Posts Tagged ‘Assad’

Syria’s Assad Struck Because Pacifist Fundamentalism Leads To Horror

April 7, 2017

Good people will want to, have always wanted to, strike down Syria’s Assad and North Korea’s Kim. Pacifist fundamentalism is worse than an hypocrisy. It brings not just death, but the apocalypse (consider Nazism).

In August 2013, French pilots were in their seats in their fully armed planes, ready to strike Assad, when Obama lost his nerve, or got a call from one of his masters, decided to be worse than a hypocrite. Obama decided it was OK, after all, to use neurotoxic weapons such as Sarin to kill thousands, including children. Neurotoxic weapons against cities can only kill innocent people, such as children.

A Few Of The Hundreds Of Children Assassinated By Nerve Gas In 2013 By War Criminal and Criminal Against Humanity Assad. In Just One Single Attack In Damas (and there hundreds of such attacks). Unsure About Playing Knight In Shining Armor, Or Maybe Paid to Do So, Obama Lost His Nerve At The Last Minute. He Claimed To Stay Cool, Watching This, When He Had the Means to Punish It, and Thus Became A Smirking Accomplice of It. In A Way, It’s Worse Than What Happened In The Nazi Extermination Camps, Because We Had No Picture Of Exterminated Children!

By way of comparison with Assad and Obama, Adolf Hitler, not a humanitarian of renown, decided, in 1945 NOT to use neurotoxic weapons against his ferocious enemies, who were determined, and had declared officially, that they would not stop until they had annihilated Nazi Germany. Nazi stocks of gases such as Sarin were enough to kill dozens of millions, and the Nazi had the means to bring those gases over the targets (Western armies, London, Paris, etc.). In spite of the fact using the neurotoxins could have been imagined by the most crazed Nazis as a way to bring the war to a standstill, the Nazis did not consider using them.

The top Nazis knew all too well that the British, if no one else, would reply in kind. This sort of tit for tat had happened in 1940. The Nazis devastated Coventry. The Brits replied in kind, on a much greater scale. Rightly so.

This is why Hitler did not go fully neurotoxic in 1945.

Trump fired 59 cruise missiles at the Shariat Assad air base in Syria which fired the neurotoxins.

Good.

Barack Obama and the plutocrats in London (who are friends of Bachar El Assad) let humanity down in 2013. Civilization needs to be defended.

It’s telling that Trump, so vomited upon by the pseudo-progressives, is the one defending civilization, whereas their puppet president, who was the object of a cult by the plutocrats that be, did nothing which could upset the enemies of civilization, his, de facto, friends.  Trump’s action is an excellent message for all those who believe they can scare civilization into submission. An excellent way to set up the right context with President Xi of the People Republic of China, visiting the US president at Mar a Lago this weekend, reminding him that civilization without a great wall cannot be defended. But now civilization is one, and the great wall has to be in the minds.

There are great walls which cannot be crossed, because they ought not to be crossed, and the usage of weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations is one of them.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Syria, Garden Of Torturous Delights

May 24, 2016

What is going on in Syria? A zoo of human passions, and traditional patterns of history. A war is going on. There are simple wars, and complex ones. Syria’s war started simple, one dictator against his subjects, and it is now very complex, having become the war of all against all.

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Big Bombs: Western Coalition Air Strike, Syria, 2015. The Islamist State Buries Underground

Initially the calm and secular Syrian society came of age, and a consensus was reached: the hereditary dictator got to go. However, the dictator, a trained doctor, son of tough and crafty tyrant, did not want to go, and those attached to him, all the way to Western Europe, in particular the City of London, did not want to go. Chess, Go, and other games people play have rules. War does not. War’s limit as those of the human spirit.

Don’t believe me? Remember then the Obama’s administration “signature strikes”: killing gatherings because terrorists also gather. On the face of it, the theory was as barbarian as anything in known history. Even Genghis Khan’s forces would massacre, but only after a fair warning: ”Surrender, or we will massacre you!” Even the Nazis, who did worse in secret, on a much larger scale, did not dare claim to be as vicious, for all to see.

Thus, definitively, progress is not a quiet, long stream. Instead it can go in full reverse.

Actors in Syria are now many: much of the Western world is involved, including Russia. Yet the motivations of Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, US, Britain, France, Assad, etc.., are all different.

So what does Assad, initial master of that game, want? Initially, dictator Assad wanted just to stay in power, as all dictators do. But then, his strategy to free the Qur’an fundamentalists worked. He helped them, be it only by purchasing “their” oil, just like Turkey did (and sent back weapons, in the case of Erdogan; some people writing this in Turkey, got five years in jail, just for writing this…).

However, Assad is head of the Alawites. Alawites have their own Muslim religion. As the Qur’an promises to kill apostates and unbelievers, worshipping Mahomet and his god differently from one’s neighbor, is a grave, potentially lethal, fateful tragedy. Romeo and Juliet is nothing in comparison. The end result was that the Alawites were badly treated until the French showed up. Under the French, they quickly reached the highest spheres. Alawites have been reluctant to leave them ever since, especially considering that it’s not just a question of social status, but of survival.

Assad was able to get away with his savage repression of pacifist, secular civilians. Then he was able to get away with his manipulations of Islamists, freeing them and endowing them with enough power to become a justification to his brutal, homicidal rule.

Then a new mood surfaced: why not to just eradicate Non-Alawites?

How do I know (correctly guess) that such is the main motivation of Assad now? Too many strikes on schools and hospitals rather than enemy soldiers. That’s called reading between the facts.

So Assad is a monster, in the line of perfectly respectable historical monsters: just as Alexander the Great, or Little Father of the People Stalin, Assad sounds perfectly reasonable. Not to say that the “West” is not also an accomplice. In other words, it’s not just Putin who is a collaborator of genocide (Putin did save Palmyra, so he is not all bad… Far from it, on this subject).

And of course, Assad does not stand alone anymore than Hitler (or the Kaiser) did: when Cameron, France and the US stood ready to strike Assad, British MPs, copiously paid by the sort of fake prosperity the likes of Assad and his family bring to England, voted against striking him, blocking PM Cameron. Thus giving the pusillanimous Obama such cold feet, he had in turn to betray the French…

As we may see next, the mood of the so-called “West” is divided on the subject of striking monsters in a timely manner. In Syria as in many other places. Under the pretext of loud anti-”colonialism”, genocide is authorized… As it is perfectly compatible with the plutocratic doctrine, that evil should rule. Thus anti-”colonialism” is a fig leaf to hide the most significant naughty bits, namely free reins for torturous delights, hidden by tortuous denials.

Genocide of the mostly Sunni population of Syria is a delight many secretly savor. Too bad for the collateral damage.

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.)

What to do in Syria

October 1, 2015

Putin has intervened militarily in Syria to save his fellow dictator, and increase the probability of global war. The plutocratic principle says that evil rules best. The worst dictators embrace it wholeheartedly. But it’s not just that. It’s also how bad Putin’s rule is doing in Russia. This was all highly predictable. The Russian economy is doing terrible, the part of Russian society which dares express itself, has turned into a Putin adoration cult, and the Master cannot let go, he has gone too far, things are too bad, and too fast. All he needs is war. War in Ukraine has become bogged down by Western, and Ukrainian, resistance. Time to relaunch it somewhere else. What should the West do?

