Posts Tagged ‘Nationalism’

Macron Adresses “Republican Salute” to Marine Le Pen

May 7, 2017

Macron Says: Le Pen Neither President Nor A Fascist

Macron was elected in a landslide in France after an astounding worldwide tempest of lies and infamies. I say this, but I am not, not at all, National Front, quite the opposite. Macron celebrated Marine Le Pen, addressing to her a “Republican salute”, and basically saying her voters had good grounds to be worried..

There was a general mobilization of the Plutocratic Party (PP), worldwide, against Marine Le Pen. Let me hasten to point out that I am all globalist, anti-nationalist, anti-tribal. And I have long despised aspects of French nationalism. For example, I despise Joan of Arc, or, more exactly, the cult of Joan of Arc’s ideas. Joan was a fine, remarkably educated and smart young lady. However I condemn the will of hyper tribalism she incarnated and was an instrument of. Notice that this is a globalization issue: I was, still am, for the unification of France and Britain. The Queen Of the Four Kingdoms, Yollande of Aragon, and the party of southern plutocrats who financed, and used Joan of Arc as a device,  were a notorious sort. Their aim was power for themselves, at the price of war. Joan of Arc is the central symbol Jean Marie Le Pen erected for the National Front.

Latest elected presidential monarch of France, Emmanuel Macron. The French elected monarchy is 17 centuries old. Still, that question above has to be answered: why would We The People want to be led by a golden boy of the establishment, making more than the median annual income, every week? Just because he was in charge of inspecting taxes in government, before entering a private bank? All right, so it was with the Merovingian, 17 centuries ago: golden boys tended to end elected as kings. But is that enough of a reason? We need to ask this question, be it only to encourage President Emmanuel Macron to transmogrify into a world-saving form…

A Closer Look At Nationalism, Joan Of Arc (thus FN) Style:

At the time of the ephemeral apparition of Joan of Arc, plutocrats, then called “aristocrats”, that is, the best, were fighting each other dirty in France (and vassal England). An extravagantly libertine queen was strangled, in a distant castle, another married five days later. Yes, 5 days… Top monarchs and aristocrats  were poisoned, in very quick succession, before, during and after the (well-known) Joan of Arc trick: Louis X, Jean I, an infant, Philippe V (who supposed died from playing too much tennis… But obviously poisoned). Even the mighty empoisonner of kings, Mahaut, Comtesse d’Artois and de Bourgogne, was herself poisoned, followed by her own daughter, two months later.  

Of these terrible times, all that the French nationalists remember, is that Joan of Arc was great, for denying the legitimate king of FRANCE AND ENGLAND, then a very young child, his rightful succession. So Joan stole from a baby. Is that French nationalism relative to England! It is! Well, that’s very wrong.

So, no I am no rabid French nationalist, National Front style… The National Front is never criticized for its Joan of Arc cult. Instead, it is condemned for very dark, yet imaginary crimes (a condemnation in which Macron associated himself… But maybe that was not sincere and just disingenuous, thus, forgivable…)


Let’s Not Celebrate Division For Division’s Sake:

Now Macron wants to “recover the spirit of conquest“. Very good. But it has to be well-directed. Under Joan of Arc, and her sponsors, the spirit of conquest was oriented towards a useless split which caused a nearly 500 years long between France and England… Such splits happened before and since. The split between France and Germany lasted 1,000 years. The split between France and Algeria is an infant, relatively speaking. Such splits are useless… Except for the powers which profit from them.

We struggle, thus we are! This site is a struggle! Macron promises a struggle! Good! “For Good” is an elusive concept, and it’s not enough to see it, to believe it… For example, many think Joan of Arc was a force for good… I don’t, and I have excellent reasons for that, the exact same reasons which Macron brandishes (although he has more or less compared himself to Joan of Arc already, not to let the FN occupies all that terrain…) Yet Joan was no doubt personally good.

Joan may not have been executed, somebody else may have been: history is full of mysteries. For example the baby Jean I, mentioned, above may have survived. The child of his wet-nurse would have secretly substituted and poisoned in his place, when he was presented to the highest nobility; at least so confessed Marie de Cressay, the noble wet-nurse in question… on her death bed. At least so says Maurice Druon‘s historical novel series Les Rois maudits which dramatizes this theory. In La Loi des mâles. The reason to believe this is the profusion of unsavory behaviors and poisonings at that precise period in history which are thoroughly proven (just a small example: when Edward II, king of England, was painfully assassinated by the associates of his wife Isabelle, Louve de France, he could be heard screaming, a mile away, it was said… Not all deaths were discrete at the time.)

History is complex, and the minds it creates, even more so. The aura surroundings some of the main characters of history, are not just French, they are all too often importantly wrong (or right!) in ways twisting minds, to this day.


The Party Of Truth Is The Only One Worth Having:

The way to rule people is by ruling their minds. The way to exploit people is to exploit their minds, to the point that they exploit themselves for you.

To rule minds against themselves, one has to persuade them that lying is the new normal, and in their best interest.

Thus, reciprocally, if one is for progress, one should be for truth. This is why I denounce particularly outrageous lies. Wherever they come from. The architecture of lies is pretty much the architecture of power.

For example, there is no evidence from her mouth that Le Pen is a racist homophobe. Quite the opposite, she was very clear on this. So where does the need to express such lies come from? Don’t forget that humans are Machiavellian animals.


As Macron Recognized, in a very serious victory allocution , Those Who Voted For Le Pen had Very Serious Points:

Some of the policies advocated by Le Pen, such as national preference in government deal making have been US LAW for generations. Nobody calls the US names for that, and the EU, and France are fully open to US abuse in this respect. How much “left” is it to keep on ignoring US nationalist abuse of Europe? But that is exactly what the left has been doing for decades now.

French peasants are supposed to farm, hands tied in the back. They can’t use plenty of modern methods, by French “left” law, or European “law”, but then the French market is open to unfair competition. For example, GMO grains and beans are forbidden in France, yet, if produced overseas, they swamp the French market.

GE, with enormous help from Obama, bought Alstom, and Macron said alleluia. No wonder Obama who loves fat checks, loves Macron.

As far as accusing Le Pen of Vichy, those sort of hateful, racist accusations are grotesque. Jean Marie Le Pen (not a friend of mine!) tried to enroll in the FFI (Force Francaise de l’Interieur). However, Colonel Tanguy, the Communist head of the FFI, told him he was too young to do so. The FFI was killing Nazis.

Yet, ever since, he entered French presidential politics, Le Pen Senior was denounced as a Vichy collaborator… Especially by that real Vichy collaborator, French president Francois Mitterrand.

Another thing is that a casual look at what happened shows that the Vel d’Hiv round-up was ordered by GERMAN NAZIS, not by “Vichy”. Although I hate the junta in Vichy, the truth is Vichy did not give the top orders north of… Vichy. The round-up of the Jews in Paris, thanks to chief of Vichy police Bousquet (a collaborator who was also life long friend of Vichy Francois Mitterrand) was reduced to foreign refugees: 13,000 Jews instead of the 200,000 French Jews the Nazis initially wanted.

The self-declared “left” cannot get mileage from outrageous lies. The more of those, the greater the risk that people will realize they have been manipulated into the exact opposite of what they should be, and the more democracy will go Trump in the night.

Patrice Ayme’

Brexit Idiocy In One Picture

July 11, 2016

Hard core Brexit idiots pontificate that they will renew their ties with the British Commonwealth and the USA. As if the quaint British monarchy imported from the Netherlands had anything in common with the hyper violent, domineering American republic, a country of immigrants, a world country, the world’s hyper power, which can purchase anything… but a soul, and a past it is ready to admit it had. The proud British are, relatively speaking, Europeans, and they don’t even know it.

Here is the European situation, the web of relationships, with the spider in the center, depicted with the most basic mathematics, set theory. I present to you the spider and the fly:

The Situation Is Even More Complicated Than That: Switzerland, For Example, Has More Than 600 "Bilateral" Treaties With The European Union, And Has To Respect Free Circulation Of European Citizens.

The Situation Is Even More Complicated Than That: Switzerland, For Example, Has More Than 600 “Bilateral” Treaties With The European Union, And Has To Respect Free Circulation Of European Citizens.

[Nota Bene: the GDP numbers above, due to the tremendous immigration of people and capital into the United Kingdom, the UK, due to the laxity of France and Germany, brought an extreme overvaluation of the British Pound, and a swelling of all things British. This house of cards is collapsing: British GDP has now shrunk below French GDP, in barely more than two weeks…]

Switzerland voted against the Free Circulation Of European Citizens, including Croatians, in winter 2014. Some sanctions were applied by the EU on an aghast Switzerland, the next day. However, Switzerland still has to accept everybody. Should it change that requirement, Italy, France and Germany would block the borders, and let Switzerland die. Really, not kidding: Switzerland has only one refinery, producing 25% of Swiss fossil fuels, and it gets all its raw petroleum through a pipeline, from Marseilles, France… Thus, Switzerland will have to vote again. Or learn to ride horses again.

Why is such ferocity welcome in enforcing European unity and free circulation? Simple: Enforcing cogent, fully informed reason upon, and by, We The People, is the best way to avoid war. Thus war tends to happen when unexpected.

Europeans have bent over backwards frantically for twenty years to accommodate increasingly crazed, selfish, grotesque, hypernationalist British demands.  The British thanked the rest of Europe by an insulting vote. (Remark: the Swiss referendum was just about refusing the diktat of free circulation of any EU citizen; it was NOT about rejecting the 666 treaties with Europe… Although of course, it could have this consequence… Nor, a fortiori, the European Union )

Right now Europe is suffering from three mentalities:

  1. The first problematic mentality was English sabotage. The English entered the “ever closer Union” and decided it was just a free trade “club”. Basically NAFTA. That was a lie, a breach of trust, and a betrayal. No wonder so many European leaders are keen to get Brexit done. For twenty years, English governments have prevented the built-up, in-depth of European laws and institutions. Instead of electing the head of the European Administration (“Commission”)  directly, by the People’s vote, one still uses the ancient system of nomination by the heads of governments. That sort of undemocratic blockage was the work of English Europhobes, mostly.

Fanatic Brexiters insist they never voted for a European “Superstate”. That is not just a total lie, but it means they want Europeans, and their ex-colonies and present allies, to be ruled by Superstates (USA, Russia, India, China).

2. The second problematic mentality is the fact that the European defense system is mostly operated by the French Republic, which is supposed to pay for it, while leaving its deficit below 3%. Logically, French tanks should first roll through Brussels, Luxembourg, Belgium, Lichtenstein, while addressing an ultimatum to Eurozone member Ireland, and force all these miscreants to pay taxes. (Since Germany has the same problem as its sister republic, France, it would rather applaud the usage of force… which is exactly what both of them did, with the help of Italy, to pressure Switzerland that way… It helped that the latter was not a founding member of the EU, and a rather small fish.)

