Emptying The Core Through Unemployment: the Plutocratic Way

May 30, 2019

There is no democracy, without an economy flush with employment. A society which doesn’t employ people disempowers them: they can’t even go on strike. Thus those who don’t want democracy, can destroy the economy first. That’s sneaky, and most efficient,  

This is exactly what has been happening in the last three decades, as employment and economy has been sent increasingly from the wealthiest countries to developing countries… This brought decreasing employment in those wealthiest countries. Thus it disempowered workers while empowering the investors, owners and managers who employed dirt poor workers overseas unprotected by social laws… basically slaves. The more the owners and the international elite were empowered, by this displacement of the economy overseas, the more they manipulated the ruling ideology which they controlled through the media they own and the universities they finance.

This is not the graph I was looking for, which was world trade versus inequality. However, that’s a good proxy, as patents tended to be deployed in places like China… as the economy was displaced there!

…Actually the US Supreme Court, starting in 2006, and boosted by Obama after 2008, gutted the US Patent System: it’s always the same idea: favor the giant monopolies (patents are micro, temporally limited monopolies…) and overseas production… Disempower normal US citizens…

We saw it all before, with the Roman Republic. It disappeared when its elite escaped the absolute wealth limit taxation by going overseas, and sending the economy there, while controlling the political process. This voided Rome, and later Italy, of employment, thus power. They remembered that, early in the Roman Republic, to protest the elite, the Plebs had gone on strike… forcing more equalitarian laws.

Beijing just accused Washington of “economic terrorism”. China can self develop now. Time to bring jobs back to the USA, the EU. That will bring back not just employment, but democracy.

Patrice Ayme



This was a comment to the NYT, which was approved so fast, they couldn’t possibly have read it (do I have friends?) Here is the beginning of the article:

“Trade War Starts Changing Manufacturers in Hard-to-Reverse Ways
ControlTek, which makes circuit boards in Vancouver, Wash., has begun shifting supply chains out of China and designing products that don’t require Chinese parts.

The New York Times
By Ben Casselman
May 30, 2019

PORTLAND, Ore. — When the Trump administration first imposed tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese imports in July, Andy LaFrazia figured it was just another curveball for his company.

“Everyone was saying: ‘Oh, it’s a negotiating tactic. It won’t last long,’” Mr. LaFrazia recalled.

But nearly a year later, the trade war shows no sign of cooling off. So ControlTek, the electronics manufacturer that Mr. LaFrazia runs near Portland, is taking steps to protect itself, a strategic shift that has been repeated in boardrooms and executive suites around the world in recent weeks.

ControlTek is rewriting contract language to make it easier to pass the cost of tariffs on to its customers. It is shifting supply chains out of China where possible, and redesigning products to avoid Chinese components where it isn’t. And as a tiny player in an enormous global industry, it is discovering that there is only so much it can do.

“We’re very much at the end of the whip getting thrown around,” Mr. LaFrazia said.

Despite dire warnings from economists, Mr. Trump’s trade war has so far done little to derail the decade-long recovery from the Great Recession. Economic growth has remained strong, and the unemployment rate last month hit a 50-year low.”



Warren: Progress, Survival of the Republic. Biden: More Plutocratization, Death.

May 29, 2019

Biden and other “democrats” in the 1980s voted Reagan’s anti-democratic laws. Then, in 1990s, they went further, putting millions in jail, unravelling the banking reform of 1933. Much of this needs to be reverted.

One can’t have democracy and plutocracy at the same time. That’s why the Roman Republic put a cap on wealth: above some high level, Roman millionaires were taxed 100%. Yes, a margin tax rate of 100% (similar rates existed in the 1950s, when clean economic expansion was at its maximum: not a coincidence).

Also the Roman Republic taxed ostentatious wealth (“sumptuary” laws; an equivalent today would be to tax private jets; instead private jets are subsidized, while they contribute 1% of US CO2 emissions!).

More than 130,000 families have wealth above 50 million US$. Those should be taxed into extinction, Roman Republic manner. It is a question of survival of life as we know it on this planet. Why? Those 130,000 families worth more than $50 million, own roughly ALL WORLD MEDIA, which control cognition, hearts and minds. And they control the fossil-fuel-financial plutocracy system, which controls the world economy and the political class (truly their obsequious servants).

All this taxation of hyper wealth enabled the Roman Republic to last 5 centuries. However, because of the globalization the Roman empire brought, those anti-extreme-wealth laws became inapplicable, and the Roman rich became so wealthy, they could buy all politicians.,, and laws, or prevent the application of existing laws. When plutocracy took over Rome, the Republic collapsed.

Warren’s suggested heavy taxation of extreme wealth follows logic and history: otherwise the republic will die. So Warren’s candidacy is not just a matter of getting an experienced woman in power, it’s a matter of survival.

It is a woman with full power, queen Bathilde of the Frankish empire, an ex-slave, who, in 655 CE, outlawed slavery in Europe.  We need more of the feminine approach. Vote Warren, forget about the eternal return of the same, with Biden.


The preceding was a published comment to the New York Times. Then surfaced a history challenged Californian:

Cold Eye, from Kenwood CA, However, slavery in Europe was prevalent through the 19th Century.”

What is happening to the schools? The New York Times was kind enough to allow me to post the following answer:

@Cold Eye

You mean this figuratively in Western Europe. Russia was a different case, where serfs were often little better than slaves. It is true that, during the first century of industrial age , workers were treated very badly.

However, none of this is true slavery. In true slavery, people are bought and sold, as they were things. Those “things” performed like robots, enabling the colonization of the “New” World. For example, tobacco cultivation became very profitable in the English colony of North America, thanks to the massive utilization of slaves.

The colonies were far removed from Europe, and European law enforcement had proven illusory during the Spanish Conquista (in spite of determined efforts). The French colony of Canada imposed French law pretty well, it didn’t allow slavery, but the price paid was that the anything-goes English colony won the war, and ultimately conquered French Canada.

So I repeat my statement: queen Bathilde of the Imperium Francorum, ex-slave from Kent (England) outlawed slavery in 1066 CE. When the Franks conquered England in 1066 CE, they immediately freed all the slaves (explaining William’s popularity). Slaves coming from the Americas or Africa were immediately freed upon setting foot in Europe, for ever after (except in places under Muslim jurisdiction).

By the way, there is still slavery in some African countries. In the Kaye region of Mali, individuals who disagree too much with local slavery get killed. In Mauritania, there is at least half a million slaves. These two countries are next to each other. In Nigeria, Muslim Fundamentalists practice mass slavery, and so on. The reason is that the Qur’an takes slavery for granted:”those that your right hand posses” being the euphemism therein…

Who said progress doesn’t exist?

Outlawing slavery on most of the planet and formally at the United Nations was great progress, an extension of Saint Bathilde’s work (the foremost saint I recognize, if not the only one…). But all will come to nought, if plutocracy is able to progress and corrupt cognition, hearts and minds ever more. As I pointed out, we could start losing the oxygen making mechanism soon… And that comes from the fact a very small elite has perverted the planet mental system, by owning much of what matters.