Certainly no-fly zones ought to be imposed by the Western democracies on the bloody, mass murdering dictator Assad (and his Putin ally) in areas where non-Islamist rebels dominate. Any helicopter showing up (to drop barrel bombs or not) ought to be shot down. Similarly non-Islamists rebels ought to be supported maximally (weapons, advisers, etc.) The military means exist to do all of this, the sooner, the more moral.

Master Of Heavens, Earth, the West, and the Rest

Master Of Heavens, Earth, the West, and the Rest

What does Putin want? War. Ever more of it. As a fascist dictator, he needs war to justify his fascist rule in Russia. That is spooky: it means that Putin will welcome acts of wars between the Western powers and Russia in Syria. However, there is little choice.

Putin is crafty: he is a trained killer, a KGB master mind (he led the KGB), and his hands are very bloody in Chechnya (where he contributed to kill 20% of the population… and the word “contributed” is kind: Putin may well have instigated the second war there). Putin has just built a mosque in Moscow… where there would be 2 million Muslims. Putin does not want a Muslim problem, so he wants to show those he subjugates he fears nothing, and the West considers him, Putin, a great war chief, whose cause is just.

If one does not fight a small evil, it may amplify, and become uncontrollable. Obama refused a small war. Now he may get a very big one. Meanwhile, Putin will keep pushing.

Patrice Ayme’

Give War A Chance

September 21, 2015

John Lennon sang, with a smug attitude: “All we are saying, is give Peace A Chance”. It could be argued that was justified, when the matter at hand was just the taking over of Saigon by Hanoi. (And the resulting flight of a few million “boat people”.)

A few years later, a calm maniac, who would later declare the singer an hypocrite, fired 5 hollow point bullets at John Lennon. Four of these bullets hit Lennon. Lennon was not ready for this: he was neither wearing a bulletproof jacket, nor had he a bodyguard with him. He declared he had been shot. Later he acknowledged to the police rushing him to the hospital that he was John Lennon, indeed. Every one of the four bullet was lethal. Only making Lennon nearly as cold as ice could have saved him. (But that technique is not used yet, 35 years later.) Lennon had been “peaceful”. However, Lennon’s insane aggressor judged him aggressive: aggression is, all too often, only in the mind of the beholder. Peace did not give Lennon a chance. Had a well trained armed bodyguard been there, Lennon would have survived.

Since then, authorities have kept Lennon’s murderer in jail, trusting force more than the promises of the assassin. When serious mayhem arises, men and women of good will intervene. Such should be the case in Syria, a place ripped apart by a terrible war.

In the grander scheme of things, peace, love, just as war and hatred, come and go. All what matters is to encourage, or carry on with, the most appropriate behavior at the time, given the circumstances.

Two years ago, the dictator Assad of Syria, son of Assad Senior, another dictator, killed more than 1,500, in just one chemical attack, crossing a red line Obama had brandished. France and the USA decided to punish Assad.

The Assad family is the number one cause of the civil war in Syria. As Assad launched the civil war against pacific demonstrators, and then put in the streets the Islamists of ISIS (who were in jail), terminating his brand of power was entirely appropriate.

However, at the last moment, Obama mysteriously called off the attack. France backed-off. This time indeed France was not even supported by Great Britain,differently from September 1, 1939 (when Britain had joined France in opposing Hitler).

Now Putin has surged ahead, sending fighter jets to support Assad. The reason? Russia has its sole basis on the Mediterranean on the Syrian coastal strip. For some reason, Russians consider they have to have such a basis.

France and the USA had a chance to get rid of Assad, and finding somebody more reasonable, and cleaner to lead the secular Syrian government. Now they are in the strange position to have to tag along Putin. But there is no choice. So the Obama administration has made some openings.

Another aspect where the USA has no choice: the failure to act against Assad in a timely manner, besides killing another quarter of a million Syrians, has created eleven million refugees.

In the 1939-1940 period, the USA distinguished itself by refusing all genuine Jewish refugees (hundreds of thousands got stuck in France, which was not cool, because France lost the first round with the Nazis, and got half invaded). Anxious not to look as vicious as in 1940, the USA has now announced it would accept 100,000 war refugees… next year. One cannot stop progress.

What is the conclusion of all this?

Who is going to run the empire? Putin? Which empire, some will sneer? The United Nations empire, of course. It exists, and it even has a law, the UN Charter, someone has to manage it, and, more pragmatically, to impose it.

The problem with the UN is fundamentally the same problem as with Europe: the European Union exists, it has to be managed. It has to be led. France and Germany, when awake, make a reasonable, and just forceful enough, leader of Europe.

For the UN, the leadership has to come from the three permanent Security Council members which are also the leading Western military powers. At this point, it’s pretty much the USA, and France (as Britain is increasingly unwilling to spend money on defense). However, Obama “leads from behind”, and France is already running a deficit more than 50% above the Euro Group limit (and gets little help from Germany which is well below the minimum defense spending theoretically agreed to inside NATO).

How to remedy all this? The USA ought to cooperate more with France, which, not being an island, but, instead, at the crossroads, instinctively understand the necessity to go to war. A way to cooperate is to foster the French military-industrial complex, instead of viewing it just as a deadly competitor.

For example, the USA ought to give up on the worthless and dangerous F35 program, and, conceding defeat, just buy the French Rafale.

France has not remained completely despondent: an accord was just signed with Morocco to train Islamist preachers there. This is actually an astute move. A dance with the Dark Side. But this is a long story by itself, and better treated another time.

The Romans used to say: “Si vis pacem, para bellum!” (If you want peace, prepare war). We are beyond that point now: war is here. In 1936, the Western democracies stayed out of the wars Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had launched. That enabled the dictators to train their armies, and gain unwarranted confidence. In the shock of one week in May 1940, the French and British armies found, the hard way, that the training of their air forces was insufficient.

We don’t want such a surprise again. Putin has demonstrated he was ready to invade countries. To accept to be led by him is troubling, to put it mildly. Especially as we have a precedent: in the 1930s, the Western democracies agreed to be led by Stalin against Franco and by… Mussolini, against… Hitler. What happened next is that both Stalin and Mussolini allied themselves with Hitler against… the French Republic (hence the fall of the latter).

One cannot “lead from behind”. Obama will stay an object of ridicule, in the eyes of history, and he has more than ten million refugees to contemplate.

All over, the West is cooperating with horrendous dictators: in Gambia (!), in Eritrea, in all places in Africa which contain precious ores, etc. In Libya, the liberation of the country from the bloody dictator ought to have been followed by a military and administrative occupation, with the aim of proposing an association with Europe (the same ought to be extended to Algeria and Morocco, or Egypt).

The empire exists, and it has to exist, lest war spread uncontrollably. Simply, it’s not Mr. Putin who should be left to administer it, because Obama leads from way in the hell back there.

When peace does not work, one has to give war a chance. The alternative is meaningless annihilation.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

War Inevitable

September 19, 2013

War against Assad will happen, no matter what. It’s ineluctable. Hopefully. Why? Because Assad is a monster. He is nothing else. Monsters don’t stop: such is their nature, that of the scorpion carried by the frog. It will sting, no matter what. Sting, and then sink: what real monsters do.

According to official United Nations statistics, Assad caused the death of at least 110,000 of the citizens he rules over. Already. And millions of refugees, just to stay in power, with the complicity of the world’s richest man, Putin, president for life of the USSR Russia.

