Archive for the ‘Weapon Systems’ Category

If there’s any doubt ….

December 30, 2016

Paul Handover from the site “Learning From Dogs” penned a very well written essay around some of the issues I worry most about and we should all worry most about. After I complained I had little energy to write essays, Paul replied:”But you inspire productive outcomes in others! My latest post is entirely down to you.”

Indeed it was. Paul’s essay is reblogged below, after my own, suitably apocalyptic, introduction.

Thanks Paul for helping with this problem, a problem potentially as big as one hundred world war twos, potentially unleashed anytime. Some will scoff, but Obama just took the largest sanctions since the cold war. (Against the advice of his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, Putin said he will not retaliate; Wikileaks is saying the leaks come from the USA, some hint they come from the NSA, as Podesta, Clinton’s chief of staff, is listed as a foreign agent).

I will reblog your entire essay, which is much better written than I can master, as soon as I have time….
Thanks again, and happy new year for you and your readers!
Patrice

People whine a lot about World War One and World War Two. Whining is good, as long as it leads to examination of the causes of what went wrong.

World War One was pretty much started, in first order of appearance, through the will of five men, five Prussians (one of them the Kaiser, a plutocrat, eldest grandson of queen Victoria, cousin to the Tsar Nicholas II). Those men actually had planned to attack within 18 months, on December 11, 1912.

Would they have engaged on that “preventive war” without the assassination in Sarajevo, and the subsequent ultimatum of Austria-Hungary to Serbia? We don’t know (the assassinated Archiduke was a strong, albeit grouchy, advocate of peace at nearly any cost, and a close friend of the Kaiser).

However a fact is carefully ignored by history textbooks and history university professors: on June 1, 1914, the adviser of racist US president Wilson, Colonel House, proposed to the Kaiser a world government, with the UK, explicitly adverse to the “racially inferior French”.
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/plot-against-france-1912-2013/

Little noticed by textbooks and historians is the fact that the USA, with the help of the “neutral” Netherlands, enabled the Kaiser to keep on fighting in spite of the Franco-British naval blockade (which was absolute). The Kaiser needed cotton for his high performance explosives, and it came from the US.

Conclusion? A trio of men can start a world war, if they have the power to do so: the Kaiser, the US president, and Von Moltke.

The usual conclusion of textbooks is that Europe was a powder keg ready to explode, and that’s good enough to explain what happened. It is basically a lie: Great Britain had no army, and the entire French government was on vacation in late July-early August 1914. So France and Britain were completely innocent. However, the fact remains one had built a machine which enabled a trio to assassinate world peace

The same general context was true for World War Two. through their actions, both the US and the UK rebuilt Germany as a war machine and an economic powerhouse, as a partially owned subsidiary. After the fall of Spain to the Nazis and fascists, Great Britain decided to support the French Republic in opposing Hitler by all means necessary (February 1939).

After France and Britain declared war to Hitler for his invasion of Poland, US President Roosevelt could have made the war stop early by delivering on the “guarantees” he had given France. But he did not. As a result, what should have been a short war against the Nazis, turned into a vast holocaust.

Conclusion: if one sets up a situation where things can go very wrong, given enough time, they will. The Obama administration engaged in a one trillion dollars nuclear weapons program, but did nothing to reduce the nuclear weapon threat. An obvious strategy for peace would have been to withdraw the land based ICBMs (Britain never had any. France dismantled its own; only three countries have them now, including the USA). Those are launched on warning, and are extremely dangerous.

In this, as in so many other matters, Obama has been an immense disappointment. People who want progress, should push for progressive ideas under the Trump administration. We cannot just hope that Trump will trump his critics (as he did so far). We have to push him in the right direction. The fate of humanity is at stake. And it could be gone in a flash, thanks to our previous, highly criminally derelict leaders.
Happy New Year To All!

Learning from Dogs

…. there’s no doubt!

My title and sub-title comes from commercial aviation. It’s one aspect of the safety culture that safely the millions of passengers who embark on a commercial flight each year. (IATA estimate that it will be 3.6 billion in 2016.) In other words, if the flight crew have even an inkling of an issue with the aircraft while in flight they will make an immediate decision to land.

Why I chose this title will become clearer as you read on.

The end of the Second World War so far as Europe was concerned came on May 8th, 1945. In other words: VE Day. London was not a pretty sight in 1945.

Toni Frissell’s famous image of an abandoned boy clutching a stuffed animal in the rubble of 1945 London. Toni Frissell’s famous image of an abandoned boy clutching a stuffed animal in the rubble of 1945 London. (Image taken from this website page.)

What’s the relevance of May 8th, 1945 to me?…

View original post 1,799 more words

Advertisements

Why No Apology For Hiroshima

May 27, 2016

Obama is talking (live) to the US Marines, next to Hiroshima as this is published (“I will visit this afternoon, Hiroshima!”). Obama, correctly, will not apologize for the nuclear bombings of Japan in 1945. However, it’s a good time to reiterate my old position on this subject.

Yes, the fate of children in Hiroshima brings tears to one’s eyes. However… However optimizing morality is not about crying about what happened, it’s about doing the best one can do, considering the circumstances. And the best, at the time, was, clearly, and in retrospect, to use atomic weapons exactly as they were used. It was a superb rolling of the dice. Better: thanks to a bit of luck, it worked splendidly.

The “Hitler line” had been erected across very mountainous ground in Italy, south of Rome. It was a natural barrier, the last one for hundreds of kilometers. It stopped the Allies for six months. The Commonwealth troops, Poles, British and American armies had suffered immense losses. And not advanced a mile. In 1944, the French army broke through it near Monte Cassino.

French General Juin, was nicknamed “Hannibal by the American command for his ferocity, calm and strategic cunning. After a first test and diversion, the French army pierced in two days through the twenty miles thick with Nazis, fascists and mountains, like a hot knife through butter. This was really a Franco-North African army. And its ferocity was unequalled. Ferocity starts, but also wins wars. And the ferocity of the just always surpasses that of the unjust.

Want Peace? Don't Make War For the Worst Reasons. Hiroshima Roasted, 8 September 1945.

Want Peace? Don’t Make War For the Worst Reasons. Hiroshima Roasted, 8 September 1945.

Stabbed in the center and through the heart, the entire Nazi line soon collapsed. However, the American powers-that-be got soon worried that the “French”, those racially impure Franco-Africans, were committing acts of war going over the line of what they considered proper. The American generals went to see the French generals… who laughed to their face: ”C’est la guerre!” The French explained they had no love lost for the treacherous Italians. In June 1940, fascist Italy joined Hitler in attacking the French Republic. Thus the honor of Italian women was not high on the list, considering that the Italians had shown they had no honor. After covering 50 kilometers in a few days, through the mountains, giving no quarters, killing the most contemptible forces in the world, love acquired the same old meaning that real war calls for. Real tough love!

And, as far as the French were concerned, a good Nazi, was a dead Nazi. The French army would keep that relaxed attitude through the rest of the war (the US Army had a pretty similar attitude, and the Nazis were dismayed to be out-Nazified, so to speak…) In the last few weeks of the Second World War in Europe, in April-May 1945, the First French army charged through the two German states of Bade Wurttemberg and Bavaria, suffering more than 5,000 dead in combat… while destroying all Nazi units in south Germany, killing untold thousands. That’s war! Although Nazism was clearly already finished then, an unforgettable  lesson still had to be taught, a punishment for the ages (the Nazis had sent all the armies they had to try to stop the French, whom they hated the most among those they confronted in 1945; they feared the Russians more, but the French had declared war, and brought the destruction of the 1,000 year Reich).

Punishing the Nazis was the moral thing to do. The French finished the war by killing as many Nazis as they could, precisely because a hard, cruel and thorough finish was needed. The sort of hard, unforgettable finish that German racist fascism was not given in World War One. And thus it did it again, as it felt that lack of punishment meant approbation!

The German Republic we all enjoy now was born in the blood and ashes of prior fascism and barbarity.

By summer 1944, the American generals learned, indeed, and learned from the French, that ferocity was called for. During the (mostly failed) Operation Market Garden, the Nazi command bitterly complained that the Americans were taking no prisoners, even when the SS surrendered. Why not? Was not the idea of the SS that there should be no surrender?

Although technically France had declared war to Nazi Germany (with the United Kingdom and its puny army in tow), it was the Nazis who had decided to destroy civilization. They had started the war (contrarily to what they pretended later).

