Posts Tagged ‘Mongols’

Europeans As Mongols of the Sea? No.

January 20, 2015

Anti-European propaganda in the USA never rests. Fox News (basically) proclaimed Paris the Most Dangerous City in the Universe. Obama himself helped. Hugely erroneous ideas and theories about historical facts are necessary to feed hugely greedy thus criminal systems of thought. Paul Krugman, per the general American anti-European mood, not to be overtaken by Fox or Obama, suggested that Europeans were “Mongols of the Sea”. I will show why this is, mostly wrong. (The mood of Krugman and his ilk, though, is as wrong as wrong can be.)

Geography is destiny. Does that mean superior geography is superior destiny? What about… human geography? History is culture, intelligence. Does that mean that a richer history is a richer culture, intelligence? Why did the Mongols invade all over the place, from Palestine, to Poland, to India, Korea, Japan, and Indonesia? Geography is destiny: they were at ease in the central Eurasian steppe, the world’s greatest grasslands.

Eurasian Steppe in Pink. Notice How Green & Full of Coastlines Europe Is.

Eurasian Steppe is in Pink in the picture above. This enormous amount of pink, this gigantic steppe from the far east to central Europe made travel easy for all and any people who knew how to survive the cold of Eurasian continental winter. This explains the Huns, the Hungarians, the Mongols… But also the Indo-European phenomenon, as, from West of Mongolia, they could go to Europe, India, and China. And they did. Notice How Green & Full of Coastlines, islands and Peninsulas, Europe Is… And the central position of France (explaining lots of history and mentality).

[Mongolia is the land south of Baikal Lake, the long and lonely lake in the middle of Asia, just north of the steppe. Ulan Baatar, the Mongol capital city, is the world’s coldest.]

In his book “Gun Germs and Steel”, Jared Diamond suggested that Europeans had lots of everything because Europe has had lots of everything to start with. Diamond had a chicken and egg problem. He was both chicken, and egg. Both scared, PC, and embryonic, not even.

The idea that geography is history is very old. It’s not just found in Braudel’s concept of Hydraulic Dictatorships, but also in the ancient Greek observation that Greeks were around the Mediterranean Sea as frogs around a pond (Herodotus).

Diamond observed that Europeans had plenty of domesticated animals and plants. So European material superiority was just happenstance (and not caused by their superior race, or culture).

That was, however, silly. Domesticated animals were evolved by man. Husbandry of animals was the robotics of the past. As the Franks learned to manage (what they called) Europe without slavery, they replaced slaves with animals and mechanical advantage. A new mood was born.

So doing, the Franks fabricated a mood of Freedom and Creativity. Harsh, massive, satirical critique of the Catholic Church, started in the Twelfth Century. The Pope reacted by killing millions (the Cathars, and then Valdese) and inventing the Inquisition.

The philosopher Alain Badiou, a far left anti-racist rather Marxist fanatic, yet one of the top professors in France, admitted recently that “only Europeans think”. As a French government campaign of the 1960s crowed: ”In France, on n’a pas de petrole, mais on a des idees” (or, more exactly, used to have ideas…).

Paul Krugman suggests that Europeans were the “Mongols Of the Sea”. Says Krugman:

“…Western Europe, because of its geography and lifestyle, had a disproportionately large number of skilled open-sea sailors. Very few of these sailors would have been engaged in warfare in normal times… can’t we argue that they provided a base of skills that gave the Atlantic fringe a big military advantage at sea?”

Of course, we can argue that, and it’s true to some extent, but not to another.

When Caesar got to the Atlantic coast of Gaul, he was astounded by the multitude of high, large, ocean going Celtic sail ships. (Early Roman galleys defeats against those ships turned into victory after Caesar forces invented a particular device, the crow.) By the Sixteenth Century, and probably earlier, the Basque fished massively cod off Cape Cod.

Isaac Asimov, by the way, did not invent psychohistory. He just invented the label. Psychohistory is in full evidence in Herodotus.

A question is why the Mongols were Mongols. Well, the world’s largest steppe extends from Manchuria to Hungary. The place where it had the largest extent, after South Russia switched from savagery, nomadism, hunting, gathering and trapping to agriculture, was, precisely Mongolia (not suited to agriculture).

Nomads are war like, they naturally attack and exploit peasants (see Arabs and Islam for a similar situation). After the Amazons and the Scythian empire got replaced by peasants, the Mongols were free to pay visits, with their nomadic war style, from one end of Eurasia to the other.

It’s actually the Huns who got the ball rolling. They tried to conquer Western Europe, but were defeated drastically in Gaul. First the natives in Orleans apparently surrendered their city, just to ambush them. Retreating, Attila’s giant army was then shadowed and harassed by the Frankish army. Finally, cornered, the Huns were near-annihilated in Champagne by a Franco-Roman and Gothic coalition (Aetius, the Roman commander, who had been raised among the Huns, saved them, in a weird turncoat maneuver).

The Mongols of Genghis Khan were direct descendants of the Huns of Attila. They remembered all too well what had happened between the Franks and the Huns: here is psychology again. Actually the Mongols made precise considerations on military effectiveness: composite bows go soft in the wet forests of Europe, and little Mongol horses were nothing relative to giant Frankish war horses. After a costly victory in Hungary, they decided to stop. Some of their vanguards had reached the Adriatic sea in Croatia.

Instead the Mongols allied themselves with the Franks to conquer Baghdad and Damascus… The alliance was nipped in the bud by the racist Saint Louis, Pope, and a difficult Mongol empress. In the end, the Mongols became Muslims (as the Pope apparently hated Nestorian Christianism more than he hated Islam).