Milo: Human Rights Rule

Milo: Human Rights Rule

An entire fourth branch of Assad’s army exists: the chemical army. It has struck with gas at least 34 times. To believe Assad will surrender it is silly. Instead, he will wait for indignation to settle down, before using it again more discreetly, while milking the West’s public opinion with his great will to peace and moderation, the tactic Adolf Hitler used so well in the 1930s, when he found majorities of eager fools to believe him in Anglo-Saxon countries…

It does not matter how much Putin pays pundits in the USA to claim that the universe is the exact opposite to what it is. At some point, Assad, should he be left to his own inclinations, will kill millions. Striking Assad will then become the obvious solution, be it only to help children, and even cowards, and even those who know little, and have no inclination to learn more, will have to assent to the inevitable.

Assad threatened many countries in the past, including France and the USA. He also had Hariri, who was Lebanon most prominent politician (PM ten years, overall) assassinated. Why? Assad said himself! Because Hariri wanted Assad’s army out of Lebanon.

Assad is an angry man. Why? because he knows he is a piece of garbage, and he is desperate about proving the opposite. In a similar fashion, Hitler, another piece of garbage, spoke about setting minorities free, and saving peace. Hitler was desperate about proving he was not the garbage he truly was. Political cover-ups are bad, psychological ones worse, but the latter often impacts the former.

France, could well use Assad’s threats as a casus belli (something that the UN Charter allows).

Another thing: United Nations Chapter VII allows for intervention for humanitarian reasons. France used that override many times (Bosnia, Libya, Ivory Coast). Ultimately, even if the USA chickens out as it did in 1939-1940, the French Republic will go ahead, make her own coalition, and strike. So, in the long run, a strategy as in Libya, with the French air Force doing most of the work while getting some targeting information from the Pentagon, may well happen.

Even The Economist exposed the fiasco of values of “The Weakened West”. It opines that “The deal over Syria’s chemical weapons marks a low for those who cherish freedom“. But it’s not just about freedom.

If France had not attacked Hitler in September 1939, it would be a different world. We would have a world where human rights would be viewed as secondary.  

Certainly it’s doubtful  that Human Rights would have progressed in the USA, if Nazism reigned over much of the world. (Maybe the USA, following the Nazis, would have reintroduced full slavery? Please tell me why not).

(And for those who don’t realize that the French Republic basically fought alone the Nazi-Soviet-Mussolini-Japanese coalition: it took one month for the first British soldier to cross the Channel. A lot of the defeat of France in May-June 1940 had to do not just to the unbelievably small size of the British army, but also to the late arrival of British armor, and the lack of commitment of British reserves, say in the Royal Air Force; that, in turn prevented the arrival of French reserves, say in the Air Force, some of which was as far as… Syria!)

France attacked in 1939 because of Human Rights, and Human Rights triumphed by 1945. And you know what? Human Rights are primary. Well worth fighting for. Even democracy is secondary to Human Rights.

When the Athenian democracy forgot that with the Melians, Athens lost the Peloponnesian War. At least, philosophically speaking.

The genocide in Melos endangered Athens’ own survival. There were more than 1,000 Greek Poleis, and when they saw what Athens did to Melos, and the reasoning the Athenian National Assembly held, something about self-interest being more important than Human Rights, a mood was generated. A mood willing to destroy Athens. (After losing the war, Athens was, paradoxically, saved by her main enemy… Sparta!)

Thucydides wrote the Melian Dialogue to exemplify what he deemed the cause of the defeat: realism. Instead, it should be viewed as unreal to try to make Human Rights secondary. One cannot be of the essence, while denying one’s essence.

***

Patrice Ayme

Will to Knowledge

September 10, 2013

 

Physics is nature: what we observe. Metaphysics is what we suppose beyond what we observe for sure. All logical discourses come with a metadiscourse. It’s Logic 101.

In its generosity, the New York Times decided to make the preceding statement one of its “pick“. And, yes, it is really Logic 101 (I could teach a basic class in Logic at a prestigious college; the “universe” one has to attach to a logic is essential to Model Theory).

Although true, and purely “scientific” the preceding statement is charged with consequences, very practical consequences. Because it means there is really nothing very special about people “of faith”, with so called “believers”. We all have to have faith, and we have to be believers, just because we use… logic.

Sorry to rob “believers” of the monopoly of respect they feel ought to be directed at them. We are all in the same metaphysical boat.

Little ideas, shattering little ideas… Shattering:

Assad's Damascus, September 9, 2013

Assad’s Damascus, September 9, 2013

French experts think it could take ten years to locate and dispose pacifically of Syrian chemical weapons. Why? It may be the world’s largest arsenal thereof. Special factories will have to be built to b urn them safely (something some warheads can do).

As Paul Krugman observes: “One of the things you have to get used to if you want to debate…is that people will make arguments that leave you floored with their sheer dumbness. The first time you pay attention, you find it hard to believe.”

(Nota bene: I generalized Paul’s thinking a bit by omitting the mutilating precision he adorned his discourse with…)

An example of abominably acute stupidity was the suggestion, by self glorifying people who clamor to be “anti-war”, that the rebels gazed themselves, and their children. That ought to floor anyone by the sheer dumbness. Or does that mean the anti-wars view as natural to gas oneself, and one’s own children? Or does that mean they have such a feeling of racism against anti-Assad rebels, that they feel anti-Assad rebels are that sub-human, that killing their own children is just a tactic for them?

Stupidity is common, genius exceptional. It has to do, in part, with economics. Brain economics. All and any trait of genius always starts with The One, hated and vilipended.

Most brains are organized on the cheap, by just duplicating what other minds proffer. To make one’s mind a center of creation is an expensive habit to have.

New idea accepted means brain reorganized, hence huge energy spent for deconstructing erroneous neural connections, and for building new ones. Thus, when a new idea shows up, commoners interpret it as a potential aggression, or, at the very least, a costly proposition.

That’s one of the reasons why breakthroughs in understanding are always met with hostility.

Without breakthroughs in understanding, all and any economical system, and then society, or even civilization, will collapse. Why? Because there is no steady state: for millions of years, all and any society has exhausted resources, while confronting the hostiles. As the opposition adapts and the world’s old exploitation schemes get old, old ideas lose grip. Or relevance.

Depressed economies tend to recover, for the simple reason that, if they did not, a civilization sized catastrophe would incur. One cannot crash a civilization every few years, so depressions tend to pass. When they don’t, we have what happened when the Roman Imperium crashed, or what happened in the 1300s, or the 1600s… In the West. Or what happened in the  600s in the Orient, or to the Mayas after around the same date, or what happened to China in the 1200s, or 1800s…

Another reason why is The One, The Genius, is hated and vilipended? Because the human animal feel the importance of ideas. It can be described as the Will to Knowledge. It’s an instinct that even Nietzsche recognized as distinct from the Will To Power he was obsessed by. Human beings are technological, otherwise even dogs would eat them. It started with sticks and stones, and improvement thereof. It went on with fire, which allowed to conquer temperate latitudes and vegetable foods. Technology means knowledge, wisdom.

Hence those who can produce the wisdom come to dominate society. Hence the importance of elders all over durable societies. Be it Native American society, China, or the Roman Senate (Senate, from senens, old.) In Sparta, to be elected to the governing council, the Gerousia, one had to be at least 60.

Thus, with humans, the Will to Power and the Will to Wisdom are mixed. They are entangled. The danger is that the former messes up the later. And that was one of Socrates’ main complaints, the one he directed against Sophists (he basically accused them to be prostitutes). This is also the reason of my contempt for for-money universities (Harvard, etc.). The same complaint extends to for-money scientific publications. On that later point, a movement towards ‘open publishing’ has progressed. Some now claim that about 50% of scientific publishing is “open”.