Time to revert it.

Vote Warren.

Patrice Ayme



And for new European Commission head? A woman, once again!

Margrethe Vestager, the powerful EC competition commissioner ticks many of the boxes needed for a righteous candidate: she can get things done, she is acceptable to the centre-right EPP and the S&D. She is championed by the Liberals and now more powerful Greens, whose votes will be needed to make a majority.

Ms Vestager has served as education, interior and economy minister of Denmark. As a EC commissioner since 2014 she has applied both a liberal sense of consumer rights and an interventionist commitment to regulating technology giant monopolies. She has taken on tax dodgers, infringers of personal privacy and market distorters. Thrusting macho hare brained bullies from Silicon Valley have turned up in her office berating her and come off the worse… So she can operate with the French who have long wanted to tax those financial and tech bullies whose main business model is monopolization and tax evasion. 

The EU in 2019 faces an array of security and economic threats. It needs a powerful, efficient, undaunted leader with experience of the European Commission and a sense of how the world is changing (for the worse). Europe needs a leader who can stand up for Europe and suggest legislation defending its citizens. It needs someone acceptable to left and right, north and south. Europe has to chose Ms Vestager.



Abraham: If You Love Him, & His God, You Will Love Anything

May 26, 2019

Abraham: Absolute Ideal, Absolutely Criminal, Accept It, Accept To Love It All. Including The Most Abject Life Has To Offer.

Abrahamism is the metaphysics of dictatorship: one deciding all, even the worst, unquestioned. That was excusable for the original Israelites, a small tribe: fascism, one around the mind of one, as the mind of one, E Pluribus Unum, is the way for social animals to win a fight. From the Torah:

“Our father Abraham was tested [by God] with ten trials, and he withstood them all, demonstrating how great is God’s love for Abraham our father.”  (Mishnah, Avot 5:3).

.According to the Bible, Abraham had lots of difficulties to have his only son. Abraham went right and left to make a son somewhere, somehow, it took 50 years. God says to Abraham: “If you believe in me, kill your son!” Abraham says: “OK.” His son is very sacred and important to him. Yet, he goes, walks for two days with two servants. He tells his son:”Come, let’s set up the pyre together.” Isaac sees no sacrificial lamb, and Isaac asks his dad:”But daddy where is the sacrificial animal?“Abraham replies:”Don’t worry my son, god will provide
Next, Abraham ties up his son, and brings his knife by the child’s throat. Then god sends an angel to stop the crime.
The most shocking part is that Abraham doesn’t tell god:”Are you kidding?” Nor does Isaac says”Stop daddy, are you mad?” Never again is the subject broached in the Bible (Abraham lives 175 years, Isaac, 150 years…)

To all of this famous French female writer Christine Angot replies cooly to Gregoire Delacourt (ONPC 5/24/ 2019). Abraham’s sacrifice is the idea there are things above us. Me god is above all. There is something above things which perish, the humans. There are things above, the absolute. The sacrifice of Abraham is to give to humans a sign of the absolute. It’s “magnificent”, insists Angot. God asking to kill the child is “magnificent“, because it defines “the absolute”. Angot may love scandal a bit too much: she became famous as author of a (pseudo?) autobiography about incest.

Abrahamists can say astounding horrors, and view in them as  most noble. No wonder we got Inquisition, religious massacres, etc. Indeed Angot glorifies, and makes the measure of all things, the worst infamy imaginable. What Abraham god says: boss is right to kill children, good guys obey boss, and kill children!

Once One has Decided That It Is Most Loving To Kill Others, If One is Ordered To, No Questions Asked, Love Is Everywhere, Indeed, Including the Worst, Most Rotting Gutter.

Christine Angot doesn’t realize she condones Nazism, and, in particular the killing of millions of children by the Nazis. After all, those who killed the children, obeyed the boSS. Hugo Boss too (Hugo Boss designed the cute Nazi uniforms, including for the SS).

Now, indeed, the whole point of a superstitious religion is stand (stare) above (super) anything else. Once you know your boss can ask you to kill innocent children, including your own, you have admitted that the boss is tops of tops above all and any logic, all and any emotions.

Notice that Abraham doesn’t even try to argue with god the boSS, and suggest that god should have another creature killed, if He absolutely needs to kill somebody. Abraham just obey, pack his things, servants, and then ignore the question of his son asking him why, if they are going to go sacrifice an animal, they didn’t bring one. Abraham is the way the Abrahamist religion wants him: totally disciplined, an armed arm for infamy, also known as god, the boSS.

Ironically, there is no difference in the behavior of blind obedience between Abraham and the ideal Nazi SS. SS officers were trained by piercing the eyes of kittens. Abraham is trained by being asked to kill his son. It is folly, but follies bind populations together.

In other words Abrahamism, Judaism, Christianism and Islamism were founded upon the worst psychology a human is capable of: a child killer, just out of the love for the boSS, no questions asked. As a religion, that ideology makes humanity impossible. But it makes dictatorship possible. And dictatorship resting on the most infernal emotions, and reacting as if the killing of the most innocent child was no more than smashing a mosquito. the power of hell: Pluto-Kratia…

Pascal said his god was the god of love: because if you love to kill the most innocent child, indeed, you will love anything. Including infamy.

Patrice Ayme

Dark Matter Not Caused By Tiny Black Holes

May 25, 2019

Big, yet simple ideas is what propels physics. Always has, always will.

27 per cent of the matter in the Universe is made up of Dark Matter. Its gravitational force prevents stars in our Milky Way from flying apart.

Some proposed that DM doesn’t exist, the 1/dd law of gravitation doesn’t work (MOND theories), General Relativity is thus false, etc… I don’t believe in MOND. One reason that I don’t believe in MOND is that my own Sub Quantum theory, SQPR, predicts Dark Matter.

Attempts to detect Dark Matter particles using underground experiments, or accelerator experiments including the world’s largest accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, have failed so far.

That leaves me smirking, as my own SQPR doesn’t use particles….

Watch the entire Andromeda, and detect flickering…


The failure of the DM particle search has led some to consider Hawking’s 1974 theory of the existence of primordial black holes, born shortly after the Big Bang, and his speculation that they could make up a large fraction of the elusive Dark Matter.

An international team of researchers, led by Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe Principal Investigator Masahiro Takada, PhD candidate student Hiroko Niikura, Professor Naoki Yasuda, and including researchers from Japan, India and the US, have used gravitational lensing to look for primordial black holes between Earth and the Andromeda galaxy. Gravitational lensing is what happens when gravitation bends of light rays coming from a distant object such as a star due to the gravitational effect of an intervening massive object such as a primordial black hole. It is a prediction of Newton’s theory of light as particles, and is multiplied by a factor of two from the slowing down of local time next to a mass such as the Sun (Einstein’s prediction thereof).

In extreme cases, such light bending causes the background star to appear much brighter than it originally is.