What about the refugee crisis? Well, go back 17 centuries: the Goths, fleeing the Huns, invaded the Roman empire. Initially, the Goths came as refugees, and were allowed in. Later, even more Goths, now fully armed, came in, and thew Roman Empire said no. The solution? Have an army strong enough to kill the Huns. This was finally done in France, 80 years alter. First the inhabitants of Orleans inflicted a defeat on the Huns, inside the city itself. Then the Franks shadowed and harassed the retreating giant host of the Huns. That gave enough time for the Roman Field army headed by Aetius and to the Visigothic army to join the fray. Then the Huns got crushed in the titanic battle of the Catalaunian Plain. Having suffered tens of thousands of dead, if not hundreds of thousands (the number 300,000 has been advanced by sources), the spirit of the Huns was broken. Just as that of the Nazis in May 1945.

That was how to handle Assad: destroy him and his family, occupy Syria, re-establish secular, republican order. And it was not to the Russians or the Americans to do that, but to the Europeans. But there is no European army, no European will. Just European wealth for the world to steal. And for this, the ectoplasmic Britons are much to blame.: did they not learn anything from the Kaiser and his spiritual son Hitler?

As a result of formidable austerity imposed on France, the French defense system is woefully insufficient, although not quite as moribund as the British one. This is a grave situation in several ways: first it weakens the West enormously. Secondly it makes the USA more dominant than ever in defense. And thus, it augments the aura and diplomatic might of the USA in all matters, including the economic one… which pays for defense.

3. The third problematic mentality is indeed austerity itself. It was imposed by a coalition of conservatives and the evil influence of the ruling plutocracy. Great Britain saw less of it, thanks to the plutocratically owned tabloids, and the fact that plutocracy has made the wealthiest in Britain so much wealthier. Austerity is no less than a complete plutocratic plot, and a direct consequence of not taxing the wealthiest enough to spare us being in their debt.

So deep has the propaganda been for the plutocrats whom have made us in their debt, that only now the German SPD seems to realize that austerity is a plot of the wealthy. The “S” in SPD is for “Social”: Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD… The SPD is in coalition with the German Conservatives, who are white-hot, foaming at the mouth demanding ever more austerity (especially from other Europeans… It’s understandable as Germany is in a virtuous circle presently…)

Brexit can potentially break that logjam. First, British sabotage of the “Ever Closer Union” will stop. Appropriate superstate structures could now be erected, as needed… Secondly, the austerity party in the EU, right now led by Britain and Germany, is going to be halved. Thus one can hope that the French, these austerity specialists since 1932, will snap out of their madness, and lead a revolt against the austerity party. Simple: the European Union has just do what the USA has done under Obama. The Federal deficits amounts to something around 100% of US GDP (if one adds Quantitative Easing, an unusual addition, not usually made for obvious, vicious reasons, to the official deficits).

Will Europeans understand this?

Meanwhile, it’s fun to see the Brexiters struggle with the spider web above. Good luck coming out, to sink in the ocean…

Patrice Ayme’


Crazy Physics Helps With Overall Madness?

April 27, 2016

Quantum Physics has long been a circus. When De Broglie proposed his thesis, his  thesis jury (which comprised top physicists, including a Nobel Laureate) did not know what to make of it, and consulted Einstein. Einstein was enthusiastic, saying de Broglie “lifted a piece of the veil”. Three years later, de Broglie got the Nobel and proposed his pilot wave theory. Pauli made an objection, de Broglie replied to it with the consummate politeness of the Prince he was, and thus the reply was not noticed. Five years after, the great mathematician Von Neumann asserted a “proof” that there was no Quantum Mechanics but for the one elaborated in Copenhagen. De Broglie’s objections were not listened to. Another two decades later, David Bohm presented de Broglie theory at the Institute for Advanced Physics in Princeton. But Bohm was drowned by question about why he had refused to testify at the Committee on Anti-American Activities in Congress (the American born Bohm promptly lost his job at Princeton University and his US passport, and would leave the US forever).

The usual interpretation of Quantum Physics consider that the De Broglie Matter Waves therein are only probability waves. This idea of Nobel Laureate Born has eschewed controversy. However Einstein sourly remarked: “God does not play with dice.” To which Nobel Laureate Bohr smartly replied:”Stop telling God what to do!

Qubits Are Real. But The Multiverse Is Madness

Qubits Are Real. But The Multiverse Is Madness. And Madness Is Contagious.

De Broglie suggested a “Double Solution” theory, which was promptly forgotten as Dirac launched Quantum ElectroDynamics by starting from the simplest relativistic wave, and building the (spinor) space he needed to have said wave wave in it.  Bohm revived (some of) De Broglie’s ideas by proposing to guide an always well defined particle with a (nonlocal) “quantum potential”.


And The Madness Set In:

Nowadays, descriptions of Quantum Physics are keen to assert that something can be in two places at the same time, that there are many worlds, or universes, created each time something happen, that cats are dead and alive, that the observer creates reality, etc…

All this derangement affecting physicists has something to do with a collective madness similar to the pseudo-scientific theories behind the Slave Trade, Stalinism, or Nazism.

No, I am not exaggerating. The theory behind enslaving Black Africans (going all the way back to the Middle Ages) was that Black Africans were, somehow, the missing link between man and ape. That’s why the Pope allowed the slave trade.

Neither am I exaggerating about fascism: the Nazis were actually obsessed by the new physics, a world where everything seemed possible. They called it “Jewish Physics”, and several Nobel laureates (Lenard, etc.), top mathematicians (say Teichmuller, who died on the Eastern Front in combat) were its opponents.

It contributed to suggest an overall mood:’if anything is possible, why not surrealism, fascism, Stalinism, Nazism?’

Germany has long led, intellectually (not to say France did not lead too, but it was the great opponent). Thus when top physicists became Nazis even before Hitler did, they no doubt impressed the latter by their attacks on “Jewish Science”.

The madness was not confined to the Nazis, stricto sensu. An excellent example is Max Planck, discoverer of the Quantum.

Planck accepted Einstein’s paper on “The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” without references… When it was sure that Planck knew about the work of Poincare’, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Michelson-Morley, etc. on Relativity. Poincaré  was a star, and had toured the USA, delivering lectures on “Relativity” the year prior.

So what was Planck up to? Promoting the German arriviste to the cost of the most accomplished mathematician and physicist, because the latter was a Frenchman. (Poincaré , who was as elevated a character as can be found, nevertheless complained about Einstein plagiarism later.) Not only was  Poincaré French, but his family was refugee from the occupation of Lorraine by the Prussians. Raymond Poincaré, who was prime minister of France several times and president of the French Republic during World War I, was Henri’s cousin.

This is of some import, in the understanding of ideas, to this day: Poincaré  discovered the idea of gravitational waves, and explained why all interactions should go at the speed of light. Scientists who published (stole) the same ideas later could not copy all of  Poincaré ’s arguments, it would have been too obvious (that they stole the ideas), so those important details of  Poincaré  have been forgotten… And this haunts physics to this day

I believe that this is how the extremely all too relative, theory of Relativity a la Einstein appeared: Einstein could not duplicate all of  Poincaré’s details, so he omitted (some of) them… Resulting in a (slick) theory with a glaring defect: all classes of frames in uniform motion are supposed to be equivalent, a blatant absurdity (as even the Big Bang theory imposes a unique class of comoving frames). This brought a lot of (on-going) confusion (say about “rest” mass).

Planck did not stop with stealing Relativity from  Poincaré, and offering it to the Great German empire.

Planck endorsed the general excitement of the German public, when Germany attacked the world on August 1, 1914. He wrote that, “Besides much that is horrible, there is also much that is unexpectedly great and beautiful: the smooth solution of the most difficult domestic political problems by the unification of all parties (and) … the extolling of everything good and noble.”

Planck also signed the infamous Manifesto of the 93 intellectuals“, a pamphlet of war propaganda (while Einstein at the academy in Berlin, retained a pacifistic attitude which almost led to his imprisonment, although he was saved by his Swiss citizenship). The Manifesto, ironically enough, enumerated German war crimes, while denying (‘not true’) that they had happened. It did not occur to the idiots who had signed it, that just denying this long litany of crimes was itself a proof that they had occurred… And it’s telling they had to deny them: the German population obviously was debating whether those crimes had happened, now that the war was not doing well.

Planck got punished for his nationalism: his second son Erwin was taken prisoner by the French in 1914. His eldest son Karl died at Verdun (along with another 305,000 soldiers). When he saw Hitler was destroying Germany, Planck went to see the dictator, to try to change his mind, bringing to his attention that he was demolishing German universities. But to no avail. In January 1945, Erwin, to whom he had been particularly close, was sentenced to death by the obscene and delirious Nazi “people” court, the Volksgerichtshof. Because Erwin participated in the failed attempt to make a coup against the criminal Hitler in July 1944. Erwin was executed on 23 January 1945 (along with around 5,000 German army officers, all the way to Feldmarshal).

So what to think of the “Multiverse”, “Dead and Alive Cats”, Things which are in different places at the same time, etc.? Do they have to do with suggesting, even promoting, a global reign of unreason?

I think they do. I think the top mood contaminate lesser  intellectuals, political advisers, even politicians themselves. Thus political and social leaders feel anything goes, so, next thing you know, they suggest crazy things, like self-regulating finance, trade treaties where plutocrats can sue states (apparently one of the features of TPP and TTIP), or a world which keeps on piling CO2, because everything is relative, dead, thus alive, and everywhere is the same, here, there and everywhere, since at the same place, in space, time, or whatever.

Physics, historically, was not just a model of knowledge, but of rational rectitude. This has been lost. And it was lost from technical reasons, discarding other approaches, in part because of sheer nationalism.

In the 1960s John Bell, the Irishman who was director of theory at CERN, published a book with his famous theorem on nonlocality inside:”Speakables and Unspeakables in Quantum Mechanics”. A title full of hidden sense.

Patrice Ayme

Joan Of Arc: Pet & Pest

May 29, 2014

National myths are the paradigms of the plebs. When all they do is exalt nationalism, for nationalism’s sake, they foster fascism. And only atavism, not justice, then justifies this sorry rage.

Joan of Arc incarnated Nazism without any Social pretense (the “z” in Nazism is for “socialism”). It’s even worse: D’Arc effectively turned a three way civil war in France into a religious war.

The French Front National uses Jeanne D’Arc as a front. That’s an affront, but not the way common wisdom would have it. Indeed, even under the worst scenarios, Marine Le Pen could never turn into as much a historical monster, as Joan of Arc was. D’Arc relaunched a civil war, that, thanks to her demonic efforts, lasted another four centuries.