Who had started the war in Asia? The Japanese military command. A coup was actually attempted against it, by lower officers (in 1937). The coup failed and was repressed in (a lot of) blood. However, the fact remains that Japanese society, like the German one, or even Italy, engaged in collective mass murder.

The Japanese army massacred at least 15 times more (innocent) people than the total of Japanese (mostly military, mostly by their own hand) who died. Japan losses were of the order of two millions, mostly troops dead from bad treatment by… the Japanese high command (yes, this is a slightly biased description, but only very slightly: most Japanese who died in the war were Japanese soldiers mistreated by the conditions their command put them in!)

True, a two month old Japanese baby was innocent. And maybe her parents, too. However, collectively, all of Japanese society was culprit. Proof? The US could atom bomb, and it was the highest moral way.

Yes, I know perfectly well that the “collective responsibility” doctrine was rejected in 1945. That was clearly idiotic (and a political manoeuver, thinking of Stalin and Mao).

On the island of Okinawa, the civilian population resisted with a fanaticism that the Islamist State envies, no doubt. A consequence is that most of the civilian population of Okinawa died (I have covered all these arguments, with detailed numbers, in the past).

Hiroshima killed 70,000 right away, and for a total of 140,000 later. Nagasaki killed much less. And  the war was over within three days.

And that high rate of atrocious atom bombing was all a lie, a make-belief.

Bombing August 6, and again August 9, should have induced the Japanese High Command to believe that a bomb would be coming every three days. Several Japanese cities, including Kyoto, were still untouched. All Japanese industry was within those cities. Clearly, Japan could not sustain an atomic bombing every three days.

In truth, there were no more bombs at the ready. A few could have been dropped over the next few months. Not enough to have a big military impact. Japan could have held into 1946. The landing prepared for Fall 1945 was expected, in light of what had happened at Okinawa, to kill at least one million.

Announcing a demonstration atomic bombing would have been a very bad idea, for a variety of reasons.

So, considering the situation, the atomic bombing were morally optimal. Those who don’t want to be atom bombed, better not start a world war.

A lesson for the future, averse to war. Those who got zapped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not get zapped in vain: they gave their lives, and a lesson. Yes, it was horrible. But so is surgery without anesthesia. It doesn’t mean it’s not necessary.

Let’s help, and get help from, the Bhagavad Gita

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds and evils

You want to be moral? Start by not being an idiot. (Or the sort of fascist robots Japanese and Germans had turned into in the 1930s and 1940s.)

Patrice Ayme’

Elevate The Games Of Thrones

May 23, 2016

Many people told me to watch “Game of Thrones”, that it was like my essays, full of gore and what not. Not to say: why not. A lot of why not. Why not, indeed? “Popular” “cultural” references to “Game of Thrones” are climbing up, I have to stay with the times, to engage in cultural combat.

So I watched Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2. It is indeed entertaining. Some elements of the Feudal moral code are well reproduced. The fact that explicit references to all too well-known world history (such as Christianism and Islamism) do not occur, is much appreciated.

On the other hand, so far, I see no references to religiously motivated human sacrifices, which were ubiquitous in all cults before the rise of writing (and even after, as in the Euro-Mediterranean case of Carthage and the Celts… and a tiny sprinkling of ancient Romans and Greeks).

“Games of Thrones” shows characters who seem to be significantly more complex than is usual in fiction. I read few novels, because I find usual fictional characters very low dimensional, and base, dealing with all too ordinary circumstances.(Although there are exceptions, most notably in sci-fi, of all places.) Reality always beat fiction to a fine pulp, and then burn it to a crisp:

Game of Thrones, The Old Fashion Way: Killing 300,000, to Save Millions. Hiroshima Uranium Bomb Left, Nagasaki, Plutonium Implosion Bomb, Right.

Game of Thrones, The Old Fashion Way: Killing 300,000, to Save Millions. Hiroshima Uranium Bomb Left, Nagasaki, Plutonium Implosion Bomb, Right.

Real history, on the other hand, is full of extremely complex characters, with very complex fates. Athenian history alone provides with many major characters with incredibly rich personalities, who moreover, had a tremendous impact on civilization through their actions: Draco, Solon, Themistocles, Pericles, Alcibiades, Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle. The lives of these people were those of superheroes, their fates complex and contradictory. As soon as one digs a bit, one finds other influences (say of major philosophers, some female, on Pericles and Socrates).

“Games of Thrones” is an effort in that direction. Some of the bad guys doing very bad things are actually deep and subtle in their analysis of the world.

The real world is worse than “Games Of Thrones”. Brutus is an example. I confess I did not read Shakespeare about Brutus. Why would I? What did a playwright such as Shakespeare know? Five centuries ago? Not much, and certainly not much beyond what the government of Queen Elizabeth wanted to hear. Because, if that government heard something it did not like, horrible punishments were ready on a whim.

So, to know Brutus, I did not go along the route many of those who claim to be literate have followed. After all, Shakespeare was a mental puppet of Elizabeth government, thus, those who learn the world through Shakespeare, become parrots of the puppet whose string were pulled by more or less virgin tyrant. Learning such teaching by rote is assuredly far removed from mastery of reality.

Not that Elizabeth was a tyrant, for tyranny’s sake, only. Among other contrarieties, she was in a world war with Philippe II, the fascist Catholic emperor of Spain. Spain had conquered the entire world. There was only one problem left: the French army, which, not only defended France, but also the Netherlands.

Subjugating England was going to help. After trying marriage, the Spanish Catholic fundamentalist tyrants tried brute force. England did not have much of an army, especially when comparing to the famous “Spanish Squares”, and did not have much of a fleet. But Sir Francis Drake and his colleagues were skilled, and lucky: they repelled the Gran Armada.

So Elizabeth could not be mild. And Shakespeare respected the lines she drew. (Just as Game of Thrones does!) It is under Queen Elizabeth that the “West Country Men” came to dominate the system of mind that brought British supremacy, and Bush to invade Iraq, to grab the oil (since the Geneva Convention was “quaint”!)

The real history of (Marcus Junius) Brutus was fascinating enough. He was long suspected to be Caesar’s son. But there is worse, and much more telling: Brutus was corrupt. At some point he was governor in Anatolia (present day Turkey), and he filled up his coffers industrially, to the point that he had to be recalled. He also got the trust of Senate in Cyprus, and then abused it by lending money to it at the extortionate rate of 48 percent and by using force to exact its payments.

Thus, Brutus could hardly pose as the moral hero he is often depicted to be. Like his co-conspirator Cassius, greed was probably his main motivation in assassinating Caesar (followed by the moral code of plutocracy, which is that the plutocrats deserve the world, and We The People, the Populares Caesar headed, nothing. Or, let’s say, the fact he did, condemn him in the eyes of history. And, indeed, when the Populus Romanus learned that the leader of the Populares, Caesar, had been treacherously assassinated in the Senate, the entire city of Rome was gloomy.

Caesar was the last, and best hope of the Republic. Some will say: but was not he himself corrupt, and the Senate wanted to charge him with war crimes in Gaul, for waging an extravagant war there, even against historical allies of Rome?

Yes. However, corruption is not as much the problem as what one does with it. The Clintons wanted to be nice to the most aggressive “money changers”, so they could fill their own coffers. Caesar wanted to conquer more than Alexander. As it turned out, that was exactly what the Roman Republic needed at the time.

To launch a huge war to the East, in the Orient, and present day Russia, Caesar needed peace at home, so he needed the sort of reforms the Gracchi had tried to make.

Caesar, though, was naive: he did not anticipate the depth of corruption in the likes of Brutus, who were ready for anything, to keep being able to splurge at the through. This is probably why, after blocking several strikes, Caesar gave up the fight, when he saw Brutus armed with a dagger. Caesar was shattered psychologically, by the extent of the mental corruption in plain evidence.

Thus it is why, when we contemplate corruption, in say the European Union, led by the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker, we have to show no mercy: corruption starts with money, and often ends with murder. The early Obama’s administration “signature strikes” are an example of murder which the (secret) decision of Jimmy Carter, on July 3, 1979, led to. Leading astray can take a while (Obama had the head of the Taliban executed in a drone strike over the weekend: this was not a “signature strike”, but a precise strike against a determined enemy of civilization, perfectly appropriate.

Another perfectly appropriate strike was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: in tandem with the nuclear strike against Nagasaki, it finished the Second World War in less than a week. Yes tens of thousands of innocent people and children died (plus 35 US prisoners, some butchered in reprisal). However, that was the price of peace. Not dropping the bombs would have extended the war for months, with many millions of all ethnicities killed all over Japan, Korea, China. It also told the Soviets slaves to Stalin that an attack in Europe would bring the annihilation of Russian cities.