Figure 2: As the Subaru Telescope on Earth looks at the Andromeda galaxy, a star in Andromeda will become significantly brighter if a primordial black hole passes in front of the star. As the primordial black hole continues to move out of alignment, the star will also turn dimmer (go back to its original brightness). Credit: Kavli IPMU

Gravitational lensing effects due to primordial black holes, if they existed, would be very rare events because it requires a star in the Andromeda galaxy, a primordial black hole acting as the gravitational lens, and an observer on Earth to be exactly in line with one another.

The one event which looked like a small Black Hole detection…

To maximize the chances of capturing an event, the researchers used the Hyper Suprime-Cam on the Subaru Telescope, which can capture the whole image of the Andromeda galaxy in one shot. Taking into account how fast primordial black holes are expected to move in interstellar space, the team took multiple images to be able to catch the flicker of a star as it brightens for a period of a few minutes to hours due to gravitational lensing.

Figure 3: Data from the star which showed characteristics of being magnified by a potential gravitational lens, possibly by a primordial black hole. About 4 hours after data taking on the Subaru Telescope began, one star began to shine brighter. Less than an hour later, the star reached peak brightness before becoming dimmer. Credit: Niikura et al.

From 190 consecutive images of the Andromeda galaxy taken over seven hours during one clear night, the team scoured the data for potential gravitational lensing events. If Dark Matter consists of primordial black holes of a given mass, in this case masses lighter than the moon, the researchers expected to find about 1000 events. But after careful analyses, they could only identify one case. The team’s results showed primordial black holes can contribute no more than 0.1 per cent of all Dark Matter mass. Therefore, it is unlikely that Hawking’s proposal is helps to solve the Dark Matter problem.

The more plausible conventional theories fail, the more SQPR looks good. I believe in SQPR, because it’s so simple, and in line with the sort of physics Buridan, Newton and Laplace approved of. It also makes sense of Quantum Mechanics by introducing the notion of Quantum Interaction, and then giving it a finite speed.[1]

Patrice Ayme



[1] Kepler is the first I know of who mention the planets been held to the sun by a force (1/d). Boulliau, aka Bullialdus, corrected that into 1/dd, by analogy with light. Newton was baffled by the absurdity of it all, but Laplace introduced the simple trick of making gravity go at a finite speed… and predicted black holes! Then Lorentz and Poincaré introduced local time. Anyway the SQPR interaction duplicates Kepler’s work, in a sense. Then DM becomes a prediction a bit similar to Laplace’s gravitational waves… (That is, energy consideration… with observable consequences. Then waves, for Laplace, now DM, with SQPR…)

To Be Human Is To Be Hopeful.

May 24, 2019

Dr. Leonard L. Bailey elicited admiration and outrage by transplanting the heart of a baboon into dying infant Stephanie Fae Beauclair in 1984 (Bailey died on May 12 at his home in Redlands, Calif, from cancer. He was 76).

Dr. Bailey went on to pioneer human heart transplants for infants, and to build a renowned center for children’s cardiac surgery at Loma Linda University in Southern California. The next year, Dr. Bailey performed the first successful heart transplant in an infant, from a human donor. He went on to perform 375 more children heart transplants over the course of his career, as well as other types of pediatric heart surgery. He continued operating until 2017.

Stephanie had a fatal birth defect, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, in which the main pumping chamber of the heart does not develop. She was quickly transferred to Loma Linda.

At the time, babies with the condition lived only a few weeks, at most. Surgery to try to repair the defect had poor results. Two infant heart transplants involving other patients had been tried at other hospitals, and failed.

I knew she was going to die, and I had to try,” Ms. Beauclair said in a telephone interview. “If I hadn’t tried, I always would have wondered, could we have saved her? Until you’re faced with that, you don’t know what you’ll do.”Dr. Bailey emphasized that the operation would be highly experimental.

But somebody has to be first somewhere at some point,” said Stephanie’s mom.

We hoped, therefore we are. Life is hope.

Dr. Bailey had six young baboons, and he conducted various tests to identify one with tissue that seemed most immunologically compatible with Stephanie’s. But the animals’ blood type did not match the infant’s — something that Dr. Bailey later calleda tactical error with catastrophic consequences.”


New York Times:

The operation took place on Oct. 26, 1984. At first, Stephanie seemed to thrive. During a news conference at the hospital, Dr. Bailey was ebullient, describing her as a “beautiful, healthy baby” whose transplanted heart was doing “everything it should.”

Animal rights groups said killing the baboon was immoral and held demonstrations outside the hospital and Dr. Bailey’s home. He and the hospital received threats.

“This wasn’t a wild whim,” Dr. Roger Hadley, dean of Loma Linda University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “He had worked for years on doing cross-species transplants in animals. We had a whole lab of animals who had somebody else’s heart.”

Dr. Hadley added that the hospital at Loma Linda is faith-based — the hospital and the university are run by the Seventh-day Adventist Church — and said that all its ethicists and theologians had thought that the transplant was the right thing to do.

“We stood by him here,” he said.

By the time Baby Fae came along, it was abundantly clear that transplants could save lives, especially with the use of cyclosporine, a powerful anti-rejection drug that had recently become available. But organ donors were in short supply. Long before Baby Fae, a surgeon had transplanted a chimpanzee heart into a person; the transplant failed. Other surgeons had experimented with transplanting kidneys from chimpanzees into humans. The longest surviving recipient lived nine months, and was well enough to go back to work.

Stephanie’s initial rally after the surgery did not last. Rejection and organ failure set in, and she died on Nov. 15, 1984. She had survived for 21 days.


Dr. Bailey had to try, because, in his well-considered, highest professional opinion, there was some hope. Trans-specific grafts, if they were made to work much better, could save, or improve, millions of lives.

There is no other way to learn something about what is truly unknown, besides trying.

The only way to defend the noblest, best, most altruistic human values is to have the courage and ability of enabling them to come alive with acts and facts. Respect and gratitude for the courage of all concerned. Especially to baby Stephanie, who became a hero of humanity, too.

All other grafts spectacularly failed too. Many have now become standard.


“To be hopeful is to be human.” Does that mean that those without hope are inhuman?

Not exactly, in the full sense of “inhuman”. But inhuman enough to get quite depressed, and often depressed enough to engage in violent acts, for example against themselves.

When our distant ancestors went down those trees, and explored the savannah, they were hopeful. Hope: we won’t even exist without it.

Patrice Ayme

US Indicts Journalist Who Revealed Major US War Crime In Iraq

May 23, 2019

A new age of terror is upon us: expose US war crimes, from anywhere in the world, go to prison. US Big Brother has spoken. This is big: as I will show below, even the Nazis were not in enough control of infamy, to go that far: Nazis didn’t indict those who revealed Nazi war crimes (because Nazis didn’t want their crimes to go in front of a judge, lest they be revealed to all Germans!)

US Army Helicopter getting ready to kill those civilians. Courtesy Assange…

Says the New York Times: “Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues. Though Julian Assange is not a conventional journalist, much of what he does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations do.”

In a NYT article by Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, May 23, 2019:
“WASHINGTON — Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 new counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in publishing classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.

The new charges were part of a superseding indictment obtained by the Trump administration that significantly expanded the legal case against Mr. Assange, who is already fighting extradition proceedings in London based on an earlier hacking-related count brought by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia.