The Will to Knowledge is human. It’s even the essence of man. In the case of Hitler, or Assad, the majority of people did not, does not, want to know. That made them inhuman morally, but also in essence.

If one wants a human civilization, the only that can, and deserves, to survive, the Will to Knowledge has to be preserved as a power in its own right, beyond and above the Will to Power.

***

Patrice Ayme

White Flag Syndrome

September 7, 2013

AUSCHWITZ PRIZE TO BE WIDELY ATTRIBUTED.

Abstract: The cultural difference between the French Republic and the European countries that collaborated voluntarily with Hitler explains their different attitudes relative to the criminal  against humanity, Assad. Obama, Kerry, Hagel are commended for pushing in 2013, exactly for the opposite of what the duplicitous, plutocratic Roosevelt did in 1939. Obama is becoming the indomitable defender of human rights. Excellent.

What’s behind the Russian led, Assad loving coalition? The same sort of plutocracy loving coalition that propped Hitler and his friends.

It’s the very fact that France and the USA are cracking down against the worldwide, tax evading plutocracy, that makes all those who have profited from global plutocracy anxious at the deposition by force of one of their own, namely Assad. It’s not just that if Assad goes, why not Kim, Xi, Putin? It’s also a worldwide conspiracy of leeches that is threatened!

***  

Why do you think Hollande and Obama are isolated about “punishing” Assad?

They are smarter! They are nobler! They have the long view! They defend civilization! They, literally and figuratively, have better intelligence about what is going on in Syria, Russia, etc. France and the USA are also the two top military powers of the West. They are also more courageous! Americans always boast that the USA is the “land of the free”, and France means “Free”.

French fries literally translates into “freedom fries”. Neither the French nor the Americans revere their unworthy masters as the Brits do.

As i said in the introduction, there is a generalized plutocratic angle. If Hollande and Obama are willing to use force, and take out a demon such as Assad, are major tax evaders next? Striking the plutocracy is essential for the Republic.

What makes France and the USA so special?

This is a vast, very interesting subject, but I am in a rush to present more arguments to destroy Assad, so I will address this subject another time. I had a full integrated essay with that inside, but people don’t have this sort of attention span. Let me just say this. For all the silly talk about “the special relationship with Britain“, the USA and France are sister republics, pretty much a unique case in history. They have the same constitution (up to details). They originated together, from the same republican process. Even more importantly, that entangled republic generated the world movement towards democratic republics all over, the United Nations and the Charter of Human Rights.

So it’s no accident they are in the lead against a mass criminal against humanity such as Assad. They have always been in the lead.  

Why is France so isolated inside Europe about Syria? 

It’s an extremely simple, but horrid, truth. Remember the 1930s? The psycho-philosophical cultures from that time persist. They were passed from parents to children to grandchildren, to great grandchildren.

Look at Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council: a Belgian Flemish politician. He suggested like a fool to negotiate with Assad, as if that had not been tried for decades. You have to ask about such a fool: what does the Belgian Flemish  tradition feel about fighting infamy, Hitler’s style?

Well the answer is that the defeat of the French army in May 1940 has everything to do with the attitude of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940.

(It’s a long story, so it will not be given here; but the Dutch and the Belgians should understand their grandparents caused the defeat of 1940; they were not the only cause, true, but their “neutral”, “pacifist” attitude is part of the causality web that produced Auschwitz. To act properly, instead of trying to help them, as it did, the French Republic ought just to have left them to the wolf, as they deserved.)

What happened in the 1930s that revolts you so much?

All European countries WILLINGLY COLLABORATED with Adolf Hitler. All of them. EXCEPT FOR THE FRENCH REPUBLIC. The French Republic was Hitler’s dedicated, relentless enemy. But that was it. The rest of Europe was, at best, supine. Denmark resisted the Nazis 6 hours (still, hundreds were killed). France fought six years. So, of course, Denmark, ended richer, in material possession, per capita, whereas France was devastated. Sweden, or Switzerland, were made filthy rich from WWII.

Wow. That’s crazy! Are you sure? They all collaborated? Why does not anyone talks about this?

There is no glory in remembering what happened. But now, it’s a warning. the only country that can talk about Assad in Europe is France. Because France knew how to talk to Hitler. With all due respect, the other European countries should come to the classroom, and be taught by their professor of practical, survivalist, philosophy, France.

That is, once they come out of the chapel where they celebrate abject, inhuman, vile, decerebrated subjugation to fascism and those prone to the worst crimes against humanity. Have you just looked at Von Rompuy’s weasel face? He looks like the most despicable treacherous villain from central casting. It’s hilarious.

What do you want Belgium, Britain, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Russia, Ireland, fascist Spain, Portugal to say? Oh yeah, we made Hitler all he could be?  And that’s why we want to negotiate with Assad, as we did with Hitler?

By the way, although ti’s usual to despise them, nowadays, Greece and Yugoslavia were also exemplary.

Can you give examples of these alleged collaboration?

Just a few examples out of many. Poland made a defense treaty with Hitler in January 1934, standing on its head the protection it was getting from its creator, France.

Britain made a treaty in 1935 with Hitler that, following Lord Keynes (UK economist and government official, object of a cult) violated the Versailles Treaty, and that the Nazis viewed as an Anglo-Nazi alliance against the French Republic. Later the ex-king Edward VIII was allowed to spy, as “Inspector of the British Forces” on the French defense system and plans, and communicate his finds to his friend Hitler (with the help of his American wife, herself a Nazi spy). The higher reaches of British society were stuffed with Nazis.

Russia and Portugal helped the Germans, and then Nazis, to re-arm secretly and unlawfully. Sweden and Norway made an “Iron Road” for the world’s best iron desperately needed by Hitler to feed his war machine.

The Swedes also licensed the 88mm gun, the Nazis’ main, and most effective anti-tank and AA gun. Russia, Italy were at war against France in 1939-1940, to help their little comrade Hitler. Giant Soviet resources fed the Hitler war machine.

Belgium betrayed the defense treaty with France by refusing to build fortifications (allowing the Panzer army to pass through unhindered in May 1940).

The Netherlands was basically a Nazi economic agent. The Irish government cried after Hitler’s death was announced. Switzerland‘s multifariously vicious roles helping the Reich, deserve a book. 

What about fascist Spain?

Hitler helped general Franco, but Franco did not reciprocate. Although Franco kept on killing millions of his republican, secular enemies inside Spain after he finished Catalonia in winter 1939, he was careful to NOT help Hitler. That made Hitler furious, and weakened him enormously: by controlling Gibraltar, which Franco refused to attack, Britain was able to keep a lock on the Mediterranean.

This also shows that all the countries that collaborated with Hitler rather than the Republic (France) did so willingly, motivated by greed, and unfathomable stupidity. We have a right, nay, a duty, to ask whether their cultures are still that mistaken, that they make a butcher such as Franco humanitarian and far sighted.

You did not mention Czechoslovakia and Austria…

Those two were complicated cases, with divided populations. The Czechoslovakian government was left out to dry at Munich when the French Republic, itself first betrayed by Chamberlain, could not serve Hitler with an ultimatum (as British PM Chamberlain had already given much of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in a spirit of negotiation; so France had to argue against both Hitler, and Chamberlain!). The fact that the formidable Czech fortifications where located in the ethnically German Sudetenland complicated everything, but Hitler’s bad faith was blatant.

Although not as bad as Assad declaring the only solution was to “liquidate” his opposition.

