Posts Tagged ‘history’

France Parented the USA: So Why Forget? Because The Child Played (And Plays) Vicious Games, Partly Reflected In How It Neglected Its Parent.

September 24, 2018

Tremendous efforts are vested by the elite to tweak the mentality of those they subjugate. No detail is spared. Details impact emotional logic, and can fabricate fake minds, apt at serving only the masters who set them up. And that starts by instilling a perverse, twisted sense of history.

Even the names of aircraft carriers can be tweaked, perverting the sense of history and even of democracy: once named after the major battles which made the USA (Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Belleau Woods), now they are named after unelected celebrities (Ford) or undistinguished president (there is a “Reagan” carrier, but no “Nixon”, or “Carter” carrier… The idea being Reagan is vastly superior to Carter or Nixon… although history will judge otherwise… and no carrier should be named after them. JFK, an authentic Navy war hero, who died a martyr, avoided nuclear war, send Earth to the Moon, is another matter, he deserved a carrier…)

Why do the French get downplayed in their importance in the American Revolutionary War?

One French army, commanded by Washington, plus two French armies, commanded by Lafayette and Rochambeau, and the French fleet, commanded by De Grasse, converged on Yorktown, and, after heavy bombardment by French siege guns commanded by De Barras, forced the surrender of the British army.

The irony is that the French themselves learned, and learn, history from the real supreme victors of 1945, the USA, or more precisely, what the USA mostly means, US plutocrats, their media, universities, businesses, with their CIA, Deep State and another 16 “intelligence” agencies in tow.

If one were a French intellectual in the 1950s, and one wanted a lucrative career, one had to sing the praises of the US, or the USSR, or both (Sartre and De Beauvoir did both, after earlier collaborating with the Nazi authorities). Significant details such as the French declaring war (and attacking) Hitler in 1939, while Hitler was allied to the USSR (which provided Hitler with all sorts of goodies, including crucial oil), had to be forgotten.

So had to be forgotten, the troubling double game of the USA at the inception of both WW1 and WW2. The machinations the USA and its moral persons and agents engaged in, favoring fascism and working against the French Republic, should have been seen as particularly outrageous, especially in light of how the USA came to be. Indeed, the French monarchy of Louis XVI was the main agent of creation of the US Republic, and deliberately so. Most probably, without France, the USA would never have come to be. Hence the USA is the baby France brought to this world, and the refusal of the USA to do anything in May-June 1940 to prevent the fall of France is ignominious. If the USA had given an ultimatum to Hitler, his generals would have made a coup.

German generals had asked precisely for such an aggressive attitude, on the part of the USA, as early as 1937, to get rid of the Nazis; after a clear declaration, on the part of the USA, that the USA would side with France against Nazism, the generals had all the excuse they needed for a coupinstead the plotting German generals got denounced by the USA and the UK… to Hitler himself; hence in 1940, German generals could only feel that the USA, or the powers which mattered in the USA, those which controlled public opinion, were in agreement with the Nazi invasion of France! They didn’t guess they were the victim of another bait and switch, just as in WW1…

Had the USA sent such an ultimatum, requiring the immediate German evacuation of France, German generals could have said the Nazis imperilled Germany, as it was obvious to all Germans they couldn’t win the grand coalition of France-Britain-USA. Thus a loud and clear US intervention in 1940 would have brought quick German surrender… Instead, when Hitler declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941, all of Germany, and, in particular the German army, was so deeply committed to Nazi racial and other criminality, that they couldn’t back out…

Even by late June 1940, France was far from defeated: the French air force was poised to gain air supremacy (after enormous Luftwaffe losses and exhaustion), and the French army and fleet could lock up the Mediterranean, and pursue the war from southern France, Corsica and especially North Africa (which the Germans demonstrated later they couldn’t cross seriously, just because of the small islands of Malta, which stayed unconquered).

The Canadians intervened: they landed in Brittany in June 1940, but their divisions were promptly beaten back. A US intervention, the US had aircraft carriers, would have persuaded the French Assembly to keep on firing on the Germans (who had already suffered enormous losses).

The US Deep State attitude during WW2, driven by the French hating plutocrat Roosevelt, anxious to gain control of all European empires, was to destroy as much of France as they could get away with. Hence the attempted grabbing of New Caledonia, the bombing and annihilation of French ports (the Germans had no more boats), and the plan to occupy France as if it were Nazi Germany (that failed because the USA depended upon the one million men French army in 1944, and most US generals were sympathetic to the French cause, and even admired some of their French colleagues, for example “Hannibal” Juin, victor of Monte Cassino, and who could have finished the war in weeks, had he been given free rein…)

However, after the war, the CIA is known to have had at least 50 top French influencers in the media on its payroll… And the real influence was probably much greater. Top French intellectuals did as they were paid for: they rewrote all of French history in a negative light, starting with Vercingetorix and Caesar. Grossly underestimating the French crucial role if the American Revolution was part of it.

The French and US Constitutions of 1789 were proclaimed only three weeks apart. That’s no coincidence: France and the USA actually had a common revolution, and probably its main character was not the American Founding Fathers as much as the tragic figure of Louis XVI, who did in America what he was afraid to do in France (although he feebly tried there, persistently, but all too weakly).

If enough US citizens had known the history of the USA and of the ideals they embraced, better, in 1939, they would have supported the French Republic against the Nazis, the USSR and Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy … As Great Britain (a monarchy!) reluctantly did, in the last few months. History would have turned out differently: no Auschwitz, etc. But US citizens didn’t know France gave birth to the USA, as much as she did (and twice, as France also gave birth to Britain in 1066 CE, complete with outlawing of slavery there…)

Those who don’t learn history are condemned to make it worse, today. more than ever

The greatest and final battle of the American war of independence was at Yorktown: one US army, two French armies, and the French fleet, cornered the British army, and forced its surrender. After inflicting grievous losses on the Japanese carriers, the US aircraft carrier Yorktown was sunk at the Midway battle, a tremendous US victory on attacking Japan.

There is no more US carrier named “Yorktown” in the present US fleet. But the most modern US nuclear carrier is named “Ford”. “Ford”, although US president, was never elected to that office, nor to the office of Vice-President, which he was honored with before. One would guess that democrats and republicans want to forget how one guy can get to the highest offices of the land… without election. But, no, now we have an aircraft carrier to celebrate this strange accession. Strange in a democratic republic, that is…. So, say the history people learn, forget how the USA came to be, through a revolution co-engineered with France, in a republican, democratic spirit, but instead, celebrate now an unelected US president: a telling difference between yesterday’s hopes and ideals, and today’s decadence into plutocracy!

The excellent movie “Gladiator” presents a nice alternative history of Rome. It could have happened that way, indeed. The Republic could have been re-established because of a courageous general. But it wasn’t. Why? The probability that the Republic would come back was low. We the People of Rome expected dictatorship. At some point all minds have become too perverted by fake history, inappropriate mentality! Mental inertia is in command, all the way down to the direst oblivion…

Indeed, Roman fascism and plutocracy soon fell into more of the same, adding hysterical militarism, then apocalyptic, beyond idiotic Christianism, followed by the weird alliance of the wealthiest, with the most religious and barbarian chieftains.

Should we want to avoid the new Dark Ages we often seem to be cruise towards, we need to see history as it really was, not according to manipulative agendas. Yes, France gave birth to the USA at the battle of Yorktown, and yes, the USA betrayed the French (and the Poles, and the Brits, and the Jews, and all the other victims of Nazism) in 1939-1940. That’s real history, not to be confused with fake hysteria.

Patrice Ayme

Thermonuclear Pearl Harbor Would Roast Democracy

December 8, 2016

Pearl Harbor Killed Few, An H Bomb Strike On US City Would Kill Much, & Not Just People, But the Spirit Of Civilization, As We know It:

***

In this age of the Politically Correct, military history is something which sounds too uncouth for the gutter poets who talk to us haughtily. However, military history is the prime mover of history, and it’s always full of surprises.

Look at Caesar, assassinated on the eve of leaving Rome with the largest and best army the Republic ever had, when he was intent to solve forever the problem of Germany and the Middle East, in one bold plan.

Or look at the Islamists, eerily driven by their lethal faith, taking to world by storm in a few decades, defeating three of the world’s largest empires (Oriental Rome, Sasanian Persia, Tang China)… until the Franks killed them all (715 CE- 748 CE)..

Or look at Genghis Khan, coming out of the very same part of Mongolia the Huns had come out from, and vanquishing more than a dozen civilizations, in a few decades.

75 years ago, the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked the USA on the island of Oahu. The Arizona battleship exploded, killing more than a thousand. .

Roughly as many people were killed in that other “big surprise”, 9/11.

Both attacks were a surprise. But they should not have been: the US had cultivated German fascist and vengeful minds.

“Radical Islam” is a pleonasm. The USA has cultivated “Radical Islam”, precisely because it is so deranged (both are, if you ask… but there is a method in the madness).

***

A famous Picture: French H Bomb Exploding In the Atmosphere, French Polynesia, 1970s An H Bomb exploded in rage over a Western city city would kill democracy

A famous Picture: French H Bomb Exploding In the Atmosphere, French Polynesia, 1970s. An H Bomb exploded in rage over a Western city would kill democracy.

 

***

The Nazi USA Connection Was Long Ignored:

Or opportunists such as Dr. H. Schacht, put to the head of the German Central Bank by 1923, where he engineered hyper inflation, to not repair France and Belgium which The German Second Reich had deliberately destroyed; Schacht was a creature of the US biggest banker, JP Morgan: later, being the most influential financier in Germany, and the connection with Wall Street, Schacht pushed for making Adolf Hitler Chancellor; Schacht then became Hitler’s economy and finance minister; exonerated at Nuremberg, and became very important again, after the war, especially with Spain’s dictator, Franco.

In the 1930s, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, among other fascist regimes, became all allies, and were confronted by the French Republic, which dragged Great britain, but not the USA, into the fight… Which France momentarily had to cease in June 1940, having lost the Battle of France.

However, the USA kept on doing business with Nazi Germany, as if nothing had happened. However, the entire world could see that the eradication of the civilian Polish population had been started in Fall 1939.  The USA chose to ignore this, led by its Main Stream media.

In the end, when the Nazis finally understood the trap closing on them, as Nazi tanks were mired in the mud on their way to Moscow, and then the Nazi Air Force frozen in place, a few weeks later.

Meanwhile, the imperial Japanese had understood nothing: they prepared to attack Pearl Harbor, even though Admiral Yamamoto, head of the Japanese Navy was against war. He had studied at Harvard. After the strike at Pearl Harbor he said:”All we have done is to wake up a sleeping giant”.

Meanwhile dedicated Soviet spies, like Sorge in Japan, had informed Stalin that the Japanese had decided to attack the USA. Some Nazi officers could see the golden bulbs of the Kremlin through their binoculars. However, Moscow had not been evacuated, defense rings around the city were deep, the NKVD “blocking sections” killed all retreating soldiers. Stalin ordered the Siberian army, 270,000 elite soldiers to take the train to Moscow.

In Pearl Harbor, magically, the aircraft carriers left Pearl Harbor to “conduct exercises”. When the Japanese attacked, the pilots had orders to hit the flat tops in priority. There was only one flat top in Pearl Harbor, Sunday December 7. But it was a gigantic training ship, made to be hit by bombs and shells. Japanese pilots dutifully hit it again and again and again: it was made to take a pounding, and keep on floating.

The Japanese admiral ordering the strikes, who later would lead the Kamikaze corps, and commit Seppuku, with his command, in violation of the Emperor’s orders, lost his cool: he refused to order the third strike, which would have taken out the fuel depots, and, most importantly, the dry docks.

Roosevelt made his “Day In Infamy” discourse. Omitting the fact the Japanese had to attack the USA, because the oil embargo against Japan strangled the Japanese invasion of China.

And still, the USA did not declare war to Japan’s “Axis” ally, nazi Germany.

Adolf Hitler put the USA out of its ethical misery, by declaring war to the USA, December 11, 1941.

***

“Conspiring” = Breathing Together: The Details Of A Conspiracy Don’t Have To Be Conscious:

Starting just after Yalta, the USA made an alliance with the worst Islam known. The Great Bitter Lake conspiracy. Obama, by lauding “Islam” (implicitly: the Great Bitter Lake Islam, Wahhabism, Salafism, real, literal thus radical Islam) is still making that alliance the cornerstone of US foreign policy.

Same idea as with Nazism: encourage the worst, while making beaucoup bucks. At worst, an excellent war will come out. As World War One, and World War Two.

I love telling young Germans what really happened with both wars, how the US presidency manipulated German leaders in wars they could only lose. And Europe too. To this day, that part of history is occulted. So it can be extended, duplicated, repeated.

An example is the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. General Mattis the Secretary of Defense Elect, retired 4 star general Mattis, just opined that “Invading Iraq may turn out to have been a strategic mistake…”

Well, it was certainly not a strategic mistake for US oilmen: by removing Iraq, with its reserves of conventional oil, the world’s second greatest, the US destruction of Iraq made “tight oil”, aka, fracking, profitable, during its deployment phase. Now that fracking deployment capital has been amortized, US fracking is still profitable, and the USA is the world’s largest producer of fossil fuels… A position the USA has had throughout most of the age of oil.