True, the Europeans beat the Mongols at their own game. The famous Mongol tactic of retreating in disarray to create an ambush, was actually most drastically used by Duke Odo (Eudes) at the Battle of Toulouse in 721 CE (five centuries before Genghis Khan). The Franks originally fled, then enveloped the pursuing, and overconfident Islamists. (This gigantic battle is mostly ignored nowadays; Islamist historians claimed the Frankish army was 300,000 strong, and that the Muslims suffered 375,000 “Martyrs”. It was the first severe land defeat of the Muslims in one century of Islam.)

The Mongols did not have an industrial basis. What they did have, as Huns, or, four centuries later, Avars, and still another four centuries after that, Genghis Khan’s tumens, was super military training (as did Muhammad’s Arabs, for the same reason… Or the North African Saharan Berbers they allied themselves with to annihilate Christian North Africa)).

Europe, by contrast, had a superlative technical and industrial basis: the Celts provided the Roman Republican army with swords (Spain) or thin light metallic helmets (Gallia). The Celts, as I said above, gad ocean going ships that none of the Mediterranean people, not even the Greeks, had. It’s the conceptual descendants of these ships which allowed to send large armies across the Atlantic in the Fifteenth Century.

The outlawing of slavery in the Seventh Century forced Europe into high science and high technology. The construction of cathedrals is the proof of this: although superior Roman concrete had been forgotten, the cathedrals used iron in a crucial way. Said iron structures were too strong to be manipulated by hand, so hydraulic hammers had to be invented, and they were.

After Augustus lost three crack legions and their supporting troops in Northern Germany, Rome stagnated militarily. That led to an ecological collapse, a military collapse, and then a demographic collapse. The Franks inverted the avalanche of collapses by conquering Germany, and finding enough silver in Eastern Europe to reconstituting a hard currency (routinely boiling counterfeiters helped).

The Mongols had superior military organization, still they knew they were no match for the Franks (the conversation between the top Mongol generals about this are in the Secret History of the Mongols). The Europeans, though, set-up superior organizations in roughly all domains.

This is what the plutocrats are hell-bent to destroy presently. Do not forget that Greek plutocrats (the friends and “Executors” of Aristotle) and Roman plutocrats, did not hesitate to destroy the civilizations which had produced them. Our plutocrats are not any different.

Comparing Europeans to raiders of the steppe can only help.

But did the English Colonists who invaded North America succeed to do what the Mongols failed to do, and the Nazis also failed to do, namely to exterminate most of the Natives? Certainly so. Thus Americans became, de facto, what the worst Mongols dreamed to be: not just ruthless conquerors, but thorough terminators.

This ruthlessly terminating, not to say exterminating, mood, is, no doubt, still with us. That’s why Bush went to kill 500,000 , or more, in Iraq: just because he could.

Patrice Ayme’




Geo-historical Civilizational Logic

September 15, 2014

Abstract: Geography can dominate history. Examples abound. Civilization cannot just clash: it has to be defended by the sword, and by ideas which are even sharper than steel. Unfortunately plutocracy hate to see force, physical and intellectual, in command of We the People. This betrayal from class interest is how top civilizations go down: when plutocracy gnaws into civilization as the gangrene it is. The death blow is then given by the savages who are sure to come circling like hyenas. The latter is a symptom of the former.

Such hyenas brought down the Roman and Chinese state. Lest we be careful now, the Union of Savages and Thugs, with big titles, like president of Syria, or Russia, or the “Caliphate”, will engulf civilization. Let’s crush them when we still can (the “Caliphate” is only 20,000 strong, so could be literally exterminated, at this point). But we will crush them better if we also extinguish our plutocratic form of government.

Not Conquering Germania Magna Was The Proximal Cause Of Rome's Failure

Not Conquering Germania Magna Was The Proximal Cause Of Rome’s Failure


The plutocratized Roman republic (aka “Principate”) suffered a psychologically shattering defeat at the Teutoburg Forest in 12 CE (just left of the G in Germania above).

Rome, as a real republic and democracy, had suffered much worse, even terrifying, defeats. However it was then, being a direct democracy, of a much stronger, much clearer frame of mind, and it rebounded with astounding efficiency.

Instead the Teutoburg defeat marked and accelerated an irreversible decay, as the Roman polity was taken in a pincer between exterior enemies and interior plutocrats. An army led by “princes” is much less effective than an army by the people, for the people… As the conquest of Germany required.

Some will object that the Franks, who conquered Germany after 507 CE, were led by kings. Right. But those kings were elected (more or less by the people). Nobody elected Augustus. Moreover, Frankish society was submitted to the equalitarian principle: the richest Frank was often elected king, but there was, or ought to be, no “nobilitas” notion among them; that point was made to the Pope around 740 CE by the son of Charles Martel, Pepin Le Bref.

Notice that the traitor (he had been a Roman officer) Arminius and his German army chose the location and time of the battle (which lasted three days). The miserable rain hindered the usage of Roman artillery; a swamp and a rise, the Kalkreise, prevented the maneuvering of the legions.

The treachery of it all (the legions were trekking back to their winter quarters) took Varus’ army was complete surprise.


The steppe which goes from Manchuria to Hungary allowed the Mongols to spill at least three times, in nine centuries, all the way to Central Europe (thus, having gathered immense power, they were able to build a giant empire, all the way to India, Japan and Indonesia).

Isolation from the Afro-Eurasian hyper continent, or, should I say, cesspool, meant that the Americas were not going to win the biological war between the former and the later. And so on.

