims in Arabia, suggested to muhammad that his visions in the desert were those of the Archangel Gabriel, talking in the name of the (Judeo-Christian) god. As there were difference between what Muhammad thought he heard and the practice of Christians and Jews, he endeavored to set them right in a set of revelations, the Recitation, the Qur’an.

Muhammad had other agendas too, and became a confirmed caravan raider, after being a caravan trader for his wealthy business woman of a wife. He was well aware of the fragile state of Rome and Sassanid Persia after a long exhausting war between these two. He declared that was the best time to attack in 1,000 years, after 12 centuries of Greek and Persian domination. So attack he did: he led a huge army into Roman territory… but the Romans refused combat and withdrew. Muhammad went back to Mecca, and mysteriously died, traditionally age 62 (but his real age may have been very different).

At Muhammad’s death, the first two “Successors”, the first two “Caliphs”, Abu Bakr and Omar, conspired to tweak or select much of the Qur’an. Aisha, Muhammad’s child-bride was involved in this too: confronted by Omar about the disappearance of some verses in the Qur’an, she claimed that she had hidden them under a bed, but, unfortunately, a goat had found the verses, and eaten them. Omar was a notorious mysogenine, and Aisha was notoriously free-wheeling (with Muhammad’s benediction).

Muslim warriors (Jihhadists) were promised to sit next to god if they died fighting for Islam. Under Abu Bakr and Omar, in a few years, the Muslim army destroyed Persia, and conquered Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The military expansion of Islam took all by surprise, and, within a generation, Islam had the largest empire on Earth ever. Ultimately, the Greek Fire of the Roman Navy prevented the fall of Constantinople. A circumnavigation around the Mediterranean subdued North Africa after a long and terrible war. The conquest of Spain, though, was rapid.

Then three Muslim invasion of France in quick succession failed, with huge Muslim defeats in Toulouse (721 CE), Poitiers (732 CE), Narbonne (748 CE). its army annihilated, the Umayyad Caliphate in Damascus fell (750 CE), and was replaced by the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad… which, ultimate irony, was Iranian controlled…

The next irony: Baghdad fell to the Mongols, and their Frankish, Georgian and Armenian allies.  

In the following 13 centuries, more than 100 variant of Islam evolved. Some have really nothing in common: Black African Sunni Islam could have women not just with naked heads, but naked torsos, and free exhibitionist mentalities commensurate to their minimal clothing… While in some Arab countries, women could be killed, just for having interacted with a non-Muslim male.

My family is half from Africa, and I spent my childhood among “Muslims”. Except those Muslims had nothing to do with the bigots now presented as “Muslim”, who are anxious to impose their “Sharia”. Those a bit familiar with Muhammad know well that the Sharia, much of it established well after Muhammad’s death, doesn’t reflect Muhammad’s mentality. Although Muhammad had something against civilization as organized by Romans and Persians, he was not sexist, considering the circumstances: he apparently gave Aisha the discretion upon her sexual freedom, although they were married (she was still a teenager). When the bishop of Alexandria offered him a Christian female slave of great beauty, he loved her immensely, all the more as she gave him his only son (who died of disease, a few months before his father). Clearly, if one espouses Muhammad anti-sexist spirit, women shouldn’t be legally worth half of what men are worth, etc. Sometimes following the letter condemns the spirit. 

Greco-Roman polytheism didn’t force the masses to practice it. Christianism and Islamism (differently from their origin, Judaism) forced those who practiced other beliefs to become Christian, or Muslim, or then subjugated and exploited them. Hence Christians and Muslims eradicated all religions… except Judaism, which, being their root, proved harder to extricate…

Enough with all this cretinism. How do we mitigate it?

It is alarming that countries, such as Pakistan, which practice the enforcement of a particular superstitious religion, are allowed to be considered in good standing at the United Nations. Instead, they should be condemned and having various privileges removed. Democracies and the organizations and corporations originating from them should be forced to make cooperation with various fascisms increasingly difficult.  