***

The Meaning of Meaning: Who Thinks What?

The nature of semantics is debated by logicians, category theorists, and, especially, computer scientists. Finding how to mimic meaning in a machine would be a progress, but then one has to understand what meaning is for humans.

Trump, or General Mattis, looking at the Iraq war cannot have the same feeling as an American oil man. Thus, they don’t attach the same meaning.to the event. The same is true for World War Two: many different meanings for different people. However the meaning I attach to it, as a meta-conspiracy to further US plutocratic interests, is not in history books. Or, more importantly, in popular common sense.

Recently we saw a divergence between popular common sense and the official credo of the self-installed elites. The elites believe that the global political socio-economy they set up is the world as it should be, moving forward: they even use the “Nobel Prize”, widely advertised, to reinforce their wisdom. Popular wisdom has diverged, because common people, far from the self-serving elites hiding the mesmerizing foam of pseudo-intellectuals, have observed the catastrophe which they endure (the obverse of that catastrophe is the wealth of plutocrats and the comforts of degenerate pseudo-intellectuals, who literally feed on the catastrophe they generate).

An example is a fire which just happened in Oakland, California: in this center of political correctness, leaving in trash is viewed as a human right, and important advance. Construction of safe housing has long been viewed as Politically Incorrect by enough pseudo-intellectuals there to literally block any new construction for more than a decade. Instead, living in trash is revered, and the city provides services to help to do that.

***

Pearl Harbor Was Made Into A Surprise By An Arrogant Mood:

By 1939, Nazi Germany launched a program of extermination of the Poles, for all to see. The parents of the USA, France and Britain, declared war to the Nazis, and so did Canada, South Africa, India (whose national assembly voted for war, over the objections of Gandhi, self-declared friend of Adolf Hitler), Australia, New Zealand, etc. The USA ignored all of this, just as it chose to ignore to deadly attacks by the Nazis against US warships.

It was more important to pursue business with the Nazis. Why? Much of the American elite was involved that way.

An example: The Dulles Brothers, lawyers who had been agents of president Wilson had more than 1,000 Nazi companies as clients; the Dulles led US policy after WWII; one directed the CIA, the other the State Department; for them WWII was just a further opportunity to manage their clients differently. Companies like IBM had an even more seamless Nazi experience, before, during and after WWII.

So it was all comedy, in some sense. Anybody who has read the Qur’an seriously know that 9/11 is the most natural thing for a true believer of the Qur’an. And it’s why most 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia (where the Literal Qur’an was, then, most believed). And why, until a few weeks ago, until overridden by the US Senate, and the US Congress, Bush and Obama obstinately refused to let US civilians sue the Saudi overlords: that would expose how Literal Islam is in the service of the rapacious globalocratic elite.

Anybody who had read the world correctly in 1939, and claimed to be sincerely democratic enough, not to racist, and endowed with common humanity, had to join the French Republic, ands try to block the Nazis.

The American elite refused to do so, because it had a different agenda. So news about the massacres the Nazis were doing got confined on page six of the New York Times even in 1941 (just as the same New York Times blocks all my comments, because its wealthy elite owners, and the pseudo-intellectual sycophants serving them do not like what I said about Quantitative Easing, or how to divert the People’s money to the richest financial elite…).

***

Why Would The Elites Have Taken The Risk Of A Nuclear Pearl Harbor?

(As I said above, it does not have to be conscious.) Because, the first time an H bomb strikes a big Western city, especially one in the USA, millions will die in minutes, and democracy, within the hour. At that point the only question would be to know whether the USA (hence the West) has become a pure military dictatorship, or one led by the present elite, the global plutocracy. Elites, subconsciously or not, do not like democracy… they call it “populism” and spit on it everyday, encouraging all to do the same, through frantic Main Stream Media (MSM). MSM considers that any attack against any hero of banks and the elites, such as the basically unelected Mateo Renzi (ex-Italian PM) is an attack of “populism”.

The US elite, in 1939, had interest to see the defeat of European democracies, so that the European influence would collapse worldwide, and they could conquer Europe socio-economically. As happened. So the policy of the USA in the 1930s and even during the entire Second World War, was to make a bad situation worse: hence why Roosevelt gave half of Europe to Stalin.

Increasingly the mood that Roosevelt was very sick at Yalta has been advanced to justify Roosevelt’s behavior. However, Roosevelt had advisors, the British, led by Churchill, were against it, and the whole thing had been prepared carefully, first by accepting to meet in Yalta, in the USSR, where FDR and Churchill were treated as honored prisoners. And second by not inviting the French and the Poles (the whole idea of Yalta being to occupy half of Europe with the USSR, the other half by the USA).

Then Roosevelt rushed to the Great Bitter Lake on the Suez canal, to make a similar deal with the Saudis, with now Abdulaziz Ibn Saud playing the role of Stalin, and Literal Islam that of Literal Leninism.

***

Did the USA Know Pearl Harbor Was Coming?

Thus Pearl Harbor was an accident waiting to happen. Some have said more, and that some US authorities knew an attack was coming and let it happen. There are many troubling indices that way. For example the US had broken the Japanese codes. Of course the Japs used codes within the codes (calling locales fancy names).

But, as the US showed seven months later at Midway, US counterintelligence knew how to turn around that (because of code breaking, the US Navy knew, weeks in advance, that the Japs were going to attack Midway by surprise, and ambushed the surprised surprising Japs, after further elaborate deceptions).   

And certainly Stalin knew the Japs were going to attack the USA (as he displaced the Siberian army prior to it).

However, other documents show the USA did not plan to go to war in 1942 (but the year after that).

In any case, it was not pretty. And a nuclear strike on the West would not be pretty, either. Actually, it would be way worse. Whereas Pearl Harbor reinvigorated US democracy, a nuclear bomb would definitely hit it (as the hysteria post 9/11 demonstrated, including the ill-conceived invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq).

***

What To Do?

The pratically minded often cut me off, and ask what to do. The first thing to do, is to learn, to learn what happened in the past. However, history is mightily distorted, mangled, and amputated. In the case of the Twentieth Century, the head is missing, namely why did the USA behave the way it did, which made WWI and WWII longer and more consequential that they needed to be.

If the USA had allied itself with France in August 1914, the war would have been over in less than 12 months. Same observation for World War Two. On top of that, in the case of WWII, the Japs would have seen the might and determination of the USA, had the USA declared war in September 1939 to Adolf Hitler. The Japs would then have concluded that Britain, France and the USA were bound to be in Berlin within months.

There would have been no Japanese attack on French Indochina, no attack on Pearl Harbor, no attack in the Philippines. The Japs would have been quietly strangled in China, deadly afraid to be overthrown as Hitler had been, and not having the means (no oil) to attack anyway.

By feeding the Axis before World War Two (and the Kaiser during WWI!), the USA threw gasoline on the fascist fire. (Literally, as the Nazis were motorized by US oil until 1941, and then synthetic US process oil…)

A similar feeding of a fascist entity has been indulged into with Literal Islam, since the great Bitter Lake conspiracy (among other things, it brought the installment of Islam Fundamentalist “republics” such as Pakistan; later, indirectly, Iran, as the US empowered Khomeini and company in the early 1950s…)

Obama also dropped the ball on North Korea, too busy was he ingratiating himself with all the US plutocrats he could find, by not confronting China. (Even Bill Clinton had been more rigorous with north Korea, than Obama!) Such non-actions are a form of action. Now the Obama administration is telling the Trump team that there is a big problem with North Korea.

Yes, it is called a possible nuclear Pearl Harbor.

Some will whine that surely the North Korean dictator, who gave his uncle to dogs for dinner, is not that crazy. Why not? Madness has its reasons that common sense does not have.

The head of the Japanese Navy was against attacking the USA, before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even the extremely ferocious admiral who led the strikes, as ferocious as the most ferocious Japanese warrior in WWII, got scared after the two first waves of attacks: he feared exactly what would happened at Midway, seven months later to the day: ambushing US carriers.

So will a dictator like the one in North Korea not attempt a nuclear first strike? Don’t bet your life on it. But, come to think of it, that;s what we have all been doing.

Expect the worst: you will not be disappointed.

Patrice Ayme’

REAL HISTORY: World War One Inception

November 10, 2015

The real history is, all too often, still the secret history.

This is so true that I am not the first to think of that. The main, most revealing, horrors, massacres, and all,  most interesting and educational document we have on the history of the Mongols is called the “Secret History of The Mongols”. It was really secret, and written only for the elite (so they will learn how Genghis Khan did it, and the way he did it is much revealing than, say, the Prince of Machiavelli, or the “Art of War” of Sun Tzu).

Learning history from one’s master is to condemn oneself to perpetuate one’s subjugation.

History conducive to one’s servitude can be subtle. Extremely subtle.

Take three lies about World War One which are viewed as obvious truths by historically minded, college educated commoners:

  1. The USA had nothing to do with World War One’s inception. The USA only got involved in the war, against Germany, in April 1917.
  2. European powers are responsible of the inception of World War One.
  3. Germany was neither fascist nor “Nazi” (that is prone to mass murdering atrocities akin to holocausts) in 1914.

The three notions above are subtle lies. OK, not so subtle, it turns out, and certainly catastrophic. Catastrophic, gigantic lies whose consequences are alive and well as we try to think nowadays. Perpetuating these lies by repeating them like educated parrots, makes one incapable of understanding what is perhaps the main cause of evil in the world.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

For the third lie, one has just to look at what the Kaiser’s Germany did in Namibia: a deliberate holocaust aiming at exterminating the Natives and replacing them with Aryans. After French civilization was thrown out of Germany in 1815, Jews lost the equal rights they had acquired. The Hep-Hep riots took place throughout Germany, killing Jews, destroying their properties. Many German states stripped Jews of their civil rights. Nazism was a repetition, not an innovation (except in the sense that it got help from IBM; see the book: “IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation for further edification).

Some still insist that the Kaiser’s Germany, a dictatorship, was on a level field with those it attacked, including the French and British democracies. The Kaiser’s Germany deliberately launched a world war in early August 1914, knowing full well it would be a world war, but hoping to take out militarily, in quick succession a whole number of powers, including the French Republic, and later Russia, to force an advantageous peace on Great Britain. Five men took the decision to attack: the Kaiser, and His four top generals. The two admirals present were highly reluctant, but they gained only a delay. Five men: not a democracy in any sense.

If one does not realize the three points above are lies, one cannot understand the causal system which brought World War One. Still historians have written thousands of books on the subject, which more or less treat the three lies above as if they were not the lies they are, but self-evident truths. How come those noble, much honored doctors of history missed the truth so much? Is it because they are called “doctors” and thus doctor history? Is it because they were paid to sell books, and to entertain the ruling paradigm: pro-”American”, anti-European, anti-democratic. In a variant, Germans were crazy militarists (true, but irrelevant for understanding what sparked the German government into action).

Something similar happened with World War Two. One cannot understand the causal system which brought World War Two, if one does not known a number of facts which are completely ignored by (most) “official” history, and, certainly, all plutocratic universities.

Instead the usual causal system used is just to announce that the Nazis were, well, Nazis, stupid criminals who did not know what they were doing.

The much more frightening truth is the following. Against plutocracy, the Nazis themselves contend in vain. The Nazis were bent to lethal self-destruction, in part because they got carefully manipulated into insanity. Manipulated? The historian Dodd was the ambassador of the USA and his grim assessment of the nature of Nazism was shared by his colleague, the French ambassador. To avoid from the omnipresent Nazi microphones, the two ambassadors used to take walks in the “garden of the beasts” (Tiergarten” in Deutsch). Now there is an American book by that title.

Roosevelt replaced the anti-Nazi ambassador by a pro-Nazi one, and did the same in London, or Paris (where Roosevelt went as far as recognizing immediately the unconstitutional Vichy regime established under the Nazi guns; Churchill and the Commonwealth never recognized the Vichy puppets as the legitimate French state or government: it was not)

To come back to the three lies above they create the following moods advantageous to the present rulers (and it helps define who said rulers are!):

  1. The USA is innocent in all matters pertaining to European insanity.
  2. Europeans are crazy, lethal nuts, much inferior to the wise and balanced American sort.
  3. European democracies are not different from fascist, war criminally insane regimes such as the 1914 German dictatorship. It’s all a level playing field. Only the USA stands loftily above that mess.

The historical truth is completely different.

But, to find it, one has to look for those who had interest to launch a war. Clearly the Second Reich plutocracy (top capitalists, profiteers and generals) was aware, and declared, that the French Republic and democratizing Russia were overtaking Germany’s economic might. To the point the evil men who ruled Germany soon would not be sure to win a war against them. War was planned “within 18 months of December 11, 1912.

Moreover the German socialists were getting increasingly agitated, as they wonder aloud why Germany could not democratize too, or, even, become a Republic.

So German plutocracy was culprit. However, by June 1, 1914, no special preparation had been engaged. Three days earlier the Archiduke of Austro-Hungary had been assassinated.

That day, June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the envoy of the president of the USA, the world’s greatest economic power, met with the German dictator, the Kaiser. House did entertain the Kaiser ‘s racial folly and did promise military and civilian aid, which was delivered for the first three years of the war of fascist Germany against democratic France and Britain.