I explained that a lot of the effervescent mentality which has festered around the place presently known as France has to do with the three giant trade routes between Southern and Northern Europe. The Alps and Carpathians, mighty mountain ranges, extend to the east over a thousand miles, blocking the way. Until the crisscrossing of wide rivers in the Ukraine-Russian plains. That, also blocked civilization’s penetration until the Vikings (“Rus”) used the waterways to enable profitable trade between Scandinavia and “Rome” (meaning Constantinople).

Nowadays, we are confronted to an old fashion modern Genghis Khan, Vladimir Putin, playing fast and loose, in a calculus where human lives are nothing. Putin has said a great number of things which should be taken literally: that Kazakhstan was not a state, that the Baltic countries had been a gift to the West, that the disappearance of the “Big Country” (USSR) was the “greatest tragedy of the Twentieth Century“, etc. His agenda is clearly to reconstitute the empire of the Czars at it maximal extent: he said as much, he will keep on coming for as much as he can get. This is not the “Cold War“. This is not a drill, either. This is war.


Scotland’s push towards independence from the London plutocracy is related to the struggle of Ukraine against the age old, vicious mentality in Moscow. That viciousness is how Moscow grew against, but also thanks to, the occupying Mongols (aka “Tartars”, or “Golden Horde”). Now that viciousness needs to be destroyed, as it is only compatible with a world war.

As facts of preceding centuries, even millennia, determine the flow of psycho-history, looking forward, it’s important to find out what those facts exactly were. In particular the exact history of the giant Greco-Roman republic-empire and its innovative successor, the “Imperium Francorum”-Renovated Roman Empire, is paramount.

Exactitude reveals that things could have turned completely differently, from small details: that’s known as the butterfly effect. From the flapping of a butterfly, a hurricane started (that’s probably impossible, for Quantum reasons, but let’s ignore that).

Out of the many penetrations by sharp objects which put an end to Julius Caesar’s life, only one was lethal, said his personal physician. Had Caesar survived, the history of Europe, and, probably, the world, would have been very different. Caesar had been on his way to a very ambitious military campaign which, knowing him, and his army, the best Rome ever had, may well have succeeded. The anticipated result was the extension of Rome over Persia, and all of Europe, west of the Caspian Sea.


Here is Eugen R Lowy, commenting on my site along these lines:

“The tragedy of Europe was caused by its two major rivers, the Rhine and the Danube. Since The Roman times it divided the Continent. Charlemagne was the first to unite Europe across the Rhine. Unfortunately it was not long lasting. The next one who would try to do it was Napoleon. But he was too eager to fight wars. Unfortunately at the time bungee jumping did not exist, that could potentially have pacified him.

The 20th century brought three unification experiences, the WWII of Hitler, then the Soviet- Stalin ( SS ) experiment, and the last one, the EU. Fortunately this one was the only successful one.

Let us hope that this time the [European] unification will thrive in spite of all those short sighted, petty minded but loud speakers.”

Eugen has it right, at least as far as the conclusion is concerned.

But the devil is in the details. Napoleon was tough: he charged at the head of his troops when his plan against the invading British was enacted at the siege of Toulon (1792), and was severely wounded in hand to hand combat. Later, as self proclaimed “emperor”, he took great risks, and had horses killed under him no less than 19 times.

Real history is often all too different, from what legends have it: the Romans were established across the Rhine, for centuries. As the Salian Franks were from one of the zones the Romans controlled (more or less), one could argue that they never left.

But, indeed, the (lack of) junction between Rhine and Danube was a huge military problem (especially as it extended the “Fulda Gap”: go ask Putin what it is, he knows!).

The Franks, three centuries before Charlemagne, had already united most of Franco-Germania, across the Rhine. What Charlemagne did was to mop up the last resistance in the most distant part of Germany, among the Saxons, and to push the frontier of Europe as far as (much of) the present European Union to the East. That made the European frontier short and defensible, stopping indeed Genghis Khan’s Mongols (the Central Asiatic invaders penetrated Poland, and Hungary, but collided there with united European forces, and, although they won in memorable battles, suffered unsustainable losses).

Calling WWII and Stalin “unifications” is farfetched: they were standard occupations and not the nicest. The situation with Napoleon was more complicated. Although he was a scum, he did not get the catastrophe started. Even greater scums, such as the pseudo-philosopher Burke, got the ball rolling.


The first Roman to cross into Germany was Caesar. He build a bridge across the Rhine, and went in to punish the Germans for having raided Gaul. He did this twice. However, the perpetrators tended to flee deep inside the immense forests.

Caesar thought about it, and rightly deduced it would never end. So he decided to catch the Germans from behind. A conspiracy of corrupt, idiotic plutocrats inside the Senate decided otherwise. 300 years later, the Goths were at the gates of Roma, the city of Rome herself (they finally conquered Roma another 160 years later).

Caesar’s grand-nephew and heir, Augustus, went back to the unimaginative method of the slow grind. The Roman penetration extended well beyond the Rhine, and even Danube. When three legions (18,000 elite legionaires, plus the supporting army) were annihilated by Arminius (“Herman”), they were going back to their winter quarters, and that trek back, along a narrow path, was in extreme Northern Germany, exactly were the hills met the immense swamp which preceded the North Sea. Over three days, in very bad weather, hindering Roman artillery, and a geography that prevented their maneuvering, the legions fought, until they met a final trap. Those survivors who had not escaped or committed suicide, were assassinated in human sacrifices.

So what happened after that?

Three things:

1) Augustus plunged into a nervous breakdown, losing his composure completely. He butted his head on the wall of the palace, begging general Varus to give him back his legions (Varus died at Teutoburg).