The Japanese found themselves in a monstrous war that their own emperor, following the game of throne there, had engaged in. Today, US president Obama goes to Hiroshima. Let all those who feel otherwise, be reminded that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima is entangled with the vicious war Japanese plutocracy engaged in, during the 1930s. That war itself was an enormous crime, which assassinated more than 30 million people outside of Japan (latest numbers). Few Japanese, relatively speaking, died: around two million soldiers, mostly through disease, and less than one million Japanese civilians (including the spectacular fire bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo).

The nuclear bomb program was launched by the French in January 1938. And the goal was to nuclear bomb Nazi Germany. After a lot of James Bond like action, for real, from France to Norway, the bomb was not ready soon enough to smash Nazi impudence and violence against civilization. However, The Bomb snuffed the top Japanese military arrogance. The top Japanese General had written poems expressing his desire to see one hundred million Japanese lives cut like flowers in bloom. It did not happen because fissioning the atom went straight through Bushido, the art of the Samurai. The emperor on his throne finally had an excuse to brandish the futility of it all (once he was told he could keep… his throne). The top General tried a coup, which failed, and then seppuku, which worked.

Two moral atrocities, the nuclear bombings of Japan, were morally optimal., in the greater scheme of systems of minds. Polls actually support this view, worldwide, and even in Japan, atomic survivor want no apology. Those who should apologize are those who engineered the attack of Japan onto the world (in French Indochina alone, the Japanese military attack killed two millions). And those who support ideas and moods conducive to this sort of aggression. They are the ones who got all these children killed.

We need to change the nature of the game of thrones. Instead of having particular humans sitting on a throne, with considerable powers, after spending a huge amount of energy to get there, we need to learn to sit ideas on a throne, fight for those, and spend considerable energy debating them.

If you want peace, make ideas fight each other, until the best win, until the best win, in the fair fight which makes understanding grow.

Patrice Ayme’

Peace From Strength

April 28, 2016

In the last few weeks, I came across complaints that Obama asked Europeans to pay for defense (a request Trump made forcefully), or that Obama doubled the number of special forces in Syria.

I see nothing wrong with Obama’s request or Obama helping justice in Syria. I see everything wrong with those who plead for weakness. Bemoaning the World is no panacea.

Meanwhile France sold 12 Barracuda submarines to Australia (doubling the size of its submarine fleet). French Barracudas are nuclear powered, 97 meters long, and can fire normal torpadoes, Exocet sea-skimming missiles, but also nukes.

The Australian version will be nuke-less. Australia selected French military shipbuilder DCNS Group to build a $40 billion submarine fleet. An Asia-Pacific arms race is now driven (in part) by China’s claimed territory in the South China Sea, in places much closer to other countries’s shores.

95% Of Allied Strength Was French, Then. The USA Was "Neutral" (That Is, De Facto, Nazi Supporting From Trade & Investment With The Enemy)

95% Of Allied Strength Was French, Then. The USA Was “Neutral” (That Is, De Facto, Nazi Supporting From Trade & Investment With The Enemy)

The Shortfin Barracuda design—offering stealth technology developed for French nuclear submarines—was chosen after a lengthy evaluation against offerings from Germany and Japan. This ended Japan’s drive to win its first major arms deal since relaxing a post-World War II military export ban.

DCNS said its design uses a top-secret pump-jet propulsion stealth technology (only France, the US and UK have the technology, which is now deployed on some new Russian subs). Part of the accord is that France would not sell the technology to Australia’s potential enemies.

This is a strategic move by the French Republic. France has departments and armed forces across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific ocean, from one side, to the other. “Hats off to the Franco-Australian partnership.” said French Prime Minister Manuel Valls posted on Facebook.

The US was not in the running. The US does not make silent diesel electric subs. But it fears them. The Australian Navy recommendation to the Cabinet was supported by US Submarine experts  –The new Short fin Barracuda  is the quietest attack submarine in the world (no propeller) and it has the best sonar. A little while ago a much more noisy Chinese sub emerged in an American fleet. In 2015, a Chinese sub simulated an attack on the nuclear US carrier Ronald Reagan. A Barracuda, in turn, could hunt such Chinese submarines.

A nuclear-powered French submarine successfully conducted a simulated attack on the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt. It “sank” the carrier and several of its support ships in the simulation. Oops.

Australia will be using US combat systems in these new subs over the next 50 years of the French contract.

This is a good new sign of French-American cooperation: a century ago, the French produced 75mm guns in the USA (and used the occasion to teach the Americans high precision chain manufacturing, popularized later by the Ford Model T).

Meanwhile, the French-built “Sarcophagus” is ready to slip over the damaged Chernobyl nuclear reactor and its melted core…

Some will whine: why are the French and the Americans so war minded?

Because evil in the service of goodness is what Jesus recommended. Is not that (part of) the gory message of the cross?

Earlier the Romans had:”Si vis pacem, para bellum” (“If want peace, prepare war”). That worked splendidly, until the weapons of the barbarians became better than that of the Romans. The Franks, Viking like, were pillaging their way up rivers in Spain. What did the Romans do? They became real smart. Instead of just keeping on fighting the Franks, some Roman generals befriended them and gave them a written law (the Salic Law). Next Constantine, after fighting them a bit, allied with them, and conquered the empire.

So why did Roman weapons become less good? Because of Roman corruption (also known as plutocratization). Under the Republic, Romans were engineers. Under the fascist empire, money was disbursed for making the rich richer. A bit like in Flint, Michigan. Here is the letter of Michael Moore to President Obama:

Dear President Obama —

Finally, after months of us begging you to come to Flint, you’ve decided to visit next Wednesday. I know this will make many people happy and grateful. But, as one who voted for you twice and was thrilled beyond belief over your election, I’m sorry to tell you your visit is too little too late.

You say you’re coming to “listen to the people of Flint.” Sir, they’ve been poisoned for two damn years. You’ve known about it since October. There’s nothing t…o listen to. Unless you’re bringing the entire U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to dig up and replace the 75,000 lead pipes, plus the Attorney General to arrest Governor Rick Snyder, then this is just another photo-op and half-baked list of new promises we don’t need. If you’re coming to make one of those “we need to rebuild America’s infrastructure” speeches, don’t bother. This is NOT an infrastructure problem – it’s a hate crime and mass poisoning of Black and poor people that NEVER would happen if this were Bloomfield Hills or Grosse Pointe or any other white town. It was done in order to give a billion-dollar tax cut to the rich. Every child here now has some form of permanent brain damage. There is NOTHING you can do to reverse that for them. There is no cure. Again, they are Black, they are poor. Do you have a cure for that? Because THAT’s the only reason why this has happened. Flint’s infrastructure was just fine (or what passes for fine these days in the USA). This poisoning happened because the governor said “Cut services!” — and so one of the first services he cut was to seal off the clean drinking water pipeline from the Great Lakes and make the poor and the Black of Flint drink dirty water from the drainage ditch you and others call “the Flint River.” We haven’t called it that for years. I’d drink my own piss before I’d drink out of that sewer.

We don’t need any more visits from politicians, even one as beloved as you. We don’t need any more promises of testing. We don’t need any more token digging up of pipes made rancid by the Flint River water that flowed through them (of the 75,000 pipes that need replacing, a total of 39 – 39!! – have been dug up and removed since you met with the mayor in the White House back in January). Meanwhile the poisoning continues on daily basis, even with the Lake Huron water that has been restored because it’s flowing through lead-damaged pipes with a new chemical that now burns people’s skin.

So unless you’re bringing the U.S. Army with you to save 100,000 of your fellow Americans, and unless you’re going to arrest the governor of Michigan who has now killed more Americans than ISIS, you might as well stay home. The riots here, I’m certain, will begin sometime soon. That’s what you or I would do if someone was poisoning OUR kids and the government refused to stop it, right?

With respect, admiration and profound disappointment,

Michael Moore

Flint native

Michigan resident

Obama supporter

We need strength. And it starts with the strength of emotions and ideas. And those have to be supported by the strength of expression. Only then can one move with more practical forms of strength. The rise of infamy always comes from preliminary weakness.