Secularism is the way. The alternative is war. In the case of Pakistan, it means thermonuclear war. Before we come to that, we should debate.

Meanwhile, let’s protest against dictatorship, as millions of Algerians are presently doing. There the demonstrators don’t hesitate to tell the truth: the present FNL dictatorship was put in power by… France. More exactly what one should call the French presidential dictatorship of De Gaulle, then in power. Referendums had been conducted in Algeria, during the dusk of Paris colonial rule. The will of the Algerian people, long neglected, was then clearly expressed:Algeria wanted democracy, a Republic… And that will was violated by the powers that be, in power then in Paris (acting on behalf of the influences behind the French throne, and some came from the world of finance, Washington, Moscow…).

Paradoxically, the racist De Gaulle thought he could separate France and Algeria. Forever. That was naive on his part (or then his racism was out of rational control). Instead, we ended with the Great Replacement, because the same logic which exploited Algeria all too long, exploited France in turn… Whereas Algerians reacted with a demographic explosion, France, and Europe reacted with the opposite. That, again, is nothing new: we have many historical examples, of both effects, that’s how populations get replaced. And there is a logic underneath, it should be debated… because, nowadays, the weapons are bigger, and the going down, not as placid…

Patrice Ayme

Why Weren’t The Kaiser & His Accomplices Hanged? Because they Could Help Some More To Institute the New Plutocratic Order

February 21, 2019

Abstract: The US plutocracy (evil corporations and their evil sponsors in the US government) fed the criminal German war machine in World War One… And then pulled the plug, a strategy which made the US flourish, while, and because, Europe deperished… However the German spirit of Armageddon was preserved, deliberately, to organize the Nazi Party and nazi spirituality, immediately after. That was accomplished first, by not pursuing the German war criminals.

***

Unbeknownst to the WWI Perpetrators and their Victims, the GERMAN PUPPET MASTERS THRIVED IN THE USA, And What We Call Nazism Would Instrumentalize Some More Of Those Same Exact WWI Criminals, Who Should Have Been Hanged, To Help Institute Further the Present Plutocratic Order:

As plutocracy is back to its dirty tricks with Brexit, it’s high time to look at history with some more blazing realism. So this essay talk of the Kaiser and his racist, maximally vicious goons, but one should keep in the back of one’s mind that this is also about the fact the Kaiser was the grandson of the “Empress of India”, Queen Victoria. In other words, this is essay is ancestral to that British elite which fostered Brexit, the deliberate alienation from a pacified Europe, thanks to having hypnotized the gullible with a pack of lies, similarly to hypnotizing the German population in 1914 to attack the world in general, and democracy in particular.

The Netherlands and the USA became wealthy from helping the Kaiser and his criminals-against-humanity attack civilization in 1914-1917. Those German criminals, and their spirit of unpunished criminality against humanity had more to give (Nazism). Thus the US was going to do its utmost not to hang them… Just as the French Republic was not to receive the guarantees she needed, to ensure the Germans fascists were not back to their criminality against humanity within a few years (as it turned out they were). 

German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop was condemned to hang at the Nuremberg trial in 1946. The charge? War of aggression. Reasoning superficially, the Nazis had accused France and Britain to have started World War Two. Hitler pursued that line to his last evil breath. Indeed, France and Britain declared war to the Nazis: they sent Hitler, strong from his alliance with Stalin, Hirohito and Mussolini, a 48 hours ultimatum within a few hours of Hitler’s attack on Poland, September 1, 1939.

However the Nuremberg tribunal viewed the nazi claim that France and britain had attacked, for what it was: sheer, cowardly idiocy: ever since they came to power the Nazis had worked towards war, and that got hot in 1936, when they invaded Spain, bringing the downfall of that Republic with three year war which killed millions (reference: the Guernica painting).