Separatist Sister Souls In Fanatical Bigotry

Separatist Sister Souls In Fanatical Bigotry

Once Yolande’s pet, now recycled by Marine.

[By the way, in case Le Pen did not notice, Brussels used to be in Gallia and Francia, for more than 2,500 years. So Marine Le Pen, rendered mad by greed, wants to cut France in two.]

The president-elect in Ukraine just identified the separatists there to “Somali Pirates“. That’s exactly what Johanne was: a separatist, an outlaw.

Indeed what was the alleged work of Joan of Arc? A secession. Far from being a French heroine, Joan of Arc split France in two. Far from being a liberator, Johanne enslaved Western Europe to centuries of war. Her call to ethnic hatred against the “Anglois”does not help her modern philosophical depiction.

Indeed an accord had been found between the two feuding French governments, one in Paris, and illegitimate, the other in London, and legitimate. That was after nearly 90 years of (un)civil war. An accord reunited the government. After his death, the king in Paris, was to be succeeded by the king in London, Henry V of England, who was much younger.

Henry V appears in three Shakespeare plays, and is called the “Star of England”. grandson of Edward III of England. The latter being the one and only grandson of Philippe Iv Le Bel, of France. Edward III was the true king of France, being the son of Isabelle of France, queen of England, and legitimate (according to the Salic Law), queen of France (as the only child left of Philippe Le Bel).

So this 485 year war was all a Franco-French affair. To present it, as too much nationalist histories do,  as a national conflict, with the redeeming figure of 19 year old Johanne on top, is to put nationalism and a monster war on an altar, and worship them.

From the heights of wisdom, it is more judicious to put view them as garbage, and stomp on them.

The settlement with Henry V as king of the reunited kingdom, was infinitely better than the ferocious three way civil war between Anglois, Armagnac and Bourguignons. (At the time, all sorts of languages were spoken in “France”; even by 1900, only half of the population spoke “French” as a native language!)

After months of negotiation with Charles VI of France, the Treaty of Troyes (1420), agreed to by the queen of France Isabeau de Baviere, recognized the 34 year old Henry V as regent and heir-apparent to the French throne. This treaty deprived Isabeau’s own five sons of the throne. Henry was not just an invincible conqueror, he was the legitimate king.

Henry V, the victor of Agincourt, was subsequently married to Charles’s daughter, Catherine of Valois (1401 – 1437). However, following Henry V’s sudden and unexpected death in France two years later, two months before the sickly Charles VI did, Henry was succeeded by his infant son, who reigned as Henry VI (1421 – 1471). It was a case when lethal dysentery changed history.

When Jeanne said:”King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France… settle your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France,” she is actually a child addressing an even smaller child, the king, and the legitimate head of the state of France.

All this mythology was prompted by Yolande of Aragon, queen of four kingdoms, who did not want to be vassal to a super power in the north. Or just loved power, whatever (she was in power, and a power, for 43 years).

The bottom line is that the events that Joan of Arc came to symbolize are all wrong (and it’s no wonder the so called Front National embraced her). Prior to this triumph of bigotry, what’s now called France and England, had been part of the same polity of more than a millennium. To celebrate Joan of Arc is to celebrate religious fanaticism of Osama bin Laden’s intensity, and the 400 years of further strife the victory of Yollande and Charles VII brought.

More details can be found in:

Nowadays, common commentators remember only this of the period: the Agincourt victory by the “English”, and the martyrdom of Jehanne. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the first is often used to prove the French are worthless, cowardly, inferior militarily idiots. The second is evoked to prove the viciousness of the English. Never mind that the victors of Agincourt were annihilated in a battle later, and that the southern French army developed a new weapon, field artillery, that allowed to kick the “English” out.

“English” that were French truly. Never mind too, that the main accuser of Jehanne was bishop Cauchon, who was French, whichever way one wanted to look at him (his aggressive philosophy led him later to accusations of heresy).

Joan of Arc, national hero, was nothing but: ultimately the war between Paris and London was rather lost by Paris. Certainly, that spirit of division and conflict weakened France: remember Louis XIV, chasing millions of Protestants out of France (maybe because he had been rendered mad by a festering hole in his nether region, which lasted decades).

Thus, in a way, Joan of Arc is the perfect festering, fanatical symbol for would be simple minded fascists.

Writing a new, and more correct, history, means throwing a lot of old myths, and their accompanying deleterious illusions, into the fire.

Patrice Ayme




Joan of Arc

Full Frontal Naked Nationalism

May 27, 2014

Or When Nationalism Is Better Than The Alternative.

The Danes self define as the happiest people in the world: sometimes it seems the government chew their food for them (the Danish tax rate goes up to 80%). Danes are worried “Brussels” will put an end to that. Whatever that is. In truth, alien foreigners have exhausted their welcome. On May 25, 2014, 27% voted for the nationalist anti-European far right.

That’s the same score as Marine Le Pen got in France.

French President Soon? Careful, She Bites

French President Soon? Careful, She Bites

What’s going on? Well, each time extremism rises, it’s because there are very good reasons for this to happen. Clearly the status quo ante is unacceptable in Europe. Something I have said myself for years. And not just in Europe. A revolution is needed, and fast. More and more of We The People are arriving at the same conclusion. That’s good and necessary.

I still am an extreme internationalist. For me, for decades, nationalism was the definition of hatred and war. I was also against imperialism. I was once personally attacked by hyper nationalistic fascists, with lethal force (an IED).

Apparently, they saw my broad minded considerations as an existential threat. Nationalists tend to be mentally fragile.

Meanwhile I discovered that being against blue sky meant preferring the blackness of space. To my dismay, having a high minded internationalist mien is an invitation to victimization. It’s quite a bit related to the attitude of the Jews vis a vis Hitler in the 1930s: it’s not because you turn the other cheek, each time it gets slapped, that morality, let alone survival, progresses. Instead, the pacifist sheep will get a concussion, and finish in the incinerator.

Ukraine, of course, is an example when nationalism is turning into a good force. Only nationalism is strong enough to resist the traditional dictatorial instincts of the Kremlin. Better plenty of nationalism, than morbidity below a crazed autocrat’s boot.

In France the national Front just won the European election, becoming, on this occasion, France’s first party. It’s a victory for Marine Le Pen’s strategy over her dad’s grumpy style.

One would guess that I am horrified, as I am as progressive as they come.

But not so. Instead I am amused: progress is not always where it’s supposed to be.

Sometimes, progress takes a circuitous route. It’s because plutocratic Rome collapsed that the Franks could take over, and legislate a much more advanced civilization: much fewer death penalties, no more slavery, total religious freedom (after more than a century of religious terror).

If plutocratic Rome had not collapsed,  the barbarity of Greco-Roman civilization would have persevered. Only a radical reboot, the one the Franks imposed, could relaunched Western civilization in a sustainable form.

Another example is the occupation of France by the Nazis: it actually civilized the Nazis to the point that collaboration with France was forced onto Hitler by his colleagues to the point the Nazi dictator had to agree to it, although he argued that would make France win the war (as France’s industry was supposed to fabricate daily necessities, while Germany concentrated on weapons).

The end result is that France and Germany started to unify in 1948, something that certainly would not have happened if France had not declared war to Germany in 1939. War is also a debate.

In 2012, I saw a debate between Marine Le Pen, and the top French economy pundit. Marine Le Pen described basically how the fractional reserve system worked, and intoned that this was completely wrong. However, the cocksure pundit     excoriated her, with conventional wisdom. He claimed she understood nothing, had no knowledge of finance whatsoever.

A week later, the same pundit debated economics with Melanchon, head of the leftist opposition to the Socialist Parti, the Front de Gauche. Melanchon told the pundit he had been wrong, and Marine Le Pen was right.

And so do I.

On a related subject, Marine Le Pen has been very loud and clear that the Euro was too high. That, too, is correct. The high Euro has been killing the part of French industry that makes mass items (whereas Italy, Switzerland and Germany long focused on higher end products).

It’s of course worse for many other Euro countries.

Many European countries have been de-industrializing. It’s not because people there are dumb and lazy. Far from it. In truth Europe invents much, and other exploits those inventions.


Well, Europe is open to the world economically, a bit as Athens was. and Pericles beautifully boasted in his famous funeral oraison. However openness is not everything: Athens was defeated and democracy came back, under the attenuated form of representative democracy, only 23 centuries later.

European intellectuals themselves have excoriated Europe, as if it were the source of all evils. Confusing the Nazis and their enemies the French is a case in point, chronic in the enslaved USA.

And yet, what is the truth? The rest of the world has not played nice with Europe.

Take an outrageous example. European governments have been buying from the USA. The converse, though, is forbidden by American law (except under special circumstances).

The conspiracy against Europe is deep and wide. Corrupt American industrialists, working hand in hand with the government of the USA and corrupt leaders overseas (example of such corruptocrats would be Major, Schroeder, and Blair) conspired to impose a war plane, the F35.

The F35 is the world’s worst plane: it has no better performance than the F105 “Thunderchief”, a 50 year old plane that failed in the Vietnam war. The F35 can’t go fast, it can’t carry much, it can’t accelerate more than 4 gs (the Rafale does 10gs), and, although labelled a “stealth” plane, it is fully visible to Russian and Chinese VHF radar. It’s also the most expensive military program ever: half a trillion dollars, and counting.

That turkey prevents the furthering of a European superiority fighter, although Airbus‘ Typhoon/Eurofighter  and Dassault fighters are known to be the world’s two best fighter bombers (they both take out the American superiority fighter, the F22 Raptor).

So hundreds of thousands high tech defense jobs are going to the USA, instead of Europe, on that project alone. Just because European politicians have been on the take. At least, nationalism would stop such an absurdity.

To stop all this non sense, some nationalism is needed. Some will say, as some French philosophers did, that Europe is dead, long live the world.

Yet, it’s not so simple: as I explained, both North America and Russia have been founded on maximally exploitative philosophies, which have triumphed.

Europe’s sustainable philosophy has taken a beating, and the weaker Europe gets, the more of beating sustainability gets.

So this is not just about Europe, it’s about sustainability and diversity.

Out of 750 European MPs, around 140 are Europhobes. The Danes and the British UKIP despise Marine Le Pen. Yet, if they want to have any influence in the European Parliament, the Europhobes will have to find common grounds, thus valuable complaints.

The force of democracy is the wealth of viewpoints it brings.

And never forget that democracy without force is nothing.  A six year old British      boy was found drowned and unconscious at the bottom of a pool of the giant “Royal Caribbean” ship “Independence of the Seas”.

Well, there is no independence, even on the high seas. Even for a British boy, whatever the UKIP feels like bellowing about. A French helicopter flew across the ocean, and picked up the unconscious boy to provide him with state of the art treatment (top French hospitals use methods akin to hibernation, as was done with Michael Schumacher).