The secret documents that Mr. Assange published were provided by the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who was convicted at a court-martial trial in 2013 of leaking the records.

“Assange, WikiLeaks affiliates and Manning shared the common objective to subvert lawful restrictions on classified information and to publicly disseminate it,” the indictment said.”


This image captured from a classified U.S. military video footage shows Iraqis being shot from an U.S. Apache helicopters that killed a dozen people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff on July 12, 2007, and released to Reuters on April 5, 2010 by WikiLeaks, a group that promotes leaking to fight government and corporate corruption. Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, were killed in the incident. The helicopter initially opens fire on the small group. Minutes later a van comes by, and starts assisting the wounded, and the helicopter opens fire on the van. REUTERS/WikiLeaks/Handout (IRAQ – Tags: CRIME LAW DISASTER MILITARY CIVIL UNREST

Among other things, Wikileaks revealed a US Army video of what looked like a very serious war crime: the arguably deliberate, premeditated, insistent killing, in occupied Iraq, by the US Army, of civilians who happened to be journalists and rescue personnel, over a period of several minutes.

A republic in good standing with respect to human rights, would have thanked Wikileaks, for exposing such a serious crime, and made a serious inquiry to see if crimes against humanity and crimes against the US military code of conduct had been committed.

Such an inquiry would have been an indispensable preliminary to preventing another occurrence of such crimes.

In other words, Wikileaks acted as a whistleblower.

Not satisfied with killing journalists, US Army helicopter in radio relation with headquarters, will now kill the rescuers… Photo courtesy of Assange. Now US says Assange is a spy.

Any unlawful acts on the way to commit whistleblowing should be viewed as minor, considering the gravity of the war crime they revealed: killing deliberately civilians, especially when they belong to categories which should be protected (journalists, rescuers).

The decision taken today by the US is tantamount to saying that keeping war crime secrets is of the utmost importance.

It may be good to remember that the massacre of more than 15 millions in Nazi death camps, including 6 million innocent Jewish civilians, was rendered possible by enough secrecy to enable the average Germans to claim they didn’t really know what was going on.

Without secrecy, the crimes against humanity of the Nazi regime would have been exposed, for all to see. Even Germans couldn’t have denied and the German population and military would have had to put an end to Nazism.

The same holds in roughly all regimes committing crimes against humanity: secrecy is a necessary condition to commit crimes against humanity.

So the US is now saying: we want to be able to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, unnoticed… And we will be capable of doing so, because our judicial system says that exposing such crimes is more of a crime than the crime itself.

This is coherent with the United States not being a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a permanent international criminal court to “bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide”  

The Nazis faced roughly 150 defined cases where German military personnel disobeyed direct orders, on the ground they were war crimes. Every single time, Nazi authorities counter-ordered to not prosecute the official disobedience…  Because Nazis didn’t want a case in front of a judge, even a military judge.: if they lost, there was jurisprudence. Worse: people would talk about it.

Even the Obama administration saw the validity of this approach, and didn’t prosecute Assange all the way (keeping the workings of their prosecution secret).

At least now, the US is revealed in its full war criminal glory. But, after all, isn’t it how the West was won?

Patrice Ayme

European Parliamentary Election: Avoid European Leaders Imposing Hard Core Wahhabism

May 22, 2019

Remember the Wahhabist Friendly Powers That Be In The European Union. Such As Jihadist Judges at the European Court of Human Rights!

The European elections are next weekend. People have approached me, and asked me who to vote for. I have two answers about who NOT to vote for:

Don’t vote for “ecologists” who are against nuclear energy. 93% of the energy of the world at this point comes from making CO2, nuclear deniers are ignorant, lunatics, hypocrites, or all the preceding. CO2 is warming the planet too fast, and acidifying the oceans, evolution can’t follow. The combination could lead to the ultimate catastrophe; collapse of the oxygen making system. Nuclear energy from fission, Thorium and fusion, has to be deployed ASAP. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/global-hypoxia/ (I am also 100% for solar, etc.; but they will be too little, too late…)

Don’t vote for those who consider that Wahhabism is NOT a danger. Wahhabism (literal Islam) is intrinsically terrible, but also a Trojan horse against reason pushed by global plutocracy. It is part of a complex plot (deliberate or not, conscious or not) to subjugate the world, by the powers that be (often in finance).

We should go back to fundamentals. Clearly the creature is a fruit of synthetic biology…

[Wahhabism is generally confused with “Islam”… something which should infuriate, and often does, the other one hundred other types of Islam… All the more as Wahhabism was so hard core primitive, that it was already outlawed in 12 C Egypt, five centuries before Wahhab was born. But Wahhab made a symbiotic alliance with the Saudis, so here we are…]

The debate of what Islam exactly was started during Muhammad’s lifetime. Actually, people closest to the Prophet tried to kill him by pushing his camel off a mountain path. (Muhammad knew who they were, but refused to say, lest they be killed, and Islam fractured.) Right after his death, things got way worse: the announcement of his death was delayed until Muhammad started to rot and balloon up, some verses of the Qur’an got eaten by a goat (Aisha told a furious sexist Omar), and so on. Omar and Abu Bakr (“brother” and father in law of Muhammad) grabbed power, and their version of the Qur’an. However, Uthman imposed his own Qur’an later, and an all-out Muslim against Muslim war started, with the closest people to Muhammad at each other’s throats… that war goes on to this day…

The Qur’an is around 80,000 words (I counted them myself!) It was controversially written/re-organized under the 4th Caliph. However, Islamist follow millions of “sacred” words often written many generations after the so-called “messenger’s death…


European Court Of Human Rights = European Court Of Islamization

A woman referred to as E.S. was convicted in Austria for talking about known events in Muhammad, the so-called “Messenger” of god, the great bully in heavens. In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld this woman’s 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold that Muhammad’s third wife, Aisha, was 6 at the time of their marriage and 9 at its consummation. That too, is not contested by the most hard core Jihhadists, Salafists, and Wahhabists: it’s in the sacred texts.

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s (the age of the Prophet is quite uncertain, it turns out; don’t believe those who tell you Muhammad was exactly 54…) The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in prison. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

The ECHR wants us to lie about Islam, when telling what is in Islam texts is inconvenient. If we don’t, we have to go to prison:

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s. The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in the slammer. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

Tell the truth about Muhammad Having Sex With Children, and the European Court of HUMAN RIGHTS will send you to prison for 60 days. Nevermind that these historical facts are front and central in the most basic Muslim texts. Solution? Bring political power to bear on these so-called “judges”.Here are some of the original texts from the Hadith:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”


The New York Times published a long article on anti-Judaism coming back to Germany. Long description, but zero explanation in depth. I sent a comment providing necessary depth:

The Abrahamic religions started with Judaism. Christianism was born, in Greek, during the war of fascist Rome against Judea. Christianism was friendly to Caesar, and enemy of Judaism (some view initial Christian texts as Flavian propaganda). Six centuries later, Islam appeared, considering Jews as even more wrong on Abraham than the Christians. Thus, both Christianism & Islamism have a strong antipathy to Judaism… Yet arose from it, so can’t just annihilate them, most of the time. Hence the ongoing scapegoating of Jews. This will go on as long as Abrahamism rules in the background!  