In 1940, Hitler craftily thought that the French Republic was led by bleeding hearts. So the Nazi dictator attacked an old German (de facto) ally, the Netherlands. With cruel savagery, flattening entire Dutch cities. It worked splendidly: the bleeding heart French, instead of letting the Dutch take some of their own Nazi medicine, threw their mobile tank reserve, seven divisions, to come to the rescue of the selfish Dutch. Then Hitler launched a full left wing attack, and France found itself as flat footed as Sparta had been, when Thebes used the same trick, 24 centuries earlier…

Patrice Ayme’

Military Industrial Complex: A Necessary Danger To Civilization

April 16, 2016

Military Industrial Complexes are necessary, and have existed since cities came to be, 10,000 years ago. President Eisenhower warned against the danger the US Military Industrial Complex presented to the USA, and the world, in all sorts of ways. Now we can say we are right in the midst of what Ike was afraid of. However, there is another face to that coin.

Great Military Industrial Complexes (“MIC”) are characteristic of great civilizations. One can argue, that’s what civilizations are all about. Rome, the Franks and the Chinese had MICs. So did Japan. The Japanese Military Industrial Complex was able to confine behind walls the invading Mongols (who already had captured China). The Samurai, and their excellent steel, destroyed the Mongol beachheads, and Japan stayed Japan.

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

In The USA, The Military Industrial Complex, With The Exception Of WWI and WWII, Has long Been At The Service Of Plutocracy, and Its Corporations

Interesting cases of Military Industrial Complexes were entangled with Greek civilization: Greece would not have existed without MICs.

The importance of war during the rise of Western Civilization was colossal. It could never have risen without it.

For example Sparta intervened and threw out Athens’ tyranny, establishing the great age of Athens’ direct democracy. The first thing the newly liberated Athenians did, was to establish a powerful MIC. Themistocles ran for office on a massive MIC program, to establish a powerful war fleet (after the first Persian invasion this grew to a 200 warships fleet). In the process the Athenian state ran a massive debt, and devastated the forests of Attica (to build the triremes). Themistocles’ argument was that Persia was going to attack. It did attack, twice, and was defeated, twice, in a number of battles, including the one at Marathon.

If anything, not enough violence was applied against plutocrats, early enough. Especially against the enemies of the Athenian and Roman empires. This is something peaceniks understand not at all, making them dedicated enemies of what they pretend to defend.

Twelve (12) centuries later, the Muslim invaders, having suffered grievous defeats from the Roman fleet and its Grecian fire, decided to use their military superiority on land: take Constantinople from behind, by invading Europe from West to East. The Islamists invaded Spain, and then attacked Francia (thrice). The Franks replied by boosting the size of their already considerable MIC. Propelled by a nationalization of the church, the Franks established the greatest army since the heydays of the Roman Republic, and mobilized all of Francia.

Ever since, France has been at war with Literal Islam. It was, it is, hard work: just in the second week of April 2016, three French soldiers died in combat in the middle of the Sahara. Frankish armies delivered Rome in 846 CE. The Islamists landed by surprise several armies in several places, and converged on Rome. The outskirts of the imperial capital were sacked, including the Vatican, but the formidable, 16 metres tall, 19 kilometer long Aurelian Wall held the invaders out of the city’s most sacred core. The Aurelian Wall is a beautiful example of MIC: it was used as a military asset, and involved in combat, for 17 centuries. The Aurelian Wall gave enough time for the Frankish Dux, Guy, grandson of Charlemagne, to arrive, and throw the Islamists out of the Latium.

When Genghis Khan and his Mongols invaded Northern China, some of his generals suggested to kill all the Chinese, and also kill the Chinese ecology (by destroying forests, etc.), and make Northern China like Mongolia. Genghis Khan refused to do so. However, notice that China came very close to extermination. Exterminated civilizations have existed before: Genghis Khan exterminated two, including the largest Buddhist empire, ever. The Hittites, and others, were exterminated during the invasion of the “People of the Sea”.

So civilization needs MICs. No MIC, no civilization.

However, a mighty MIC implies a deep militarization of society. The fundamental principle of militarization is the Fascist Principle: obey your superior as if s/he were god.

The fascist principle has long been an instinct with primates. Or at least those who invaded the savannah: baboons are intrinsically military, they move in armies, and the alpha males, the baboons are zoological equivalents to Roman generals. Complete with the right of death inflicted, whenever contradicted severely.

The fascist principle allows a social animal to behave as if it were a super-organism, with just one coordinated mind.

That principle is explicitly stated in the Qur’an. It was also the fundamental principle of organization of the Roman army, and, later, under the empire, of all of Roman society: the superior Roman officer had right of life and death on its subordinates, and would inflict it to encourage the others.

O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and Obey Those Of You Who Are In Power.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Sura 4; verse 59).

The principal drawback of a fascist society is that intellectual progress comes only from contradicting what was known before, hence, from contradicting one’s superiors. Thus, a society organized around the fascist principle will stagnate intellectually. And, in particular scientifically and, thus, technologically. Hence, being ruled by a MIC brings lethal stupidity (and a very inegalitarian society).

Thus the Barbarians will catch up in technological military prowess. This is exactly what happened to the Romans: under the Republic, buying the best military metallurgy from the (highly divided) Gauls, the Romans dominated in the quality of their weapons (Hannibal defeated the Romans many times, but, arguably, his best troops were Gallic). Under the empire, the savages, such as the Franks, had better weapons than the standard Roman army (so they were co-opted into it!)

However, by the time of Marcus Aurelius, that wind bag, a certified intellectual fascist with a sugar-coating still mesmerizing the naive, the barbarians caught up with Roman military technology… In no small measure because Roman emperors, those professional fascists, paid inventors not to invent.

Nowadays we can observe similar phenomena: US corruption has brought the reign of the F35, an obsolete, but extremely expensive weapon. Meanwhile, the Barbarians, including Kim of Korea, are catching up technologically, at a torrid space.

Civilization has to keep a balance between MIC and innovation in all ways, lest imagination collapses, bringing a weaker MIC.

Reciprocally, though, a MIC is a friend of fascist rule, and thus of oligarchy. But oligarchy is sustainable only in a satanic form, known as the rule of Satan (an older name of which being Pluto). So uncontrolled MICs bring plutocracy: Rome was the paradigm there.

We are in the process of creating another such example, because we did not heed general-president Eisenhower’s warning, that the Military Industrial Complex:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.”

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Eisenhower stays modern to this day. He saw the rise of plutocratic universities coming, with their fake thinkers, all dedicated to the power of money:

Eisenhower: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

A few days before democrats are going to surrender democracy to the power of money, once again, let me remind them, that this can happen only so many times.

Democracy needs to be defended, but, first, some will say that it needs to be worthy of a defense. Right.

However, democracy needs a strong enough Military Industrial Complex. The Athenians and other Greek democrats were initially successful at defeating Antipater. But then Krateros, hyper dangerous with his hardened troops arrived from the Orient, and the Athenian fleet, of 170 triremes, the largest since the wars against Persia, was defeated. Twice.

As I explained in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy” the friendliness of Aristotle to Alexander, Antipater and Krateros, and thus, to the idea of monarchy, goes a long way to explain that the Greek MIC came short of the Macedonian MIC. The philosopher Demosthenes was not heard enough, in his strident, fully justified, prescient warnings against the savage, tyrannical Macedonians.

So here we are: pretty much 23 centuries of trampling of direct democracy, the one and only, by the forces of oligarchy, and, or, when oligarchy is not enough to rule, plutocracy. Ever since official plutocracy was installed in Athens by Antipater.

All this because the direct democratic military industrial complex came short to the one of the Macedonians. So let’s not despise the MIC. It can save the best. But now, we don’t have to worry about foreign enemies first: the plutocrats are already in power.

Patrice Ayme’

Russian Jet Downed By Islamizing Turkey

November 26, 2015

Big wars have started for much less. What we know is this: a Sukhoi 24 Swing Wing Tactical Bomber, a work horse of the Russian Air Force, in service for decades, was shot down by Turkish F16s. Putin, rightly, called it “a stab in the back“. Except, as we will see, Turkey is pursuing an imperial dream, and hoping to get leverage from NATO to do so. Both of those dreams are nightmares which make the Islamist State a walk in the park, in comparison. And Obama’s Islamist wet dream is much to blame, as I will explain

The Captain and the Navigator ejected safely, but Pro-Turkey anti-Assad rebels fired on the parachuting crew, killing one of them. The latter fact is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention:  attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. They also fired on a rescuing Russian helicopter, killing one Russian marine.

According to a document leaked by Wikileaks, the Turkish government admitted that the plane was over a saillant of Turkish territory, for only 17 (seventeen) seconds, just around the time it takes for a full yawn.