August 1, 1914, had been much worse: that day, out of the blue, Germany declared war to Russia (Russia had not attacked Germany, nor planned to; Russia was mobilizing, true, but that was supposed to take weeks; whereas German mobilization could be done, and was done, in 5 days, or so). The next day, August 2, mounted German cavalry had penetrated deep inside French territory, killing and getting killed. These were the first dead of WWI. The French were taken by complete surprise: WWI was on.

When the Americans woke up, they realized that the dumb, brutish evil that was Germany would come to their shores, should it conquer Europe… However, the US plutocrats’ thought processes were more subtle than that… Where lesser minds viewed a terror, they viewed an opportunity…After the war, French authorities had determined that at least 1,000 German war criminals should be arrested, and face capital charges. Some of the charges were for example the deliberate killing of a two-year old little girl, who was bathing, one of many assassination which was fully documented… Still, nothing happened: the Kaiser had taken refuge in the Netherlands, a country which, by being a conduit to US plutocrats, crucially helped extend the war of civilization against barbarity, by a 2 or 3 years.

The Kaiser was not surrendered to the Allies because he and many fellow war criminals, had taken refuge in the Netherlands.

The short of it: the Netherlands and the USA created enormous wealth for themselves by enabling the racist fascist plutocracy known as the Kaiser’s Second German Reich to fight World War One by evading the Franco-British blockade. US goods were shipped in gigantic quantities to Germany. Either directly or through the “neutral” Netherlands.

Exports of the USA to “Near Neutrals” surrounding Germany and Austria saw an increase of +20% in 1914, versus 1913, and doubled from 1913 to 1915, and again largely increased in 1916. These facts show that US goods were reaching the central fascist powers by way of “Near Neutrals”. This happened with the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark Sweden. Actually the collapse of the direct trade with Kaiserreich and Austria was more than compensated, in cash volume with US exports to the “Near Neutrals”. A more refined analysis show that the goods sent to Germany enabled that fascist racist empire to go on with its war of aggression against the democracies.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/207691?seq=7#metadata_info_tab_contents

In green, the collapse of trade of the USA with Germany, due to the maritime blockade imposed by the UK and France. The red line represents the rise of trade of the USA. I consulted older books and tables which showed the rise of the trade of the USA with the “Near Neutrals”. It’s roughly identical to (but less than) the graph the trade of the USA with France. Thus it more than compensated then the collapse of the direct trade with Germany. This red line thus represents contraband US help to the criminal regime in Germany.

(Make no mistake, US exports to the UK and France became gigantic, growing to six (6) times greater than US exports to Germany, pre-war (nearly the extent of exports to “Near Neutrals”); however UK and France two were democracies, and even were the two parents who gave birth to the USA; the point is that, without trade to Near Neutrals, fascist Germany would have been strangled much faster…)

Over the First World War, the number of millionaires in the Netherlands tripled. From war profiteering. While the USA became the world’s wealthiest empire.

The legalistic and uncivilized reasoning the USA used was to claim that “neutrality” implied keeping on trading as if nothing happened. Actually, something had happened in Germany, and it would be called “Nazism”, and rule, 19 years later.

France and Britain protested as much as they could to Washington, that US trade was keeping the bloody invading Reich alive… to no avail. Around three million Allied soldiers died fighting for civilization against the fascist invaders, while US plutocrats and their employees back home in the good old USA, made like the bandits they were. Bandits and racists. Remember: these were the USA where the Civil Rights of the same people most Germans tended to view as subhuman were systematically violated.

For the USA, WWI was just the beginning of using Germany as a bulldozer to clear the way to the New World Order

Nevertheless the Franco-British Navy was by far the largest and most powerful in the world: Germany and Austria-Hungary were progressively squeezed (after a while, the Royal Navy would stop US ships going to the Netherlands, and buy their entire cargo…) Trade of the USA with England and France more than tripled between 1914 and 1916, while trade with Germany was cut by over ninety percent.