It got published, but not so the second one:
The moods created by religions it itself brought to life, caused much of the mood against Judaism (Roman imperial rage against Israel helped the process). Western anti-Judaism was greatly caused by Christianism. A common myth among intellectuals, Muslims and others who don’t know Islam well, including occidental islamophiles, is that Islam has nothing to do with anti-Judaism. Some academics even lie. As the NYT says: “Many Muslims criticize the notion of “Muslim anti-Semitism” as wrongly suggesting that hatred of Jews is intrinsic to their faith. Muhammad Sameer Murtaza, a German scholar of Islam who has written extensively on anti-Semitism, argues that European anti-Semitism was exported to the Middle East in the 19th century and was only “Islamized” starting in the late 1930s…”

This is gross disinformation, fake news. There is massive anti-Judaism in the Qur’an…. And it is found in later, “Meccan”, abrogating verses (so nice, pro-Jewish verses don’t count). An example is from the second and longest chapter of the Quran, the Cow: Quran 2;61 says: “And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them [Jews], and they were laden with the burden of God’s anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.”

Naturally the Hadith went further. Islam in its fundamental texts is lethally anti-Judaic. Here is an example: the following is part of Hamas’ constitution.  

This is Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”

The verses in the Qur’an nasty for Jews are from the 13 year long Meccan period, after Muhammad 10 year stay in Jewish city Yathrib (now Medina). Thus they abrogate the earlier verses.

It is high time to realize that the elites in charge of the European Union have been serving themselves, and the conception of elite, the Davos Club, they profit from. In particular, not enough Euros have been created. In particular, Europe has not been defended against exporting jobs, most of them to China. Make no mistake: I am pro-Chinese. However, at this point, China is on its way to the Moon, and Europe on its way to oblivion.

Macron may mean well, but he acts weak, because he is fundamentally a creature of financial plutocracy, which has been ruling the world (but not China). A few months ago, I would have advised to vote Macron. But that was before he absolutely refused to enable RIC, Referendums on Initiatives from the Citizens (in his last version, he still wants 182 French MPs to agree, plus one million signature; one million should be enough… the number of signatures is roughly in line with California)

We need tougher solutions in Europe, don’t vote weak.

Patrice Ayme



[1] Here is the introduction and beginning of the ECHR’s judgement: on the face of it the judges of the ECHR take us for terrorized idiots without dignity. The gist of it is that if an Islamist marries a 6 year old, and has sex with her when she is 9, that does NOT show the Islamist “has had paedophilic tendencies”… and to say so hurts Islamists, and that latter fact is against European law.


In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.


Principal facts The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”. On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate”


Here is the name of the Wahhabismophile so-called “judges”.


Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President, André Potocki (France), Síofra O’Leary (Ireland), Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan), Lado Chanturia (Georgia), and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar


The European Court Of Human Rights seems as confused as a group of six year old children. Here is the core of their decision. Notice the absurdities:


“The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”


So “applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”


So the ECHR thinks that relating what is in Islamist texts demonstrate Muhammad is not worthy of worship?” And why should a human rights court care?


[The ECHR] “agreed… Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.


Now why would one worship someone who children (pedo) love (philia) so much in a perverted way they have sex with them at age 9? Can the dimwits at the ECHR give us one, just ONE, other historical example. Just one, “Human Rights” buffoons, in the entire history of civilization (examples of royal children married early exist, but they were between the children themselves, and were not consummated, be it only for the good and simple reason prepubescent children are not sexually equipped.


Muhammad was a child rapist, and, moreover, his followers were so blind, they didn’t notice to this day, although the facts are in the very book they allegedly got from their so-called “god”, through aforesaid child rapist.


OK, agreed, Muhammad was an excellent, good natured, gifted and enlightened rapist; Aisha ended up loving him sincerely, and he let her roam, and being strong and free. Aisha famously asserted Muhammad was much less sexist than his successors….


More from the mental dwarves at the ECHR:

“The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression

The judgment is available only in English.”

Why only in English? Because it were in Austrian language, which is German, it would use the same buzz words as the Nazis? Yes, it would! The ECHR dimwits, so ignorant of history, obviously do not know of the strong connections between nazism and islam, enduring to this day. Right, Nazism is dead, but the Muslim Brotherhood it helped to create, is alive and well!


P/S: A reader reminded me of an enormity: Muhammad died when Aisha was eighteen. The enormity? The Qur’an itself ordered that she should never re-marry:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL. Qur’an, Surah 33, Verse 53:
“O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.”

Nazi Germany Had, Then Lost Air Superiority: Philosophy Explains Why. Otherwise, Germany Would Have Been Nuked.

May 20, 2019

The air defeats of France, Britain, and then Germany in WWII were driven by various philosophies. And there are deep lessons therein. 

History and wisdom are entangled. They feed each other. The great historians Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, Tacitus were all philosophers and historians. Let alone those who made history, like Consul Cicero and leaders such as Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, Julian. Recent history has been even richer in mental intricacies: it involved more actors in much more complex situations.

We focus here on issues connected to air supremacy in World War Two.

It may look as purely technical, and military. But actually philosophy dominates. Just as it dominated in the 737 MAX scandal: the US government got so penetrated by the “Neoliberal” principle that private enterprise knows best, that it let a private company (here, thanks to Obama’s admiration for Reagan, which, no doubt percolated down his administration). Same idea as when the governments decided banks were the best regulators of banks (Many administrations were involved, starting with Clinton’s.. And extended to the EU.)

The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.” Marcus Tullius Cicero (lawyer from a wealthy family, and too fierce by half Roman Consul, enemy then friend of Caesar; rediscovered in part by Petrarch, 14 C, helping the Renaissance)


Germany and the USSR conspired to slaughter the democracies, immediately after WWI:

At the end of WWI, the French Air Force was the world’s largest. The German air forces (land and marine) were disbanded in May 1920 as a result of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles which forbid Germany to have any air force.

During the interwar period, German pilots were trained secretly in violation of the treaty at Lipetsk Air Base, 440 kilometers south of Moscow. Notice this: it indicates cooperation between German fascists and Soviet fascists, well before the Nazis came to power. So much for the Soviets being innocent bystanders savagely attacked by “fascists”, as they used to say. Fascists love each others, no doubt.

The Messerschmitt 262, world’s first jet. If hundreds of Me 262s had been flying in May 1944, only the nuclear bomb could have enabled the democratic allies to win.

The Luftwaffe was officially established by the Nazis on 26 February 1935, just over a fortnight before open defiance of the Versailles Treaty through German rearmament and conscription would be announced on 16 March.[9] How could that happen? Roosevelt’s Washington officially detested the French, thus the Nazis, being the enemy of FDR’s enemy, felt protected.