Colonel House did even more: he proposed to the Kaiser a world government of Britain, the USA and Germany, as long as Germany renounced its project to build the world’s premier military fleet, as it already had the world’s most powerful army.

In the law of the USA, if one drives the get-away car, while a murderous hold-up is conducted, one is viewed as a murderer too (at least by the prosecutors).

In this case the USA’s leadership presented the plan to the Kaiser. The plan of the mass murder hold-up of, not just Europe, but the entire world. With the help of the USA, the Kaiser and his murderous accomplices had a chance. Otherwise they would fall prey to the (German) Socialists. Assuredly.

Hitler and his top Nazis would make the same computation in the 1930s. They had every reason to believe the USA was playing a double game. A bit more thinking would have led them to realize that, as in the First World War, the leadership of the USA (those who pull the strings of presidents) was playing not a double, but a triple game.

Together the French and British high sea fleets had a crushing superiority on the Kaiser’s fleet. They could have blockaded Germany. The embargo would have starved fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany out of the war in JUST ONE YEAR.

However, that was without counting the USA. Using the “neutral” Netherlands, the USA fed fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany as if it were a newborn baby. Including with materials Germany absolutely needed to make AMMUNITIONS.

Ammunition  making materials were provided deliberately to the Kaiser, in spite of French and British protests to Washington. So were the USA and the Netherlands neutral in World War One? No. If a country helps massively and crucially a mass murdering enterprise as the Kaiser’s Reich, it is an accomplice of said mass murdering enterprise.

One could argue that the Netherlands was afraid to be invaded, as courageous neutral Belgium was. That’s a mitigating circumstance, indeed. However, it does not apply to the mighty USA.

I view the USA as the Deus Ex Machina of World War One. Or, more exactly, the USA’s corrupt plutocracy.

It would repeat the performance in the 1930s with Nazism (which it more or less American plutocracy instigated, financed, created, inspired, and even fed one-liners to, let alone Harvard songs)

So here we are.

And we are here, with a rising plutocracy (so-called “wealth inequality”), which has transformed the world in a sort of Kabuki theater, complete with elaborate make-up.

We are here because few perceive how manipulated not just the interpretation, but the very nature of the historical universe have been distorted.

Indeed the ambivalent role of the USA’s leadership, having not been suspected, detected, let alone analyzed, went on with its self-promoting ways, still unsuspected, undetected, let alone unanalyzed.

Over-simplistic conventional “anti-Americanism” or “anti-capitalism” is a friend of this cover-up, because it eschews serious, informed, in-depth revelation, and exposition of the profiteer class (now well hidden inside the Dark Pools of faceless money, more than half of the world’s money).

All deep questions ponder what was the logic precedingly involved. Thus the deepest questions are always historical in nature to some extent.

Therefore, the inability, or lack of inclination, to be as critical of history feeds the inability and lack of inclination to tackle the deepest questions… Such as the survival of humanity, presently at play.

Ah, and what of the main cause of evil in the world? It’s not, as the trite truth has it, that good human beings did nothing. It’s rather that, deciding to know nothing, they refuse to check out the details. As everybody knows, this is akin to leaving the Devil alone, free to go on with His machinations and His not-so subtle lies.

Patrice Ayme’

Bring Euro Down, Save Germany’s Soul

August 29, 2014

Another day, another sneak remark of Krugman against the Euro which mars an otherwise well thought of train of ideas. However, our student the dear professor is learning. He just made an excellent editorial “The Fall of France” about which I commented, and that was published (whereas the Times censored my observations about Putin’s naked aggression in Ukraine: comparisons with Hitler, however scholastic, are not welcome!). More on this later.

Krugman’s tendency to fall into Euro bashing prevents him to see the (obvious) solution. Let alone mention it. The solution lays for all to see in history, when the Euro solved the German problem for the best:

History As A Sum Of Solutions

History As A Sum Of Solutions

Question: what did I exactly mean? See below, for those who do not see the blatant answer in the violent graph above. Here is part of Krugman’s “Germany’s Sin”.

“Simon Wren-Lewis has two very good posts about the European situation, first laying out the problem, then taking on those who don’t get it. I just want to add a bit to one of his key points: the impossibility of a resolution unless Germany accepts higher inflation.

In Germany, there’s a strong tendency to moralize, with appeals to the country’s own recent economic history. We pulled ourselves out of our late 90s doldrums, the Germans say, so why can’t Southern Europe do the same?

But a key part of the answer is that Southern Europe now faces a much less favorable environment than Germany did then — and Germany is the reason why.”

For a full decade, eurozone inflation was 2 percent, while inflation in Southern Europe was considerably higher. Germany could gain competitiveness simply by having low inflation — no need to deflate. But these days German inflation is only one percent, French inflation close to zero percent. Thus eurozone inflation is no more than one percent. Gaining competitiveness means that Southern Europe should deflate.

And Krugman to conclude:

…”deflation worsens the debt burden. Add onto this the fact that the eurozone as a whole remains depressed thanks to fiscal austerity and inadequate monetary expansion, and Germany is in effect demanding that Spain and others accomplish a task vastly harder than the Germans themselves had to achieve. 

And the worst of it is that there’s no sign that Berlin understands, or is willing to understand, this reality. And if the euro fails, that refusal to think clearly will be the fundamental cause.”

Right. And also wrong. “If the euro fails” is not really a possibility. It would cost so dearly, to so many people, that it would be akin to war, and Europeans have learned a few things that way. A lot of milder drastic changes can be effected before coming to blows.

Notice an obvious help Germany had when it was the sick economy of Europe: a Euro which was 40% lower. It’s curious, but no accident, that Krugman fails to notice this.

Bringing the euro to 83 dollar cents has happened before, and was there to help Germany, then. The good professor should mention this more. That would help the German miscreants to remember the past better. (Of course, the Euro at 83 Dollar cents would be a disaster for the USA, hence Krugman’s failure to notice the obvious!)

Instead, to brandish the “failure” of a currency directly used by so many people is not serious. More than 50 countries and 530 million people use the Euro (counting both the 340 million of the Eurozone, plus nearly 200 million pegged to the Euro, and unilateral users).

Even if the euro disintegrated, the nasty mood of some in Germany would not just persist, but prosper further. Ultimately that bad mood has to be crushed at close quarters.

Germany has become the world’s greatest produced of lignite, the dirtiest coal. It’s high time for some serious German bashing. Just slamming the door is not enough: historically Germans understand barking best (as Nietzsche may have said).

Bringing the euro down would help the suffering European countries a lot. Let’s remind the Germans of this. Remind them of their own past, and other previous pasts: German currency manipulations to gain advantage go all the way back to the early 1920s (thanks to Dr. Schacht, head of the central bank, and later one of Hitler’s main promoter!)

Bringing the euro 35% down: that would be a triumph, a real euro success. (That would just put the Euro where it’s supposed to be, in long term parity with

Hating the Euro is hating Europe. This being said, differently from the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA’s mandate, the ECB’s mandate makes the “value of the currency” the “principal object” of its activities (that’s article 127 of the European Constitution). By contrast the Fed has a DOUBLE mandate: insuring the value, and optimizing economic activity.

I had a fight with a French economist when I pointed out the flaw of the ECB mandate. She told me: ”No, the ECB’s mandate is like the Fed’s!”. Her own son, himself a high flying interest rate analyst in London, agreed with me. She erupted: “I have taught these things, for years!”. She brandished books. I told her to look it up in the Internet.

Article 127(1) of the Treaty defines the primary objective of the Eurosystem:

“The primary objective of the European System of Central Banks […] shall be to maintain price stability”.

Article 127 continues as follows: “Without prejudice to the objective of price stability, the ESCB shall support the general economic policies in the Union with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union as laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union.”

Even as my friend, aghast, looked at the screen, and read those words, she could not understand what they meant. yet, it’s simple: it meant the destruction of the European economy.

Why? Because “price stability” is unsustainable, just as a plane cannot fly at ground level. In economics, the ground is zero percent inflation. Right now it’s only .3% in the Eurozone. For why inflation too close to zero is a disaster, see “Inflation Good, Stagnation Bad” or the older: “4% inflation best”.

We are led by imbeciles. Some are politicians, some are bankers, some are economists, some teach what they call economics, or politics. Many are greedy, and profiting from the stupidity they advocate.

Who gave them their drivers’ license? The license to drive entire economies, and even the biosphere, into the ground, while insulting common sense, let alone common science? Yesterday’s oligarchies?

Patrice Ayme’

Walls Of Common Lies

August 21, 2014

The legitimate kings were Henry V and Henry VI, kings of England and France, Paris and London. The contender a teenager was promoting was both illegitimate, and a public enemy. Such is the true history of Joan of Arc. Don’t expect one French out of a hundred to suspect it, six centuries later. Too happy, or so it seems, to have enjoyed another four centuries of war between Paris and London.

It is so easy to slip into propaganda, when brandishing history. Let me illustrate this further.

Century of Disaster Riddles, Lies, and Lives — from Fidel Castro and Muhammad Ali to Albert Einstein and Barbie By Eduardo Galeano

[The following passage is excerpted from Eduardo Galeano’s history of humanity, Mirrors.] In an aphorism Galeano imbues some “walls” with malfeasance, while insinuating that the Iron Curtain was not such a terrible thing. He vastly underestimates the unjustifiable length and lethality of the Soviets’ fascist contraption (by orders of magnitude). To trick us Galeano confuses the “Iron Curtain” (thousands of kilometers long) and the “Berlin Wall” (part of the preceding, but just inside a particular city).

The Almoravide Empire Justifies Several Contemporary Walls

The Almoravide Empire Justifies Several Contemporary Walls

Here is Galeano:

Walls

“The Berlin Wall made the news every day. From morning till night we read, saw, heard: the Wall of Shame, the Wall of Infamy, the Iron Curtain…

In the end, a wall which deserved to fall fell. But other walls sprouted and continue sprouting across the world. Though they are much larger than the one in Berlin, we rarely hear of them.

Little is said about the wall the United States is building along the Mexican border, and less is said about the barbed-wire barriers surrounding the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the African coast.

Practically nothing is said about the West Bank Wall, which perpetuates the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and will be 15 times longer than the Berlin Wall. And nothing, nothing at all, is said about the Morocco Wall, which perpetuates the seizure of the Saharan homeland by the kingdom of Morocco, and is 60 times the length of the Berlin Wall.

Why are some walls so loud and others mute?”

The answer is simple: different walls, different situations. The Berlin Wall was a thundering lie, for all to hear. Other walls can reveal very loud truths, whom nobody in position of intellectual domination wants others to hear.

Why, for example, if Europe is such an horrendous colonialist, and America such a terrible imperialist, are the multitude so keen to shred themselves upon rows after rows of ten meter high razor blades fences as in Ceuta and Melilla? We need truths to explain those facts. Why Africans such lemmings throwing themselves across the sea towards the land of their oppressors and enslavers? Why so suicidal?

To each offense, a defense. Tied up together by causality, offenses and defense are, nevertheless, exact opposites. Somebody’s unjust aggression is someone else’s just war.

I have never heard of Eduardo Galeano before Paul Handover and “Tomdispatch”. I will try to get his book, I love different perspectives, challenges, and, especially, questions I can answer.

Writing about history is a heavy fate. It’s indeed easy to slip into commonality, Common Wisdom, that is, most often, propaganda. Unknowingly.

For example, Galeano implies that Alan Turing committed suicide because of the victimization he was submitted to, as a homosexual. Sounds good on the surface, and it is Conventional Wisdom (so Galeano repeats it, like a good, book selling parrot).

However, a more refined knowledge of what really happened reveals that Turing’s death was probably an accident that befell the already-at-the-time hyper famous Alan Turing, MBE, Member of the British Empire. Verily, Turing had left well behind his condemnation for unwise relations with someone all too young in his employ, whom Turing had imprudently accused of theft.

Some will say: “Why are you so vindictive about the innocent lemmings who love to allege that Turing was forced into suicide, for his homosexuality? Is not that a pretty tale? Does not that help homosexuals? Even if it’s false? Can’t you leave pretty tales alone? What do you have against homosexuals and Joan of Arc?”

Well, truth is my religion. From history, lessons are to be drawn. Correct ones are best. Incorrect ones, and deliberately so, criminal.

I partly draw my uncommon morality from meta-history (that’s the history of the systems of thought that made history).

First, if Turing died accidentally, there is a moral to it: accidents happen. Turing had long played with dangerous chemistry. Since childhood. he went one game with cyanide too far.

Second: whereas Turing was legally harassed for homosexuality, it’s important to realize that, at the time, that was not perceived as an intolerable injustice (even by Turing himself!). There is a higher, meta-lesson in this: the intolerable can look sufferable.

Parrot, repeating history, often engage in Thought Crime. TC: Though Crime, or Terrible Catastrophe.

Recently, some important guy from Hamas was saying something about Jewish children being bathed in blood (an old lie from Middle-Age Christian fascism). Common leftists and other vulgar intellectuals did not protest… Another Thought Crime.

I was listening the other day to a very educated French teacher, a biologist, telling a swarm of little French children, aged five to nine, the beautiful history of the victimization of Joan of Arc. Except that, as taught in France for the last 200 years, it’s sheer propaganda.