Against all common sense, Augustus counseled his successors to not try to control all of Germany. Yet, Germanicus (grand nephew Augustus, nephew and adoptive son Tiberius) knew better. He overruled the recommendation of Augustus to stay on the Rhine. Beyond the orders he got, he drove deep into Germany, with eight legions, and defeated Arminius for years. However, Germanicus was poisoned (by Sejanus; that was revealed only 15 years later, although widely suspected at the time, making Tiberius the object of hatred).

2) Increasing plutocracy in Rome meant ever less power for the army: that was evident by Marcus Aurelius’ reign (180 CE), when new German nations tried to break through the Danube towards Italia. Soon pieces of the army, starting with the Pretorian Guard, behaved increasingly like occupying and plundering bodies: this was the situation after the demise of the Severus dynasty (“Barrack emperors” period).

That enfeeblement, in turn, made the Germans ever bolder. By 250 CE, the Franks were raiding from ships, Viking style, throughout not just Gaul, but Spain and even North Africa, where they struck the populations by their appearance of blonde giants.

At the same time, the Goths commandeered a fleet of non-sea worthy ships, and rampaged for years all around the Euxine Sea (Black Sea), and even all the way down to Athens (which they plundered and burned).

3) Why were there so many Germans? Obviously agriculture in the North was getting more and more productive, allowing to support more and more people. At the same time, exposition to the Greco-Roman empire had partly changed, and militarized the German savages, and they yearned for civilization and the wealth of Rome. Spectacular victories over the Roman army inside the empire persuaded the Germans that the empire was richer, and weaker, than expected. The Persians deduced the same simultaneously, invading Mesopotamia and Armenia.



It’s nice to philosophize about the demise of the Greco-Roman fascist plutocracy known to itself as the republic. What is the morality of all this, looking forward? Two main things:

1) The strength of Rome was its republic, its direct democracy, before the lamentable Augustus tinkered with it to transform it in a military dictatorship. The real, original republic, was a direct democracy.

2) Vladimir Putin is much more dangerous than the Europeans realize. Not just because of himself, the quickly expanding forces at his command, and the will he has proclaimed to establish a much larger empire all over Eurasia (which he calls the “Eurasian Union”). But also because he demonstrates to the world that Europe is much richer, and much weaker, than it was thought to be. And it makes the entire world, including the Europeans, used to this idea.

Fortunately some in Europe understand this vaguely: the French sent to the Kurds very effective, easy to use armor piercing weapons, that were used very effectively by the Peshmerga. French military advisers are on the ground. The Americans, who were not exactly born yesterday, are in the lead this time (differently from the Saturday when Obama made an about face about bombing Assad, while French pilots cooked in their cockpits).

A question is what can the USA do to help rise the bellicose spirit of Europeans?

The answer is to advantage the French Republic and loudly cooperate with it, for all to see. When the Germans and other neutrals realize that France is getting rewarded because of her effective role in defending civilization, they may be keener in following suit.

There is also no way that France can play an important military role while being held back by the 3% deficit Eurozone spending rule (the USA turns around the deficit through Quantitative Easing, a stealth nationalization of much of the economy that does not augment the deficit, technically, while having the same effect, under another name, balancing the Fed’s books).

Ultimately, who decapitates whom at will, is what history is all about. Facts don’t have to be nice, they can just stand there, impervious.

It will be European Unification, under a superior philosophy, or it will be war, under superior barbarity: Putin knows this, and opted for the latter. That’s how professionally trained assassins tend to be.

One may ponder why it is that Augustus took the wrong turn. First he wanted peace and control. Second, he did not have a grand plan (as his reaction to the Teutoburg massacre showed).

Institutionally, Augustus decided little besides making Tiberius his heir (under (one of his wives) Livia’s influence). That was informal, and for many weeks which dragged by, after the Princeps’ death in 14 CE, nothing was done about the exact status of the Roman Republic: a nervous Tiberius, although the top general did not dare say he was taking command (“of the Senate”: Princeps), before he was begged to do so by an official delegation.

Some historians have suggested the obvious: the (informal) Roman Constitution was made for the City of Rome, not an empire with a fourth of humanity. The only way for the empire to go on was to militarize and dictatorize the Republic as much as necessary, as Augustus did.

That’s not true. The empire actually morphed in a galaxy of local cities and provinces which were rather free. The central Roman administration was very efficient. However, when the central state could not pay for the armies, trouble ensued (and this was true by 150 BCE). The armies did public works, not just defense. Augustus did not fix the problem of paying for a Republican army, instead he instituted a moral decaying dictatorship.

That moral decay presided the fall of Rome is not just my opinion: emperor Decius, in the Third Century held it, and asked the Senate to re-establish the office of censor: Valerian got the job (Valerian became emperor later, and made history by becoming the first and only captured Roman emperor; he was rumored to have become the stool Sasanian emperor Shapur I used to mount his horse).


On the positive side, the strength of Rome was local self-determination, and the ensuing peace: before the Goths rampaged in the central empire (Illyricum, the present Balkans, and Greece), the region had known three centuries of peace.

This is why letting local nations (Scotland, Catalonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Kurdistan) being free is important: it was one of the ingredient of the Roman success. Notice also that the Franks duplicated that regionalization later. Yet, the Franks did the latter to excess: regionalization got so extreme, that it led to alienation, nationalism, and finally, war.

This is what the European construction wants to correct: a millennium, or more, of alienation. But it will not happen without weapons. Intellectual weapons, but also, against thugs such as Putin, real weapons.