It’s a small world, and in a small world there are no borders, only limits beyond which outrage turns to violence. And the worst is, that some of this violence is necessary, and the more necessary, the more violent it will become. Europe, and the world, has to march ahead, or die by the wayside.

Patrice Aymé

Nobel, Not Noble.

October 15, 2013

Hysterical celebrations of the hypernationalistic commentators in the USA heaping spite upon the feeble intellects of the rest of the planet, in light of the attributions of Nobel Prizes mostly to Americans. “Nobels and National Greatness Anyone who thinks America’s best days are behind it should take a close look at the latest Nobel haul,” crows Mr. Stephens in the WSJ.

It does not dawn on the naïve Mr. Stephens, that the Nobel prize may be an indication of bias, not excellence. A mark of propaganda, thus weakness, not a proof of superiority.

All The Pie To US Plutocrats, Glorious We Are.

The Nobel prize ought to be renamed the “American prize”. Main qualification: being an “American”, preferably from Chicago, and preach Americanization (also known as plutocratization). Look at the Nobel in economics: two of them, although charming fellows, got the prize for repeating notions that were well known more than four centuries ago, in the Netherlands (tulip mania!) or Japan (rice commodity market).

In other words, the Nobel is, at least plenty of times, given for trivial reasons.

Two of the Nobels are, of course, from the temple of plutocratic economics, the University of Chicago. Obama taught at that “private” university. As befits an organization smelling of sulfur, it sits in the middle of a ghetto, an oasis of privilege in the desert of the underclass, with a police call box every fifty meters, or so (when I was there, for a few weeks, I was shocked by the brutality of this apartheid world, with privilege 100 meters from people with no health care, no job, not even an ounce of rebellion in them).

Renaming the Nobel the “American prize” would be honest and revealing, thus completely inacceptable, as with plutocracy dissimulation and invisibility is of the essence.

The Chinese born ranking of universities is riddled with tricks to make universities of the USA look good, relatively speaking. For example French Nobels are counted… half for the universities they work for (the  reasons invoked are devious, such as how French research is financed).

Why? Well the same reason that China holds 1.3 trillion dollars of USA bonds: another bond binding within the plutocratic system. If socialist France looks stupid, and the plutocratic USA look good, that’s excellent for the Chinese plutocracy, whose fortunes are determined in Washington, ever since Nixon and Kissinger saw to it.

Another example: Switzerland has 22 Nobels in science. France, with ten times the population, only 35. However, Switzerland is not, historically speaking, the author of major breakthroughs in science and technology. By “major” I mean really major, such as pasteurization, E = mcc, or the invention of the transistor. Suisse seemed not to have been the author of ANY technological breakthrough. France is.

(OK, I am unfair: a Swiss invented the first internal explosion engine, using hydrogen, in the early 19C! It’s the French Papin who invented the first steam engine and steam boat, in the 17C; see “Philosophy Feeds Engineering”)

So what is taught, and impressed upon, is lots of lies, and false truths. Take aviation: France dominated it by 1910, even with the first helicopter. But were not the Wright brothers Americans? Sure, and the Wrights invented a number of useful devices. However, the first motorized flights were made 13 years earlier, using a light weight steam engine, in a French military program (Clement Ader). Some said: oh, they were not that high, etc. However that proof of principle incited full-on progress.

If nobody talks about who invented movies, that’s because the Lumière brothers  showed the first movies in 1895. The world’s oldest movie theater, in the French Riviera city of La Ciotat, was just reopened.

The transistor was invented in Germany in the 1930s (using… Germanium, not silicon).

Some will object: ah, but Switzerland had Albert Einstein (more or less refugee from Germany), and he invented E = mcc, it’s well known. While in Bern, working at the Patent Office (thanks to the father of a friend of his).

My point entirely. Well known, Einstein’s E = mcc, but somewhat of a cheat: as far as I, me, can see, Einstein actually stole both the formula and the proof from the E = mc^2 work published by Poincare’ in 1900, five years earlier.

Poincare’ proved E = mcc, not in an obscure blog, but as a peer reviewed article, in the most well known Dutch Physics Journal (Lorentz, a Dutch who wrote the space-time transformation law was from there, Poincare’ got him the Nobel by 1904, and this explained why Poincare’ published in a Dutch journal).

So why is E = mcc Einstein’s formula and not Poincare”s? Because reality in the dominant Anglo-Saxon-Germanoid culture has a well known anti-French bias. Much better to have a German Jew the author of E= mc^2 than some super genius Frenchman. Nobody fears German Jews (they had some problems, except for the likes of Kissinger). But the French republic is a different matter entirely. It’s still out there, squat and ferocious, always spastic with chronic plutophobia.

A rough and tough idea, but something to munch on.

To admit that a Frenchman found the most famous formula in physics would threaten the established order of thoughts and moods. By changing how frogs are considered, it may endanger Wall Street, New York, Washington, Americanization, even plutocratization itself…

If a Frenchman has had colossal brains, it would tell us, that, if there is one super genius Frenchman, there might be more, and thus a Financial Transaction Tax may not be such a bad idea. France has a FTT. Or maybe a Carbon Tax would be a good idea. France has such a tax.

And France of course invented the Added Value Tax, now replicated in dozens of countries, even Japan, and much disliked by the Mafia and the like. Imagine American plutocrats having to pay tax, automatically: a world would shatter.

Or maybe default, as the USA practiced in 1933, followed by a variety of countries using similar unsavory means of re-establishing their finances, would not look as such a great idea anymore (alone among super powers, France did not devalue and default in the 1930s; Germany went further, stealing all the German Jews… France playing honest was, of course, a tremendous disadvantage, she ended poor, and soon beaten up, with no help from the resentful president Roosevelt, except late enough so that France would have been thoroughly beaten up first).

By depriving the French of intellectual honors due to them, the official plutocratic propaganda can insist that French frogs have no brains, and never bathe. Thus Obamacare is much superior to French style Medicare For All (which is what France’s Assurance Maladie is).

And bias does not stop at France.

Bose, a young Indian genius, who got the idea of bosons, the force particles, with their weird statistics, never got the Nobel in physics: because British imperialists objected to Bose’s opinions in matters political. 

So what do we see? Lots of Nobels in the USA’s “private” universities (actually not really private, but financed deviously through the entangled plutocratic and state systems). Does that mean those people got the most fundamental ideas? Not so sure.

When Eric Kandel went to Paris, he spent a year learning to work with Aplysia, and later got the Nobel for his remarkable work on learning… Learning of Aplysia. However, did the Paris teachers got the Nobel? No. Who started that flow of research and originated the basic ideas? Not necessarily Kandel.

And so on. In many fields, most people sitting in the Nobel committee are American, and colossal amounts of money are involved, so maybe the Nobel ought to be called the “American prize”, a bit like the “Academy Awards”.

It  would be most profitable, in the realm of ideas, to determine who and how the best and deepest ideas arose. Start by attributing the discovery of the First Law of Newton, the law of inertia, to Buridan, who discovered and advertized it, three centuries before Newton was born. Buridan was the rector of the university of Paris, adviser to kings (among others), contradictor of Aristotle, and discovered Copernicus’s work 170 years before it was taught to Copernicus at the university of Cracow, where Copernicus was a student.   

What truly count, for intellectual superiority, is, who got the big idea first, and how deep. A whole science of creativity could rise from finding how great ideas arise. The rest is propaganda at best, and outright thievery, racism and hatred, at worst.

How did the Nobel arise?

Nobel was heir to a plutocratic family wealthy from ammunitions. Nobel had established 90 armaments factories by the time of his death. Yes, ninety. A terrible explosion at  one of these killed a younger brother. Still another brother died in 1888.

A French newspaper clamored Le marchand de la mort est mort” (“The merchant of death is dead”)… Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.”

Alfred, who was long a resident of France, and in Cannes at the time, was mortified. Was it all what he was? A death merchant? Nobel got very depressed, and laid lonely and supine with his dark thoughts. How could he make his life worthy?

On 27 November 1895, at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris, Nobel signed his last will and testament. He set aside the bulk of his estate to establish the Nobel Prizes, to be awarded annually without distinction of nationality.

However, there is clearly a national bias now, as Shelling, one of this year’s Nobels, would be the first to admit. Worse than that: it’s a plutocratic bias, exactly what Nobel, nobly, did not want to leave behind.

Remedy? The way the Nobel laureates are selected now guarantees a plutocratic bias (the richest universities are over-represented in the advisory committees).

The Nobel committees should thus explain much more their little reasonings in attributing the prizes, by writing vey long essays justifying their decisions, and who, exactly originated the ideas.

A timid step in that direction was made this year with the Physics prize (the contribution of the late Robert Brout was acknowledged). Also the prize ought to be attributed for as many people as necessary for one given idea, and attributed posthumously (at least in a honorific way; once again mentioning Brout was good, but not enough: he published the “Higgs” mechanism a full month before Higgs).

The Nobel is a carrot. One would instruct the world better by explaining why that carrot is exactly deserved, all the way back. And not just give it to the richest and most powerful. After all, his name is Pluto, and He lays down the abyss.


Patrice Ayme


May 18, 2013

Of worshipped stupidities the most vicious aspects of thought and emotional systems are made. In particular regarding nationalism and other religions of the violent type. As the emperor who was never observed to have no clothes, although he wore none, most obvious, most vicious stupidities can live on, unruffled, respected by all. And they live on, because they are respected by all.

To kill those vampires of humanity, the truth needs to be driven through their hearts. They live on, as long they have not been denounced for what they are. Denunciation has to precede examination, and condemnation.

It’s only when slavery in the colonies was denounced, as the outrage against humanity that it was, that it could be outlawed. Denunciation had to precede extinction. Similarly, the denunciation of the Catholic Inquisition. Those who denounced the Inquisition were submitted to extreme pain, suffering and death, for centuries. Those sacrifices had to precede the extinction of the Inquisition.

A case in point of vicious worship: that of who one could, and presently will, describe as the homicidal bigot, Jeanne d’Arc. Behind what would then be such a vicious worship? Mass homicidal nationalism, and alienation, disguised into a religion of sort.

The Daughter of French King Charles VI of France and Isabeau of Bavaria Marries the King of England, Recognizing his Right to the Throne of France (2 June 1420). The “100 Year War” is Over. Unfortunately, the formidable Franco-British king Henry V fell ill and died in 1422. Their Son Henry VI Became King of France & England (1422).

A definitive settlement of the “100 year war” between Paris and London had been reached: Henry V, and his descendants, were to rule England and France. The Treaty of Troyes, signed 21 May 1420, in cathédrale Saint-Pierre, between Charles VI, king of France, and Charles V, king of England, anticipated that Henry V, son-in-law of Charles VI, would succeed to him after Charles’ death.