Then rogue Spanish armies in the Canaries and Morocco entered into an insurrection. The Spanish Republic called the French Republic to the rescue, and the French announced they would help their little sister Spanish Republic. However, the UK and the US told the French to back-off. Now, at that time, France was led by a Socialist Jew, Leon Blum, who was busy passing plenty of progressive reforms. That, plus outright pro-nazism in the UK and US, made the French back off. Huge mistake.

Using Texaco fuel and Nazis planes, the rogue fascist armies of treacherous general Franco and company got transported above the blockading Republican Spanish Navy.

Thereafter the Condor Legion, a massive Luftwaffe detachment sent to aid Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War, provided the Nazi Air Force with a valuable testing ground for new tactics and aircraft.  

This would make all the difference in May 1940: the Nazis had honed air force fighting tactics, surprising the French and British high commands, air forces, and armies. The French and British learned very fast, in about a week, how to integrate ground forces and aviation much better… But, by then, the Battle of France of 1940 had already been lost. Modern war goes fast. Although that’s not necessarily new: Athens lost the 30 year war against Sparta by losing her entire beached fleet, and that happened in a matter of hours… And, just like the Franco-British defeat of May 1940, it may have been the result of a combination of treason and certainly, gross incompetence of the high command)


Superior Planes Make Superior Democracies & Reciprocally:

In 1935, Great britain was Hitler’s best friend, and they shared the world in a “Naval” Treaty violating the Versailles Treaty. However, in 1936 Great Britain decided that to have a Nazi king and Nazis all over London was not a swell idea. A change of heart started… Not fast enough to avoid the Munich capitulation to Hitler: in 1938, France had the choice to go war alone with Czechoslovakia against Hitler, without any Anglo-Saxon contribution (not a nice perspective for the French to fight the crazed and mighty Germans, with the treacherous English in their back, plotting their latest version of Brexit…).

By early 1939, Spain fell to the fascists, and Great Britain finally got the message, and  aligned itself with France.

Churchill had been all for the rearmament of Germany ten years prior, and weirdly anti-French then, in Boris Johnson exuberant style (he threatened to bomb France in 1929, if France talked of preventing German illegal rearmament… Churchill was not PM then, but very influential…) By 1938-1939, Churchill had the opposite of what he used to be, and become loudly anti-Nazi. He wanted massive aircraft production… with old types. PM Chamberlain opposed that, and imposed, rightly, to wait for the new Spitfires and Hurricanes. Meanwhile, Germany was mass-producing slightly less advanced planes. This would make the difference during the Battle of Britain in the air: Spitfires were superior to any German fighter.

When Goering, the obese head of the Luftwaffe, himself a WWI ace,  asked the head of the fighter command, Galland, was he needed most, the latter, one of the greatest air ace, himself with 104 certified kills, coolly replied:”Spitfires”.  

Britain had also superior long range bombers (of which Germany had no equivalent whatsoever in quantity, or even quality; when Hitler visited Finland in a German long range Condor, the plane caught fire on landing….). And soon entire, the Royal Air Force would send German city busting fleets of these…

Britain produced superior planes systematically. An example is the De Havilland Mosquito, made mostly of light wood, which flew higher and faster, by a significant margin, than any Nazi plane (until the jets arrived).

The superiority of the British planes deployed in 1939-1943 is an expression of democracy at work: many engineers, politicians and soldiers were managed in a democratic way in the democratic system. Such a system has more checks and balances. That brought more restrained creativity. The same thing happened in the USA. US planes soon proved vastly superior to Japanese and German planes, because they were conceived and produced more intelligently.

In particular the North American P-51 Mustang… initially a plane ordered to a US company by the British Royal Air Force (and the French), it broke many preconceived notions, and ended up very maneuverable, faster, and longer range than any Nazi plane, with laminar flow thanks to NACA (the future NASA)… The prime air domination fighter of 1944-1945, Mustangs accompanied bomber streams, and soon were hunting all over Germany: they were superior to existing German propeller planes.

Dictatorship, and superlative German engineering incited more adventurism in Nazi Germany, fostering remarkable designs (one is reminded of the tyrant of Syracuse giving full powers to Archimedes to design death rays and the like…) However, because of the nature of the German dictatorial system, such designs were at the mercy of a few men, and their fancies of the moment. This resulted into the development of hundreds of types of unrealistic planes and rockets, dispersing resources. In contrast, the American Boeing flew the B 17 in 1935, and later produced 12,731 of them. The plane was crammed with guns and armor, carrying only a fraction (⅓) of the quantity of bombs the highly flammable British bombers carried.


The Messerschmitt 262, a bi-engined jet, shark shaped with a flat belly, was superlative. The commander of the Luftwaffe’s fighter force, General Adolf Galland, flew the Me-262 in May 1943, he reported that his flight in the jet was like “being pushed by angels.” With a speed of over 540 miles per hour and combat capability far superior to any Allied plane these aircraft were hailed as the Reich’s best chance of turning round a lost war.

The Me 262 was going 200 km/h faster than the fastest Allied planes. Never more than 25 in the air, though. Too little, too late…

But Hitler slowed down the Me 262 production by maybe two years (said Galland), as he worried about its fuel consumption, and he diverted resources into trying to turn it into a bomber, and, more fundamentally, by wasting enormous resources towards long range drones (V1) and rockets (V2).

My own dad was an officer in an anti-aircraft unit, in 1944-45, and was attacked twice by bombing Me 262s… They moved very fast, indeed… 

Hitler acted as an enemy of the Nazi Reich by spending all its efforts on useless weapons. Besides the tremendous Me 262, Hitler didn’t develop the Wasserfall anti-aircraft rocket, in as speedy a fashion as it could have been developed. That guided supersonic rocket, with an enormous warhead, would certainly have brought havoc to Allied Bomber streams and formations…

US intelligence estimated that the Me 262 would have enabled the Nazis to recover air superiority by June 1945… But it was produced too little, too late.

There were never more than 25 operational Me 262s at any given time, Galland said. It is no secret that continuing engine problems, shortages of fuel, and Allied bombing and strafing of airfields and manufacturing facilities took a toll on the number of available jets.

The number of victories achieved by the jet pilots, which may have totaled more than 500 before the war’s end. Galland remained firmly convinced that the fighter jet could have been put into combat “at least a year and a half earlier” without Hitler’s interference, “and built in large enough numbers so that it could have changed the air war.”

The Me-262 was well ahead of its time. If the Nazis had had greater access to special metals for the jet engines, more fuel reserves, and more time, then things might have played out somewhat differently toward the end of the war. The engine were unreliable because the Nazis had run out of special metals that had to be imported. So they tried to make do with tricks. Similarly, to save metal, outright, a silly glued together wood jet was developed. It came unglued on the first flight, but the ace pilot was able to land it. On the second flight in front of many top Nazis, an aileron came unglued at 540 miles per hour, the jet rolled, killing the same pilot.


What would have happened if Germany had plenty of Me 262?

I do agree with Galland’s assessments. What do they imply? With a fleet of hundreds of Me 262s, the bombing of Germany would have become impossible, so Germany would have had again access to oil (made from coal by a US process).