The bad “Anglais” were actually themselves French… The would-be French king, later Charles VII… was not the legitimate French King, and thus he was not keen to be sacred king…  The Queen of Four Kingdoms manipulated Joan and Charles behind the scene, fatally opposing the legitimate kings, Henry V and Henry VI, kings of England and France, Paris and London.

Thus history is not joke, and nationalistic pitfalls, let alone plutocratic ones, everywhere.

Telling false history to little children teaches hatred.

I do view my activities as those of a historian, because I interpret history. I take some facts that are generally ignored, and point out that they demolish Conventional Wisdom, or the Politically Correct, let alone their vicious embrace. (Nietzsche did nothing different, and most philosophers have, indeed, re-interpreted history. Some of these reinterpretations have become Common Wisdom.)

Yet, I try to exert maximum honesty: when I say something, however controversial, it’s backed up, by serious logic and facts, to the best of my knowledge.

And I avoid historical salad: putting together obviously unrelated things, as if there was a logic to it.

Interrogating all these walls, as Eduardo does, is an excellent question. Yet there is an obviously huge difference between walls that keep people in, and those which keep them out. Blame is pointing out in directions opposite. One of them is right, not both.

The very fact that Europe and the USA have to build walls around themselves, as Rome did for five centuries, is a testimony to their success, not to their failure. And those walls are also a testimony to the failure of more general systems of thought (anti-“colonialism”, global plutocracy, pseudo-leftism, over-exploitation of the planet, crazed demographics, etc.)

Another example: I detest the Moroccan regime (supposedly directly descended from Mahomet, actually just a full blown plutocracy). Yet, one has to visualize the local conditions before crushing it with blanket blame.

And the EU will get some of the blame: the EU haughtily decreed that “Morocco was not European“. That is insulting. Moreover, it is false geographically, genetically, and according to deep history. To boot, it’s not wise, economically self-defeating, politically stupid and strategically dangerous.

All this, because European leaders are arrogant twerps with not much knowledge where it counts.

Knowing long term history (last 1,000 years), shows that the area claimed by the “Polisario” was long Moroccan (for want of a better word, as past empires, extending all the way to Spain, wore different names).

One such empire was that of the Almoravides, true founders of the present Moroccan regime. The Almoravides empire extended from Senegal (where a founder of the empire was killed by a poisoned arrow), to Alger, Lisbone, and the Baleares islands.

Thus the long grudge of Algeria’s FNL (or whatever it wants to call itself) against Morocco becomes something nine centuries old. It explains the FNL’s hostility against Morocco, its support of the Polisario… And the Moroccan wall does not sound as silly, and outrageous anymore.

Empires are not always wrong in all ways. By definition, they order (imperare), and they can order, because they can defend themselves. The best defense being, often, of course, attack. Thuse when Hannibal had taken residence in Italy for more than a decade, the Patrician who came to be known as Scipio Africanus, suggested to the Roman People to attack in Africa itself, and that audacious strategy was entirely successful: precipitously recalled to Carthage, Hannibal hastily gathered forces were soundly defeated just south of the Punic capital, soon to be punished.

With Mexico, the USA has two choices: build a wall, or impose order (imperare), all over Mexico. The latter was tried a bit in the past, more than once. Next time it could well be more thorough, and definitive.

For the USA, letting 100 million Mexicans in, is not really an option

As it is Spanish is already the second language of California, and, extrapolating some trends, could become the first someday. (I do speak Spanish a bit, BTW, so I am no rabid Spanish hater.)

However, as they are immigration flows in Europe and the USA are sustainable… As long as the dominant European and American civilization is successfully imposed. In France, by some estimates, 95% of anti-Judaic attacks are attributed to persons of Muslim ancestry. This is symptomatic of borderline dangerous assimilation situation (more than ten people have died because of it, some little children, directly targeted in an elementary school, for being Jewish, and other French people… including at least one Muslim French paratrooper… a natural victim of anti-Semitism!)

What was particularly grotesque about the Iron Curtain is that it was to keep in workers who were supposed to be living in a paradise made for them. In other words, it was a lie.

The walls between Europe and Africa are not a lie. At least 50,000 have already died trying to cross them in the last ten years (the EU officially says 35,000 drowned in the Mediterranean alone). If one includes the Algerian Harkis of 1962, one speaks about hundreds of thousands dead… trying to get to Europe.

This is testimony of another lie: the standard anti-colonialist discourse. According to it, colonialism, whatever that was, depicts the ultimate evil. Clearly, the regimes that succeeded have been worse, by many measures. And that was entirely predictable: removing the colonialist administrations was equivalent to removing most of the anti-plutocratic safeties.

So walls there are. Contemplating them is good. But the hardest walls to remove are in those erected with the minds which harbor them.

Patrice Ayme’

 

History: First, Thoughts & Moods

August 3, 2014

When historical historians look at history, they tend to look at the antics of history, and their heroic actors. All too much. Although the first historian, Thucydides, analyzing the Peloponnesian war, concluded that it was caused, first of all, by the anxiety that the rise of Athens brought in Sparta.

Athens rose because she was a democracy. Sparta could not rise the same, because she was not constituted that way (ironically, Sparta had created Athenian democracy, by an armed intervention).

Peter The Great was more than two meters tall, he walked very fast, he was hyper active, domineering, he fought the “Old Believers”.

The way Peter looked at it was different: he wanted to replace Russia’s old moods and systems of thoughts with one grafted from Western Europe. To accomplish that, he determined, to his dismay, and sometimes with lots of humor, that no violence was high enough.

4,000 Year Old Celtic Crosses Switzerland

4,000 Year Old Celtic Crosses Switzerland

Semiotics is also endowed with huge mental inertia, and capability to generate mental structures: the appeal of the cross preceded Christianity by millennia, in the West.

Clearly, looking at it objectively, considering the fanatical resistance of the “Old Believers”, Peter had no choice. He was actually extremely patient, waiting years before he struck all out.

Some will whine about how violent it all was. Yet, no Peter, certainly no Russia, as we know it. Peter even contributed to the conquest of the cold regions, by having the “Old Believers” fleeing there.

The big change between the Greco-Romans and the Franks was the Franks’ refusal of going on with haughty, exploitative discrimination. Both the discrimination of the Christians, or, more exactly, the Catholics, against non-believers, and the discrimination against slaves.

When one looks at the complicated history of the Americas after the Europeans landed in force (in contrast to the weak landings of the Vikings, 500 years prior), the greatest explanatory schemes comes from biological and philosophical systems.

In biology, the Europeans were simply immunologically stronger, the Eurasian-African cesspool-petri dish, being the world’s largest.

Philosophically, the exploitative philosophy of the Conquistadores was inexhaustible, until Charles Quint called off the Conquista (precisely to stop the holocaust). They collided head to head with the Portuguese, who, although just one million, were even more hyper, in the same way.

The French, who were next, were much more careful, all too careful… Too careful with their morality, not enough with their persons and that of their allies.

Thus Philippe II sent an armada to annihilate the French colonies of the Carolinas, down to Florida. France was the enemy, being too tolerant of the Protestants (who had founded said colonies). That was highly successful, down to the last baby.

Another example: the French over-civilized the Hurons. Once the Hurons were civilized and grew crops, the Iroquois, still proudly savage, and seeing in the Huron thought system the enemy, swooped in, and killed the Hurons to the last.

Voltaire was a pseudocrat, someone with pseudo power. Voltaire became immensely rich by manipulating the highest powers in France, England, Prussia and Russia. Voltaire, under the guise of the Enlightenment, unconsciously made the work of the Dark Side. How? By advising Louis XV’s and his Pompadour not to die for a “few arpents of snow in Canada.

Indeed the English colonies in the Americas had been founded by the “West Country Men”, top English plutocrats who knew no bounds to their exploitative schemes.

Thus English America was not just founded by some men, and some accidents, but by an extreme exploitative mentality. By advising the French to fold, Voltaire posed as politically correct, Buddhist, wise man of the mountain, Christian saint, whatever despondent philosophy beasts are forced to embrace when they get devoured.

However, all what the boyfriend of Frederic the Great achieved, was to give free reins to the exploitative mentality of the West Country Men, who won the World War of the Seven Year War (1756-1763; known myopically in the USA as the French and Indian Wars))

Hand in hand the French and German presidents stood today, August 3, 2014. They were on the “Man Eating Mountain”. More than half a million French and German soldiers died there, in combat.

The presidents laid the first stone of a memorial monument to World War First, financed by Germany and France.

Why not? The French and German share the same system of thought, Republican, and the same mood, Democracy. No Kaiser in sight. The Kaiser, that is, plutocracy, was the system that ruled Germany a century ago. Cornered by the rise of democratic forces all over, all the way to Siberia, and even inside the Reichstag, Prussian plutocracy gambled that it could win a world war, and all would fall its way.

Now France and Germany are ruled by the same general mood and thoughts.

That’s how to bring peace and harmony. And nothing else ever worked, but for distance. The latter being something we absolutely do not have anymore on this small planet.

Take another example. Viciousness is a human trait. Corruption is maximum, when it cannot even be evoked, or denounced. Yet, that mood has often come to rule.

How does one fight that mood? By yet another mood, a higher one. To avoid this sorry state of affairs, where viciousness, say in the leadership, intellectual or political, cannot even be evoked, the honor of the human spirit has to rise above all. Including offending all too common courtesy. Moods against moods.

History has been, first of all, about moods and systems of thoughts. They compete, they fight, and the best overwhelm the rest. You know, like the West did with the rest.

Need a proof that this happened? Watch the United Nations (whose head just spoke of “criminal” acts by Israel: “This attack, along with other breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated and those responsible held accountable. It is a moral outrage and a criminal act,” Ban Ki Moon’s office said.).

Some fear the clash of civilizations. They are wrong. Clashes can be good. They can be a form of debate.

History is about civilization clashing, colliding and coalescing anew around better ideas, a bit like stars are formed. We should welcome such clashes as we should any effort that gives us everything we have that is good, our superior mind, the Fifth Element (found in Vedic, Celtic, and Greek mythology).

The best example of a fruitful clash of civilizations, of moods and thoughts, was the clash between Celto-Germans and Greco-Romans. It gave us. It gave us the West, for the rest.

Patrice Ayme’

Chomsky: MIT Bimbo?

June 16, 2014

Some praise Chomsky as the “Socrates For Our Times“. Before unleashing a deep and scathing critique to the heart of Chomsky’s mind, let me hasten to point out that I do agree with a lot of Chomsky’s remarks. Let me quote him in an interview posted June 16, 2014:

“This war hysteria has never ceased, moving seamlessly from a fear of the German Hun to a fear of communists to a fear of Islamic jihadists and terrorists.

“The public is frightened into believing we have to defend ourselves,” Chomsky said. “This is not entirely false. The military system generates forces that will be harmful to us. Take Obama’s terrorist drone campaign, the biggest terrorist campaign in history. This program generates potential terrorists faster than it destroys suspects. You can see it now in Iraq. Go back to the Nuremberg judgments. Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime. It differed from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows. The U.S. and British invasion of Iraq is a textbook case of aggression. By the standards of Nuremberg they [the British and U.S. leaders] would all be hanged. And one of the crimes they committed was to ignite the Sunni and Shiite conflict.”

The conflict, which is now enflaming the region, is “a U.S. crime if we believe the validity of the judgments against the Nazis. Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the [Nuremberg] tribunal, addressed the tribunal. He pointed out that we were giving these defendants a poisoned chalice. He said that if we ever sipped from it we had to be treated the same way or else the whole thing is a farce.” 

Today’s elite schools and universities inculcate into their students the worldview endorsed by the power elite. They train students to be deferential to authority. Chomsky calls education at most of these schools, including Harvard, a few blocks away from MIT, “a deep indoctrination system.””

What is there not to like for someone such as me? Did I not just said the same over and over again, even yesterday (before the Chomsky interview was published)?

[I agree, with all the preceding, especially what I emboldened. Actually, I have said these things vociferously, for years. I am happy Chomsky has joined the show. He should add MIT, and… himself, to the parade. Let me explain.]

My objection to Chomsky is that we need a Death Star to destroy the plutocracy, and that Chomsky is a deeply malfunctioning Death Star.

Proof?

Chomsky’s analysis of World War One. What happened then bears and informs completely upon what is going on today: a few manipulating plutocrats, in one of the deadliest and deepest conspiracies ever, ganged up together, and achieved their objectives.

(There was actually a hierarchy in the manipulative order, conspiracies within conspiracies: the half dozen Prussians, and the grandson of Queen Victoria who, technically launched WWI all by themselves, were manipulated by a number of higher level creatures… from the other side of the Atlantic! The very failure of Chomsky to know of the existence and nature of this meta-conspiracy mindset is his greatest failure. That makes him bark all day along, at the foot of the wrong tree.)

Chomsky as Socrates? Some will see in that an innocent way of expressing oneself. Instead I view in this not just the pursuit of false prophets, but of a false analysis of humanity.

Having a false evaluation of humanity makes oneself into a lambs ready to be devoured by plutocrats. The basic approach of Chomsky is the same as the one of Russell. It’s a variant of the one inaugurated by Kant, no less. Kant (following Confucius) said the state defined morality, so should be obeyed.