For most of the war the United States remained formally neutral. When it eventually intervened significantly, engaging two divisions in July 1918 (which were obliterated quickly), the costs it had to bear were tiny when measured against its huge resources and the colossal profits it derived from the war. America’s main competitors in the world free market, Britain, Germany and France, were busy slaughtering each other. opening world trade to the transatlantic colossus. Between 1914 and 1917, American industrial production increased 32 percent and US GDP increased by 20 percent. All this was encouraged by generous grants of the US government to businesses (aka plutocrats). Thus they got entangled. The Bank JP Morgan financed Britain, and then France… At interest, of course.

All this to say that the US plutocrats had interest to see the war last more than a few months (it certainly would have, if Germany had been unable to make explosives, from the blockade, as happened in 1918…)

With the blockade restricting cotton supplies (cotton made 37% of cordite, the non-shattering explosive in wide usage in WWI; using TNT would blow up a gun, whereas cordite gently pushed the shell…), Germany’s explosive-makers tried to develop methods for making nitrocellulose from rags and wood-pulp. Meanwhile, their nitroglycerine production was limited by lack of glycerine (a by-product of soap manufacture), until a process for making it from sugar by fermentation was up-scaled from the laboratory. (And where did the sugar come from? Yes, the US…)

In yellowish beige the “Near Neutrals”. US trade feeding the fascist german war machine went through the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden… pretty wealthy countries they became…***

When the blockade became effective, Germany collapsed:

Britain became ever more effective at enforcing the blockade without infuriating US plutocracy (The Royal Navy would stop ships, and then buy the cargos of contraband). That led the Germans to sink ever more ships, including those of “neutrals”… The excuse the USA needed to switch sides (Italy switched sides in 1915…)

In the end, in 1918, the US had changed sides, and the Franco-British blockade of Germany became very effective. Thus German explosive production collapsed to 5% of the French explosive production, which enabled the French to crush the last German offensives like bugs… The French had access to cotton, fat, etc… Let alone food, which Germany was running out of.

Germany was so much out of fat, from the blockade, Kadaververwertungsanstalt (literally “Carcass-Utilization Factory“), also sometimes called the “German Corpse-Rendering Works” or “Tallow Factory” became a delicious piece of propaganda. It was supposed to be a special installation operated by the Germans in which, because fats were so scarce in Germany due to the Franco-British naval blockade, German battlefield corpses were rendered down for fat, which was then used to manufacture nitroglycerine, candles, lubricants, etc. Well, a variant of this kind of “rendering” of human flesh would happen for real, two decades later, in the bowels of Nazi Germany.

Magnificent madman, butcher of Europe. Official painting by Max Koner of the crazed grandson of queen Victoria, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The USA knew, because of the Venezuelan attempt by the Kaiser to invade it, that the Kaiser was nuts. However, the US Deep State decided to use it as a way to weaken France and Britain, and all of Europe. Whether the plot was conscious or not is philosophically fascinating.

The Nazi view of what caused World War One: German aggression had nothing to do with it:

To claim that a cascade of alliances forced a scared Germany into war, the traditional story, is an horrendously inaccurate pro-fascist disinformation: it is actually Nazi propaganda. Germany had not been attacked in July 1914. Germany was not threatened. France did not do anything. France was invaded, without even a war declaration.

Germany mobilized in full, at maximum speed, in the last week of July 1914… and then attacked. France was attacking so little, that there was NO French government in Paris (all ministers, PM, President were in vacation). The French under-secretary of Agriculture, the only official left in the vacationing French capital, ordered general mobilization. French general mobilization started the same day when the Germans attacked and penetrated French territory more than 10 kilometers (2 August 1914). Funny that what would become Nazism is still defended 105 years later by ignorami who don’t know any better…

***

Decapitating German war criminals in 1919 would have decapitated Nazism, and installed a favorable critical spirit among German leaders::

Had the bigoted, racist fascist German invaders, aggressors and criminals against humanity, the Kaiser and his cohorts, who had planned war december 11 1912 been tried and executed, the top 1,000 of them… Nazism would NOT have happened: it would have been deprived of too many crucial leaders.