The Treaty was immensely popular in the region which had been devastated by generations of fratricidal war between French noble families to rule the kingdom of France. Henry V, a direct descendant of the famous French king Philippe IV Le Bel, was celebrated when he entered Paris. Unfortunately the English monarch died in August 1422, three-month before his father in law, Charles VI. Henry’s ten month old son, Henry VI, became king of France and England. And therefrom an opportunist queen engineered a renewal of the disastrous war (which, on and off, will last until 1815…) 

A definitive settlement of the “100 year war” between Paris and London had been reached: Henry VI’s descendants, were to rule England and France. His mother, Catherine de Valois, was as French as French could be. The advisers were French, although the Duke of Bedford was made regent of France & England. By austerity, Bedford used cheap English-speaking troops.

Jeanne d’Arc shattered the peace, re-launched a civil war.

Joan of Arc’s legacy is four more centuries of Franco-English war. For no good reason, whatsoever. Let me forgive those who may wish that she had been roasted sooner.

What’s the story of Jeanne in a nutshell? That of a vicious pawn.

Signature Of A Devil?

Signature Of A Devil?

To understand the “100 Year War”, one has to backtrack to 1300 CE (at the very least!). Philippe IV “Le Bel” decided to tax the Church, in accord with his (part) vassal, the king of England. The Church begged to differ, but was forced to obey. Later Philippe had the Pope arrested (and soon dead). Besides Philippe expropriated banksters, the Templar Monks. The chief bankster, while roasting in the Royal presence, threw a spell on the king.

Within a year, the king fell from his horse, and died from it. His three sons followed in quick succession: to the kingship, and then, death.

The Salic law said that the next in line was their sister. Isabelle. Isabelle de France… Queen of England. Absolute Queen of England: her husband had been killed (in a painful way, making lots of noise).

Isabelle had a reputation in Paris. Having made her own sting operation, she denounced to her  (usually extremely well-informed) dad the wives of her brothers, for drastic infidelity. Two were sent to monastery, and the future (would-be) queen spent winter in a very cold jail, before being (some say) strangled.

In any case, lawyers in Paris refused to apply the law of the ancient Salian Franks. They refused to have Isabelle as Queen of France, on the ground that she was a woman, inaugurating centuries of grotesque French sexism contradicting the very roots of Francia, the philosophical roots of equality.

Isabelle, trying to outsmart her Parisian opponents, then resigned, and put her 16-year-old son, Edward III, on the throne (of England). Something she would soon regret. Edward, grandson of Philippe Le Bel, a Frenchman in blood and claw, son of Isabelle de France, no less, then asked for his due, the throne of France.

The lawyers in Paris refused, again: they had made other arrangements. The war between London and Paris was on, and lasted nearly five centuries (until 1815).

Who-was-boss was not a new problem in Franco-Anglia (the Franks, like imperial Rome, had been plagued by that problem, because only re-establsihing a full republic could solv it).

When the Duke of Normandy, vassal to the King of the Franks became king of England, he established an oath between him and the People similar to one that existed in Rome with the army, or between People and Princeps (hence the executions of around 3,000 Christians who had refused to take that oath, mostly under emperor Galerius’ influence, in the 300-310 CE period; “Christian” leaders would later use that martyrdom to justify, sort of, the killing and terror on millions they would exert in the following 14 centuries).

A weird situation followed: was, or not, the London king subject to Paris? According to the old ways of the Franks, yes: the king in Paris was viewed as (Roman) emperor (since the Verdun split). What was clear is that French were in command on both sides of the channel. The entanglements only got worse, from 1066 until 1320.

An example was Eleonor of Aquitania, duchess, and ruler of an immense realm, semi autonomous for two millennia. After her long union with the king of France was, clearly sterile, she divorced. And married the King of England, with whom she had many children. In the process she brought Aquitaine over, and that’s why Richard the Lion hearted was born, raised, married, lived and died in France (but for a few months he spent in England; he spent more time crusading side by side with the king of France, his “compagnon d’arme”).

After immense destructions, generations of war, and further dynastic problems on the Paris side, cooler heads prevailed. It was admitted that the rightful sovereign of France was Henry V, king of England, descendant of Philipe Le Bel, and it was decided that he would become, indeed, king of France.

The University of Paris, the City of Paris, and people all over the regions that had known generations of inconclusive war wholeheartedly agreed: give us just one king, one government, and peace!

Right from the start Jeanne of Arc got military support by a Queen from the South, the formidable Yolande of Aragon.

While “Jehanne” was still very young and unknown, Queen Yolande sent her soldiers to act as her bodyguards. Jeanne’s early miracles were fake (surprise, surprise). For example, she had encountered the would be king long before recognizing him “miraculously” in a crowd (that miracle is still repeated to this day, as if a fact, whereas it was just a ridiculous lie).

There was more than one Jeanne (at least another was burned; Jeanne bore witness against one of her competitors at some point). Preacheding against the English was a successful business model (similar to Muslim Fundamentalism as a convenient façade to banditry).

Same story as with the several would-be Christ that really existed at the times of Christ (differently from the mythical Christ himself, whose existence outside of Saint Paul’s head remains unproven).

So what happened? What was the real story of Jehanne d’ Arc? The southern lords of France were anxious to NOT see a formidable rule by Paris and London in the north: the double capitals, sitting in the middle of the largest arable lands in Europe, would have subjugated them totally.

So they contrived a story for children. Then the story ran out of control, and deep real hostility between England and France appeared. The truth was simpler: the story of a woman spurned by fate, who fought back.

Yolande of Arago was also Queen of many other things, including Sicily. She was married in 1416 to become queen of France, too, but her husband died before he could be crowned. Yolande later became the mother in law of the king of France she installed later on the throne, Charles VII. She was a specialist of legal assassinations, and the like. She was a most efficient diplomat: she turned Brittany against Britain, among other feats.

Yolande of Arago really won the “100 Year War”. Books have been written about her. She was the determined enemy of Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France, architect of the Troyes treaty (that had put Henry V on the throne of France). The two queens fought, on battlefields, for 22 years. Interestingly, women are the main actors of the “100 Year war”.

Such is the truth never told about Joan of arc; she was just another pawn of Yolande. Jeanne of Arc has nearly no redeeming value. In the end, all she preached was war, “booting” (“bouter”) the English out of “France”. Some God or Mary in the sky, or in her ear, had told her that some guy was the real king (although, logically, and historically, he was not).

Jeanne d’Arc was a dangerous fanatic, of the worst type. After a truce with the so-called “English” left her idle, she wrote to the Hussites, an intellectual group, backed by the university of Prague, which had broken with the standard Catholic Church on some doctrinal points. The followers of Huss had defeated crusades sent against them (they were defeated thanks to the highest treachery of the topmost Catholic hierarchy, sealing the doom of Catholicism).

Joan’s letter is extremely violent. It accuses Hussites of “obscenity“, “superstition“, threatens them with “extermination“. She promises to “remove your madness and foul superstition, taking away either your heresy or your lives.”

On the fanatical scale, that letter puts her higher than Osama ben Laden: she threatened to kill people who threatened her country in no way, just because they had “exerted a choice” (that is what “heretical” meant). [Fanatical supporters of “Jehanne” have argued that the letter was a fake, but then the Latin original was found, signed by her secretary, Pasquerel. Although “Jehanne” spoke several languages, she did not read or write, making her the equal of Muhammad!]

We have numerous letters of “Jehanne” where she promises, under various formulations, that she will “kill all those who don’t obey her“. (See note.)

Many of Joan of Arc’s exploits consisted often in attacking French cities. She had to siege Paris, while supposedly trying to deliver France from… the “Anglois”!

Jeanne taught hysterical trust in superstition, voices in one’s head (but only if the right person heard them, the others should burn). Jeanne taught hatred of intellectuals (as found in the universities of Paris and Prague), hatred of the “Anglois” (that is the other, whoever the “other” is; in truth only the foot soldiers spoke English, at a time when France enjoyed many languages). Jeanne taught, to all of Europe, that nationalism should raise to sainthood, and thinking, to the backwoods.

Voltaire had made fun of Jehanne in a 20,000 words work. As the homicidal ideology of nationalism rose, so did Jehanne. Jehanne was made a saint in 1920. Jeanne became a Twentieth Century nationalistic sensation. Some go around saying Joan of Arc is a “patron saint of France”. Whatever that means. She is in good company, one of her colleagues is “Saint Louis”, a dedicated criminal of the worst type, who wrote a lot of his bloodlust.

There should be a philosophical cleansing program of all the celebrities incarnating vicious ideals. The Austrian philosopher, Sir Karl Popper did this a bit in “The Open Society & Its Enemies“. There is much more to be done. In particular many of the French and European leaders loom large on today’s civilization, and some of them had tremendous flaws. By honoring them, one honors trains of thought and emotion that were conducive to immensely vicious activities.

Reciprocally some thinkers have been ignored, or defamed, for all the wrong reasons… To learn well from history, one has to get it right first.

Yes, Jehanne d’Arc was charming, extremely witty, attaching. But Jehanne also incarnated the passion for one of the oldest vices: superstitious tribalism. Her towering presence in history hides much more valuable characters, such as various French and “English” kings who, in the  50 years preceding her roasting had not just decided that the Franco-French war had to stop, no matter what, but instituted extensive truces, and even, in the end, found the legal solution that the forces behind Jehanne illegally shattered.

Joan of Arc represents exactly the sort of evils that we have to learn to throw in the fire. A tasty morsel, best carbonized.


Patrice Aymé


Notes: Jehanne As Anti-Sexist heroin: The only teaching of Joan of Arc worth keeping is her insistence that women could do a lot of tasks men did in the Late Middle Ages, such as war. She was, technically, burned for, wearing man’s clothing (after pledging she would not do that anymore)… In any case, whereas Jeanne was a nationalistic, superstition devil, she was a genuine anti-sexist saint. Supposing, of course that she was really the one who burned (there is some historical evidence that she did not, and considering her extremely mighty sponsors, that would not be surprising; burning a woman a month was routine in Rouen!) Because of her mighty, conspiring (plutocratic!) sponsors, much about “Jehanne” is unknown, even though it’s supposed to be known (for example there are no portrait of her, at a time when photographic like reproduction were made). Her age is a case in point; she is given as 19 when burned, but there is one piece of very strong evidence that she was actually 23!

Jehanne as Devil: Here is some typical Jehanne’s prose: “je suis chief de guerre, et en quelque lieu que je actaindray vos gens en France, je les en ferai aler, veuillent on non veuillent, et si ne vuellent obéir, je les ferai tous occire. Je suis cy envoiée de par Dieu, le Roy du ciel, corps pour corps, pour vous bouter hors de toute France.”