The Russian who survived got the top prize as a navigator, a few years back. As well as denying Ankara’s assertions that the plane was in Turkey’s airspace, navigator Murakhtin, who says he knows the mission area “like the back of my hand,” also refuted Turkish officials’ claims that the pilots were warned repeatedly.

Clearly A Deliberate Aggression Of NATO Backed Turkey

Clearly A Deliberate Aggression Of NATO Backed Turkey

In actual fact, there were no warnings at all. Neither through the radio, nor visually, so we did not at any point adjust our course. You need to understand the difference in speed between a tactical bomber like a Su-24, and that of the F16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have sat on our wing,” said Murakhtin, who is currently recuperating at Russia’s air base in Latakia, northern Syria. This is indeed correct. The F16 is much faster and maneuverable. The Turks shot down a Russian plane, which indisputably fell in Syria, because they wanted to shoot down a Russian plane.

The consequence is that now Putin is going to bring all sorts of deadly missiles and planes to cover Russian tactical bombing. Some Russian anti-aircraft missiles can go 400 kilometers, at Mach 4. For a little while, France flew its bombers without armed escort, but that would have to change if the Russians get really trigger happy, Turkish style (except the Turks really indented harm, obviously).

The Russian navigator made an astounding admission: “As it was, the missile hit the back of our plane out of nowhere. We didn’t even have time to make an evasive maneuver.”

It brings questions on Russian MAWS (Missile Warning Systems). These are generally connected to various counter-measures, such as taking evasive action, ejecting flares, or flashing lasers at the incoming missile.

More generally, NATO may ponder its association with Turkey. Having Turkey drag NATO into a conflict with Russia is a NO-NO. Turkey Islamizing government has been playing a very complicated game. In particular by using Islamist tricks to support a fighting force of 10,000 “Turkmen” whom it has tried to Islamize, using the Muslim Brotherhood. The idea has been to block the Kurds, whom Turkey also directly bombs.

On February 21, 2015, Turkey launched an invasion of Syria by 500 men supported by tanks and warplanes, to open the mausoleum of the medieval warlord Shah Suleiman, the grandfather of the first Uthmanid emperor Osman Gazi ben Ertugruo. They removed the remains of this man who died 779 years ago, and brought them back to safe ground.

This curious foray may sound pretty crazy, but there is a general method to it. Neo-Ottoman fantasies are taking a growing grip on Turkish leaders’ imaginations. They see the Arab Spring as an opportunity to rebuild the region as an empire with Istanbul as capital, no less. And now they have won elections, giving them 5 years to pursue Islamization, their way.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu wants to build a born-again Ottoman Empire, in which Istanbul would “reintegrate the Balkan region, Middle East and Caucasus”. Hey, if Russia can try to do it, so can Ankara.

Turkey’s religious-right government has imposed an Islamist leadership on the insurgents fighting Bashar al-Assad, using as elsewhere in the region, a cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who were so much against European empire may some day discover reality: nature abhors a vacuum. Taking Europe out, brings back Turkey. Europe spent a millennium fighting Turkmen in the Middle East. A combined assault led mostly by Russians, Greeks, French and British (and let’s not forget the Australians at Gallipoli), in the last 300 years, succeeded to push Turkmen back to Anatolia (which they invaded less than 1,000 years ago).

However the Turkmen’s mentality exterminated or ejected millions of Greeks, Armenians and Kurds in the last century. So Turkish imperial fascist ways have stayed strong.

The Muslim Brotherhood resisted the secularising, Arab-nationalist Ba’ath, starting in 1963. Later it capitalized on protests provoked by high prices and housing shortages. This set off a cycle of violence which ended in the regime of Assad father ’s destroying the Brotherhood in a 1980 carnage with a city annihilated and more than 25,000 dead.

Liberals are aghast that the Muslim Brotherhood has hijacked their revolution. The truth is that Islam is a deep network, not just underground, but neurologically: a war religion perceived as a religion of peace, it has got all its bases covered.

For the West, the ongoing war is becoming increasingly a moment of truth. In 2009, United States’ president Obama went to Cairo to sing the praises of Islam. He thought that was smart, modern, In truth, that was a return to the Middle Ages.

More specifically, Obama’s told his aides that there are tensions between the Muslim and the West which root in colonialism. Sorry, Bambi, the roots are much deeper than that. The roots themselves are as deep as the word “Europe”. Because that word got used by the Franks to symbolize their resistance to the Islamist invasions.

Obama also said that he knows from his personal experience that the West and the Islam are not separate worlds because they share things such as love of God and family. Except God does not exist, and families always exist, so Obama was just agitating his tongue. He may as well have evoked the Moon.

Ever since the USA and Europe have put their faith in the “moderate jihadist”, a unicorn-like beast spitting fire, great killer of unbelievers, idolaters, apostates, pagans, other Muslims, Yazidis, and all enemies of God, yet respectable enough, admired by Obama, and a lover of families.

Now, it seems that this intriguing chase of the impossible presents some disagreements, such as Jihadists in our midst, killing the “idolaters” of music and cafes. The West must choose between going on, enunciating non-sense about Islam’s goodness, or reluctantly accept Bashar al-Assad’s brutally secularist regime as the less bad of a set of options which are all bad. But an increasingly insanely aggressive, Islamizing Turkey is potentially a much worse problem than Assad.

Speaking of encroaching insanity, Putin has been trying to amend his ways. He should be encouraged to do so. Meta-policy consists in encouraging the good moods.

When Obama went to Cairo to encourage Islam, he made the immense moral and strategic mistake of encouraging “Islam” (When talking about Algebra, no need to thank Islam; actually a Greco-Indian invention). Encouraging Islam just encourages war, because war is what the Qur’an is mostly about (read it!) So now Obama has got what his mood led to: more Islam, that is, more war. He compounded this when he refused to punish Assad personally for mass gas attacks. So now Assad is all what secularists have to work with (besides the Kurds). Putin agrees. No choice. Simply the West should try to protect secular rebels… who have to buy oil from… the Islamist State. War is complicated, always.

But the war we have, ultimately, is one between the mood leading to secular, direct democracy and its enemy, Islam, an objective ally of tyranny (read the Qur’an!) and plutocracy. That God Obama loves and respects so much, plans to destroy all of humanity (read the Qur’an, especially the latter Suras). What is more satanic?

Patrice Ayme’

Annex 1; Obama in Cairo: …”a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles…” How can one put a state (the USA) explicitly founded as secular, in the same category as a superstition (Islam)? Obama also deliberately hijacked the famous Washington-Adams declaration on the secularism of the USA, which I have quoted many times, well before 2009. Obama selectively sampled it, like a disk jockey from hell, cutting out the secular part, to make it sound pro-Muslim. So now Obama has got the Islamist State which, he says, is not a State of Islam, but the work of Satan: Commander-in-Chief of the Truly Faithful? The mood of theocracy spreading got (re)launched in the West, by the USA, during McCarthyism, and has made Western leaders mushy in the mind. But then you can call Obama a McCarthyist, and that’s great fun.

Annex 2: Lawmakers from the Kremlin-friendly A Just Russia party introduced a bill calling for a maximum punishment of five years in jail for those who deny that the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 was a genocide. (France recognizes formally the Armenian Genocide, since 2001, but, differently from the Jewish Genocide, denial is not punished by law.)

Killer Robots Inevitable, Resistance Futile

July 29, 2015

Over one thousands experts, professors, renowned intellectuals, Stephen Hawking, even Elon Musk, the unavoidable Noam Chomsky, and, ironically enough, plenty of the actors of the computer industry, have signed a naive, hypocritical, and ineffective letter to ban “autonomous killing systems” (the letter is to be presented soon). Their agenda? Mass distraction, to divert us from the real problem, while making us believe that they really care. If they really cared, they would promote the solution I advocate, the one and only.

They pontificate: “The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI [Artificial Intelligence] arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable.” Is that the key question? What about the CO2 crisis, with its melting poles and increasingly acid oceans.

Autonomous Killing Systems Already Exist, But Direct Democracy Does Not

Autonomous Killing Systems Already Exist, But Direct Democracy Does Not

As if there was not a continual Artificial Intelligence arms race? There has been one, since 1940, or so. And there better be, if democracies want to stay on top, and world war avoided. Automated killing machines are moving swiftly from science fiction to reality…

The deployment of such systems is – practically if not legally – feasible within years, not decades,

Excuse me?  The PHALANX anti-aircraft, and anti-missile system is an automated fire-control system enabling it to automatically search for, detect, track, engage, and kill. Entirely autonomously, yes. It’s nickname is “R2-D2”, from the half smart robot by the same name in Star Wars. All major capital ships of the USA, and those of 16 allies, are equipped with it. Each American aircraft carrier carries several, covering all approaches.