Russell and Chomsky say:”All states are the same, so let’s just do away with them.”

OK, they say: let’s do away with the military mindset; however, a state worth of its name, is, first of all, an army. Thus an anti-military posture is pure anarchism, and, thus pure impotence, hence the greatest help a fascist, plutocratic, oligarchic state can have. That makes Russell and Chomsky more like vaccinations rather than aggressions.

In the end, they leave the state perhaps even stronger, and more unscathed, than Kant did.

Chomsky and MIT mean well. Perhaps. But I doubt it.

Indeed, Chomsky did not get the history of World War One (or Two) right yet. He makes the exact same mistake as the major plutocrat, pseudo-philosopher, Lord Russell. It’s the same grotesque call to turning the other cheek, after the first one has been torn out, and made into a gory mess, with some brains showing (maybe that’s why they lost their minds?)

The Kaiserreich that made a surprise attack on August First 1914, deliberately launching a world war (that’s the way they had planned it since December 1912) was a regime that had long engaged in holocausts and Nazi style war crimes, and proceeded to do this exactly in Belgium and France in the following days.

Weirdly, Chomsky, who recognizes that “Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime. It differed from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows,seems astonishingly unawares of the elementary fact that it is the Reich of the Kaiser which deliberately attacked in August 1914 (even Austria took several more days to declare war, despite Berlin’s frantic urging!)

Yet, the bare facts are obvious: the envoy of the USA president told the Kaiser, June 1, that the USA would support him and proposed an alliance against France. Next the Kaiser attacked, and the USA became immensely rich, feeding the Kaiser, with, among other things, ammunitions, through the “neutral” Netherlands.

When the USA saw that France and Britain were going to win, it came to the rescue of victory, and grabbed the spoils.

Then the USA, by a somber public-private pirouette, transferred much German property into private American plutocratic hands… who then, basically, organized Nazism, as an occasion to indulge in business far removed from Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly laws!

By forgetting, ignoring, or simply not knowing those basic facts, Chomsky makes himself a major ally of Wall Street plutocracy (the prime profiteer of the preceding; headed by JP Morgan).

To claim, as Chomsky does, that the racist, mass murdering, war crime indulging, anti-Judaic dictatorship of the Kaiser was just the same as the French republic it attacked to destroy, out of sheer computation, to pursue its reign of terror and exploitation, is sheer madness.

And it’s nothing new: that was the line of that major plutocrat, Lord Russell. And, implicitly, dear at heart of many British plutocrats (before their sons, over-represented in the officer class of the British Expeditionary Force, died by the thousands on the battlefields of Belgium and France; the sons were idealistic, the fathers, cynical… But, after they had to bury their progeny, they started to sincerely hate the Huns.)

By attacking on August 1, 1914, the Kaiser actually broke the unity of plutocracy. It’s only being reconstituted now… And in danger of being broken again, not by Thomas Picketty’s rather bland remarks, but by that other major war minded plutocrat, Vladimir Putin.

Chomsky is a false prophet, an objective accomplice of un-truth.

Un-truth has never helped revolution. Moreover, the un-truth of Chomsky (war is bad, we are manipulated into it), is exactly the opposite of what we need in the realm of emotion.

Plutocrats can easily brandish wars that have to be fought. Say World War One, or World War Two. Yes democracies had to fight them, just as the Secession War had to be fought, or the defense war of the French Republic in 1792, fighting for survival against all the plutocrats of Europe united, had to be fought.

The mistake, in World War One, or in World War Two, was not to see that the plutocrats themselves had craftily organized it (just as they organized the plutocratization of the ex-USSR, and, Chomsky could notice, that oligarchization of the ex-Soviet Union was indeed directed from Harvard!)

By saying war is the problem, and refusing to engage in an intricate causality debate Chomsky is enjoining us to enjoy the furious bleating of sheep against the wolves. That won’t do. Except for the wolves. Not only do wolves enjoy eating sheep, but they love killing them, with wild abandon, just because it’s fun. Something about bleating invites the humiliation of being torn open, and being unable to do anything about it.

Our plutocrats are not any different. Bleating to their faces, thus, won’t do.

Oh, by the way, Socrates was executed for his troubling role during Athens 30 year  desperate fight for survival. The dictators that came to rule Athens, and collaborate with her enemies (Sparta, etc.), were all Socrates’ students. Socrates, the pseudo-great philosopher, spent most of his career bitterly criticizing Athens total democracy, while dining, feasting, getting drunk, and having sex with Athens’ Golden Youth (such as the Syracuse tyrant friendly Plato).

Half of Athens’ population died during the war. A general amnesty was proclaimed when (under victorious Sparta’s supervision), democracy was re-established. The amnesty was scrupulously respected, but for one exception: Socrates.

So to be called a “Socrates” is not necessarily a compliment. Or rather, if one is on the side of the plutocrats, it is. And that’s no compliment.

Posing to look pretty, as bimbos do, does not bring the Cave Bear down. Any Neanderthal could have told you that. If MIT differs in this evaluation, MIT ought to go back to study the jungle.

Against plutocracy, action without violent violation nor subtler comprehension, contends in vain.

Patrice Aymé

Truth Is Hell: Iraq, etc.

March 20, 2013

TRUTH DIGGING CONSISTS IN UNMASKING EVILS:

Abstract: I celebrate the Iraq invasion my way, pointing out some of the devils, or evils traditionally ignored. The lack of learning after the disastrous Iraqi crusade is directly due to the persistence, in the USA, of the power structure that brought the war. The war itself was a giant red herring to hide much worse, the collusion between Washington and some of its worst creatures.

A red herring that between 2003 and 2007, killed more than a million Iraqi. A red herring that caused morality in the USA to collapse, and stay collapsed, every day that the war criminals are not prosecuted (interestingly many major French politicians are on trial in France for unlawful activities in Iraq… for much lesser alleged crimes than the ones Bush and company would be charged with).

Often devils (O’Connor, Saint Louis, Joan of Arc) are still viewed honorably. Saint Outside, Devil Inside

With Saint Louis, the Dark Side overwhelmed any other side. Contrarily to his reputation. [In the Sainte Chapelle, Paris, 76 meters high, that he had built in 33 months.]

This failure to perceive devils for what they are is a consequence of the same cognitive-moral failure that brought us Bush, and his adulation by the sheeple. A lack of attention to the details, where devils lurk. Ever since there were evil beasts, and they wore camouflage, precisely because they were evil.

Democracy only survives if a truth machine, elucidating all hidden devils. If the devil is in the details, only the devil knows the truth. Truth should strive to go where evil lurks.

***

WITHOUT CORRECT DETAILS, HISTORY IS JUST THE HOUSE OF DEVILS:

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Said Edmund Burke, who added: “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Sounds good. Yet in Burke’s mind, his version of history called to invade France, destroy the Constitutional government there, and  replace it by the Ancient Regime of time honored plutocrats and theocrats. Never mind that king Louis XVI himself had spent all his long reign trying to make plutocrats pay. The alternative was default. So Louis called for a revolution.

Burke yearned for the likes of Saint Louis. Somebody who kills in good faith.

Saint-LouisSaint Outside, Devil Inside.

Saint Louis was a co-patron of the Order of Saint Francis. By modern standards, he would have been caged immediately (see below). Nice to see the present pope being unaware of these intricacies. So he was with the Argentinean dictator Videla who he used to feed.

Never mind that Louis XVI himself, as king, had initiated, condoned, and literally signed on the French Revolution. Burke’s murderous policy was implemented, bringing the death of millions, in France alone. And many times that, over all of Europe. Armies roamed from Lisbon to Moscow.

In the end, Human Rights won, which revolted Burke so much, that he thought moral to risk killing much of Europe for it (as France was three times england, and as the government there was constitutional, to call for an invasion was to call for devastation throughtout Europe, as, indeed, happened).

Unfortunately for Burke and his followers, Human Rights are now the core of the charter of the United Nations. That god who Burke had the presumption to help, is in full retreat, except in the most desolate places (that will include the vacuity of many an American youth’s mind).

Burke was a hero to crypto-fascists such as Hayek and Friedman, who provided the “intellectual” justification for atrocious dictatorships from Chili to Argentina, all the way up to Mexico, just as Heidegger provided it for Nazism. Hayek, Friedman and their ilk, actually provided the ideology  for the new plutocratic order we are enjoying nowadays, all the way to Moscow, Cyprus and Dubai. (More on these forsaken pirates havens in another essay soon.)

So Burke lives to this day, in very many places, including the red hot anti-French hate among a significant part of the Wall Street journal readership (I’m a subscriber, so in a good position to judge.)

In a similar vein, the famous elected German chancellor, Adolf Hitler, started his mesmerizing work, “Mein Kampf” with pages of (anti-French pseudo-) history. Same idea as Burke: hit on human rights hard, right away. Only then did the fascist Guide switch to the ethological description of Jews in Vienna.

By April 1945, and 70 million dead later, the Guide conceded he had been misguided all along about the Germans and the Slavs.

So it’s not just enough to remember history, it’s important to know history, that is the facts as they really happened. History is about the details, and the devils therein, all of them. Leave none unturned.

***

PLUTOCRACIES USE THOSE POOR DEVILS, MERCENARIES:

In Marches Of Folly, an excellent editorial, Paul Krugman asks: “Did we learn anything from Iraq?”.

“Ten years ago, America invaded Iraq; somehow, our political class decided that we should respond to a terrorist attack by making war on a regime that, however vile, had nothing to do with that attack.”

Let me comment  here right away on Krugman’s “somehow”. “Somehow” is the crux. A quick historical reminder helps to understand the madness that gripped the USA.

A similar situation happened after the Second Punic War. Carthage’s own mercenaries revolted, and attacked Carthage. Carthage defeated them with great difficulty.

Why did Carthage employ armies of mercenaries? Because it was a plutocracy. At that time, the Roman republic was a rather direct democracy. So Rome could bring up armies of citizens, who were fighting for themselves. Self motivation made Roman soldiers much more determined than any of their paid adversaries.

The lesson of that disaster was that Carthage had to become much more democratic. Ironically, considerably enriched by conquests all over, plutocracy simultaneously took Rome over (and that was going to lead to the crash of Greco-Roman civilization).

How does this relate to the “somehow”? Very simple.

Carter, the very Christian president, had launched war, secretly, against Afghanistan. Although he had entire armies of goons at his disposal, the Geneva Fourth Convention violator in Washington needed more, to attack an entire country. Using a mercenary army raised by the Saudi plutocrats was the solution implemented in 1979.

Al Qaeda was initially an organization created by the CIA and the Saudi Intelligence Agency: they literally went to fetch the young Osama Bin laden in Turkey. As he was very pious, the bellicose side of the Qur’an could be manipulated to guide him, by making him believe he was as good as anyone to interpret the sacred texts. Then the godless goons taught Al Qaeda how to conduct asymmetric warfare against the Afghan republic (attack schools, not the military).

The entire political, plutocratic and propaganda class of the USA was immersed in all this. And it worked well for 15 years, until, well, just as with Carthage, the mercenaries understood they were being played, and underpaid. Then they turned against the hands that had taught them. The result: an asymmetric war between the gigantic army manipulated by Washington and the mercenary force. And then 9/11.

By then the Washington establishment had to admit everything, namely that, since 1945, it had instrumentalized Salafist Islam, in Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Algeria, etc. Or then it had to deny everything, and be more in power than ever. It just had to tell a good story, and stick to it. The story was that on 9/11, the sky was very blue, and then planes came out of nowhere…

Just charging bin Laden presented the inconvenience that some were bound to dig, and ask how bin laden appeared on the scene. It was best to go charge an enormous red herring first, with the largest imaginable lies possible ( a technique used and explained by no less than the German Chancellor above). The very size of the lies would have distracting properties, all by their absurdity.  So Powell went to the UN with kindergarten drawings.

How does one disguise all this mess? Under which carpet does one hide it? Well, war against Saddam Hussein. (It also had the advantage of destabilizing the Middle East, and that is to Israel’s colonizing advantage.)

***

PLUTO PROFITS FROM WAR, ANY WAR:

Here is Krugman again: “Some voices warned that we were making a terrible mistake — that the case for war was weak and possibly fraudulent, and that far from yielding the promised easy victory, the venture was all too likely to end in costly grief. And those warnings were, of course, right.

There were, it turned out, no weapons of mass destruction; it was obvious in retrospect that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into war. And the war — having cost thousands of American lives and scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, having imposed financial costs vastly higher than the war’s boosters predicted — left America weaker, not stronger, and ended up creating an Iraqi regime that is closer to Tehran than it is to Washington.”

Counter-intuitively, many of the war party of the USA love a bigger and more influential Teheran:  with a bit of luck, Teheran will do like Saddam, feel overconfident, and offer a casus belli. Then full war against Iran could be joined. However, of course, not all wars can be won. Overall, although it may not look like it to the clueless, the war against Iraq was a defeat for the USA.

The USA has a lot of false friends in the Middle East. The SIA is feeding Al Nusra, a Syrian Salafist army in Syria, and something will have to be done about that, and soon.

Krugman again: “So did our political elite and our news media learn from this experience? It sure doesn’t look like it.”