What about Greece and Yugoslavia?

Nowadays, it’s common to depict Northern European countries as more “moral”, and the south as corrupt. But, when it really mattered, when facing Hitler, it was completely the other way around.

Greece and Yugoslavia were anti-Nazi, and completely refused to collaborate, even though they faced annihilation. Their heroic sacrifice was not in vain. They played a crucial role in the defeat of Hitler in Russia: Hitler had to attack and invade them, losing all his (victorious!) thousands of paratroops in Crete, instead of sending them east. He never recovered these 6 lost weeks, of preciously good weather, and his lost units.

If Hitler had attacked the USSR by early May, as initially planned, there is little doubt that Moscow would have been encircled and captured, cutting Russia in two. Moreover Russian evacuations to Siberia would have been cut short. Stalin would have died in Moscow.

The vast Yugoslav and French resistance movements immobilized at least 30 Nazi divisions by 1944, many of them, elite. Vercors, in particular, allowed D day to succeed by diverting crack SS paratroop units needed in Normandy.

Why was the USA not present at Munich?

Because Roosevelt was a plutocrat in drag. More Von Rompuy than Lincoln. Starting in 1934, Roosevelt was extremely hostile to the French Republic, but he hid it successfully from the unsuspecting masses. If you assume extreme hostility to the French, you understand all of Roosevelt policies during 1934-1945, in one fell swoop. In common lore, one calls Roosevelt’s duplicity “American Isolationism”. But certainly American plutocracy was NOT isolated from Germany. Quite the opposite: it leveraged Germany.

How can you be so sure of this unusual thesis of Roosevelt’s hostility to France?

I look at his decisions, what he said, and the moods he expressed. The hostilities started in 1934 when France got upset about what she viewed as aggressive dollar devaluation, and the Anglo-Saxon’s elite friendliness to what became Nazism, first made obvious by Lord Keynes in 1919.

Can you give specific examples of Roosevelt anti-democratic plotting?

Roosevelt did nothing much to reel in American plutocrats transforming the Reich in a power-house. OK, Texaco got a tiny fine for fueling the Nazis and fascist armies in their insurrection against the Spanish Republic.

Then Roosevelt betrayed the German generals who had revealed to the USA embassy their intent to kill Hitler, and recalled his anti-Nazi Berlin ambassador, the historian Dodd. He also nominated as ambassador to London another loud pro-Nazi, J. Kennedy.

On September 3, 1939, the French Republic declared war to Hitler, and, within days an offensive by 45 French divisions was launched, smack into the Nazi “Westwall” (Siegfried lines). Hitler ran out of crucial resources within days as the Poles resisted desperately. The Nazi military situation was no good. American corporations flew decisively to Hitler’s rescue. What did FDR do to stop that? Nothing that could help the French Republic at war.

Quite the opposite. The Congress and the president of the USA, may they live in infamy, declared Britain and France to be “belligerent” and applied various, significant sanctions against them.

Said President F. D. Roosevelt to Congress, while French and Polish troops were fighting the mass murdering racist Nazis, September 21, 1939:

“But if and when war unhappily comes, the Government and the Nation must exert every possible effort to avoid being drawn into the war… this Government must lose no time or effort to keep the Nation from being drawn into the war.

In my candid judgment we shall succeed in these efforts.”

By September 21, 1939, more than 300 million Europeans were already at war. Democracy was represented by France, population 40 million, fighting more than 200 million fascists (Naziland, plus the USSR). There was nothing candid about Roosevelt, and his judgment was that, as long as his plutocratic class would stay on top, everything was fine. And that meant weakening Europe. For Roosevelt, the business of the USA was business. Business with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, that is.

Do you have more happy news?

Yes, Italian Justice just declared that Berlusconi has been in cahoots with the Mafia for at least 20 years. It has long been obvious that Berlusconi’s fortune is just his payment for Mafia money laundering. But then Toronto is been built by Calabria Mafia money (in a way unlawful in Italy; the Italians are furious).

In more happy news, the Treasury of the USA announced that the tax evasion by USA plutocrats to tax heavens is 1,375 billion dollars, a year, more than a third of the yearly Federal Budget of the USA. In other words, everything could be financed, except for the criminals who head the USA.

Did they talk about that at Saint Petersburg?

Well, Putin is himself organized crime of KGB type. He is going around stupidly claiming that the secular rebels in Damascus gazed themselves. That’s the big lie technique, dear to Hitler. In truth many Western intelligence agencies have all the details, and Putin knows they do.

Yes, supposedly there will be automatic exchange of data in 2015. It may happen because Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the USA want to stop the fiscal bleeding. The BRICS and other critters are furious, though. But like Roosevelt with France in the 1930s, they cannot say why they are really furious. Namely that all that good plutocratic money that used to flee the West towards the tax havens will be now be forced to stay there, in the West. That’s why BRICS currencies have been tumbling.

So, instead, they join Putin, and disingenuously suggest that the secular rebels gazed their own children?

Yes. They are getting very afraid that the West is finally using force to regain its destiny. They don’t like that, because they had a deal with Western plutocrats, and, without it, they sink.

They want to keep on submitting to their masters, so they can profit, as many did in the 1930s and 1940s. That is the White Flag Syndrome. If it’s hard to beat them, and more profitable to join them, adopt the appropriate mood and thoughts, while claiming you see no crime.

How does that explain the hostility of many European officials to France?

Because as I said, many come from a Hitler friendly parentage. Even more directly, many of them have their own, lesser deals with the Plutos. Many were, or will be employed by Goldman-Sachs and its ilk. They have rabid so called neo-liberal agendas, namely, they want all the money to their friends the plutocrats, and none to the welfare state (Mr. Rehn is an example; he was recently furious that France had balanced her budget by rising taxes, instead of dismantling her welfare state).

Many smaller countries are tax havens, and they collaborate with plutocrats just as their grand-parents used to collaborate with the fascists, or the plutocrats sponsoring them, in the 1930s. It’s often a question of families, just as in the Mafia (see Berlusconi; when Sarkozy and Merkel tolerated Berlusconi, they knew he was Mafia).

Britain, the Netherlands, Ireland have enjoyed great returns as tax havens. Ireland taxes worldwide Apple profits 2%. Luxembourg is little more than organized crime, etc. What they are afraid of, is that France will use more force, about taxes, and other large countries, such as Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, will follow in the breach.

Just one French nuclear attack submarine could shut down all the Caribbean tax havens, as I have long pointed out.

For example, France just forced humiliatingly Switzerland to submit to a humiliating tax treaty. Germany will be inspired. Because Britain is a major military power (that means a huge, costly military-industrial complex only second to France and the USA’s) and a welfare state, it needs revenue, and now that making Britain into a giant tax havens a la Magpie Maggie Thatcher has no future, it will need to find money, that money that fled to all tax havens, including of the European sort.

Let’s recapitulate. France and the USA are isolated because those republics are cracking down?

France and the USA are the fundamental republics. All others are imitations. The republican model was imposed on them from the outside, not by a revolution from inside. They are followers, not revolutionaries. What we have now is France and the USA imposing higher moral, humanitarian and republican standards.

It looks like gas, but it’s fundamentally about taxes. It’s about which values have imperium. When Putin claims the rebels gazed themselves by firing rockets from Assad’s territory, he is truly saying that it’s OK to be crazy, craziness is worthy. Obama was right not to waste his time visiting him. Yet, Putin has not sunk as low as most of the anti-wars in the West.