So what are the worthies talking about?

Nothing. They are just posing as good people. They want us to believe they deserve our trust. They are smart enough to know no state which can equip itself with autonomous killing systems will hesitate to do so. So their approach is both immoral, thoroughly hypocritical, and deeply ineffective.

Forbidding democracies to use autonomous killing systems will make those a monopoly of dictatorships. It’s a no-go approach, as far as any half-smart military is concerned.

So what is the correct approach, oh great know-it all?

Granted that democracies will be anxious to equip themselves with autonomous killing systems, be it only to save soldiers’ lives, how can we make sure such systems will not veer into the situation depicted in the Terminator or Matrix movies, where machines take over?

Very simple: Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is the solution to rule over robots, not just plutocrats. If every citizen is involved in the utilization, and the decisions to use such autonomous systems, then we will be as safe as safe can be.

The worthies and their petition want to distract from the one and only obvious solution. Instead, they propose a pious, ill-informed vow. Which will make the deep state, the intelligence agencies, the military and its contractors laugh derisively, in the leading democracies.

Right now, very few individuals are in the know about how technology is used to subjugate human beings. A handful of Senators in the USA, a handful at the White House. The rest of those who know are in the military. As long as this goes on, the temptation to use technology to serve a few, and their robotic servants will be irresistible. The remedy is that we all be involved, and in control. We need wikicontrol.

Patrice Ayme’

Why Did Germany Lose World War Two?

July 10, 2015

Because the nasty don’t deserve anything else, of course. But there is much more to say, bearing on the astounding way all too many Germans, starting with their crippled, not to say creepy, finance minister find normal to treat part of Europe, even today.

Salvador Dali pointed out that Germany launched World War Two, just to lose it. The same German sadomasochism is fully obvious with all Germans who proposed to throw Greece out of the Eurozone. Indeed, violent ones, explain to me what to do next with the Greeks? Use German high tech to displace Greece east of New Zealand?

Thankfully, Germany is not Europe’s hegemon (contrarily to what superficialists believe). The French Republic leads a coalition with more economic power than Germany, and (hopefully) is determined to keep Greece under its wing. France is also flouting the restrictions on deficit (Germans can go fight in Africa and the Middle East, to help if they want: the Légion étrangère, which defeated elite Nazi soldiers in Norway in 1940, just got new tanks, which will go into combat in a matter of days)

Hundreds Of Thousands Died In The Battle Of France. Calais, May 1940. The USA Sat On Its Hands, Apparently Waiting For Better Things To Come

Hundreds Of Thousands Died In The Battle Of France. Calais, May 1940. The USA Sat On Its Hands, Apparently Waiting For Better Things To Come

[France was allied with the entire British Commonwealth; however, in May 1940, much of the British army was barely getting over. In particular a promised British armor division supposed to show up where the Nazis broke through, had not arrived. The USA, was, at the time, de facto allied with Hitler.]

After winning his referendum on the NO (“oxi”) to Greece’s creditors, Tsipras operated close to a 160 degree turn. But it makes sense. Now Tsipras has popular support, and he requests help for three years (rather than three months). Greece should be given all what he wants. Enough of starving Europe with lack of money, just as European were starved of food in Nazi extermination camps.

Saving Greece now depends upon defeating (whatever remains of) the fascist mood in Germany. So it’s timely for little recaps on recent German exploits. How did Germany end up killing more than 800,000 Greeks, a little while back?

Starting in 1792, and ending apocalyptically in 1945, the obsession of German speaking plutocrats was to destroy the French Republic. In the process, Jewish European and Prussia got annihilated.

I don’t like Muslim Fundamentalism, nor do I like German Fundamentalism. The latter’s ugly mood has resurfaced recently. Fortunately, the hegemon in Europe is not ugly obsolete, tribal moods, but the French Republic. (For all the claims that Germany is Europe’s superpower, the Eurozone coalition of countries indulgent with Greece led by France had 54% of the GDP, a few days ago.)

The correct lessons of how Germany got crazy in the Twentieth Century have not all been drawn. Reading Nietzsche helps, as he forecast in a general fashion what happened next, including with the Jews, although it turned out perhaps even worse than he expected.

The French Republic nearly annihilated the Prussian plutocracy in the first week of September 1914, in a bold counterattack, east of Paris. After that, the, entrenched, frontlines did not move for four years.

In 1919, at the Versailles Peace conference, the French Republic tried to make sure Germany could not try the same sort of attack again, as easily. In vain: Great Britain and the USA had interest to keep the French Republic down, and Germany was the best way to insure that. France was left to face German fascism alone. Germany refused to repair its deliberate destruction in France and Belgium, and soon turned to a maniac to help getting even more crazy.

Ever since 1792, the greatest enemy of plutocracy is not plutocracy, German or not, but the French Revolution. In 1815, at Waterloo, France was partly dismembered, losing parts of Gaul (otherwise France would be a 100 million superpower now; instead a French pilot from Airbus had to content himself today with traversing the channel in an electric plane; Airbus plans hybrid electric jetliners soon).

Besides the necessity to keep the French Revolution down, Germany could be made into a plutocratic province of Anglo-Saxon plutocracy… As it was. Such facts put plutocracy in a bad light, and are certainly not official historical analysis.

French leaders expected Germany to try to destroy the French Republic again within 20 years. As happened.

So the question arises naturally. Why, if the Germans were so keen to make another world war, did they not learn from their mistakes? The question surfaces all over. Here is a short one:

Why did Germany lose WWII?

This is a short compendium of well-known reasons. It is entirely correct, yet entirely silly.

Its main argument is that Germany did not have the economic capability to take on the UK, the USA, and the USSR.

Yes, true: but how did it get to that? In, say, 1935, 1936, Nazi Germany was de facto, or formally allied to Great Britain (with a formal treaty in 1935), the USA (massive investor and even monopolist in the Dritte Reich), and the USSR (the secret alliance between Germany and the Bolsheviks, dating from 1916 was made official in 1939).

The other two reasons given are second, or third order (not false, but secondary, consequential to much more important reasons).

One should not forget everything really important, such as history, computing, intelligence…

Where to start in exposing why Germany lost World War Two? First of all because Germany was perverted by an abominable mentality.

France Then, Greece Now?

France Then, Greece Now?

The Nazis used to point out that France started World War Two. Indeed, sort of:

***

Nazi Germany lost the so-called Second World War because the French Republic declared war to Hitler on September 3, 1939, while dragging Great Britain into the conflict.

It required guts on the part of the French. When the French Republic declared war, Hitler was allied to Stalin, Mussolini, the Japanese fascists, and not least, a giant panoply of plutocrats from the USA who made sure Congress did as they wanted.

American plutocrats provided the Nazi dictator with an entire economy, not just enough weapons to kill an estimated 10,000 opponents in 1932. American plutocrats provided Hitler with advanced secret technology, such as how to make synthetic oil (Exxon, then under another name) and computers (IBM: did not change names, just covered up the story), and near infinite financing: Prescott Bush, grandfather of W. Bush managed the most important Nazi war industry, American Silesian. And so on. Books on all of this are given the very cold shoulder by (plutocratically financed) universities of the USA.

Hitler had no oil, at all. But Texas, and, in particular, Texaco, had plenty, and so did the USSR. They sold it to Hitler.

Without American plutocratic corporations input, Hitler could not have driven one single mile inside France.

Nazi computers? The IBM corporation of the USA had been given the monopoly of computing inside the Reich. The vaunted Nazi organization was all managed from New York (starting in 1942, after Hitler had declared war to the USA, said detailed management went on, but passed through Geneva).

Hitler wanted a world war, but he knew he was not ready. He had 1,000 medium tanks (although he got another 1,000 from Czechoslovakia). France had more than 3,000 tanks, most of them heavy, or superior to German tanks. (Let alone the UK’s two armored divisions.)

Hitler knew he was not going to be ready before 1945, just to confront France and Britain (supposing those two did not arm themselves even more!).  By 1945, the new German weapons would have been massively produced (jet fighters and bombers, anti-aircraft rockets, aircraft carriers, new silent submarines, mass production of Panther and Tiger tanks, etc.)