Why would they look as if they learned something? That would mean they went, somehow, through something untoward, that something adverse happened, to THEM. It certainly did not happen to them; they are richer, and more domineering than ever. Fortunes were made. Not far from New York, a war profiteer built for himself a sort of Versailles. Don’t expect to see this sort of data points, or giant architecture, appear in USA Main Stream Media (it was on French TV).

***

ATROCIOUS WAR CRIMINALITY IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN:

The USA invaded Iraq. Now it has completely lost that war. 4,500 USA soldiers died, and more than that in allied soldiers and mercenaries. Dozens of thousands of other soldiers were gravely wounded and millions got psychologically damaged by suffering, or inflicting extreme violence.

After the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, Tomas Young, then a 22-year-old from Kansas City, Mo., made a naive decision parroted by many other Americans around the country: he enlisted in the military in hopes of getting even with the enemies who killed nearly 3,000 men, women and children. Little did he know that those enemies were in Washington, where the war had been fully engaged July 3, 1979. Little did he know that these enemies were just American mercenary forces. As a good vacuous American youth, he was unaware that his own government had already caused the death of three millions, not three thousands, in Afghanistan.

Less than three years later, Young’s Army service placed him not in Afghanistan — where then-President George W. Bush had told the nation the terrorist plot had originated — but in Iraq. On April 4, 2004, just five days into his first tour, Young’s convoy was attacked by resistance fighters. A bullet from an AK-47 severed his spine. Another struck his knee. Young would never walk again. For the next nearly nine years, he would suffer a number of medical setbacks, and now intent to die by withdrawing treatment. Neofascists should not worry: Young will not count as an Iraq war casualty.

From Young’s letter, published on TruthDig:

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Young goes on to attack the “cowardice” of Bush and Cheney for avoiding military service themselves, and to encourage them to “stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.”

(Read Young’s entire letter here.)

Not to worry: plutocracy is also a mood, where all values are inverted. Greed is viewed in more regards than altruism. As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned, Tomas Young is just a loser, with not enough brains to make the correct investment.

It goes without saying that international law ought to be brought to bear on all war criminals. Justice is not just about trying Serbs and Africans. Plutocrats should qualify too.

One of the USA’s main axes of exploitation, since 1945, has been to instrumentalize Salafist Islam. That was initially used against Britain, France, and even Israel (times change…) The difference between now and 60 years ago, is that many of the Salafists have realized they have been played (and first of all the Iranians; OK, technically the term “Salafist”, the “old ones” does not usually qualify Shiites, but I am generalizing, for semantic convenience!)

The hostility of the USA against the French republic during the Franco-Algerian civil war made a bad situation irreversibly worse:

***

ONGOING FRANCO-ALGERIA DRAMA:

51 years ago, on March 19, 1962, the Evian Accords finalized the transfer of power from the French Republic to the (“Algerian”) FNL (Front National de Liberation). Officially, this was a good thing, a step forward, the flow of history. In truth, it was basically a transfer of power from one terrorist organization, to another.

That was a disaster for the populations concerned. About 15% of the people living in Algeria fled, living everything behind, and many committed suicide. Algeria has known dictatorship ever since, first from the FNL, then from the military. Hundreds of thousands were killed in the following decades, at the hands of terrorists (from official Algerian numbers).

There is no doubt that the French state behaved extremely badly in Algeria, starting in 1945. Before that, it was just behaving badly. There is also no doubt that the FNL was an extremely nasty terrorist organization.

So there is nothing good to celebrate there. And the mayor of Perpignan, a major French city had the courage to recognize this simple fact today, that a very bad thing happened on March 19, 1962. The mayor ordered to bring down the French flags, and circled them with black.

Truth always start with an emotional admission. Even in mathematics, or science.

The politically correct emotion about the Evian Accords has been, for 51 years, that they were good, and necessary, however grim it was to sign them. They went with history. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The French republic’s abuses in Algeria were not wiped out clean by another 51 years of abuse, starting with abusing truth.  

Confronted to that sort of past, in Algeria or Iraq, where reality is viewed as unbearable, there is only one principle worth having first. Namely that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, can prevent nasty outcomes. Especially those lies festering to this day.

Because, of course, the basic reasons for the Franco-Algerian civil war, are festering to this day, just on a grander scale. And now, the USA, instead of pulling nasty (Salafist) strings from the shadows (against France, BTW), is now on the frontlines (with France, happily).

The main reason why Germany is, finally, doing so well nowadays, is that a lot of the truth finally came out about some very bad ways German minds used to consider politically correct to operate under, while knowing no others.

***

WITH SAINTS LIKE THAT, WHO NEEDS DEVILS?

Not that only Germany has to be freed from simplistic, hence devil laden history. It’s not just that the American Founding fathers were slave masters. By contemporary standards, Saint Louis was a vicious criminal, and, at best, would have been interned as an insane maniac (he had declared, in writing, that nothing could be more pleasing to him than planting a knife into a non believer’s gut, and then playing around with the blade, once so inserted; why the Catholic church considers such a creep a saint rests on the fact that Catholics are not familiar with the lives of their most famous saints… and of course, that the church hierarchy is deeply evil).

Speaking of saints, the most revered Joan of Arc was a peace breaker. Paris and London had come to terms, and decided to reunify the kingdom (Treaty of Troyes). The king of England reigned over France. Unfortunately, he died within 2 months. His infant son was supposed to reign upon his majority. Wise people in England and France knew that this was an excellent arrangement, because, France being much bigger than England in all ways, there was no risk she would be gobbled up by England (contrarily to misrepresentations ever since). End of the 100 years war.

But then Jeanne, or rather the forces behind her (Yolande of Aragon) , from the south (Armagnac, Bourguignons, etc.) stepped in.

Jeanne restarted the Franco-French(-English) civil war. This time London and Paris were on the same side. Jeanne had quite a difficult time seizing Paris. Why such a divisive theocratic war monger is admired to this day is no mystery. Once Bush was selected, I mean when Charles VII had been unconstitutionally made king, there was no turning back. Jeanne d’Arc had to be made into a saint, or at least the judgments against her thrown out.

So will say it was better that England and France kept fighting each other for another 4 centuries: war is a force that gives us meaning. Perhaps. However, it’s neither wise, nor glorious not to teach in detail the reality of what happened. What happened is that Joan of Arc is another Christian “saint” who killed millions, and whose message, bloody sword in hand, voices from god in her head telling her war was all we needed, for no rational reason, is really not something one anyone wise would want to promote.

History is sometimes made by rats. As the famous sayingobservation has it, a rat gnawing through a dike can drown a nation. Now to this list of most creative creatures, we can add Sandra O’Connor, a so called “Justice”. Not only she has no notion of history, or justification, but that most fundamental human instinct, regret, central to learning anything important, has been extinguished in her. Her excuse? She is a “Westerner”. (Is that supposed to mean she has a gun instead of a head?)

Speaking of handing the presidency to plutocrat Bush, the vacuous Sandra reverted to a three year old persona. Said she: There’s no point in my, at this point, saying I regret some decision I made. I’m not going to do that.”

Another bratty behaviour she may want to consider is to stop breathing and turning all blue until wiser people take pity. The Sandra girl by ordering to NOT recount Florida, gave the presidency to plutocrat Bush. The one who won the popular vote by two million, and also won Florida, Al Gore, was given a Nobel Prize instead of the presidency of the USA, to calm his nerves!

The point, O’Connor baby, is that, by saying that you regret your unconstitutional demolition of democracy, you would turn your back to Pluto, and join humanity. At least, symbolically speaking. That’s better than nothing. And better than staying forever, in the judgment of history, not just somebody who should never have existed, a one person democracy destroyer, but someone who persists into not even regretting her badness, contrarily to, say, Darth Vader.

It’s astounding one has to spell such an elementary truth to a big time Supreme Court “Justice”. Why are people such as these next to god? (Answer: because their very mediocrity insures that they will do the bidding of the plutocratic order.)

As the Romans knew, but O’Connor, and most of the truly bad soldiers of evil, do not want to admit: Errare Humanum Est, Perseverare Diabolicum! (Error Is Human, Persevering Diabolical!)

Going for the truth, and yanking it out of the entanglements where it lurks is always hellish in character. After all, woe onto those through whom scandal arrives.

Jean-Paul Sartre said: “Hell, it’s the others.” (L’enfer, c’est les autres): that was a neologism, an unusual way of using “autres”. It is mistranslated as “Hell is other people”, a different idea.

More generally, hell comes with the full reality that requires us to understand we would become obsolete, lest we change our minds. It may be painful to visit hell, but that’s where the hardest truths are lurking. Being ultimately good means turning hell into heavens.

***

Patrice Ayme

Aphorisms, July 2011

July 17, 2011

The More Fascist, The More Indignant:

China is upset. How dare Obama receive the Dalai Lama, that Tibetan monk in red? Blood is much better than red. Much better to shoot to death Tibetan refugee children in the back, as they try to escape the dictatorship in Tibet. Too bad there were dozens of mountaineers to witness that, and record it. Or may be it was good, as everybody could see China meant business; if you don’t like it here, you leave, in a coffin.

And remember: the fascism you see is only a symptom. The real disease is deep down inside.

***

Coherence Wanted:

Murderoch and his lackeys are heading to jail. Hopefully. OK, only a few thousands plutocrats and their lackeys to follow them. Some of the charges could be the same as for the Nuremberg trial: promoting war of aggression. Others would be new: promoting publicly torture and inhuman treatment, something the Nazis did not dare to do.

Let us be clear: Nazism was repressed with ferocity, but not soon enough to prevent the death of 70 million (yes, seventy millions, it was not just about Jews).

Nazism was a mental, civilizational disease that struck Germany progressively, over a few generations. It developed, in a place, Germany, which was initially pretty pacific (but for Prussia). Racist fascist plutocracy developed to mass murdering proportions, because it was not struck, in a timely manner. Nevertheless, advocating torture and wars of aggression is something that even Nazi Germany knew was a bridge too far.  So, in a way, thanks to Murderoch and his friends, imitators and collaborators (that would include Tony Blair), the situation is philosophically worse now.

By not striking its plutocrats now, the West has been weak. Obama has been irresponsible. Which makes him now responsible of any further decay, looking forward.

Now that Murderoch and his salaried criminals are been exposed for what it was clear they were, over decades, a new dawn can be seized. It is an occasion to get out of it clean. At some point, civilization has to be defended, or one will go down the ethical drain, as Rome did.

And that means writing down bad banking investments, and punishing the bankers when it turns out they invested the way they did, from corrupted practice; corruption is the defining word of the Murderoch empire, and its propaganda. The so called financial crisis, a paroxysm of exploitation by the plutocracy, is entangled with Murderoch, and his ilk.

So is the war in Afghanistan, started by the USA in 1979, against a secular republic. Now the self described democrat in chief is allied to a narcotrafficking, Islamist regime, thoroughly corrupt and rotten, and NATO is supposed to spend 15 billion dollars a month there (officially), let alone all the maiming and murdering… That is progress, and civilization, only in the Murderoch sense.

***

The Education Of Effort:

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, harassed by cancer, is going back for chemotherapy in Cuba. “I find myself before my highest mountain and my longest walk,” quoted Chavez from Nietzsche’s treatise “Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None.” Nietzsche’s philosopher-prophet (con)descended down from a mountainous retreat to mix it up with humankind.

That Chavez quotes regularly from an All European philosopher is a good sign. Never call Nietzsche “German“, he would have resented the insult. Nietzsche was the first to say that he was anything but German (although he wrote in German). If you insist, you can call him “Polish”, he said.

A beautiful steep and vertiginous path up from the sea next to Nice is officially named after Nietzsche, who hiked it regularly. Nietzsche, a solo mountaineer, even on ice, even when (lethally) sick, was friendly to reality. And reality is encountered in the mountains, or at sea, or in the wilds, not in saloons and high society. That is why Nietzsche resigned from the university: he wanted freedom of thought… and emotion.

Nietzsche’s strident warnings about the lethally violent mood which was going metastatic in Germany, were not heeded enough by enough people of the German persuasion.

French and German socialists made a last hour, coordinated effort to stop World War One, with a general strike. Tragically, the effort came to an end when the most famous French tribune, Jean Jaurès, himself a top professional philosopher who became a leader of the socialist party, was assassinated by a French nationalistic fanatic. Otherwise we would have had a show down between democratic progressives and  fascist plutocrats, rather than between Prussian and French armies.

The great showdown between democratic progressives and  fascist plutocrats, has no happened yet. Throughout the 20C, that fundamental civilizational reset was diverted into side issues, such as Communist fascists against racist fascists, or democrats, against fascists. But the full causal confrontation has never happened: at Nuremberg, many more should have been sitting, many of them not German. Many of them Western industrialists and bankers, who had financed Hitler, or even done his job before he was in power.(For example by creating the monster IG Farben.)

At first sight it seems strange that Nietzsche, an advocate of the “Will to Power” would be followed by the socialist leaders. But it’s not: you need lots of will to climb. Nietzsche was angry against the transformation of the German people into an unthinking herd, manipulated by newspapers. The socialists had the same problem.

We, the world, have had the same problem, as the plutocrats were authorized to Foxify the world. Fox, owned by Murdoch, is the dominant TV channel in the USA, with an unending parade of beautiful people pounding Nazi logic, for the whole world to learn by rote. Crafty as a fox, it lives off red meat, as it, and its friends, scavenge, worldwide.