Here is an example, typical among many: war criminal general Ludendorff, the butcher of Liege in 1914. He should have been hanged in 1919, just for that. Instead, Ludendorff, who had been chief of the German army, de facto, in 1917-1918, was member of the Nazi Party before Hitler, and played a crucial role in said party: during the 1923 attempted coup, when the troops fired into the Nazis, they all fled, except those dying, but Ludendorff kept marching, alone, towards the soldiers: he used to command that army…

The absence of punishment for the German war crimes of World War One taught the Nazis they could get away with war of aggression and crimes against humanity..

Considering the collapse of the German ammunition making capability, once the US lifeline to fascist Germany was cut off, it is clear that Germany would have had to capitulate within a year or so of its aggression on August 1, 1914, if the USA had not broken the Franco-British blockade. (August 1 is the day the Kaiser and his goons declared war to Russia; they invaded France within 24 hours, and declared war to France a day after, on August 3).

So why was the nefarious role that the Netherlands and the USA played in World War One buried? Because, ladies and gentlemen, you are well immersed in the New World Order the heavy maneuvering of the USA started in 1914 contributed so much to. So you better love it, and not suspect it, otherwise you would be bad Americans!

***

Why was the USA so nice and tender with the German war criminals of World War One?

The Versailles conference was convened first of all to build a mechanism to make Germany cease and desist from its racist, aggressive and invasive ways, blatant already in eighteenth century Prussia (which had united Germany). However, it completely failed that way: by 1932, 13 years later, the Nazis would kill more than 10,000 of their opponents. The year after that, the elite of 1919 Germany had put the Nazis in power. Hidden behind screens, smoke and mirrors, the enormous influence of US plutocrats was in the driving seat all along (notoriously racist and anti-Jewish US plutocrat Henry Ford was apparently the main financier of the Nazi Party, in 1923, or even earlier…)

A number of elements:

  1. Germany was racist and exterminationist (see what it did in Namibia). The USA was racist, and had been exterminationist: a meeting of the minds. Actually, President Wilson and his right hand man, Colonel House, were notorious racists, and the latter proposed a racist world alliance to the Kaiser, June 1, 1914 (in the name of the former). According to me, that played a larger role than the Sarajevo assassination in deciding the Kaiser and his goons to launch a world war.
  2. Launching Germany at the US parents, France and Britain, was sure to destroy Europe, and would enable the US to come to the rescue of victory, as happened. At any point, the USA had the power to pull the plug on Germany, as it did in Spring 1917, by letting the Franco-British blockade be.
  3. The Netherlands and its vicious queen (instrumental in refusing to surrender the Kaiser) could play heroes of victimology in WWII, 20 years later, when invaded by basically the same Germans, now officially racist and fascist. That enabled them to sweep under the rug their dirty role in WWI… And the fact they contributed to the French defeat of 1940…
  4. In 1919, the USA’s deepest influencers, most of the US plutocrats, didn’t want Germany to become civilized; it still had to make to them the gift of Nazism… So it was important not to condemn the men who would make Nazism possible: most of these men were already in leadership positions in 1918. They kept those positions. For example, the chief of the general staff in 1918, Marshall Von Hindenburg, became president, and made Hitler Chancellor in January 1933.
  5. US maneuvers in WWI and WWII, when racist, fascist Germany was used as an attack dog to destroy the world’s old, European, order. ensured that the USA would control the world in 1945. That world control is enshrined, built-in, world institutions (IMF, World bank, UN. etc.). China has now to learn to live with them… or risk a world war…

To predict the future it is necessary to know the past, as the past put in place mental, if not institutional structures which rule present dynamics. One such psychological structure from the past steering the future, is to carefully not understand what really happened, to please our masters, or our guilty consciousness, or our laziness, and to not make the effort to find out what Machiavellian plots were really at works, moved by which actors….