 (“I’m war chief, and in any place where your gents are found, I will have them leave, whether they want it or not, and if they don’t want to obey, I will have all of them killed. I am sent here by God, King of heaven, body for body (sic), to boot you out of all of France”)


Anti-French Racism In The USA II

May 30, 2011



Abstract: Adolf Hitler observed in “Mein Kampf” that people are used to little lies, which they encounter in their little lives. However, they rarely come across big lies, so they do not expect them. Thus it is easier for a propagandist to use big lies than little ones. Hitler put these observations to practice so successfully that, in the next twenty-two years, most Germans believed the enormous lies that the Nazi propaganda machine uttered, and the bigger the lies, the more they believed.

A new, systematic campaign of lies has been vigorously conducted against the French state and the French people in 2011. It was under way well before Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, to the point that I published an article protesting it, April 13, 2011, Anti-French Racism In The USA.

Now Anti-French racism has become the official line of American justice (the sick DSK had to remain in jail, because… he was French, said the DA, Vance, son of Vance, his name, and he gave two explicit reasons why, being French, he should be discriminated against; these would apply to any French citizen, so it’s indeed racism).

The latest method of anti-French propaganda consists in comparing the alleged ways of the French, and how the French justice system operate, with the ways of the Americans, and the American justice system allegedly operate. 

I do such comparisons systematically, among all ethnic, religious, and historical groups, so I think such comparisons are very important, and enlightening. It is an old tradition among thinkers going back not just to Montesquieu’s Persian Letters,  but all the way back to Herodotus. In a way, the Greeks at Marathon were motivated by such comparisons.

However, to do such comparisons correctly, one has to use correct facts, and it is difficult, and, often, the real facts are not as expected. The present comparisons made in the USA, or even in France (!) about France versus the USA rest, all too frequently, upon big lies presented as obvious facts. Entire articles are written, where all the facts are inverted. The French get accused by propaganda to do exactly what the Americans excel at doing more of. For example:

a) It is absolutely not true that there is more violence against women in France than in the USA. Actually it is the opposite which is blatantly true (see statistics below). The differences reported by international study groups are so huge, it is actually funny, in a sick way. Also familial statistics show French families to be more united than American ones, and reducing human relationships to “dates” does not even exist in French semantics, because the practice would look base to the French (if they understood it). Superficially, the level of anger between the genders is much lower in France. Two of the three main political parties in France are led by women. True, there is much progress to be done, and the DSK scandal is accelerating it.

b) Contrarily to what has been said, the French justice system goes systematically after French politicians, and much more vigorously than the American system ever did. Some French politicians were even executed (traitors such as Louis XVI, or Prime Minister Laval are examples).

The penultimate French Prime minister has just been condemned (Villepin, he is appealing) and a former French president is indicted (Chirac, for corruption before he became president).

In glaring contrast, the American justice system has left his politicians alone, even when they trade with the enemy, or when they help Hitler build Auschwitz (so of course Americans never heard of that, and will think you are a lunatic to say such a thing).

c) The American justice system is depicted as completely fair: another absurd lie. Fairer than justice in France? Indeed, in France, there are no bails, so, very unfairly, the rich stay locked up. Whereas in the USA Dominique Strauss Kahn (“DSK”) could post a six million dollar bail, for having touched the maid without her consent (she claims, after surprising him naked), and now he is locked up in a house. So advice to the French visiting the USA: be ready to pay millions, if you just touch, the USA economy is that bad. Maybe the USA could do as Libya under the Ottomans did, 200 years ago, and live off legalized hostage taking… Just trying to help, by making helpful suggestions.

Jokes aside, what is going on, why such American officialdom rage? Well, the guy prosecuting DSK is an American politician, whose campaign was, most probably paid by Wall Street (not just Obama gets his most important contributions from Goldman Sachs!) All of New York lives off Wall Street, which lives off the world. Wall Street brings in the big kills, worldwide, and all the scavengers, down to bacteria, profit from it.

DSK wanted to regulate Wall Street much more. As IMF director, and soon French president, he had the means to bring Wall Street to heel. Achilles had his tendon, while DSK had it tender for skirts all too much. If you want to play hero, don’t have a weakness.



In the 1950s, the CIA had on payroll many French journalists, including the famous Raymond Cartier at Paris Match. They were supposed to tilt French opinion the right way, towards Washington. They did a great job. That secret program, part of a worldwide pro-America propaganda machinery, was revealed later under the Freedom of Information Act.

Some will excuse the whole thing, by pointing out that the CIA was then directed by Dulles, brother of Dulles, the Secretary of State who told Eisenhower what to say. Those Dulles lawyers represented not just American plutocrats such as Bush, but also more than 100 Nazi companies before the war. Dulles became the Berlin CIA chief, in charge of hunting down his former German speaking colleagues (to propose them new jobs, it turned out).

Nowadays, reading the French press is amusing, because it is still obviously the case, that some are getting paid from the USA, as they repeat the same lies found in the American press, as if their income depended upon it. It probably does.. With the exception of a courageous Ben Stein, in “Presumed Innocent, Anyone?” and a discrete implication by Paul Krugman, the American press is a monolithic block of racist rage against “presumed-innocent” DSK. The honest French have been trying to adapt to the hostility coming from New York (a city they generally liked for reasons they are soon going to find increasingly obscure).

Another day, another trash article about the French in the New York Times, darkly promoting the American empire while racially denigrating the French. Latest technique: make the French themselves tell the Americans how primitive, base, sex obsessed, criminally inclined and judicially inferior  the French are:

New York Times’ propaganda: Ms. Cottavoz, a Frenchwoman… exposed a “slippery slope” in France between what she called “chauvinist behavior” and something more aggressive, like the sexual assault of a hotel housekeeper … In New York, she has felt respected as a woman in a way she might not have been in France, where, she said, “Frenchmen get away with too many sexual advances

We know in France that the general culture makes it comfortable for men to take liberties with women, and in America it’s not like that… In America, if they take liberties, there will be consequences.”

Philosopher answer: “Liberté, Liberté chérie” is the sixth verse of La MarseillaiseLiberties are the essence of France, as the name France indicates. “Francia”, “Frank”, etc. means  free. When “taking liberties” bring “consequences” in a country, it is fascism by another name.

To reproach “liberties” to the French is a declaration of war, against what has been the organizing principle of a country, for more than 15 centuries, a country that spawned Germany, Spain and Britain, and ejected the Muslim armies out of Italy. Even the Huns broke their teeth there, and it’s doubtfull that wild west justice will stop French liberties either. Liberty has proven a much more potent weapon than fascism. Even when fascism dresses in black, and takes grand airs. 

OK, let’s get into facts. The American media has proclaimed that women have it harder in France. That is rubbish.

There is much more sexual violence in the USA. The statistics are inescapable.

Rape per 100,000 in the USA: 30.2. Rape per 100,000 in France: 17.3. (Of course American chauvinists will claim that rapes get reported much less in France, a proof ot the terror French women live in! Soon we will be told that there are millions of invisible prisoners in France, all females, raped every  day! The idiotic CNN reported a few months ago that there were nearly ten million invisible Muslims in France, so France would soon disappear in a Muslim sea… Meanwhile the USA is at war with DSK and BHL, who are Jews, and very Gallically so.)

Murder rate USA: 6 per 100,000. Murder rate France: 1.6 per 100,000. I leave your imagination about how many of these were sex-murders.

Percentage of prisoners who are female, USA:  8.5%. Percentage of prisoners who are female, France: 3.8%.

Serious assault per 100,000 per year, USA: 281.6 (# third rank in the world, behind South Africa and Swaziland, but ahead of Zambia; “serious assault” means more than “assault”, but short of murder). Serious assault per 100,000 per year, France: .3 (# 79th rank in the world). No wonder the Americans are expecting DSK to have assaulted seriously, leaving invisible injuries, and the French are surprised.


Then, in the same article purporting to report facts, the New York Times rolls out a well trained academic who knows how to feed anti-French racism: French-Americans, said Thomas Bishop, director of the Center for French Civilization and Culture at New York University, do not integrate into the American mainstream as easily as other ethnic groups… Rather than dismiss Mr. Strauss-Kahn with tabloid descriptions of him as a “frisky Frenchman,” they may view his fall from power as that of a man with “a tragic flaw”…

Still, Mr. Bishop of N.Y.U. said, French-Americans are aware that in France, similar charges embroiling a powerful politician might have been “swept under the rug” by a justice system he said was more susceptible to political intrigue. The more scrupulous American justice system is something the French here grow to appreciate, he said.

“The system doesn’t always work perfectly,” Mr. Bishop said, “but people cannot just walk away from something.”

Philosopher says: By using the word “might” as much as the New York Times does, it may be feasible to re-establish slavery to serve the American plutocracy. Just give us an example of French politician who walked away, Mr. Bishop… Don’t just talk, brandish facts, or then pass for the simple beggar you are, trying to ingratiate yourself to the powers that be.

I am now going to give you a few examples of big American politicians who walked away, and everybody knows it.

Powerful American politicians can swim, even under the influence, drown people, and then get away with it, thanks to the more scrupulous American justice system. After driving into the sea because he was drunk, Ted Kennedy waited until he was sober to present himself at the police station, and advise law enforcement that his latest sex toy was drowned down there inside that car. He was free to go, as he came. Hey, he was one of the grandees of America! No problemo: at Harvard, another guy took his Spanish test.

Speaking of Kennedys, the dad had made most of his fortune during the prohibition, financing the mafia. He walked away with it, becoming ambassador to Britain, where he furthered Hitler’s cause.

How many examples do we need? Nixon, as president, ordered a burglary of the headquarters of the opposition. Was he charged, arrested? No the scrupulous American justice system forgave him, in 1976. Some will say the director of the IMF does not compare to the president of the USA. Indeed, the director of the IMF is elected to represent 7 billion people, whereas Nixon represented only 250 million.

Edgar Hoover reigned over the FBI forever, in a multi decade (37 years! He died in office) crime spree strange emphasis on harassing civil rights figures, while forgetting that the mafia reigned all over, including Cuba. The FBI headquarters is named after Hoover. Equivalent figures in France do not quite exist, as they were prosecuted before becoming inamovible.

Ronald Reagan sold weapons to Iran (trading with the enemy!), financing secretly this way an illegal war in Central America. When he was asked questions, Reagan said he could not remember. He is still loved to death by the American population (literally… as it dies from reaganomics). Governor Clinton helped Reagan ferry the goods, using an airfield in Arkansas, and was condemned to serve, by the scrupulous American justice system, as American president too. Rough justice.

USA president Carter started officially the war in Afghanistan on July 3, 1979. Millions killed. Americans venerate Carter, Nobel Prize given: scrupulous justice done, once again.

Prescott Bush was one of Hitler’s closest collaborators, managing his most important defense company, working Auschwitz’s slaves. Many other American plutocrats, such as Watson (head of IBM), Ford, etc. were pillars of the Nazi regime. Top American corporations, such as Standard Oil, kept on, not just supporting Hitler’s regime, but kept on being paid throughout. None got prosecuted. Still venerated in the USA. By contrast, France nationalized Renault, judged too enthusiastic in making trucks for Hitler.  