What is wrong with the anti-war protesters?

CNN showed an hysterical anti-war woman crying loudly in Senator Mac Cain’s face:”I beg you, I beg you, please, don’t bomb Syria!” She was waving an arm in the air, imploring. I admired Mac Cain’s composure. Interlocutor after interlocutor made a show of inconceivable ignorance during that Obama hating Tea Party meeting. These are the anti-war protesters for you: inhuman, irrational, ill-informed ignorami.

The anti-wars ought to be conferred collectively the Auschwitz Prize. That’s for all those who express loudly the opinion that the deliberate mass killing of children is none of their business, and not one weapon ought to be fired against the perpetrator, lest it disturb the peace. That’s sinking lower than the Nazis themselves, at least on the rhetorical level. And rhetoric is important; it’s the first order of expressed thought.

So don’t ask for whom the gas spreads. It spreads for you. And it smothers minds first.

***

Patrice Ayme

Liquidate The Liquidator

September 5, 2013

In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro a few days ago, Dictator Assad pretended that, “In the beginning, the solution should have been found through a dialogue from which political measures would have been born.”

That was a lie: he shot peaceful secular demonstrators demanding an end to his tyrannical hereditary plutocracy, when protests started in 2011 (no other Arabic speaking dictator did this so massively). Then Assad repeated for the Figaro his refrain that 90% of the rebels are Al Qaeda. “The only way to cope with them is to liquidate them,” he said. “Only then will we be able to discuss political measures.”

First kill, then negotiate. Assad feels like Bruce Willis in the “Fifth Element”.

Assad should know: he is a liquidation specialist. “If you and Chirac want me out of Lebanon, I will break Lebanon.” Assad told Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri in 2004, a few months before two metric tons of TNT (seven Tomahawk missile warheads!) blew Hariri and dozens of other people into small bits. Hariri had been Prime Minister a total of ten years, and was the most prominent Lebanese politician. He and French president Chirac were pushing Assad’s occupation army out of Lebanon.

Why aren’t you worried about the Islamist rebels? They seem cruel and demented.

They are cruel and demented. The Assads made them so.

The Assad dynasty is about the worst of the worst. Smiles hiding criminal fury. It single handedly caused the Syrian civil war. Instead of  “liquidating” his countless enemies, an easier alternative, to reach appeasement, is to liquidate him.

As the sedate NYT puts it: His violent reaction to the uprising led what was once a proudly secular society into a largely sectarian conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims and his small minority of Alawites, an obscure branch of Shiite Islam.

“For him there is nothing to lose,” a Damascus-based analyst said, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He cannot compromise. He has to see this through. He cannot rebuild; he cannot reconcile. He is stuck. He can rule over a pile of rubble — that is the best he can do.”

The New York Times ran the following day a report on the execution of 7 soldiers…

I read it, and send the following comment (the NYT censored nearly all my comments on Syria, something that makes me suspect a lack of neutrality on their part):

I find unbalanced that more than 95% of the NYT “pick” comments are statements using an irrelevant brutality to justify not punishing a crime against humanity by a government.

Now for the naive ones out there who are inspired by the years of infamy of the USA in 1939, 1940, when the USA refused to fight Hitler: the Assad family created that mess, and most of it, deliberately.

Although I strongly condemn Islamism, and wished the laws of war would be respected, in the case of an insurrection, it’s difficult to keep prisoners alive. Guerillas don’t run prisons. Besides, that the executions of those seven soldiers related in the NYT were brutal, and apparently unjustifiable, does not mean they were unjustifiable (the rebels claim those soldiers had committed war crimes, and recorded them in phones). The whole story was related by one of the rebles, who disagreed violently with the execution. 

A rush to judgment is rarely a rush to intelligence. Thinking is harder than sinking.

Notice that when three USA divisions were engaged in the Second Battle of the Marne, in July 1918, they made nearly no prisoners. One of the reason? The American divisions, although victorious, suffered so many casualties, they were taken out of combat after a couple of days. American GIs, confronted to immense ferocity, rose to the occasion, and replied in kind.

Most probably, Syrian rebels are doing just the same, answering massacres by massacres, after decades of massacres.

End of my (probably unpublished) comment to the NYT. 

(The GIs were also inspired by the Senegalese division by their side, which made zero prisoners, as the Senegalese knew full well that the Germans killed them racially like vermin! This sort of racial extermination went on in 1940, under Rommel’s 7th Panzer; however, by 1944, Marshall Rommel had realized that being a war criminal was not a good idea, so he ordered the arrest of the SS das Reich officer responsible of Oradour sur Glane!)

You see nothing good about Assad?

I share his official distaste for the Muslim Brotherhood. He can be amusing. As when he protested that comparing the Islamist dictator Morsi to a donkey was “an insult to the animal“. When he got to power, observers hoped that he would break away from his father’s dictatorship.

Yet, he became worse, as the Hariri assassination shows. Assad came to depend upon the Islamists to justify his own, much older terror. Terror will never end, as long as he is around. If he is not put out of commission, millions will die, and that’s the least of the problems that will arise.

Sec. of State Kerry derided common Americans as “Armchair Isolationists”? Makes you happy?

Kerry mentioned the liner full of German Jews that was turned back from the Americas, and sent back to Hamburg, and they all died. That was polite. I don’t have to be as polite as Kerry.

The USA plutocracy and its pet government, plus their honored homologues in the UK, formed the Deus ex-Machina that enabled Hitler.

You are obsessive. Plutocracy this, plutocracy that. What does plutocracy have to do with it?

Plutocracy is the rule of the Dark Side. That’s exactly what it means. Instead of the reign of Ahura Mazda, it’s the rule of Angra Mainyu. Plutocracy in that sense is more general than Jesus’ condemnation of wealth, it covers all the bad aspects of Satan as found in the New Testament and the Qur’an. Plus more.

Assad is a plutocrat in the worst senses of the term. Sometimes it’s a parody: his spendthrift wife was an investment banker in London. She is much admired there, a sort of Lady Di of Syria, rail thin.

Assad is expert at the dark art of an extremely rich family that killed hundreds of thousands to stay on top of the heap. He released thousands of Salafists to drown his legitimate secular democratic opposition, now he is whining that they are winning. His only future is death.

Assad’s plutocratic connections is why he is so popular in Britain. It’s again the same story with Britain, a semi democratic plutocracy, as in the 1930s, with Hitler and Mussolini: the plutocratic temptation. The men (and occasional women) who invented and financed Hitler were all plutocrats (as my uncle, who was in the know, told me when I was six).

Without the help, financing and investment of Anglo-Saxon plutocrats, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Franco would not even have fuel to move their tanks.

Stalin and Hitler hated each other!

They came to hate each other. But first they were allies. Even earlier, before Hitler, Stalin had helped Germany re-arm in violation of the Versailles Treaty. German generals trained in the USSR! That’s why they thought they could invade it successfully.

Britain did just the same, starting in the 1920s. There were very nasty exchanges about stealth German re-armement betwen Churchill and the French Republic, as early as 1929 (so pre-Hitler!). Without plutocrats from the USA, Nazism would not have been, and Stalin could not have developed his oil fields (thanks to pillars of the Democratic Party of the USA!).

Stalinism and Nazism were global phenomena inside which Anglo-Saxon plutocracy played a crucial role.

Can you be a bit more specific?

There is room for a 10,000 pages treaty. Not strangely, that treaty does not exist. Harvard forgot to study the subject (that Nazi songs were modified Harvard songs is a hint why!)