Intellectual weapons are the most powerful: when Bush’s USA destroyed the Iraqi republic of Saddam Hussein, it fostered the sort of thugs that now reign there (the expression “Iraqi republic” is similar to the one, “republic”, that the Greco-Romans used to qualify the Greco-Roman state for centuries after Augustus). This was highly predictable for anyone with enough of a brain.

Republics work, but only when they can strike in their defense. Nowadays, whether know-nothing Americans, and half boiled Europeans realize it, the republic has no borders, it’s all over the planet.

It’s easy for Germany to be tired of the French deficit (4.4% predicted, whereas Germany is at 0%). Germany’s fate, and course correction, was determined by bombs, not deficit.

Work works, but, in the ultimate cases, war is irreplaceable.

Consider the invasion of China by the Mongols over 60 years. The Jin dynasty, Western Xia, the Dali Kingdom and the Southern Song (which fell in 1279 CE) worked hard, and were on the top of civilization (the Xia was the most powerful Buddhist state ever). Their successive defeats were not caused by lack of industry, but by lack of military skill caused by the asinine stupor a lazy plutocracy prefers in the People they subjugate (that observation was made by Mongol generals themselves, again and again).

That, in turn, was caused by the wrong ideas all over.

Wrong ideas are all over nowadays. Examples: the fact that children should be less educated in the West than in Shanghai; that the Qur’an is a book of peace; that international law does not apply to Moscow (or George Bush), and that’s not a civilization threatening event; that we are not at war with Putin; that there are (military) borders; that banks are not public utilities, that the fractional reserve system is not a subsidy to plutocrats; that Quantitative Easing is not communism for the wealthiest; that greed will solve everything; that Earth’s biosphere is not in the greatest crisis in 65 million years; that the parliamentary system in most of the West can be called “democracy”. And so on.

All these very erroneous ideas need to be beaten into shape.

Without getting the right axiomatic first, we won’t know where, or even why, to strike. This was the problem Rome had after Augustus. This is why most of Europe is supine, as threats add to injury. That’s why Obama admitted he had “no strategy” in Iraq and Syria.

That was, at least, honest. Let’s give him a hint: hit the enemy in Iraq and Syria, while extending peace feelers to the ex-supporters of Saddam Hussein’s regime (thus splitting the enemy). That’s the most moral thing to do.

The most moral thing to do, is always the best strategy.

Patrice Ayme

Letter From Moscow

April 10, 2014

I got a letter from Moscow accusing me of “deep seated hatred for the Russian soul” (it’s found in the comments of “1938?”).

Let me first make the following clear: I am not anti-Russian, quite the opposite. The same holds for Germany: I am pro-German, and that is why I have attacked German racist fascism, murderously anti-Semitic for at least 5 centuries (and maybe before Alexander Nevski).

Ideally, I would have Europe extending from the Azores to Alaska. I would be happy with Russia as a member of the European Union.

Uniquely Beautiful Russian Soul Much Loved

Uniquely Beautiful Russian Soul Much Loved

Nearly all Russians that I have met struck me as advanced cultural types (partly a selection effect from immigration, as the best and brightest tend to flee). I used even to read Soviet books (in translation), from Lenin to astrophysics (where Russians invented many things Americans claimed later, such as cosmic inflation; the successful thermonuclear device, the tokomak, is named from a Russian abbreviation and was invented by Sakharov (Stalin’s own H bomb genius; later a famous dissident).

But my extreme, and growing, dislike for Putin has appeared several years ago. He is making things worse with his new doctrine of the Eurasian Union, founded on values not embraced by Europe. See my:

which made already pretty explicit that Putin was on a collision course with civilization. I was not, BTW, always anti-Putin. I thought he would crack down on the plutocrats initially. Instead, he herded them. And bred his own.

In “1938?”, or “Hitler’s Book”, I related the analogy of facts between Hitler’s and Putin’s action. Not my fault that both invaded, and then held referenda with 97% approval. And other identities of facts. I don’t see why the fraud of 97% of Hitler (demonstrated 16 years later, no less!) is not a model for the fraud of 97% of Putin.

Everybody could see transparent urns were used in Crimea, at least in some cases, and the yes or no were plainly visible. Is that civilization, or is that making fun of civilization?

OK, let’s talk about what we know. What happened with Herr Hitler? A process was engaged. Both an inner psychological process, and an outer psychological process. Inwardly, Hitler got away with great horrors and obvious outrages… that brought him great success. He came to believe that, the more horrors and outrages, the more success would come.

And so they did.

In 1939, though, a weak Britain, having belatedly abjured Hitler, accepted to join France in providing Poland with support against Hitler and Stalin. The rest is history. The USSR harvested what it had sown: a quarter of a century of complicity with German fascism (started by Lenin himself before 1917).

Similarly, now, Putin could tip into the Darkest Side.

For example, if Putin uses transparent voting boxes and then all the Russians salute that democratic gesture, while the West scoff in impotent rage, Putin will be enticed to do more of the same, all over, from Georgia to Moldova.

Some will say: Russia is only 17 million square kilometers, 70% larger than Canada, the USA and China (the three largest countries after Russia). Why can’t Russia become the “big country” as Putin himself called it, again? Why can’t Russia become again Czarist Russia, with its 22 million square kilometers? What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong is that it crushed many civilizations. Armenian civilization, in Christian form, is the oldest Christian civilization, older than Christian Rome, more than 17 centuries old, for example.

That brings us to the question of the “Russian soul”. What is the “Russian Soul”? How old is it? Where does it come from? Well, history is very clear. The youngest son of Alexander Nevski founded Moscow, but then came the Mongols. Out of centuries of war, oppression and occupation, came the Moscow soul, in the style of Ivan III, and Ivan IV, The Terrible.