By contrast, France prosecuted its war criminals: (pre-WWII) Prime Minister Laval was executed, Marshall Petain was condemned to death (commuted to life, considering his advanced age at the time of his crimes), and so on. France executed up to 40,000 Nazi collaborators and traitors in the period 1944-1948. Papon, a very high level official, prefect of Paris in the 1960s, was condemned, when his WWII crimes finally surfaced.

In further contrast, there are many examples of contemporary French politicians who got, or are prosecuted, including ex-president Chirac. Mighty minister of the interior Pasqua got condemned to a year in jail (he is appealing). Prime ministers such as Fabius, or Villepin were, or are, prosecuted very seriously. The head of the Supreme Court, Dumas, was prosecuted, and had to resign.

Not to say that the French justice system is always superior to the American one. It is deprived of the possibility of class action lawsuits, and that’s a great disservice to the little ones, in France. Some French plutocrats, such as the well connected drug magnate Servier (successfully prosecuted in the USA and Canada) have still to see their comeuppance (the noose is squeezing, though).  


Still in the same article, here is the New York Times, in its on-going anti-French rampage: Marie-Monique Steckel, president of the French Institute Alliance Française, which promotes French culture and language: “although some French-Americans may think Americans react too prudishly to the sex scandals of their leaders, Ms. Steckel said, “There is a difference between a womanizer and rape.”

“A womanizer is more acceptable in France,” she said. “It’s kind of considered good health and vigor, which is different from Americans, who are more puritanical. But violence against women is very different.”

Seeing conspiracy is another matter that divides Americans and French …Ms. Steckel said many French-Americans found it difficult to talk to friends in France who suspect the arrest was a plot by Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s political opponents.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn was widely expected to be the Socialist candidate for president. French people who have lived in New York for a long time, she said, have moved beyond seeing the world in such a conspiratorial fashion. “The French adore the idea of plots,” she said. “They see plots everywhere. French-Americans become more factual.”

Philosopher: Americans, those God lovers, with America-under-God, are now factual? A god in every pot? Verily, people in New York have never seen a conspiracy in action: on 9/11, they were looking somewhere else, busy being factual. Plane goes into tower; boom. A fact, not a conspiracy. Another plane goes into another tower: boom. Another fact, not a conspiracy.

How many boom booms does one need to resonate in the American mind? But of course, I forgot, Americans do not know that they own government conspired to attack Afghanistan in 1979, using bin Laden. Since there are no conspiracy, nor plots, just facts.

In truth, history is pretty much made exclusively of conspiracies. So all this obsessive belief that there are no conspiracies, only God, says, is this: Americans have never heard of history. Let alone read it. A country can only go that far this way, because it means it learned nothing. All knowledge is historical, even in science.

The Afghan war was started by the USA, secretly. And bin Laden was recruited, secretly. That was the result of a secret plot of the CIA and Prince Turki (head of Saudi intelligence). And bin Laden made a plot, secretly. And the French and the Israeli pretty much warned the USA about it, secretly.

And then the Pakistani ISI harbored bin Laden in its most fortified town, secretly, for 6 years, until it secretly sold it to Obama who, all too loudly, said it was not so. Oh, yeah, what about the secret paper with Stalin about secretly dividing Europe? That was not a plot?

Americans are conditioned to believe there no conspiracies, no classes, and no plots.  Thus the cattle goes to the slaughterhouse, with equanimity, head high, as behooves the stupid. Then Americans can’t explain Auschwitz, the Civil War, disappearance of the Indians, or slavery. And they don’t care. It does not matter, because they have reached the most important conclusion that way: there is no plutocracy, but plutocracy and mental apathy is its prophet. Plutocracy provides, it’s most merciful: look at all the tall towers in New York. Strauss-Kahn wanted to take all that easy money away, and actually make New York work for a living. No wonder New Yorkers hate Strauss-Kahn.

OK, now for a humoristic break to show how clueless the New York elite can be. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, interviewed the future (French!) female successor of Strauss-Kahn at the IMF, Christine Lagarde (note): The French are reconsidering the line between seduction and aggression. I asked Lagarde how she would delineate it. “You know when you receive a big slap in the face,” Lagarde says, “or when someone says ‘No.’ ”

Has she ever felt sexually harassed? “No, I’m too tall. I’ve been in sports for too long,” she says, smiling and flexing the muscle under her black Ann Taylor jacket.

“They know that I could just punch them.” “

As Dowd, who had insulted Strauss-Kahn in previous essays, revealed earlier in her article, Lagarde is 5-10. Dowd does not understand at all what Lagarde is telling her. That the funniest part; Dowd faithfully related Lagarde making fun of her, and Dowd is so dumb, so blinded by her preconceptions, she had no notion of it. So she related faithfully Lagarde’s contempt for her, with no notion of it.

Lagarde is telling Dowd, that Dowd is a complete idiot. Lagarde, a conservative, says: of course Strauss-Kahn could not sexually assault me, because I would punch him out. And guess what? Lagarde knows that Strauss-Kahn supposed victim towers above her, Lagarde!

Everybody knows in France that the presumed victim in the alleged rape attempt is more than 6 feet tall, and that her strength is legendary (from her job). She probably could strangle Strauss-Kahn with just one hand. The only thing that prevents her to do that, in the exalted American legal opinion, is the even more legendary virile prowess of the Frenchman, that domineering beast, who can probably rape, just by looking at a woman. And it’s well known the French do plenty of that, even to exaggeratedly tall illegal Guinean immigrants.

Strauss Kahn is short, fat, old, sick (he was hooked up by American prison authorities to an oxygen machine, just so that he would keep on breathing through the night in jail). One has to be idiotic, or very well paid, like a New York tabloid artists, or a New York talking head, to not understand any of this.

All New York tabloids are owned by legendary plutocrats, singing the glory of plutocracy, protected by bodyguards and killer maids. Even Jon Steward knows who his masters are, and he flexed his pathetic racist muscle against philosopher Henri Bernard Levy (if I were an American Jew, I would not attack French Jews, because American Jews did nothing effective to prevent the Holocaust, when they could, and should have; so millions of Jews were stuck in Europe, when the war started, and died at Hitler’s hands, in partial consequence of American Jewry unwitting, and dim witted, collaboration). 

When Murderoch, a plutocrat who inherited his fortune in Australia, and expanded it propagandizing for neoconservative Thatcher, became American, to become even bigger. He bought many tabloids. Some are in New York, now screaming against Strauss-Kahn, working on the jurors’ minds (that’s called the justice screaming system).

Murderoch bought the Fox channel, crazy like a fox, indeed. Then Murderoch told the little Americans to go attack Iraq for him, and they did, like enraged lemmings, crossing the sea, foaming at the mouth, and hating France which was in the way. Plutocrats have hated France since 1789, and counting. French plutocrats have adopted a low profile.

Strauss-Kahn’s pretended victim, in the prime of her life, nearly as tall and massive as the Terminator himself, is 30 years younger. Oh, and how did that creature get to the USA? Did she swim, like Ted Kennedy? She has no American relative. Her Muslim fundamentalist family is in the business of making money from Islam, and is relatively wealthy (they own the biggest house, painted all over, up there in the wet Fouta Djallon mountain range). The victim to kill all victims has at least 11 close family members in that Guinean village. No, of course, this whole thing has nothing to do with the fact that she discovered that Strauss-Kahn is a Jew. Nothing to get hysterical about, a bit of cavorting for the Muslim fundamentalist, with the naked Jew she surprised in his rooms.

Some are going to scream that I lack sympathy for the potential victim. No, I do have sympathy for victims. I have been one myself, several times, for reasons related to my opinions. But I also know that the law can be used to aggress. I have seen several cases, in several countries, close and personal. Moreover, I have been myself the object of more serious aggressions, than this ridiculous he said-she said-that-he-touched-me-there.

When I was aggressed, blood flowed, and lots of it. Vertebrae broke. Limbs were torn, fingers were on the ground, like little sausages (although the target, when I was bombed, somebody else got the brunt of it). That’s serious crime. And the perpetrators got away… precisely because of political considerations! Instead, some of the victims got prosecuted… So I get very suspicious when I see big politics involved, and official rage being turned on from up high. And especially when racism is involved (the racists who threw a bomb on me were not seriously prosecuted, and yes, it did not happen in the USA.)

I also get suspicious when a full grown gigantic woman scream attempted rape. If an elephant is scared of a mouse, that’s not the fault of the mouse. And she can give a good slap instead, as Christine Lagarde said. That’s the feminist way. Feminism is not about protecting fake helpless women from imaginary abuse. That is persevering with the old system, where women are so impotent, that they are terrified of even old, sick, short, overweight men.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was a corporate lawyer, agrege’, and tenured university professor of economics, before he became France’s finance minister. His rich culture is of mixed Alsatian Jew and Tunisian Sephardic Jew. He is this rare bird, a very competent economist. His actions at the IMF re-introduced Drawing Rights, on a huge scale (roll over, American dollar!) He pulled the world out of a serious crisis when heading the IMF. But not in a way which could please American plutocracy.

In this demented world, nearly half of the profits of large companies in the USA originate in the financial sector. Strauss-Kahn had proclaimed, loud and clear, that what was needed was more government, worldwide, and more regulations. In other words, he wanted to violate New York, den of financial piracy, rob it of its major source of wealth.

I will inspect the justice system of the USA soon, with an arsenal of scathing facts. The USA has a more cruel justice system in 2011 than France had in 1815, coming out of Napoleon’s dictatorship. Time to demonstrate it, as American justice claims to be exerted through summary executions, all the way to Pakistan.

I will ponder why the New York DA, a politician most probably paid by Goldman Sachs and the like, proclaimed two reasons for American law to discriminate against French citizens. And why American judges agreed. And whether this is related in some sense to this little American Indian boy, who, 160 years ago, shot a toy arrow through a Texan judge’s heart.


Patrice Ayme


Note: Christine Lagarde’s only difficulty with getting the IMF job is that French justice has her eye on her, about going too easy on a rich guy, Bernard Tapie (who claimed to be owed money by the state). Just a question of 285 million euros (she sent the case to arbitration, instead of leaving it in court her opponents say). Whereas American plutocrats count their gifts from Washington in billions, if not dozens of billions, and never been even suspected. Talk about the French justice being easy on French politicians…

Nationalism, Superstition, Greed: Violins Of Evil.

February 27, 2010




Abstract: Nationalism reinforces aggression, and thus fascism, which profits greedy elites. Mishandling reason is a must in the utilitarian perspective of the few on top. Superstition helps in that endeavor.