***

The Hypocrisy Of Social And Financial Success:

Now what to think of beatifically happy authors such  Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt, another French philosopher who became a success author of gnan gnan theater? (Schmitt has been translated in 50 languages, and basks in it.) I appreciate his theater (literally and figuratively). But not his philosophy, which is most dangerous, because it lies.

Schmitt claims that “anger is utter stupidity“. Well, he is neurologically wrong, and an hypocrite full of himself, besides. I guess that the declaration of war of September 3, 1940, of Britain and France against Hitler, an act of astronomical anger, was also “bêtise compléte“, to quote Schmitt in his original French.

Schmitt ought to make us angry, no wonder he does not like anger. Schmitt was born in Lyon. Why did Schmitt become a Belgian citizen? Obviously, to avoid high French taxes. That’s a well known trick which many who come into money in France practice (other authors flee to Ireland, where authors are not taxed at all (!), and corporations pay only 8% tax; no wonder France, Germany and Britain feel that Ireland is exploiting them… and their banks).

Why are French taxes much higher than in Belgium? France has a serious army and an expensive military-industrial complex, whereas the profession of Belgium is to not defend democracy.

That hypocritical defenselessness was the main cause of the Franco-British defeat against Hitler in May-June 1940, as the sudden switch of the Netherlands and Belgium from Hitler-friendly to lamentable victims, and their strident calls for help, completely disorganized the French and British armies, which rushed in to help, as Hitler had hoped.

So Schmitt smiles beatifically, but this deformation of his face, truly a mask, has no value. He went to Belgium, not out of goodness and giving, but out of selfishness and anger. Yes, anger. The anger of a man who had to pay his share, and refused to. Acts can talk louder than smiles. Better the smile from an angry man, it’s worth something. The smile from a mask is worth nothing. The most recent neurology shows that the only way to shake the brain into shape is with strong emotions.  And anger is the prime strong emotion.

***

Better Late than Never:

After more than 3,000 French bombing strikes on Kaddafi’s mercenary forces, the Libyan National Transitional Council, NTC or CNT, has finally been recognized by the USA, July 15, as the legitimate Libyan government. France recognized the NTC March 10.

Force for the better? Force for the better. If democracies live on their knees, soon they will eat dirt. France has fought hot wars against Qaddafi, on and off for four decades, it’s time to finish him off.

The French national Assembly voted to pursue the war in Libya, 482 votes for it, 27, against. All the Communist deputies voted against. (Thus those Americans opposed to the war in Libya are French communists, aligned with Moscow! I am trying to be funny, because the hour is grave enough.) Some of the communists argued that Syria was treated better. This is not correct. Just Qaddafi killed twenty or thirty times more, relative to the population, than Assad has so far, before French bombers bombed.

France is trying to do the transition right, in Libya, to anchor the righ side of the Magreb. Algeria was told to stop sending petrol to Qaddafi. And that will be stopped, one way, or another.

Have no silly hope: should Assad persists in his evil, Pluto inspired way, and engage in much further, Qaddafi like behavior, he is next. Once again, we are not in world where democracy can sit peacefully, next to fascist regimes getting bloodier everyday, without compromising its own survival. (And that sibylline declaration holds for Israel too!) Besides bombings, weapons can be sent, some of them from planes landing in the desert, as the French do in Libya, putting anti-tank missiles in the hands of the Berbers… (in a touching re-enactment of the Algerian war).

The French PM argued that “la solution politique commence a prendre forme“. Kaddafi’s chief of staff was received by the French president. Negotiations work better at the point of a gun. (As pointed out by Bruce Willis in Besson’s movie, “The 5th element”.)

***

More Faces Than Janus:

“The Economist”, the magazine which used to celebrate Pinochet and his friends from the CIA, is definitively less sanguine about the USA. It revealed that the French government was, rightly, shocked, after massive war efforts in Ivory Coast, Afghanistan and Libya, to hear from the departing Secretary of Defense of the USA, that the Europeans were not doing enough in defense.

Quite the opposite, the French, and other Europeans, noticed that the Americans made a puny effort in Libya. Now, of course, Libya is strategic for Europe, whereas Afghanistan is nothing to Europe. Europeans are in Afghanistan by solidarity with the USA, to help them catch their ex-mercenary, the rebel Bin Laden. I wonder how that is going.

American defense is huge. But it’s not just a giant police operation, the USA policing the world for what they view as the better, it’s also a military-industrial complex which takes care of its business by never ending a war too soon. The situation in Afghanistan is a disaster mostly because the main agent of the war since 1979, the USA, made it so. Including with its importation of bin Laden, to Afghanistan. It was a made into a deliberate disaster (as it was advocated to be, at the start, by Gates and Brzezinski), again and again. The interest of that was to keep a reason to be (there) militarily.

After 9/11/2001, the USA could have easily killed bin Laden, be it only by grabbing the situation at Tora Bora, a mountain range were bin Laden was besieged. The USA could have also imposed on Afghanistan a secular constitution, the best way to return to the pre-1980s situation, and separate the secular forces from the Islamists.

That which was not done in Afghanistan, imposing a secular constitution, can now be done in Pakistan, and OUGHT to be done. It was just done in Bangladesh.

***

When The USA Ought To Swallow Its Own Free Trade Medicine:

“The Economist” also ran an article drifting my way on an important point of American defense. Namely it observed that the F35, the new American fighter, ten years after it was decided to build it, is turning into a radical failure. The least of its problem is that it will see service not before 2016 (a full decade after the more performing Rafale).

Among other problems, like being slow, and having little cargo capacity, the F35 carries only two missiles inside (the only way it can pretend to be stealth). The F35 is so under-armed, that American generals, “The Economist” informs us, wake up at night in panic, covered with sweat. American analysts have concluded that the F35 was no better than the F105, a plane shot down in great numbers in the early stages of the Vietnam war, before it was replaced by the more performing F4 Phantom.

The French rival to the F35, the Rafale, has been engaged very successfully in combat in Afghanistan and Libya (the Rafale is a multipurpose aircraft: it does air superiority, interception, bombing, ground attacks, and reconnaissance).

The Rafale can carry more than its own weight in ammunitions, and 250% of its weight with supplementary fuel and electronics, because  they can hang from 14 hard points below its vast, but compact dart style wing, helped by a  big forward canard, full of stealthy, reactive electronics. It also has twice the combat radius of the F35 (combat radius is crucial for carriers, and the combat radius of the F35 is abysmally too small, only 1,000 kms).

The Rafale is protected by active stealth (it makes anti-radar), so it can be metallic and fast. Anti-radar works so well, that it is unlawful in cars.

Rafales attacked Qaddafi’s tank columns while facing fully operational and active modern missile systems some mobile, some fixed, at point blank range, in the desperate, last minute defense of Benghazi. So effective were the Rafales that they covered non stealth Mirage fighter-bombers operating with them.

This action in Libya definitively proved that active stealth works (passive stealth, American style, is known NOT to work, as was demonstrated during the war against Serbia: A Czech system imitating modern radio astronomy was able to detect F117 stealth planes, and direct cannon fire appropriately… All modern warplanes, since 1940, that is, since radar exists, have had stealth coverings, by the way. So American style stealth is as old as radar. Active stealth is a completely new technology, only the Rafale has it.)

“The Economist” says that the USA ought to scale back the F35. But it does not notice that the USA ought to swallow its own medicine. If the European Typhoon and Rafale, especially in light of the “Meteor” ram jet missile development, which they are made to carry, are better, why should not the USA buy those? Is this not the key advantage of free trade?

The British, especially, and the French, quite a bit, have bought in the past American weapons. Although the Americans refused to buy European made, superior air tankers (which the Australian and British have bought), the French, to this day, use American air tankers (KC35). And have used in the past American fighters (the Crusaders).

The Brits use American strategic missiles and submarines, which they bought (France makes its own, completely independently of the USA). Could it be that the Americans refuse to reciprocate? And use their military-industrial complex not just as an indirect instrument of imperialism, but, directly, as a way to prevent others to have one? (Small production lines being very expensive.)

Justice, economy, and the belief in the free market, should lead to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be for the USA to give up on the F35, and replace it with Rafales.

Some would whine that this would be the end of American defense. But not at all, quite the opposite. It would improve American defense. The USA could concentrate on its strengths, if it cooperated more with the Europeans. Trade American flying robots against Rafales. The French would be interested (as they are debating buying American drones, with their more advanced tech).

The Americans are way ahead in drones, and other aspects of electronic warfare. Reinforce that advantage. Moreover, an adequate defense for aircraft carriers against ballistic missiles is crucially absent, and tempts rogue elements in the Chinese military to hope that they could keep American carriers in the middle of the Pacific, far from the puny 1,000 kilometer range of the F35.  That mesmerizing possibility will make them more aggressive than if they had no hope.

As the American defense budget shrinks dramatically soon, European cooperation in developing hyper expensive weapon systems ought to be welcome.

***

 When An Army Is Right, Militarism Is Moral:

Eva Joly, candidate to the presidency from of the ecologist party in France, thinks there should not be a French military parade on 14 Juillet. This has created some controversy, as Joly has double nationality, and became French 50 years ago. The French PM let it be known that this showed her French culture was not that deep.

I do like and esteem Eva Joly a lot, and admired her work as a tough investigative judge against the French plutocracy, made, in the face of death threats. However she is completely wrong on that one.

Now, of course, I am myself a fanatical anti-militarist. Still, civilization needs to be defended.

In 1940, France and Britain came to the rescue of Norway, after Hitler attacked it. Joly was born in occupied Oslo in 1943. The Nazis committed atrocities in Norway (war crimes).

if France and Britain had done nothing against Hitler, Hitler would have gone east (he had an accord from 1935 with Great Britain to this effect). France and Britain could have waited as everybody else in Europe was having a fight to death with Nazism. That was the American “isolationist” model. The model of Eric-Emanuel Schmitt, in other words: no anger, it’s an utter stupidity, gnan-gnan reigns.

Michel Foucault, the philosopher, made fun of the sentence “civilization needs to be defended”. It is fashionable to view such an idea as deeply reactionary. However, one has to be careful to not be an opulent exploiter of a system, while decrying it. Condemning the cake, and those who want more, while eating the cake and splurging, makes one into a liar.

So it all depends. If it is to fight Hitler, no bomb is big enough. If it is to fight strikers (as happened in the past in France, or the USA!), the military ought to stay in its barracks. Thus the present author is against the war in Afghanistan (mostly because of its history, and the fact that, in turn, created an irreversible gangrene), but for the war in Libya (not only are the rebels on our side, but their ideology is correct, being ecumenical, and non Islamist).

Anchored deep in the French psyche is the tremendous sacrifice of anti-fascist wars, with the huge losses they entailed.  The verdict is not that the wars ought to have been avoided, and France should have disappeared, or turned Nazi, but that the wars should have been won at a lesser cost.

Nietzsche screamed loud, about German hyper nationalistic racist fascism, but people paid attention too late. To this day, idiots teach haughty lessons about WWI having been caused by other factors, spread all around Europe. What France learned is that, when Prussia attacked Austria, it ought to have intervened. And Britain learned the same, when Bismarck connived to make it appear that France attacked Prussia. France and Britain learned that one had to make a stand against fascism, and the earlier, the better.

***

Historical Chaos:

Of course the onset of WWI could have turned differently if Jaurès and the German socialists could have pulled a last minute strike to avoid war, as they tried to do (but Jaures was assassinated by a French fanatical nationalist). This means that millions of the workers knew that the war was a plutocratic plot, and a fascist one, too But not enough knew it, and they did not disobey enough.

By being anti-militaristic, Jaurès was anti-fascist; and he was right to be so; in the end it’s half a dozen plotting fascist generals at the head of the Prussian Army staff which created WWI.

***

Too Soft A Philosophy, Too Drastic, The Consequences:

In a way, there was a first war, which France, thanks to Voltaire, refused to fight. That was the Seven Year War, against Great Britain and Prussia. As a result most of the world French empire was lost, and, ironically enough, the Lingua Franca of the world became English (the old “Anglo-Normand”).  

That’s when France shrank, and the Anglo-Saxon empire became giant. There are three ironies in this:

1) that French self imposed defeat led to French vengeance, and the creation of the USA, and weakened Great Britain so much that she could not be of much use to France at the start of WWI and WWII (although Great Britain was of some use, in WWI, as the ten or so divisions of the British Army of general French (sic) played a role on the Marne).

2) although the Anglo-Saxons attribute their superiority on the French to the subtlety of the English laissez faire, the truth is the exact opposite: they won because of their militarism, an attribute generally bestowed, ironically, on the French…

3) France and Britain, long the same country, are again quite the same. But their creation, the USA, the fruit of their discord, has some wild tendencies which need to be addressed, and harnessed, lest the Atlantic turns into an insufferable split, and lest the advantages one could find in this gifted child be denied.

***

On Bastille Day, 14 Juillet, a French soldier was killed in Afghanistan in combat. The day before, 5 French soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. From a suicide bomber Afghan soldier, during a sura.