Now that Moscow soul is called the Russian soul. Its pluses? First of all, the capacity to install the largest land empire the world has known (except for the Mongols, for a generation or so). True, that empire spread among semi-Neolithic people, and was rendered possible by the potato (a South American invention, not Russian!). Potatoes grow in very poor soils, with very cold winter, and give nearly all that a human being needs, including proteins.

You say, dear Moscow reader: …” you don’t grasp some very important aspects of the proverbial Russian “soul” — why they fight so hard when humiliated and so on. Or perhaps you think they are so stupid to be totally indoctrinated without “free press”? In our Internet age… How arrogant and stupid of you! I think it is deeply seated hatred that devaluates all the good reasoning you have.”

Well, Putin has apparently blocked some Internet site (not mine, it seems). Also clearly he has control of the Russian Main Stream Media. I don’t know if Russian fight so hard. They lost the Crimean war of 1853. They lost World War One. In WWII, Stalin’s terror proved to be much superior to the terror Nazi inspired. One could say that the Nazis got out-Nazified.

Also the Allies provided Stalin with many things, from trucks to first class intelligence (intelligence from the British, itself building on French and especially Polish work). The battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle of WWII, by far, in summer 1943, was won because the Soviets knew everything about the Nazi formations, thanks to the Brits. That’s when the Wehrmacht got broken (it was defeated, but not broken, at Moscow in 1941, and lost stupidly the Sixth Army’s 300,000 men at Stalingrad around Christmas 1942. But at Kursk, it lost its last chance to defeat the USSR).

I don’t see why I should have “deep seated hatred against the Russian soul”. And the fact is, I do not. Although I do deeply despise Orthodox Christian fanatics…

The danger now is that Russians are embarked on a phenomenon of satanization (we need a word beyond diabolization!) similar to that experienced by the Germans in the 1930s and 1940s. That’s all. That’s plenty enough to raise some alarms.

By grossly violating International Law in exactly the same way as Hitler did with Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. (Hitler did a better job, getting everything without firing a shot.) Putin has opened the gates of violence. Not only has Putin’s psychology tipped irreversibly in the Dark Side, but he has set in motion forces that push him ever further that way.

The weakness of the West only encourages him. Hitler was stunned when France and Britain sent him an ultimatum, on September 1, 1939. In retrospect, it should have been done earlier. Fortunately this time, the West is not divided. And an economic ultimatum can be sent to Putin.

At this point, all signs are that Putin prepares an invasion. If Mr. Putin does not get the Ukrainian constitution changed within a few weeks, according to its diktat, he will probably attack before the Ukrainian presidential elections of May 25. And then what’s next?

The problem with the wished-for 22 million square kilometers empire of the Czar Putin is that it imposed the paranoid, metastatic, militaristic, satanic Kremlin soul on many civilizations, most of them wiser and older, with less space for the Dark Side.

Nowadays, the Dark Side has to be fought, lest nuclear weapons, and many other terrible ways and means, be used. Interestingly, Putin and his henchmen have declared they will use nuclear weapons on the battlefield, a clear escalation, of the nuclear type (whereas the Obama administration has wowed never to use tactical nukes).

Weirdly, yet in the traditional Hitlerian way, Putin is proving more deliberately dangerous to the West than any Soviet leader ever was (except for when Stalin allied with Hitler against France).

Patrice Aymé


August 27, 2008


Moscow, per its genesis and  intrinsic nature, is anti-Western. As simple as that. Nothing irremediable, but a serious disease nevertheless.

This dreadful pathology was long hidden by the fact Moscow claimed to be Marxist, and socialist, and many in the West were, and are, genuine socialists. Basically, all of Western Europe, Britain included, is socialist (and the USA is not too far behind!). So there is a lot of sympathy for socialism in the West, and Moscow used that sympathy as a trick to advance itself (seducing thus Roosevelt’s gullible advisers at the Yalta conference).

That Moscow is deeply anti-Western was also hidden by the fact that Stalinian fascism, after being allied to, and an indispensable life support system of Hitlerian fascism, was attacked by it, and conducted a desperate fight against it. The USSR suffered 20 million dead, but with unbelievable ferocity orchestrated by Stalin, was able to win the crucial battles of Moscow (December 1941; between 900,000 and 1,600,000 total casualties) and Leningrad (total casualties above 1.5 million). Retreating troops were shot on sight by NKVD “blocking” sections (NKVD = KGB = FSB = Putin); prisoners, or soldiers gone missing, were viewed as traitors, and condemned to death (in first approximation).

But now the smokescreens are dissipating. Moscow has invaded Georgia, a country that existed for more than thrice as long as Moscow itself. A country with its own culture, language, religion, alphabet. A country always nestled among the mountains, south of the formidable range of the Caucasus. Georgia was the first country in the world to make Christianity its state religion (around 300 CE).

Moscow said Georgia, with one-fourth of its tiny army in Iraq, attacked its forces first. Never mind that those Russian forces were inside Georgia officially recognized frontiers already. Where Muscovite tanks are, it’s Russia, and attacking them is an unforgivable act of hostility. Moscow had deployed, or was in the process of deploying, more than 3,000 tanks, from many directions, inside Georgia, by the time the fighting broke out. The Georgians tried to block the mountain tunnel the Russian invaders were coming out of. (It has long been reproached to the Tibetans to not have resisted by force to the Chinese invasion, thus demonstrating a sort of consent; the Georgians were determined not to do this mistake; the Russians suffered significant losses, especially of bombers, heightening Moscow’s rage.)  