The French knew all of this. They could see Hitler had constituted ten armored (“Panzer”) divisions (the French had seven armored division, and three super heavy, unstoppable armored divisions). By declaring war on September 3, 1939, France short-circuited all of Hitler’s strategy.

France Bet All In Opposing Hitler. Roosevelt Had Pledged To Help, But He Lied. More Than 50 Million Europeans Died, USA Prospered

France Bet All In Opposing Hitler. Roosevelt Had Pledged To Help, But He Lied. More Than 50 Million Europeans Died, USA Prospered

By the time Hitler attacked the USSR, the campaigns against Poland, France and Crete, and the defeat suffered in Norway at the hands of the French Foreign Legion, had cost Hitler the death, or “disappearance” of no less than 150,000 of his most fanatical soldiers, and the Wehrmacht was actually less powerful than when it attacked France.

The Luftwaffe (Nazi Air Force) had lost more than 4,000 planes, and thousands of its best pilots. By December 1940… Between the battles of France and the Battle of Britain…

Not only this, but because the Nazis were forced to mass produce existing equipment, they could not develop, and mass produce, new weapons. By the Battle Of Brody (June 1941), the Germans discovered that the new Soviet T34 tank was nearly as impervious to their weapons, as heavy French tanks had proven, a year earlier (one heavy French tank had taken 400 hits before being destroyed).

And so on. The Brits broke German codes very often, all too often. For example, British intelligence was even able to warn the USSR about the detailed Nazi attack plan at Kursk in 1943. Kursk was the last ditch Nazi effort: failing it meant failing the war in the East; it failed, because the Soviets mysteriously anticipated all German moves. Thus the greatest tank battle ever was lost, and after that the Nazi empire was just a fat, obese, soft belly facing Stalin’s 600 divisions.

Stalin counter-attacked at Moscow in December 1941 because his spy Jorge, and others, who had told him in advance that Japan would attack the USA (instead of attacking the USSR). That allowed Stalin to put the entire Siberian Army on trains, and bring it to the front around Moscow.

Nazi Germany lost, because France and Britain surprised it by daring to attack Nazi Germany and its allies, the USSR, and American plutocracy in September 1939. As a devastated Hitler said with insane fury to his collaborators on September 3, 1939, after receiving the Franco-British declaration of war, and watching Berlin silently for ten minutes: “NOW WHAT?”

Goering mumbled: “If we lose this war, God help us.”

Indeed. The Americans, not amused by Nazi war crimes, hanged very slowly (around twenty minutes, or more), some of the top Nazis. (They claimed disingenuously that it was all accidental.)

A year later, a year after France (and Britain) declared war, the war was lost. Just like Napoleon, and for the exact same reason, Hitler could not cross the channel: the First French army, making a circle of steel and fire, had allowed the entire British army to escape at Dunkirk.

Hitler had to secretly prepare to attack his Soviet ally. As he explained to 10,000 Nazi Generals, there was no choice: Britain could not be defeated. The Nazis had to crush the USSR before Stalin understood that.

An attack was planned in mid-Spring 1941, to make sure Moscow would fall before the following winter. However his ally Mussolini had a mind of his own. After being severely defeated by the French in June 1940, he was anxious for revenge, and virile behavior worthy of his alleged ancestors. The Italian buffoon gave an ultimatum to Greece, invaded, and was promptly defeated by the Greeks.

That was a serious problem: with an hostile, British (and Free French) allied Yugoslavia and Greece to the south, Hitler was in danger of a British (and French) counterattack to the south. So Hitler attacked Yugoslavia and Greece. while the British rushed to the rescue. The Nazis could not swim tio Crete, so they flew all their paratroops. They won, after severe losses. In the end, the attack of Russia was differed by six weeks. And it’s a significantly diminished German army which attacked.

The battle of France had been lost for a number of factors, most of them accidental (several unlikely accidents together, at the same time, brought a catastrophe).

So why did Germany lost World War Two? What was the fundamental cause?

Because the French Republic attacked in a timely manner.

Patrice Ayme’

War Versus Direct Democracy

May 21, 2015

When We The People decide to go to war, it can be an excellent thing; to wit, many a revolution, including those which gave rise to the USA, the French Republic, the Republic of China (OK, OK… There were two…). However, when an oligarchy, or a plutocracy, decides to go to war, it is rarely a good thing. Most often, it is an atrocious thing. The war the USA launched in Mesopotamia, as one of its principals, if not the principal actor, one way or another, has not been a good thing for the Middle-East (although, lo and behold, it has been an excellent thing for the domestic oil industry of the USA. Any rapprochement between these facts is sheer coincidence, and no animals were hurt during the making of this movie).

So the so-called “Islamist State” captured Ramadi, a large city just west of Baghdad. The next day, it captured Palmyra, in Syria, 200 kilometers from Damascus.

Mine Is Bigger Than Yours. Islamic State/Daesh Captured Thousands Of Tanks

Mine Is Bigger Than Yours. Islamic State/Daesh Captured Thousands Of Tanks

What does that have to do with Direct Democracy? Everything. You see, the Iraq War is a family affair. It was essentially started by one family. No, not the Hussein family. Those were just a convenient excuse. The war was started by one American family, or, at least, under its watch. The Bush family. It was convoluted enough a story, and the Main Stream Media was so embedded in it, that the reality of what happened has escaped the befuddled crowds.

The picture above was taken after the capture of Mosul. Within hours of that joyous event, the Islamic State was flying combat helicopters, meaning that it employed Sunni elements of Saddam Hussein’s old army. In other words, lo and behold, the “Mission” was not accomplished. Saddam, or rather his punching power, was back. The same topo was reproduced after the capture of Ramadi. Columns of tanks flying the Black Flag could be seen on IS videos. (Yes, I have strange pastimes…)

War has a life of its own. Once started, it is hard to stop. All the more since it is quickly sympathetic to the worst actors. Thus, even making peace with war does not work. One cannot just rise the white flag, and surrender. Just giving up on war, surrendering to those who lead the war successfully, once it has risen its ugly snout, often means giving up to very bad guys.

The day after capturing Palmyra, Daesh (the Arabic insult France and Arab states hurl at the IS) dashed out of Mosul, ten kilometers towards the Iraqi capital. France and the USA have officially a few thousands soldiers on the ground in Iraq, not enough to stop Daesh. Air strikes have been hindered by a laudable effort to limit strikes to military targets. In most French or American sorties, bombs are not released.

It seems as if the Franco-American led strategy in the Middle-East is not working (in spite of more than 5,300 air strikes, and president Hollande of France attending the Gulf Defense Council in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). How come? Or, more exactly, what is going on?

Well, it’s called the Iraq War, and it was started under Bush Senior, long ago (if not even earlier, when Iraq was encouraged to attack Iran, with the same Western actors, well represented).

What would we do without Bushes? Would we even have had “enjoyed” Hitler (who called Prescott Bush his “most important” collaborator, at some point).

And this brings the big question: would the People of the USA have authorized the attack on Iraq, in a referendum?

No.

There would have been a debate, and undisputed example of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction would have had to be produced. First.

Some are sure to sneer that I am naïve, and that the We The People of The USA would have been manipulated into war. OK, let’s suppose that. Then what? The We The People of The USA would have egg all over its silly face, and, at least, would have learned something, namely to check its sources more carefully. For next time.

In a referendum, there is no doubt that an attack on Afghanistan, after 9/11, and an ultimatum, would have been authorized. Thus it’s probable, actually, that, once it had been exposed that Saddam Hussein’s secular regime was an enemy of Islam Fundamentalism in general, and Al Qaeda in particular, the We The People of the USA would have disagreed to attack a, de facto, ally.

Right, the Athenian Direct Democracy took lousy decisions during the war between Imperial Athens, and other rather oligarchic, if not fascist Greek city-states, led by a degenerating Sparta, financed by the giant Persian plutocracy.

Yes. This was then. A tough learning experience we can learn from now.

The fact is, one family got us in the Iraq War, for the last 25 years, and We The People of the USA, or We the People of Europe, did not vote for it.

Although at first sight it does not look like it, I have documented the causal chains between the mess in the Middle East and Western plutocracy, and the institutions it created. The Great Bitter Lake conspiracy, initially a manoeuver to push France and Britain out, and the USA in, is a case in point.

Kuwait itself was a conspiracy (it’s only natural that Mesopotamia would have access to the sea! Always had, before the British messed up with it).

The USA Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (August 2, 1990). Glaspie’s statements that “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts” and that “the Kuwait issue is not associated with America” were interpreted by Mr. Hussein as giving him freedom to solve the problem of Kuwait (which he alleged was using horizontal pumping in Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with a United Nations Security Council resolution.