(An example is when many democratic voters, propelled by plutocratic media, got enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton for president, when the Clintons amply demonstrated that they were infeodated to financial plutocracy, the big banks. Democratic voters and others worldwide, ignored that drastic fact, denied it existed or had meaning, and kept on supporting the Clintons with the blindness of fanatics.)

The descendants of such actors, physical or moral, are among us, and they are actually leading the show. They have no interest in us understanding what really happened, because it informs the world we can see disintegrating around us.

To say it very clearly: today’s plutocratic order was forged in the dynamics of World War One, and its aftermath. The USA’s Deep State psychology, all too much the psychology of its plutocracy, has, mostly ruled, or majorly influenced, ever since.  

***

The preceding also informs the question that history, not just psychology, always should ask: what is subconscious? Did the USA consciously plotted to use Germany as a battery ram? History provides a partial, yet unambiguous anwer: some US participants, say Wilson, the president, and Colonel House, his right hand man, deliberately plotted to present to the Kaiser the greenlight for Germany to destroy France. Moreover, when they could have quickly weakened Germany by letting the Franco-British blockade be as effective as it could be, right away, they didn’t. So, they, too, were culprit of being traitors to civilization. And they too, should have been punished. (In the case of Wilson, his name should be struck of all institutions…)  

Peace, like violence, and for the same reason, going the other way, is paradoxical, self-contradictory.

The Vatican just defrocked a US cardinal. Not only the cardinal was stripped of his cardinality a few months ago, but now he is not even a priest anymore. I think he should be excommunicated, too. For crimes against children.

If we, civilization, want to survive, we have to become perfect. Socrates said an unexamined life was not worth living. I say: an unexamined subconscious is not worth having, if survival is the primary objective.

And it starts with examining history; that’s the easiest. Psychohistory, as it examines the past, is arguably less charged with guilt against living individuals… Yet, it addresses what their minds are made of, so considerable resistance to inquiry is often present… 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: To persuade the world of the innocence of Germany, his top generals suggested to the Kaiser, to go isolate himself in a distant vacation locale… While they launched the World War. Surely he was not launching a World War from there? In truth, they were afraid that the Kaiser, faced by the enormity of what they were doing, trying to destroy France before the high seas blockade by the Royal Navy strangled Germany, would change his mind at the last moment, and call off the war. Just like with WWII, the German attitude was infused with nihilism, risking the lives of dozens of millions, and germany itself, for really dubious reasons…  However, from the plutocratic point of view, they had little to lose…

***

Note 2: The usual “Marxist” and “Neoliberal” analysis of World War One are much closer to each other than to my own analysis, which should be termed “Democratic”. Both “Marxist” and “Neoliberals” historians pretty much attribute WWI to an accident between great imperialist powers: Europe was a powder keg ready to explode. However, in Europe, only fascist Germany and the French Republic had enormous forces which could be deployed in a few days. And, but for few Belgian forces quickly swept away, World War One was, for a few weeks exclusively a massive assault of nearly the entire army of fascist Germany against a surprised French Republic.

Thus, contrarily to the official fake version of history, the evidence instead is that the fascist racist plutocracy ruling Germany decided to risk everything, by physically destroying France, as it viewed itself ultimately condemned by the rise of democratic France and increasingly democratizing Russia, while unable to catch up with the Royal Navy of the democratic UK (which had the resources of the British empire).

So, for me, the difference is the democratic index (that can be calculated, I will have to explain some day). The German attack on the world was decided by 6 men (2 of whom, the navy men, being reluctant) . To compare, Earl Grey went to the UK Parliament… So basically 600 men, for very good reason, gave the UK foreign minister the green light to declare war to the attacking Kaiserreich. One could say the UK was at least 100 times more democratic than Germany (600/6 = 100…)… all the more as the MPs got elected….