The time of the final confrontation is at hand between the mentality of the West and the anti-Western mentality of Moscow. That anti-Western mentality is more than 1,000 years old (indeed it is much older than Moscow itself). This confrontation is much bigger than any problem connected with the US mistake of having invaded Iraq, because invading Iraq was deeply anti-American. Invading Iraq was contrary to American nature. Whereas invading Georgia is exactly what Moscow has always been about, ever since that city blossomed as the double agent stooge of the Mongols (before 1480).

Why is Moscow so enraged, so invasive? Because its mentality came from a confrontation between some Slavonic monks, disciples of Cyril and Methodius (two saintly brothers who invented a special alphabet and celebrated mass in Slavonic) and Western authorities (religious and political). The Western authorities viewed the disciples as divisive (and they were, as the fullness of time did show). The angry disciples got help from the just installed Bulgarian empire (the Bulgars were a nomadic people pushed 2,000 kilometers west by ancestors of the Mongols). The Bulgars converted to Christianity, but to the version of Christianity these irate disciples insisted on, complete with a new alphabet nobody had ever seen before (“Cyrillic”), and that nobody civilized could read. Thus the Bulgars inherited the conflict those disciples had with the Franks and the Pope. Next this happy crew went north into the land of the RUS’, the Swedes who had colonized Ukraine. They converted the Rus’, to their version of Christianity hostile to the West.

The result was that the growing Russia inherited a conflict it did not start. The alphabet and other mysteries of the same sort increased the alienation with the West. Two centuries later, the Mongols invaded, and destroyed the Russian army. Whereas Europe fielded vast armies that were soundly defeated in Poland, and then in Hungary, it ignored Russia’s fate. The Mongol victory in Hungary had been costly for the descendants of the Huns, and although the Mongols reached the Adriatic, they did not stay.

But they did stay in Russia, as the “Golden Horde”. Russia was left under the Mongol yoke for more than two centuries. The “Grand Duchy of” Moscow grew up, by rising the tribute for the Mongols over an ever extending domain. Working for the Mongols taught some special antidemocratic ways to Moscow, and a great distrust of the rest of Europe. The early republics of Rus were forgotten. Russia never forgave Europe to have let it down, and Moscow’s Mongolian ways won over democracy and enlightenment. The more antidemocratic and obscure, the better, and the Russian soul was left to whine about the tragedy of the human condition, while never forgetting to invade here, there, and everywhere. No doubt the mentality inherited from those travails helped it build the largest, most stable empire the world has ever seen. It knew its greatest extent under Stalin.

Then, entrapped in Afghanistan, and left behind in nearly all civilizational ways by the democracies, the USSR disintegrated, as the captive nations escaped Moscow’s grab. Putin whines about it: “the collapse of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century”. Sob. Notice Putin speaks about “tragedy”, not “humiliation” (Putin’s apologists in the West generally have it that he is not a tragic figure, but an humiliated one: they are not paying attention!).

Collapse of the USSR as “greatest tragedy”? What about the time the kid next door stole the big red balloon of little Vlad? The “greatest tragedy”: never mind Nazism and its 60 million dead. Never mind Stalin who boasted to Churchill that he “killed even more Soviet citizens than Hitler did”. The greatest disaster, according to Putin, was the relatively small shrinkage of the world’s largest empire, when dozens of nations escaped its yoke (many of those nations were way older than Moscow, such as Poland, the Baltic republics, Ukraine, Georgia, and many “Muslim” republics). The twenty thousand tanks and fourty thousands nukes were not used to keep the empire together, but everything else was. And it did not work. No doubt Putin, the ex-KGB officer has noticed this, and that is why he invaded Georgia with more tanks than Hitler used to invade the USSR.

So now Putin wants to grab it all back. Georgia is just a trial run, testing the waters the way Stalin or Hitler used to (after all, if Putin admires Stalin so much, and since Stalin was fascinated by Hitler, it all fits together).

For Putin, the more appealing objective is Ukraine. But it will not stop there. A Colonel General of the Russian army suggested Poland would have to pay too. Of course Putin can only be besides himself that Bulgaria, that started the entire adventure in alienation land, is now safely tucked inside the European Union. Kosovo is way beyond Bulgaria, when coming from Moscow, so the fact  that Bulgaria is now a part of the EU has got to be resented as another enormous outrage by Gorbachev, Putin, and their hateful ilk.

The Europeans have to carry the main economic weight of confronting Moscow at this point. The Europeans need the courage to go all the way, and forget about begging for energy from Moscow, down on their knees. They can do it, but it will be tough. Otherwise Moscow will reinvade as much as it can (until the unavoidable military struggle).

Gorbachev, the Russian tsar before Putin, impudently condemns the fact that Kosovo voted for its independence repeatedly. Voting is a big no-no for Moscow. Invading is what Moscow does. Voting gets in the way.

Kosovo has been its own country forever. It was part of Illyricum, from which many formidable Roman emperors came (Diocletian, Constantine). A baby from a family of Illyricum could be born in York, Britain, as Constantine was. Meanwhile, the first Russians did not even exist, and had not gone anywhere near the future site of Moscow (a settlement founded around 1147 CE).

The Serbs were invited to settle in the area by emperor Heraclius (7th century). The Serbs are the guests, the Kosovars are the original stock. And, although the Serbs fought a battle against the Turks in Kosovo, they mainly stayed out of it for a very long time.