A lot of morals in this. First, how come the French have been inside Afghanistan since 2001? Was not that a war started by Carter on July 3,1979? Somebody explains that. Why does not carter fight his war alone? After all is not his Nobel peace prize just for that?

Second, the hare brain plan to give power to the Afghan military seems prone to unforeseen explosion.

Third: the big mistake, in Afghanistan, was to fail to separate friend and foe. How could have one done that? By imposing a secular constitution. It was easy to do in 2001/2002. But I forgot: Bush was preoccupied with allowing his (ex?)friend bin Laden to escape.

That was just done in Bangladesh, and the Islamists went rabid in the street. Religious fanatics always do that, it’s part of the process of calming them down. But the Islamists are not represented in parliament, and secularism ought to weaken them further.

So, practicality in this? Insist that all and any theocracy is no democracy, and sanctions apply. That would, of course, include Afghanistan. So give an ultimatum, and evacuate.

***

Warning To Egypt:

Standard Islam and its standard Qur’an was created by a military regime, twenty years after Muhammad’s death. A civil war started, among diverse interpretations of Islam, to this day, 13 centuries later.

In a way, what we see presently in Egypt is a continuation of that history. The war will go on, until secularism triumphs, as it did in Europe at the end of the Middle Ages.

***

There is lots of value in post thunderstorms sunsets. As we come to appreciate their beauty, we come to appreciate the apocalypse, any apocalypse, &, thus, to transcend it. thereafter no fight is too hard, no mountain too high, no martyrdom too cruel (esp. if visited upon others.)

***

***

What’s so hot about being cool? The snake is cool, the mind is hot. So, is it not cool to have a mind? A burning subject in cold semantics.

***

Yes, of course the real problem is not the banks, which only claim to be suffering. It is the consumer debt. And the debt cannot be fixed, except by winding it down further. Thus, the government has to create jobs to compensate. Instead, the cutter in chief only intends to cut, cut, cut.

Later Obama will switch to the progressive stuff, he said July 15, so progressives should support him. Presumably after the country has died from a 1,000 cuts…

***

Save the banks, say the plutocrats, and they smirk. Instead, banks which require public help ought to be nationalized, as Reagan and Bush Senior did during the failure of 2,000 Saving and Loans.

***

Obama claims to be a democrat. Hope he can believe in. When he was in full power, with the full Senate, and the full Congress behind him, he could easily have done away with tax breaks for billionaires. He just did not think about it, darn. And he could have done rising taxes on billionaires, even after losing the elections in November 2010. But that would have been cutting the branch on which he sits proudly, isn’t?

Thus Obama waited safely for the republicans to be in control of Congress. Then he claimed he wanted to tax billionaires, while going, hand in hat to Wall Street, to beg who he defined as his “friends” for money, lots of money.

No doubt he will get it. Because his friends on Wall Street see no contradiction. They know their boy’s service is always impeccable, and stylish, besides. The boy has got class. Maybe he could be rewarded as well as Clinton.

***

No, they don’t know what the truth is, and they don’t care. They are not looking for it. Truth, for them, means power. They just laugh as they get ahead, trampling us all on the way (spoken form one who has had direct evidence of the caudillo maximo…).

Why this, why now? Because it gets in the air, and a civilization goes down thus; rots by the head. Leaders have their own society, they don’t see the rest.

***

Living on the road to happiness does not beat having a home there. Paid cash, from the savings one made, avoiding bad investments.

***

Israel Outlaws Boycotts Against Israel: more stunts like that and swimming across the Med will become a priority. The old Jerusalem kingdom was supported by West, until it was not anymore. Then it disappeared quickly. Without Western support, Israel is not viable. So be nice. Behave.

***

Paupers Don’t Make A Country Richer:

The Washington crowd thinks pauperization motivates people. It does not. They will find that out, the hard way. People work if there is profit in it. Otherwise, they may as well hang out, go on welfare, and food stamps (which is what is happening).

The minimum wage in France, or Germany, is more than twice that in the USA, and those economies are roaring at this point relative to the economy of the USA, which is stagnant, especially if one counts that only the metastatic financial sector is doing well (instantaneous German expansion is around 6% at this point, France is at 4%, the USA is folding over).

***

Truth, BTW, even in formal logic, is not fully elucidated. (For more on that search for “Tarsky”, a late Polish-American logician, and “truth”). No wonder truth is hard to find in political life…

***

Patrice Ayme

RULING THE USA WITH FALSE HISTORY.

June 11, 2008

SOME US PLUTOCRATS MISREPRESENT GROTESQUELY THE HISTORY OF FRANCE TO MANIPULATE THE US POPULATION INTO DEATH, IMPRISONMENT, AND THE PURSUIT OF SERVITUDE.

US anti-knowledge about World War Two is a gift that keeps on giving, to the Rich. In a farcical repeat of how the Roman plutocracy destroyed the Roman republic, war is used as a scarecrow to prevent people to land on the ground of common sense, while the military-industrial complex and the Rich hidden behind it present themselves as saviors of the republic. Whereas all they do is exploiting it to death.

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, all too dangerously close to the French “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Since Americans know that France is second to none in the “pursuit of happiness”, US plutocrats have to insist that “socialist” France is somehow a deep failure that lives only the happy life by the good grace of the USA. The plutocratically controlled US media has to continually come back, and spread falsehoods about WWII, often presenting France as Hitler’s intrinsic ally, and accomplice in the holocaust.

Slandering France is a well financed industry in the USA. And it’s not just France. Recently a well financed, extremely well known US writer and TV commentator, ex presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, outright accuses Great Britain to have caused the holocaust of the Jews, by having irritated the Nazis with an “unnecessary war” (namely WWII). He also accuses France to have dragged Great Britain into war with Hitler. It’s an old US crime: to want to make war to Hitler, a big no-no with many US racists and plutocrats (no wonder: they partnered with Hitler).

So here are a few important reminders of the basics of WWII:

a) Nazi laws and regulations treating many categories of people as NON human started in 1933, and blossomed in 1935. In France, Pat Buchanan would be prosecuted for holocaust denial. In the US he is feted, invited on all media, and (with the partial exception of his friend O’Reilly on Fox News) talked to as if he had established new standards of historical truth (“Congratulations for the book!” can one hear everywhere: they would invite Hitler, and congratulate him for “Mein Kampf”!).

b) Hitler attacked Poland with more than 100 divisions on the wee hours of the morning, September 1, 1939, alleging Germany had been attacked (the Nazis had set up a fake attack). France gave an ultimatum to Hitler the same day, September 1, 1939: 48 hours to get out of Poland. Great Britain, that had basically no army, was dragged into it because of her intrinsic alliance (“Entente Cordiale”) with France (after all, they were the only two large democracies … with their brat of a child, the USA).

c) France attacked Hitler within days with 50 divisions, across the Maginot Line, but, although she occupied a piece of Germany, could not break through the “Westwall” (“Ziegfried” line) at its strongest point (no wonder: it took the Franco-British-Canadian-US-Commonwealth armies 6 months to break through it at their weakest points in 1944/45). Belgium, goaded by the perfidious pro Nazi American plutocrats, was neutral, and that prevented the French army to attack in an easier place (besides, goaded by the sneaky Americans, Belgium had renegaded on the construction of her piece of the Maginot Line, precisely where the Panzers would break through, turning around the French defenses.)

d) As the battle in Poland raged, the Luftwaffe, Hitler’s murderously effective Air Force, ran out of its US made lubricants, so hundreds of tons of it where shipped to the Nazis by American corporations (good racists help each other).

e) The first British soldier took a month to reach France, after the UK also declared war on September 3, 1939. By then the French offensive had stopped, Poland having been crushed.

f) France had been under US embargo for years for being an enemy combatant (since France was anti-Hitler, and the USA was pro Hitler, except for Roosevelt who just talked, the US Congress embargoed France in 1937).

g) During the early years of the American revolutionary war, 90% of the cartridges used by the American revolutionaries were made in France. In 1939/1940, perhaps exhausted by all the military help it gave the Nazis, the USA did not send ONE cartridge to France.

e) The French and the British conducted an ambitious air-sea-land invasion of northern Norway, in spring 1940, with the aim of destroying Hitler’s Iron Road. The elite Nazi divisions were routed by the French Foreign Legion, and fled towards pseudo neutral Sweden. The next step of the Franco-British was to invade pseudo neutral Sweden (faithful iron servant to Hitler), but the disastrous events in France interrupted this plan.

g) Apparently betrayed by the Prince of Wales (he had been fired as king because he was a confirmed pro-Nazi, but, incredibly, had been made Inspector General of the British Armed Forces, spending weeks examining French fortifications). His Highness, briefed by French generals, finally sent a note to Hitler about where the weakest point was, just at the end of the Maginot Line, where French defenses were broken. Even though, the Nazis had to use suicide attacks by human bomb engineers against a French reserve division.

h) The battle of France cost the Nazis 50,000 troops dead, mostly elite soldiers with a a high proportion of elite officers, the best the Nazis had (driving them mad). The commanding Nazi Marshal commented the “French fought like lions”. The French had 95,000 soldiers killed. In five weeks. Proportionally to the present US population that would have been as if 700,000 US soldiers had been killed in combat in 5 weeks: France had 40 million inhabitants at the time! So much for the French being cowards.

i) Thousands of French civilians were deliberately strafed on the refugee roads (the hatred got so high that in one case a Nazi crew of a bomber that had been shot down, and guarded by French soldiers, was set upon by refugees who killed them). The Nazi losses could not be replaced (once again, proportionally to the population, they would be equivalent to more than 200,000 soldiers and officers killed in today’s USA). As a result Hitler’s army was weaker when it was ordered to attack the USSR.

j) In June 1940, as the French army fought alone against the Nazis, without assistance from anyone, not even the British (who had just been crushed, losing all their equipment), a few things became clear:

 1) The USA would not help, not even with an ultimatum to Hitler. Far from it; as far as many powerful Americans were concerned, their guy was winning.

 2) The Nazis, were enraged, rabid, holocaustic. After French units stopped General Rommel’s elite Seventh Panzer Division on the Somme for three days, the French had to surrender, having run out of ammunition.  Rommel had them executed, soldiers and officers. After a number of such occurrences, the question could be legitimately asked whether the entire French population would not be killed to the last by the Nazis (as they would try to do with the Slavs and Jews and Gypsies later, and had already started to do with the Poles).

 3) In these conditions, keeping on fighting looked unwise to some French leaders. After all, as long as the Nazis were getting massive American and Soviet help, what was a half invaded France to do? Churchill proposed to unify Great Britain and France as one country, instantaneously, and that would have been an excellent solution (making all French citizens British would have caused the Nazis to think twice about holocausting the French; as it was, the Nazis subsequently assassinated more than half a million French civilians). But an idiotic French PM  decided otherwise, and moreover the US government, always helpful (to Hitler), rushed to recognize the illegal Vichy regime.

k) France, under the form of the “Free French” kept on fighting. From May 26 to June 11, 1942, the First Free French Division defended Bir Hakeim against the Italian and the entire Nazi Afrika Korps of Rommel. Resisting for 16 days, it gave the retreating British Eight Army time to reorganize, allowing it to subsequently defeat the Afrika Korps at the El Alamein, at the door of the Suez canal. In just that one battle the Nazis suffered 3,300 dead or wounded, 277 captured, 51 tanks, 49 planes and roughly 100 other vehicles destroyed. Hitler was not amused, and concluded that “next to us Germans”, the French were the best fighters in the world, and so France had to be eradicated.

l) As North Africa got freed in Operation Torch, the Free French were able to raise a huge army (with US equipment: they were often taken for Americans, even as they contributed to the liberation of Italy, France and Germany). By 1944, the reborn French republic had risen like a phoenix, with an army of more than one million men fighting the Nazis, crossing the Rhine under fire, and making it first to Austria.

m) The USA never declared war to Hitler. Hitler declared war to the USA on December 11, 1941. The USA, its pro Nazi plutocracy conniving, had not planned to fight in 1942, and was taken by total surprise. So much for being so attached to democracy and the like.
***

So what does it all mean? France is the sister republic and democracy of the USA. And French civilization clearly “founded” Great Britain in 1066 (in the fiery debate about the Iraq invasion, in 2003, the UK foreign minister, Straw, said so himself). Thus the origin of American civilization is French. By spiting France, some in the USA spite the deepest part of their own civilization. France is a problem for the descendants of the US plutocrats who supported and partnered with Hitler. They got furious against France in 1934, precisely because of France’s aggressive attitude relative to Hitler.

It’s time to understand this, and realize that US plutocrats and racists betrayed democracy, republicanism, France, Great Britain and the entire British Commonwealth in 1939, and all those who opposed fascism to death (profiting of US benevolence towards them, the Japanese fascists invaded French Indochina, killing more than a million). This has never been said forcefully, so the same clique (OK, their grandchildren) brought us the Iraq war and other idiocies of the criminal type.

Anti-knowledge can lead not just to mental retardation, but to servitude. Those who attack France in the USA do not do so just because it pleases them to hate the idea of France, but because they want US citizens to be meek and servile.

Time to wake up to the sad realization the American republic has been severely manipulated, from 1933 to 2003, by the same sort of people, with the same sort of agenda: themselves, above anything else.
***

Patrice Ayme,

Tyranosopher