Jew hater Henry Ford massively financed Hitler in the early 1920s already. That’s how Hitler was able to constitute a well equipped private 5,000 men army by 1923. JP Morgan’s man was Schacht, the biggest man of the Weimar Reich; Rockefeller financed Nazi eugenics, etc.

Until 1924, Hitler was essentially an American propelled phenomenon. Some of these billionaire plutocrats, such as the Warburgs, were even Jewish. French intelligence at the time tried to expose all this, but it backfired and caused more hostility against France by those in the know in USA business circles. While the masses did not understand that they were manipulated by extremely vicious characters who had hedged themselves so that, whichever way World War Two would turn, they would profit from it.

Why would Jews support Hitler?

Just ask the peaceniks who support Assad. The head torturer Nazi Marshall who conquered Norway for Hitler was a pure Jew (Hitler then made him a “honorary Aryan“). Nearly 200,000 German Jews served in the Wehrmacht.

As Nietzsche insisted, the Will to Power tends to rule minds.

Fritz Thyssen, a top plutocrat, author of “I paid Hitler”, explained all this in great details (including later, the American plutocratic connection, with the USA government doing exactly what the hyper wealthy supporters of defunct Nazism told it to do). Don’t be surprised that Thyssen’s book is out of print, and out of reach of commoners.

Why do you always mix up the 1930s with today’s world politics?

For two main reasons. 1) The descendants of the bad actors of the 1930s and the institutions that supported them are still pretty much in power, and they use still the same highly conspiratorial methods. A method is to create, or support, very bad actors, such as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco (in that order), and then leverage the mayhem they cause.

For example a casual look at how Egypt used to live like in the 1930s show a huge progression of Salafism Islam since. That can be traced back to the fact Roosevelt and his minions, to arrange ARAMCO and company, made a pact with Ibn Saud that involved the Muslim Brotherhood. As Roosevelt had just given half of Europe to Stalin, at Yalta, that all made sense as a great work of Pluto.

Eight years later, the CIA used Khomeini and his Shiites to throw down the democratically elected Mosaddegh (later assassinated).

2) The fact that some bad actors got away with, and leveraged themselves thanks to, crimes against humanity in the 1930s was noticed by other bad actors, who did the same. That danger is much greater now.  The stakes are much higher.

Why are the BRICS so opposed to enforcing International Law?

Obviously because they intent to break it themselves. Several of them face huge rebellions in their own empires. About half of the PRC’s empire would be in outright rebellion, if not for heavy preemptive terror. India has lost control of a huge territory. Putin used huge brutality in the Caucasus, and is afraid to lose it all. Meanwhile he made the local Christian superstition into a state religion again.

What would you tell Hollande and Obama?

That they should hint to Putin and Xi that they have got it good, controlling giant territories not historically under Russian or Han control. Russian spans eleven time zones. That’s very good.

But Russia does not need to spread its military control in the part that used to be the core of the West, the Eastern Mediterranean. Same observation for Mr. Xi: he can keep on playing on the other side of the Himalayas.

Others, worldwide, ought to be told that it will be human rights, one way, or another. When the UN was formed, the obsession was to avoid war between nations. Now the obsession ought to change into avoiding the sort of decomposition one observed in the 1930s, a mix of fascism, plutocracy and destruction of human rights.

As the movie 2010 had it: “Europa is not yours, don’t attempt a landing there.” If Putin and Xi want a cold war, they will not win it any better than Brezhnev and Mao.

In general, the BRICS became what they are, because of capital flight towards them, from the West. Financial and intellectual capital. Embraer won’t be much, without Airbus’ help and the Western market.

If the BRICS threaten the core of the West, the West can fully reel back its plutocracy. To start with, the West controls at least two-third of the world’s GDP (Euramerica alone controls 55%of world GDP).  

Considering the state of the planet, if order does not come to reign, it will have to be imposed. Auschwitz was secret, so the immoral ones could claim they did not know.

Instead Assad is loud and blatant, making the immoral ones who hide behind peace into obvious co-criminals. Damascus is not a swamp in a deserted part of Poland (as Auschwitz was). Damascus is the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. The rebels Assad gased there, are secular people fighting for survival. Assassinating their children is a crime as great as any crime known to humanity.

When the Second Cuban division invaded Congo in May 1978, the French did not ask the UN for authorization. France dropped paratroops, the 2e Régiment étranger de parachutistes over Kolwezi, and that was it. Cuba and France are in good terms now, precisely because France just said no, when it was time to say no.

Why do you say the West may have jurisdiction over Syria?

It’s a long story, and I should write a specific essay about it. However, in light of the G20 meeting, let me give a quick synopsis of the argument:

Syria was never really a nation, until it became a Roman province and reached its apogee under Rome. It was illegally seized in 636 CE by the Islamist invaders, using horendous methods. Looking that far back in the past may sound ridiculous, but the unlawful demolition of Israel by the Romans after the Second Judean war (explicitly recognized as illegal by emperor Julian around 360 CE) is the legal basis for the existence of Israel, as far as I am concerned.

France is the successor state of Rome. The Imperium Francorum is actually the fifth state of Rome, after the Monarchy, the five centuries long Republic, the Principate (starting with Augustus), and the Dominate (starting with Diocletian, around 300 CE).

Europe was officially a “Renovated Roman Empire” by 800 CE. Thus the states Francia spawned, not just France, and Germany, but Italy, Spain, Britain, actually all of Europe and its entire diaspora, are all successor states of Rome. That can be seen by looking at the Capitol in Washington and the (Roman!) law, all over.

After the First Crusade, Roman power was back in the Middle East, including in much of the green part of Syria. Legally, I do not see why it could be seen as having ever left. Call it the long arm of secular law.

That the successors states of Rome have jurisdiction over Syria is easier to explain than the presence of the Chinese or the Russian states over giant expanses they never controlled before (although Chinese armies were in Central Asia in 750 CE, after the Franks had destroyed the Damascus Caliphate). Something Putin and Xi should be made aware of: they behave as if they can mess up the historical core of the West. So why should no the West mess up with their empires?

Before and during World War Two, imperial fascist Japan generals conducted more than 2,000 gas attacks inside China. This was ignored by the world for years. But, as it turned out, not safely ignored. The act, and ignoring it, was a sign of collapsing ethics, worldwide.

There is No Hope but Hope. And Human Rights prophecize it.

***

Patrice Ayme

Pandora’s World

September 4, 2013

Abstract: More reasons for attacking Assad beyond what I wrote two years ago, “Force Works, Syria Next?“, and more recently (“Syrian Red Line” and “Peace From War“).

Three original points in the dialogue below: 1) there is -nearly- a right of ingerence in the United Nations, that allows to override the Security Council. The French Republic used it many times. This is such a case again. An occasion to teach most of the world’s countries about human rights.

2) Dictator Assad has threatened Israel and the French Republic. So now the self defense clause of the UN Charter can be used against him. In the latter case, that activates NATO.

3) An exclusive argument shows that the West has jurisdiction over Syria (as it had over Yougoslavia). The transfer of power from Rome to Islamist invaders in 636 CE was illegal, unconstitutional, uncivilized, and has proven irresponsible. Time does not make wrong right.

Fascism Is Always Personal, Decapitation Best

Fascism Is Always Personal, Decapitation Best

***

The French President wants to overthrow Assad’s regime. Is not that going too far?