To Understand Nazi Germany Well, Understand Twentieth Century USA

January 21, 2019

Why did the German army fight to the bitter end in World War 2?

Patrice Ayme

Truly the world war launched by Germany in 1914 (and plotted in a conspiracy as early as 1912), finished in May 1945. As soon as WWI was put in limbo (“armistice” of November 11, 1918), Germany prepared the next round, training its tanks secretly in… the USSR, of all places (hence the German delusion of knowing the Soviets well enough to defeat them).

One has to realize that Germany was at war again by 1936… In Spain… where its engagement was crucial to enable the fascists to win (the Luftwaffe carried the rebel army to Spain from Africa, among other things… thanks to US oil, from Texaco…) That is 18 years after the defeat of 1914–1918, Germany was at war again, with full US plutocratic help (the rebel army in Spain was completely US equipped, the equipment generously lent by crafty US plutocrats). (This Nazi war started in 1936 made the Wehrmacht fully trained, and thus it gave it a huge advantage for the crucial week after May 10, in 1940: by the time the French and British learned to sort out the crucial details, it was too late… The Battle of France, and its three million casualties had been lost. )

World War One, started by the fascist German Second Reich, nearly finished in tragedy for the invaders, after the tremendous French counterattack of the First Battle of Marne (5 weeks after the initial invasion). Then the Western front stayed static and hopeless, until the Second Battle of the Marne. By then the US had stopped sending ammunition material to Germany (the US had broken the Franco-British blockade, through the Netherlands!) By 1918, the French were outgunning the Germans something like one German shell to thirty French shells. The Germans were rolled back under tremendous French artillery fire… And then US troops got engaged, soon even accompanied by French tanks… 

French city of Saint Lo, Destroyed by US Bombardment, night of June 6 to 7, 1944. There were much more US bombardments in WWII destroying France than the Nazis ever did. By orders of magnitude. Some of those bombardments clearly targeted the French industrial base… and the presence of Nazis was just a pretext! (Not exactly the case of Saint Lo which suffered more than 11,000 US casualties: those Nazis could be hard to kill…)

By November 1918, the German army was finished, overwhelmed by tanks, shells and even Allied planes. All it could do was destroy and devastate north-east France as it retreated. Then came the armistice. The Germans had fought in the lands they had invaded… not in Germany itself.

The Kaiser quit, the German Fleet self-destroyed at Scapa Flow, but otherwise little changed. Germany was not invaded. Germany refused to pay French reparations (parts of France are still destroyed and forbidden, a century later!)

Germany even formally stayed the “Second Reich” (“Weimar Republic” was not the official term). The Germans behind the 1914 attack became partisans of what became the Nazi Party, and they invented the Nazi spirit: all what happened to Germany was other people’s fault (the “Slavs”, the French, the Jews, Versailles, Communists, and others who “stabbed the German army in the back”…)

The “stabbing in the back” myth was particularly strong. The theme was that the German army had not been defeated by the Allies, but by traitors inside Germany: so traitors were shot, starting in 1919. “Stabbing in the back” was scathingly suggested by a British general in jest to generalissimo Ludendorff (Ludendorff had claimed as much, that victory had been around the corner… but those pesky German traitors). Ludendorff, who was in the Nazi Party before Hitler, ran away with the concept.

German corpse at Toulon, August 1944. 16,000 French troops attacked, 17,000 Germans surrendered… And 8,000 Germans were killed… In total, more than 5.3 million German soldiers (including SS) died in combat. Most of them after, clearly, the war was certain to be lost, and the cause abominable…

So come 1945, no decent German wanted to surrender. The notion of decency in Germany had become indecent. All the more as the Germans knew, deep down inside, that they had committed crimes against humanity against Soviets and Jews, and others.

In 1919, German crimes against humanity had been ignored, because the USA wanted to own Germany, not punish it.