The disembarkment in France would also have been impossible: it depended crucially upon air supremacy; even with total air supremacy, it was a close thing, for a month. On the Eastern Front, the Nazis would have re-acquired air supremacy (which they lost spectacularly in late 1941, as Siberian cold prevented the Luftwaffe from flying).

In May 1940, over France, the French and the British were taken by surprise, because they had stayed out of the fascist aggression in Spain, forsaking gaining experience in actual combat and coordination with ground units. It’s actually poorly made reconnaissance which enabled the Nazi victory of 1940.

This speaks to  a principle for peace and comfort: having democracies engage in war, in a timely manner: not too late. As it was, it could have been worse: by launching the world war in 1939, France and Britain acquired the mastery of time, preventing the Nazis to develop and mass produced the more advanced weapons they had planned.

And here is the paradox: I claimed that democracy makes for more intelligent engineering. What about pure science? In January 1938, two top French physicists informed the Ministry of War, that an atom bomb was possible: Irene Joliot Curie had found the nuclear chain reaction. Thereafter the French and then the British, and then the Canadians and Americans pursued that program, which came to be known as the “Manhattan project.

If the Me 262 had been mass produced by Spring 1944, the Allies would have had to use the atom bomb over Germany: large suicidal raids could have gone through German defenses, with one bomber carrying the nuclear bomb, and others defending it. In 1945, the Allies could mobilize 1,000 bombers and 1,000 long range fighters, in the same raid.

So the result would have been the same as for Japan in August: an atom bombed Nazi Germany would have had to capitulate. But maybe with conditions, as Japan did (in Japan the emperor was saved in his apparent position, although he was a war instigator, thus a war criminal).

More democracy, better science, better war making…

This why Athens was able to win so much, so long, and discover so much. However, faced with the coalition of Sparta and its allies, financed by Persia, Athens was defeated. Eighty years later, a recovering Athens was defeated by the enormous resources of the Macedonian empire…

Democracies and smarts are superior, but they are not everything, and brute force can overwhelm them.

It nearly happened in 1914-1918 and again 1936-1945.

It would not have happened if Germany had been a democracy and a republic (Weimar was technically the “Second Reich”, not a republic…). Now it is.

But then who else is getting superior technologically, and economically, while not being officially a democracy, and not really a republic, either? Yes, across the Pacific, a big problem.[1]

And the Me 262? It ushered the jet age, that was blatant by May 1943, when Galland flew it. The ground-breaking jet set the course for the future of aviation.

Were Germans and other victims of WWII lucky it was not mass produced 18 months earlier as Galland thought it could have been? Because, if that had happened, the Reich would have been able to turn the war around? And thus the Allies would have nuclear bombed Germany? Maybe not. Indeed, the bombing campaign over Europe would have come to a halt, as the Me 262s would have held off the Allies.  The conditions in Germany and in other parts of occupied Europe, would not have been as dire, and, arguably millions would have been saved… Until the Reich, atom bombed, would have had to surrender suddenly as Japan did… cutting off the nonsense.

Who said nukes couldn’t possibly have no ethical use?   

Patrice Ayme



[1] Yesterday, as an example in a tweet, I mentioned that China occupied Tibet (or words to that effect). Some French people immediately unfollowed me. I checked them up, they were involved with China. They know they can’t even look associated with me on Twitter. Does this remind you of something?


Better Rationality Forces “Irrational” Jumps

May 15, 2019

It’s reasonable to expect people to NOT behave reasonably. Especially innovators.” Discuss.

This essay below is a set of trivial remarks, however, they apparently need to be made. It is standard to oppose and contrast “reason” and “irrationality“. The idea, the hidden axiom in this, classically taken for granted since the so-called Enlightenment, is that the two domains, reason and unreason, are mutually exclusive. However, that’s not correct: reason and unreason are entangled. One doesn’t go without the other. Indeed, the elaboration of any new logic requires to break or supercede the preceding logic. Thus the act of creation of significantly new logic can always be called irrational… from the preceding logic’s reference frame.

Any logic L1 is derived from a finite number of axioms. Any discovery, itself factual, emotional or… logical, if not a consequence of these preceding axioms will require another logic L2. Going from L1 to L2 is only logical in a Meta Logic, LM. In any case L2 and LM are NOT rational in L1. That means irrationality is what feeds rationality!

Thus one sees that one needs irrationality to perfect new, better, improved rationality. Hence, one can see that any better system of thought is going to be attacked as irrational… Because, in a sense, the old sense, it always is so. One may even say that any major advance in understanding, a change of paradigm, will be characterized as not just appearing, but being “irrational“. [1]

Suppose a logic L1 is found to have just ONE flawed axiom. Then one needs to change the axiomatics of L1, and a completely new logic is born, L2. It may, or may not, contain the logic L1. The nature of the change is decided by the application of still another logic, a metalogic, LM.

The jump from L1 to another logic L2 should be called “well ordered” when L2 contains L1. For example turning Newtonian style gravitation into a field theory (a turn initiated I think by Laplace, and fully exploited by Einstein and company), created a theory with a finite interaction speed which contains Newton’s theory. (Well ordering corresponds to L1 being a subcategory of L2…)

By the way, Sub Quantic Physical Reality, my own SQPR, does exactly this finite interaction speed trick to Quantum Theory (L1), and Dark Matter pops out… To use set theory symbolic: QM C SQPR, so the logical switch is well-ordered… (On the other hand, MOND theories, which have been proposed to dispel DM, are not well ordered with Newton gravitation…)

The  shock from L1 to L2 can be brutal, especially when L1 contains blatant lies, or, even worse, excruciating stupidities. An example is the creation of the world according to Jesus and company: creating all the world 6,000 years ago was immensely stupid. Indeed, it used to be well known that animals evolved, since domestication exists (the last 10,000 years in the most advanced parts). A mix of human and natural selection was practiced in ancient Greece, 25 centuries ago to breed world famous superior cattle…. Switching from “God” having created all the species 6,000 years ago to what people have practiced for 10,000 years required more than recognizing one’s naivety. Those who believed in the 6,000 year old magic (that included Newton, it is said…) found very hard to switch to the obvious, as they had to admit they were idiots, to have believed in a stupid theory… Or as it compromised the Christian church and its associated fascist imperialism. For example, Napoleon threatened Lamarck in various ways, as Napoleon was keen to show his attachment to the Christian view of the world.

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck handing the book ‘Zoological Philosophy’ to Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, 1920 (pastel on paper) by Ezuchevsky, Mikhail Dmitrievich (1880-1928); State Darwin Museum, Moscow.  The French naturalist research professor at the prestigious Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, Lamarck (1744-1829) published ‘Philosophie zoologique’ in 1809. In it, Lamarck outlined two new mechanisms to fosters evolution (which he had demonstrated on mollusk fossils). One corresponds to present day epigenetics… The other is probably true, as a consequence of Quantum Theory (to be demonstrated in the future)… Lamarck, having demonstrated evolution scientifically, as a process over millions of years, was hated by the Christian Church… and thus Napoleon. Lamarck is wearing the costume of a member of the Institut de France. Lamarck had become a member of the French Academy of Sciences in 1779, 30 years exactly before his confrontation with Napoleon. Anglo-Saxon ideology dislikes Lamarck, as he was outlawed in English universities. Lyell and Darwin were instructed in his science at Edinburgh, Scotland, more than a decade after the scene above.