No, it’s perfect. Assad, a criminal against humanity, equipped with weapons of mass destruction, has threatened France, so, to insure French security, that regime needs to go. The United Nations’ charter allows self defense, so now that Assad has threatened the French Republic, the latter has to right to strike. French strikes ought to specifically target the mass murderous dictator.

Assad is roughly in the same position as Hitler got in. Hitler did not surrender. Neither will Assad. Hitler ought to have been destroyed. By the same token, Assad ought to be destroyed. It’s not just a question of striking the VX factories, killing the neurotoxin scientists, their installation, and the specialized military units.

You see no ethical problem in attacking the Syrian government?

There are risks in engaging in action, any action, even going to the movies.

To check how fool proof my logic was, I dressed in pink (mimicking thus the “Code Pink” anti-war activists), and searched potential contradictors. I found them resting their wisdom on ill-information (I am much more “left”, whatever that means, than they are). Slogans (USA atom bombed Japan!) do not a logic make. (Self) glorifying peaceful thinking does not bend psychopathy. Quite the opposite; psychopaths smell weakness, an easy kill.

Fanatical pacifists bleat about non violence, to keep wolves away. They don’t understand biology. Let them munch grass. Fiercer ones save the world. Always have, always will.

Of course, when attacking Assad, countless things could go wrong, and will. A French SCALP missile could stray off course and flatten a school (but they will come at night and their precision is one meter). Assad put people that he would rather see dead, such as some of his own Suni troops, in harm’s way.

In 1944-45, American strategic bombing over France, even Paris, killed many thousands of French people, and flattened entire cities (Brest, Saint Malo, Toulon, etc.). Some, including myself, consider that some of these bombings were motivated by weakening France. Yet, if you ask the French, they shrug, and use a well know expression:“C’est la guerre.” (“It’s war.”)

Assad turned peaceful protests against his plutocracy into a butchery: more than 100,000 dead, more than two million refugees (UNHCR numbers: one million more refugees in 6 months).

The Syrian dictator has violated International Law  by using lethal chemicals in a mass attack on a civilian population (inside his own capital city).

Doing so, the dictator also committed a crime against humanity by killing hundreds of children, knowing full well that the gas would sink in underground shelters where women and children had taken refuge. That does not make him legally different than the worst Nazis.

(Klaus Barbie, who had personally tortured to death around 5,000 people, was condemned to life detention by a French court for the murder of 34 children. Why? Because killing children as a hate crime is a crime against humanity. No prescription. That’s just one thing one can demonstrate Assad just planned to do, assassinating 462 children, at least.)

Chomsky has called an intervention in Syria a war crime.

Chomsky’s indignation against imperialism is so parody, it has no bite. The real problem is plutocracy, not imperialism. There are empires all over. I condemn Bush’s attack against Iraq in 2003 or Carter’s attack against Afghanistan in 1979. Posing as anti-establishment, while being part of it, as Chomsky is confusing.

Chomsky claims that the usage of neurotoxins by the Syrian government is not credible. He thus contradicts the evidence put forward by the French and American governments, and common sense. (The French government web sites have more than 100 shocking videos of gas poisoning in progress.)

I expect no less from someone whose scientific reputation rests on a silly theory of language (“innate grammar“; a theory that someone familiar with varied languages, can only smirk about).

This being said, Chomsky does a nice job as crazy, well meaning uncle in the attic.

Why can’t you embrace non violence?

Non violence contradicts the essence of man. Those who practice it religiously deny reality and invite moral disaster.

Gandhi embraced violent non violence that made him the self declared friend of Hitler, and caused the partition of India along superstitious lines, killing millions. So he was a disaster, although an icon to the fanatical non violent, and that makes sense.

By contrast, Mandela, also a lawyer, embraced violence when he saw no other effective way. By using bombs, Mandela earned the respect of his racist enemies, to the point he was able to change their minds.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is an extremely violent species. Quasi by definition. Be it only violence in the noble sense of using force. Homo SS has never been as violent as he is now, when he is threatening the entire planet, by his mere existence. Yet, non violence is not an option.

Because technology itself is violent. Yet, without it, most of humanity would die. Moreover, solutions to the dilemmas at hand, like the CO2 poisoning of the atmosphere, will involve great force, great imperium (say putting international flying, or even much trade, out of reach of the commoners).

The key to survival, of the humanity we have, is not to lie supine, but to call for ever more violence, or, if you prefer that semantics, force, while channeling it where it will do necessary good.

Politics is about making the lesser of two cruel choices always. Those who do not want to impose, or suggest, the application of cruelty, should stay out of politics.

Is not that too radical a position?

No. Take the CO2 poisoning of the planet. Obama proposed, in the same style as Obamacare, a host of regulations, all over. At best that would make for a police state, with a huge bureaucracy, a sort of Stalinism without executions. At worst, it will be costly and won’t work.

Instead the free market solution is just to change the playground ground rule, by imposing a carbon tax. Just as the free market solution for health care is Medicare For All.

You have lost me completely there. What’s the connection with Syria?

To do the right and moral thing in politics, one has to take often tough and cruel decisions. Just as Obama has long been reluctant to do. Until Libya, and now Syria. The boy is growing up.

A good politician has to take decisions that, at first will feel tough and cruel to some. Sure, it will be tough to kill Assad and his butlers. However, if one had killed Hitler and his butlers in a timely manner, more than 70 million people would not have died, and huge suffering would have been prevented.

Certainly, as a politician, it’s sometimes bad to be too good. Chamberlain thought he was good by refusing war as a solution in Munich and leaving Czechoslovakia to the wolf. That proved a disastrous decision, as the French republic and Czechoslovakia, per se, could have held off Hitler.

The planet is hurtling towards destruction at this point. The correct ideas to save the planet will feel tough and cruel to many, if not most. Because they will be so much out of what they are used to, their comfort zone. That should be explained to the naïve masses.

The Iranian president, says he is “a lawyer, not a colonel”. Is not that reassuring?

Rouhani is president. He gives orders to colonels. Or would, if the Grand Ayatollah did not pull the strings. He “strongly & completely condemns chemicals in Syria”.  Yet, if he does not want to do like USA president Roosevelt in the 1930s, who argued with Hitler, but then helped him as much as he could, Rouhani should help do away with a man who gases his own capital city.

The best way to avoid serious wars is to show to fanatics, and persuade them, that violation of International Law and crimes against humanity will be met with the Wrath Of God, right away. A language they understand.

Don’t you think that spurning the UN Security Council is ill-advised? Chomsky said that was a war crime.

Chomsky barks, history will forget him. The French Republic intervened many times, and got retrospective approval of the United Nations. The 1930s have taught the French that they should trust their instincts about human rights, and not pay too much attention to two tendencies:

1) International plutocracy’s influence (its moods, its plots, both adverse to democracy).

2) The global anti-Republic mood (one of the aspects of the anti-republican mood is the claim to cultural equivalence, aka “multiculturalism”, a mood that makes, for example Islamism equivalent to the secular democratic republic that is constitutional, and the most advanced stage of civilization, and has been, for 3,000 years).

Why Are You Pushing For Regime Change In Syria?

If one just “degraded” Assad’s capabilities, the danger is to undershoot.

1) One does not just wound a bear. Assad has engaged in terrorist acts in other countries (Lebanon). If he survives, he will feel empowered.

2) The likes of Kim have to be shown that, beyond the Red Line, there is no hope. A clear example has to be made. If we do not, Pandora’s world will open, and all evil contained therein will escape and spread over the Earth.

[Part Two Tomorrow.]

***

Patrice Ayme