Instead, the French Republic, under no illusion that the German racist mass homicidal madness had been cured, wanted to defang Germany, rendering it incapable of another attack against the world and civilization…

However, another indecent, racist, mass homicidal German attack is exactly what the smartest, racist and most cruel Anglosphere influencers wanted. Hence top diplomat Lord Keynes (British) wrote that racist pamphlet: “The Economic Consequences of Peace…”… which inspired the Nazis in turn, one more reason to make them believe that the Anglo-Saxon elite had their back… just as their predecessors had believed the same about the USA in June 1914… Or they themselves had believed in 1933–1940… when the US favored the Nazis and opposed the French.

Hitler and a few others remembered that Frederick II of Prussia, faced by an enormous coalition of superpowers (France, Austria, Russia) was miraculously saved from extinction at the last moment…

First Bombing of Berlin Was By The French in 1940 (in retaliation for bombing of French cities…). Thereafter British Night Bombing started. This is how it looked in 1945…

In the end, Hitler, maybe realizing he had been a pawn of “US plutocrats” (a notion he used) hoped that, at the last moment, the Western Allies would regain their senses, make a unilateral ceasefire with the Nazis, and sweep away the Stalinian Soviets. That’s indeed what Patton obviously thought… So he pointed out his Third Army could be in Berlin before the Soviets.

And Patton was right. Zhukov and his armies around Berlin had only 200 tanks still functioning by May 1, 1945. Moreover, Zhukov, had he wanted to do so, could have easily made a coup against Stalin.

Many in the Nazi elite had been more than chummy with the Americans: Henry Ford financed Hitler massively, even before 1923. US plutocrats, through their ownership of the Hamburg Amerika Line armed the Nazis with contraband weapons in 1932. The civil war then allowed the nazis to kill 10,000 of their enemies inside Germany. A Nazi minister commented a bit later:”When I hear the word “culture” I pull out my Browning.” Indeed, the Nazis were armed with contraband US Browning pistols… The Nazi economic miracle was a US economic miracle. The Nazi economy and society was entangled with the USA (from IBM, which had a Nazi monopoly, to Harvard songs, recycled by the Nazis…)

Thus, in top Nazi circles, the hope was strong that the USA would turn around at the last moment. The Nazis had understood nothing, and in particular they had not understood why the USA had let them be.

What the top Nazis didn’t realize is that they had been played, all along: US plutocrats wanted the world, and the Nazis, and the Soviets, were their tools. That meant US plutocrats and their servants wanted half of Europe occupied by the Soviets.

General Eisenhower was on the plot. Patton, his old professor, who finished WWI as a colonel wounded in a tank attack, was not. So Patton went to the press, saying the five million men strong, superbly equipped Allied army, with its air dominance, could occupy all of Germany. In retort, Eisenhower wrote directly to Stalin, to reassure the latter that he would have half of Europe. (Notice that Eisenhower was far from the top: there were supposedly two layers of command between him and the heads of states of the West… Clearly Eisenhower knew something not yet in history books!)

Stalin occupying half of Europe justified the occupation of the other half of Europe by US forces…. Thus the USA was quickly able to seize all European empires, worldwide (so-called “decolonization” and the triumph of the “American Century” and “Neoliberalism”).

Trying to understand Nazism without understanding the racist, greedy US elite, which suggested, enabled and financed it, is like hoping to understand a world conquering carriage by interviewing the ass pulling it… instead of the driver directing it.

Patrice Ayme

 

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

December 22, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/U.S._Protests_Against_Maritime_Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Extracts from General Mattis’ Resignation Letter:

Dear Mr. President:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim N. Mattis

 

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

December 6, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

The entire world was forged in, and by war.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

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

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

The future will be forged in, and by war…

Except if a world empire keeps order.

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

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

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

***

Advice going forward?

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

What does Brexit have to do with the preceding?

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

***

Mein Herr, Ich liebe dich nicht:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

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

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

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

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

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

It was high time.

The wonders burning a few cars among the wealthy bring…

Patrice Ayme

 

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