Archive for the ‘War’ Category

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

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

May 20, 2018

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

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

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

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

***

No Achilles, No Iliad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Achilles: the Wrongs and Rights of Rage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Massimo

May 10, 2018 • 1:58 pm

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

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

***

Patrice Ayme:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Massimo, on May 12, 2018, replied:

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

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

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

Massimo interestingly observed that:

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

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

***

Patrice Ayme: 

Massimo,

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

***
Massimo

May 13, 2018 • 4:26 pm

Patrice,

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme

***

***

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

Superior Civilization Needs Superior Weapons (Collapse Series 1)

March 16, 2018

WHY THE WEST NEEDS TO REARM!

Military Non-Superiority Is The Civilized way To Collapse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Superior Minds Need Superior Defenses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

A civilization can get destroyed in a few hours:

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

What happened?

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

Conclusion?

Accidents happen.

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

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

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

***

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

Patrice Aymé

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

January 4, 2018

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’  

Islamist Death Cult Propaganda: Destructive To Truth, Humanity

December 30, 2017

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

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

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

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

The superstition wants to kill or subject most of humanity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

K Vora

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason for that totally organized life in Fundamental Islam is exactly the reason why military life is totally organized: it is the most basic training for obedience, core of the ability of the warrior. It’s why some view the Foreign Legion as a death cult. https://aeon.co/essays/why-young-men-queue-up-to-die-in-the-french-foreign-legion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’