Another example: I believe there is only a finite number of numbers, and probably most people who know mathematics will accuse me to be crass ignorant as they would (erroneously) believe in the simple, elementary school 3,000 year old demonstration of infinity… which I can demonstrate is false, and then, rendered perfectly mad by the fact they didn’t see something obvious would scream I deny calculus too (no, calculus works in computers, and computers use only a finite number of operations).

We are in times, and in a situation, where an unimaginable catastrophe is upon us. We need new ideas, new emotions, completely new logic. We will be called names and threatened as we propose them. My daughter’s elementary school proposed to install a gigantic, very expensive ($200,000) artificial grass cum artificial toxic soil, field containing at least three different products know by the State of California to cause cancer (that’s “California Proposition 65“): urethane, (artificial) silica sand, polyurethane… As my spouse pointed this out to the school administration, our daughter, the best student, overall, at her grade level (nota bene), was threatened with immediate expulsion, if we talk to ANYONE about this, through “ANY medium”, and “similar activities”. Somebody is getting something out of this, and we don’t know what it is… But they are really angry about it.

That, while the Secretary of the United Nations just declared war on plastics… Sure enough, the USA was one of a few nations, in contrast to 187, which refused to sign an amendment to the Basel Convention on pollution addressing plastic [2]. Since I don’t like increased plastic usage, either, it makes sense that my daughter be threatened with expulsion.

So you see, any change, even something as simple as any proposition to keep natural grass, is hard, and can involve unforeseen dangers, and punishment with outrageous injustice… and threats against children are an old stand-by: how can the little ones defend themselves?

Changes of logics are hard, so everybody prefer to defend their own turf. All too many ecologists hate nuclear: that’s so simple. Never mind that nuclear gives us life, in more than one way… Right now, 93% of the energy created in 2019 (“primary energy production”) is from MAKING CO2. To diminish this only a massive effort on the three forms of nuclear energy (fission, thorium, fusion) and hydrogen (for storage of renewable energy) can work. Solar is not enough.

What human beings do best, is changing logics. This is also most expensive, and thus what they hate, & resist most fiercely: their advantage, or their survival, is at stake. It’s all about turf. Logical turf in the situations we consider. You see, there is only a limited amount of turf available, mental or physical. To avoid having too much people on a single piece of turf, the species has evolved to engage into violence against each other. That makes the stakes of human logical evolution quite high: those who don’t think correctly are threatened with extinction. In real life. Just as species are extinguished if they are not fit enough, in real life.

All this is very practical: it explains a lot of the hatred around. it is also crucial for advancing science at the highest level. Newton famously debated these questions extensively, modifying the editions of his Principia accordingly, and hiding carefully the existence of a meta logic which had driven him, as he admitted in previous editions! Du Chatelet, writing a bit later was much better on all this, but she was a woman… So only Newton left his mark, all too long…

All this to say that, to think anew is to suffer… if not between the ears, certainly, from others…

Patrice Ayme



[1] Kuhn may, or may not, have said this, in his famous book on the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions“.


[2] The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal, which is backed by 187 countries excluding the U.S…

Heil Zuck! Heil Bill! Your Pet Presidents Will Do As You Say!

May 11, 2019

There is this shocking video just out of Barack (Obama, supposedly an ex-civil servant) called by Bill (Gates III) for advice… On nothing (how to treat their mysterious, capricious, superficial spouses happy). In truth, of course, it’s the reverse, and the exact opposite which most significantly happened: Bill gave important advice to so-called Barack on important stuff. Just as PM Thatcher was made by the Murdoch family (yeah, they came from Perth, Australia, small world isn’t it? There, they controlled media…).

And when Barrack needed more friends, it was not Bill, it was Elon, or it was Warren, or it was Jeff, or Marc… How many times did Marc go to the Elysee Palace? Can he count that far? Probably not, you see, marc has plenty of PhDs, but he studied just a few months in College… And then, of course there are all those plutocrats smart enough to stay out of the lights.
They breathed together (conspirare), or at least, phoned together… we have the proof now and they are so arrogant that they think that, by flaunting their relationship, the joke is on us….

Billionaires deserve the “Medal of Freedom” (that’s the child ribbon and star offered by Obama)Obama) to those who own the world, precisely because only them have freedom, and we have to watch while they destroy the world, claiming to save it, as the mighty maniacs enjoy to add insult to injury and annihilation…

The instantaneously wealthy banker who leads France has sent his goons to Marc’s Facebook in the San Francisco Bay to figure out together how to mold the minds through the Internet. I am not making this up, it was published just yesterday:


Hey, Barrack was going there every two weeks, why not macron, then. Aren’t they all friends? A Palo Alto friend of mine was suffering below the presidential helicopters every two weeks… If Marc the Ignorant doesn’t like what you publish, Marc the Ignorant will delete you:

Facebook Deletion Center, Berlin, Germany. There Botticelli gets condemned and executed by Ignorant and Unappreciative hypocritical robot pigeons paid crumbs by Facebook, with Macron, Obama, Trump, NSA, CIA, and company watching over. Of course, they don’t really care about censoring Middle Ages paintings, they are just doing this, according to the Red Herring technique, which the pigeons invented without even noticing. Heil Zuck!

I have been already deleted many times, in many Internet outlets… More than one thousand and one (1,001) times… For just thinking better and more progressive. Many deletions were outright mysterious. The top was when The Guardian in London (long secretly financed by the friend of Barack, Bill) banned me, after telling me I was Jihadist… As Hitler said, paraphrasing, the bigger the lie, the more it works.

George Orwell’ 1984 has arrived. What is cleared is that all the characters mentioned above have hijacked the Republic.

What to do? Simple, the Roman Republic did it (until the Roman plutocrats hijacked it). Limit wealth absolutely, limit political power absolutely. Presidents, plutocrats and elected representatives have way way way too much power. They could burn the entire planet in way less time than it took to burn Notre Dame. This Davos crowd is the number one culprit of the mass extinction out there. When the planet gets out of control, all too soon, they should be sent to the guillotine of public condemnation.

Obama, thanks to his control of media, has augmented enormously the CO2 emissions of the USA, relative to what they should have been, by deliberately augmenting fracking in the USA. Yes, most US citizens enjoy the ride (and so do I: my state of the art car is large by Euro standards). Obama’s friends told him to just call fracking a “bridge fuel”. So US citizens adore their funny Obama, and their fuel. More fuel than ever. More fuel than any other country.

How long will the laughter last?

Not too long.

When the sea starts to go up an inch per year, question will come. But then of course, a distracting nuclear war could come in handy…. Right now Obama’s and Gates’ kindergarten jokes and spirit are enough to keep the naive out there in check. But when that’s not enough anymore, watch out…

Patrice Ayme