Moreover the Serbs have voted recently twice to confirm implicitly that Kosovo could go its own way, and that Serbia would join the European Union instead. Ultimately, belonging both to the European Union will reunify Serbia with Kosovo, in the fullness of time!

Kosovo, besides, is 40 times the population of South Ossetia. South Ossetia has been a province of Georgia for 3,000 years. It has its own little tini tiny language and particularism, a method of divide and rule invented by Stalin, all over the USSR (and especially in the Caucasus). Now Moscow has decided that South Ossetia is part of Moscow’s empire.

Is Kosovo also part of Moscow? What about Berlin? After all, Berlin is much closer to Moscow than Kosovo. That new method is simple: Moscow distributes passports to some residents of a foreign country, and then claims Russians are under attack, and invade. In the initial fighting in South Ossetia, Moscow claimed the Georgians killed 2,000 Ossetians in the major city (thus, 2,000 Russians!). At last real count the fighting inside that city killed only 137 (or so). And who has been using bombers bombing inside Georgia, including Ossetia? Moscow. (Georgia shot down several bombers: one more anti-Russian crime). Now Moscow is distributing Russian passports to Ukrainians living in Crimea. Soon it will have to “rescue” them, no doubt.

Oh, by the way, why is Moscow so obsessed about Kosovo? Kosovo is smack dab in the Middle of the Mediterranean region (100 kilometers from the sea). Kosovo never had anything to do with Moscow, except as an object of desire. The Muscovite desire for the Mediterranean sea. Moscow wants all the seas. It has many of them, but not that one. It is painful. Moscow wants it all, like Staphylococcus Aureus. It is high time to draw the line. The line is that if Moscow wants to keep on with its anti-Western, antidemocratic, invasive mentality, it can stay in its own sand box. After all, it is the largest in the world.


Patrice Ayme.


P/S: 1) The NYT published a simplified version of the text above in their electronic edition, minus the final section, that it cut out. It was an interesting wink: OK, we know who you are, and you are right, but we, at the NYT, have our own foreign policy, we are sure you understand. The NYT apparently wants people to think that the Russian government and its Gorbachev are reasonable. Thus, having grabbed Kosovo from Moscow is a crime. Never mind that Kosovo is next to Rome (and never had anything to do with Moscow, as we said). A precedent: the NYT, and US media in general, refused to be alarmed by the way Hitler treated Jews, and the way Hitler’s “kingdom” was, and that, for years (this led directly to the defeat of the French army, the occupation of Europe, and thus the Shoah, and 60 million dead). The present situation with Russia is very similar. After all, Hitler’s Reich started as a democratic republic. Soon  Chancellor Hitler made himself President too, just like Putin, but going the other way. Soon, with British cooperation, Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty (1935). That was the crucial step: France could not attack as long as Britain was collaborating with Hitler (the similar step now is the invasion of Georgia). A few years later, including severe alcoholics and other drastic social outcasts, the total population of inmates in Nazi concentration camps was only 4,700. It would soon explode into the millions, yes, but that discreet begining means that Hitler’s evil had to be detected in the detail of his actions. Guernica should have been plenty enough (1936). 

2) Ultimately, the only solution for Moscow is to quit the alienation it likes to roll in like some animals do in the mud. That means joining the European Union. That means forgetting on the resentment that seems to drive Putin all too much. Far from being an economic superpower, Moscow has a significantly smaller GDP than France (although with twice the population and about thirty times the area of France; or less than half the population of the USA, with nearly double its area!) It could be easily swallowed, once it satisfies the democratic requirements for membership. Right now, Putin is going the other way, though, since he declared grandly Russia should not bother with the World Trade Organization. Indeed, who needs trade, when one has so many tanks? And so many juicy neighbours to invade?

3) Ah, a last strategic perspective: the central Asian republics, determined to shake Moscow’s yoke, have set up a system of pipelines to send crude oil and gas directly to the rest of the world, bypassing Russia. All these pipes go through Georgia, and have to go through Georgia (to avoid Russia north of the Caucasus, and Iran to the south). Russian tanks got next to the pipes, and they were shut down (imagine Putin’s glee!). A fourth giant pipe is also planned. Still one more of these Georgian crimes! Thus the invasion of Georgia is also an attempt by Moscow to reestablish control of central Asia.

4) As far as Abkahzia and Ossetia being non Georgian, according to international observers, two thirds of the population of the former, ethnically Georgian, were ethnically cleansed (around 400,000 Georgians were expelled from their home area). And as far as the 50,000 South Ossetians with Russian passports are concerned, the presence of their province within immediate proximity of the very center of Georgia (Gori, where Stalin was born), and the capital of Georgia, Tbilissi, makes the claim that it is indeed a different country extremely dubious (there too thousands of Georgians were expelled).

5) Human Rights Watch says the pictures of five villages near the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, are “compelling evidence of war crimes and grave human rights abuses”. Those are ethnic Georgian villages. The organization called on the Russian government to prosecute those responsible.

6) People who aspire to be taken seriously, like Obama’s Samantha Power (Kennedy School of Government, Harvard), argue that Russia was humiliated, and thus, attacked. This spin was disseminated by the Kremlin critters themselves. The Nazis had used it before as an explanation of why they wanted to kill everybody. This attempt to brandish humiliation as a prime motivator of human beings is an attempt to substitute a feel good hierarchy about what motivates humans most, to the, much more violent real thing. It is erroneous in the first approximation. When a bear, or a bull charges, it is not out of humiliation (too complicated), nor, of course, fear (because, if afraid, it would flee). A bull, or a bear, or a lion charges out of anger, rage, or hatred. And, first of all, because that is what it does when excited. Humiliation is not an option.