University professors specializing in the question concluded that:”…The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.”[ ^ John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (Jan–Feb 2003). “An unnecessary war”. Foreign Policy (134): 54.]

Some don’t believe in Conspiracy Theories. However, beside the law of unintended consequences, history is mostly made with these. (To know this, one has to study history beyond the headlines.)

It is easy for one family, such as the Bush family, to conspire. When only a few men take all the decisions, their wildest dreams and most secret perversions can be enacted, and enabled.

Yes, conspiracies are impossible to organize in Direct Democracy. Thus, those who heap spite on “conspiracy theories” are actually asserting that We the People control our destinies. Evidence to the contrary is in plain sight. A few thousands individuals control most of the world’s wealth, and even fewer, most of the world’s power.

To remedy this, a few conspiring to kill millions, just one way: Direct Democracy, as much as possible.

Patrice Ayme’

Subtle Is The World, And Vicious Sometimes

April 2, 2015

Abstract: Pluto is the worst side of man, and a human creation, given by our lord, biological evolution. Naturally enough, the worst metal created by man is called Plutonium. This man-made radionuclide has a half-time of 25,000 years, and a microscopic quantity kills. Assembled fast enough, a few pounds can destroy a city, and trigger arbitrarily large thermonuclear fusion.

However, Plutonium can be indispensable in the furthering of goodness.

So can Pluto.

Yet, managing one, and the other, requires superior wisdom. Just as wisdom requires the Dark Side. Subtlety is no luxury, but a moral command.

***

TO EXPLORE MOST EXO-PLANETS, WE REQUIRE PLUTONIUM:

Aeolis Mons, Mars, Photo Courtesy Of Plutonium Inside Curiosity

Aeolis Mons, Mars, Photo Courtesy Of Plutonium Inside Curiosity

There is a global anti-nuclear paranoia, at least among so-called, self-declared “progressives”. In truth civil nuclear energy, properly done is not just rather safe, but much safer than the alternative (burning fossil fuels, or cutting on food quality and quantity to make fuel).

One should not put nuclear reactors in the way of tsunamis (as Japan did systematically), or by building dangerous reactor types, because the safe ones cost a bit more. Also one should systematically recycle nuclear fuel (to increase yields, augment efficiency, and reduce waste pollution).

Another obvious strategy to pursue is Thorium-U 233 reactors, which cannot be used militarily, and where the bad waste lasts a maximum of three centuries (by contrast of a half period of 25,000 years for Plutonium).

The anti-civilian nuclear energy paranoia is cheap indignation. It has diverted attention from the real problems: the confiscation of the economy by banks, the addition of a total of 50 gigatons of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the lack of democracy, the pernicious corruption in the West, thanks to the political-corporations-plutocrats complex.

Another problem is the potential growth of nuclear weapons (developing the Thorium cycle would allow to short-circuit this, paradoxically). Confusing civilian nuclear power and military nuclear power is grave moral mistake.

The result of the anti-nuclear paranoia has been that NASA ran out of energy source for a successor of the Curiosity rover. There is a strong need for such a machine, as Curiosity found a lot of tantalizing hints for water and life on Mars. However, it has proven difficult to make one powered only by solar energy.

At this point, refusing Plutonium has meant to refuse to explore exo-planets. The “New Horizons” probe rushing to… Pluto is, appropriately enough, propelled with Plutonium. The lack of missions is directly related to the lack of Plutonium. Many of these missions will feed not just science, but philosophy (Ceres was just found to have water; Europa and Enceladus seem to have active oceans. If life does not happen there, we could certainly install it, something that is evident with Mars.)

So it is a good sign that a tipping point has been reached, and that RTG are going to be made again in the future. It may be the beginning of deciding that silliness will not stand in the way of science anymore.

We have no future without much better technology: there are way too many people for it to be sustainable with existing technology.

Exploring planets and their history brings great knowledge, but also great lessons. It also forces us to develop new technologies, which may be solutions to problems that are there, but we did not identify yet.

***

In The INTEREST OF PEACE, BE TOUGHER WITH IRAN THAN WITH SADDAM:

The preceding ought not to be construed as a support for Iranian “research” reactors producing Plutonium (Iran has one in the north; not to be confused with Bushwer, the energy producing reactor far away on the Persian Gulf).

BTW, the talks with Iran have sort of aborted; clearly the theocrats in Teheran are still suffering some mental block; while they got counter-attacked vigorously by the Saudis in Yemen.

To make an accord with Iran on nuclear weapons without the possibility to examine all of Iran without warning is the bare minimum. This  sort of accord Saddam Hussein had agreed to… and it was implemented.

However, even then, the Bush administration claimed the United Nations inspections were insufficient, could not be believed, and, thus, attacked. Therefore even such an accord with Iran would not guarantee that a nuclear arm race would not ignite in the Middle East. (Saudi Arabia has one of the top five largest defense budget, world-wide! So could easily go nuclear.)

Hence an accord with Iran on nuclear weapons will have to be tougher than the one that had been done with Saddam Hussein, otherwise it’s worse than none.

***

CIVILIZATION NEEDS CIVILIZING DEFENSE:

This does not mean that, each time something can be presented as a technological progress, it ought to be developed. For example, GMOs, Genetically Modified Organisms, can be good or bad, depending upon the details, and the context. So it can never be a question of being pro-GMO, or anti-GMO. It is the same with nuclear: anti-nuclear sometimes is a matter of civilization (say with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which has absolutely to be prevented). Just as being pro-nuclear can also be a matter of civilization (to help cutting GHG emissions).

To be good does not mean to be inert, with a big smile on one’s face, and making only kind gestures.

Daesh (so-called Islamist State, or Caliphate) destroys everything in its way, especially reality, and thus history. What does the meta-good does in such a case? The same as with the Nazis: fuel and arm the bombers, attack.

(By the way, American and French planes presently bombing in Syria and Iraq have been so careful that nearly all “bombing” missions do not release their bombs. That is very good, and a far cry from the criminal, or near-criminal drone bombings conducted by Obama in the past.)

To be good at any instant, and for any gesture, and any thought, or emotion, in nearly all cases, will mean that one ends up meta-bad. This was the exact paradox of the Germans when Nazism came to rule. Germans thought, at the time, that they would be good by not intervening as the mad pilots too control of the ship of state.

Germany gave the Kurds 30 anti-tank Milan missiles. They are now exhausted, and France is going to send more Milans. And also more French Special Forces (who direct air strikes). The French presidency just received 5 Kurd generals, who first paid their respect to the site Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish hypermarket Islamist mass murders.

It is not just the devil who is in the details. Goodness, also, comes from examining the details. Goodness does not come just from the heart, it comes from attention to detail.

Socrates famously said that the unexamined life was not worth living.

When civilization is attacked, civilization should fight back. An old concept the French empire used to justify itself was “Mission civilisatrice”. The notion was frantically demolished by a whole series of French philosophers and sociologists whose business model was to play hysterical opposition to the established financial order. The result was the encroachments of vast empires instead: the USA, the USSR, now Russia, China, and of course, all over, above and around, global plutocracy.

The notion I advance is “defense civilisatrice”, the concept Obama violated, when he unleashed the drones, thickly, as if they were caviar on homemade bread. It is not that civilization has to be defended. Defense has to be a teacher.

On April 1, in Putin’s joke was to close the only Tatar TV Channel: Stalin deported the Tatars from Crimea (where they had been for more than a millennium). The always vigilant Putin prefers that they be exterminated culturally (as Crimea has been “Russian” always, like Ukraine, and probably Poland). If civilization does not push back, Pluto will wallop us.

Ultimate victory has been achieved when the enemy’s culture has been eradicated.

War has to be educative.

The European Union is preparing an assault against the monopolist, tax thief Google. (Google just employed Ms. Ruth Porat, a Wall Street manipulator, for 70 million dollars. Financial conspirators are most esteemed nowadays: this is the corrupted, rotting side, of today’s socio-economy.)

Not that the EU’s great assault against Microsoft worked that well: modifying itself like the malaria parasite it claims to be obsessed by, Bill Gates became a “friend of man”… like the malaria parasite, all over inside, perpetually mutating, but richer. And certainly a more lethal example.

Civilizing defense requires similarly to morph, swiftly and intelligently, always. Be it only to keep the parasites in check. Right now, it requires for goodness to make war in the Middle-East.

Patrice Ayme’