The USA would survive better, as a superpower, if it integrated the notion that unjustified nationalism is a disservice to the nation, although most helpful to the exploitative oligarchy. Europe has understood this the hard way: hunting down nationalistic behavior has become a moral absolute there. Time for the USA to follow.



A nationalistic issue is resurfacing in the South Atlantic. There are a number of islands and archipelagos there. Their history is a bit complicated, in the sense that it is not clear who saw what first. When the Europeans happened on them, the largest land mammal was a very special wolf, the warrah. There were no indigenes.

The Spanish name of the main archipelago, the Falklands, is Islas Malvinas. It is a translation of the French name, "Îles Malouines", thus named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764, after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the port of Saint-Malo in France. Hence, just here, the islands ought to be French, and, therefore British, since, as the Queen of England, Isabelle de France, pointed out, circa 1320, she was France’s rightful sovereign.

For a while British and Spanish sovereignty was claimed. At the time, Argentina did not exist yet. Both Spain and Britain being now part of the European Union, it is one more reason for the natives of the Falklands to be European citizens.

When the United Nations was formed, in 1945, Argentina mysteriously claimed sovereignty on the Falklands. Great Britain coolly replied that it was a matter of the natives’ self determination. It is a general principle that, if a people wants to join the European Union, and the later agrees, it can.

Unsurprisingly, the Falklands natives opted to become European citizens rather than subjects to, what was, at the time, a banana republic dictatorship, albeit without any bananas. Moreover, it looks as if some in Argentina are made to eat bananas.



Some Argentines claim those enchanted isles are next to South America, their continent, a mere 480 kilometers away. By that token, Alaska belongs to Russia, the USA to Canada, and Korea and Japan, separated by a much smaller 128 kilometers, have serious ownership problems. Also Spain should claim all of Africa, which is in direct sight.

Some Argentines observed that the Falklands were sitting on the same continental plate as they do. This does not explain why Argentina when it invaded the Falklands/Malouines in 1981, also invaded other islands not sitting on that plate (South Georgia, South Sandwiches).

In particular the large island of South Georgia (170 kilometers long) is about 2,000 kilometers away, thus, by that Argentinean reasoning of sort, since Antarctica is much closer to Argentina than South Georgia, the frozen continent also belongs to Argentina, and should be invaded. Come to think of it, the Antarctica peninsula is a geological extension of the Andes, also implying that Colorado belongs to Argentina, as confirmed by its Spanish name, and its discovery by conquistadores.

After the Argentinean dictators invaded the Falklands in 1981, Britain reacted and defeated Argentina in a small but ferocious war. More than 900 soldiers died, 255 of them British.

Why did the Argentinean dictators invade? Mostly to distract their people from the oppression they were submitted to, and to re-direct their anger as a nationalist frenzy towards the big bad British. After its ignominious defeat, the dictatorship fell.

Now an oil rig is off the Falklands, as oil reaches $80 a barrel again. Operating one of these devices is expensive – about 200,000 euros a day.



According to some geological surveys the Falkland Islands may have the equivalent of 60 billion barrels of oil in total.

By comparison, the USA has 21 billion barrels of reserve, enough for only…8 years. As another perspective, Venezuela’s reserve are 87 billion barrels. Iraq oil reserves are officially 115 billion barrels (3 rd largest in the world), and maybe as much as 350 billion barrels (first in the world, according to the latest estimates, a number I always held true and going a long way to explain why there are several hundred thousands American warriors in the Middle East, including 250,000 US soldiers…)


[The exclusion zone is where Britain wants no Argentinean forces to show up again.]

Argentina said earlier this month that it strongly opposed energy exploration on "its" continental shelf (that extends all the way to Florida, remember, and please observe that "Florida" is another Spanish name).

"What they’re doing is illegitimate…it’s a violation of our sovereignty. We will do everything necessary to defend and preserve our rights," the Argentinean Foreign Minister opined. Venezuela’s Chavez addressed the queen of England, informing her that "imperialism was over". Since his oil reserves are four times that of the USA, and relatively increasing, Chavez is ever louder.

A resolute British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, an eye to his incoming elections in spring, said: "It is perfectly within our rights to be able to do this. I think the Argentineans actually understand that."



A good consequence of the European Union construction is that Europeans have annexed each other, making their empire much more considerable, without much pain or effort. No need to attack, as Argentina did. Europe looks forward annexing Siberia, someday. With smiles, and plenty of checks, and ideas.

This new method, of tolerance, understanding and inclusivity is irresistible. This has become the European way. But it is a re-acquaintance with the basic Roman method of integration: after the extreme violence of total war, the Romans were very inclusive, and tolerant (and introduced the notion, and realization, of universal citizenship, with full equal rights, a notion which escapes the USA to this day, since it officially discriminates against some categories of its citizens).

Maybe Europe should annex Argentina. It is not because of a continental shelf, or distance. It would solve neatly the problem of the Malouines (and not "Malvinas" please!). Saint Malo is in Bretagne (= Britannia = Britain… because the army from Britannia fled to Bretagne in the 6C, hence the name; before this flight, the Romans knew Bretagne as Armorica!)

After all, Argentina is a rebellious European colony, and, come to think of it, if Argentina is not going to recognize the self determination of Falkland islanders, why should Europe recognize the self determination of Argentines?



Since God is dead, morality needs to be re-established on different principles, and an absolute basis. (Replacing the absolute God.)

Morality has been corrupted with "multiculturalism", a doctrine that says that, if they worship it, it is right. Whatever "it" is, and whoever "they" are. And absolute moral progress does not exist.

Indeed it can be argued that different cultures are different forms of mental achievements, and they all bring something. That way I am a fanatical multiculturalist too. But it is important to de-fang local cultures first, when global cultural progress has exposed their poison, if any. Because primitive cultures can be highly poisonous. After all, that’s how they survived.  

For example,  Maoris ate people, and other Polynesians were known to keep captives alive for days, as they devoured them piece by piece (salted and freeze dried meat technology having not being invented yet in these regions… although they had long been invented in other parts).

But there is no doubt that Maori culture brought something to the rest of the world (although Maori ways such as tattoos were found in the rest of Polynesia, the late and massive, well documented practice of cannibalism in New Zealand ought to provide the most advanced philosophers with an excellent counter example to many naive theories in multiculturalism and human nature!) 

Unexamined multiculturalism may make you not worth living. (In case the reader did not get it, this is a play on Socrates’ "The unexamined life is not worth living"). By the token of multiculturalism, the Nazis ought to have been revered for their deeply resented feelings. And the Aztecs would still exchange human limbs with a grateful president Chavez.

Multiculturalism’s modern prophets of evil were Herder and Rousseau.



An example of intrinsic badness is nationalism. Nationalism is very bad, it is nearly always bad. Nationalism is discrimination on the basis of origins, gone official, and made into a religion.

There ought to be no excuse for nationalism, except as a defense (Iraq, Afghanistan). Aside from this, as a pure defense mechanism, it should never, ever, be tolerated. OK, when meeting an Afghan who does not know any better, and who has suffered a lot, by all means respect his nationalism and gently explain how, and why you beg to differ. But when nationalism happens between first world people, who ought to know better, it should be trashed.

Nationalism is not a violin making an harmonious sound. It is the screech of barbarity unchained. The "Na" in Nazi stood for Nationalism… This is no coincidence. Auschwitz is what nationalism and associated tribalism do, when they are fully allowed to express themselves. Nationalism and tribalism, and other discriminations posing as secular religions, always did such things, and always will.

Nationalism is a form of tribalism that poses as an emotional ultrafilter, an emotion that dominates all other emotions.

That ought not to be tolerated.

The Argentine president talks nationalism, because her economy is lousy, and her people need some distraction, so she treats them as crocodiles, throw them some meat, in the hope, that, indeed, they will revert to the saurian condition, characterized by immense stupidity, carnivorous greed, and easy herding in some swampy pen. Too bad, I like her otherwise. But she may have little choice, as many are the dogs of nationalism howling to the sky…

Kanzler Merkel with the President of Argentina, Christina Kirchner, before the EU-Latin America summit.
[Photo: Regierungonline/Bergmann]




As I said, the evidence of the extreme mass lethality of nationalism and affiliated feelings was plain by 1700 CE.

Weirdly, though, nationalism became ever more popular during the next 245 years in Europe. Nationalism festered already in the philosophy of Herder in the eighteenth century. Far from being repelled by the horror nationalism and its ilk brought in the late Middle Ages, under provincial and religious forms, Herder extolled the beauty of tribalism, singing its praises as an end in itself, a teleology he deprived the concept of progress from. Herder was the anti-enlightenment philosopher par excellence.

What had happened prior to Herder? Centuries of mayhem all over Europe, animated by petty misunderstandings of the sort people learn with mothers’ milk.

The civil war between France and England started comically with a feast of the Franco-English aristocracy, a big family, where each side insisted to eat its own food (roasted versus boiled, etc.), and drink its own beverages (wine versus beer, etc.). And sit at different tables. In the following generations, this comic posing ended with the durable devastation of France, and acts of war for more than 5 centuries.

Nowadays, the seven French religious wars, the century long war between France, the Netherlands, and Spain, the 30 year war in Germany, the war between France and… Savoy have all been forgotten, and so are the tribalisms that animated them. Those wars, plus the Crusades, durably transformed Europe into a battlefield for half a millennium. All very good, according to Herder, but his student, Goethe, disagreed.

Goethe was a universalist, he loved the (French) revolution: all men are brothers, as Ludwig van put it.

Herder thought it was his sacred duty to hate French universalism, and kneel at the altar of tribal difference. Herder founded multiculturalism (aka cultural relativism).

Multiculturalism, in Herder’s time, led straight to terrible wars: the Pitts Prime Ministers of Great Britain took it onto themselves to rabidly oppose the (French) Revolution, and the revolutionary reaction was terrible, as France fought all of Europe’s Ancient Regime.

In the end, after the terrible dictatorship of that spiritual dwarf, Napoleon (a direct consequence of British meddling, as PM Lloyd George would point out a century later), France was defeated, many millions died all over Europe, Belgium was born…

But the French revolution won the war: the ideals of the revolution now rules the European Union (including increasingly Great Britain, in an ironical twist). And even the United Nations (although the UN self contradicts its charter of human Rights by some mumbling on multiculturalism).

In any case Herder, plus Rousseau’s hatred for civilization, led directly to Hitler (the Prussian educational system, using these worthies and their philosophical clique formed generations after generations of Germans according to these erroneous doctrines of violence, race, savagery celebrated as PURITY OF ESSENCE).

I am not claiming here that Herder and Rousseau were worthless in all ways. But they were worse than bad in some most important ways (and Goethe, Voltaire and Sade were vociferous in their opposition at the time).

Why is nationalism so intrinsically bad? Because nationalism is tribalism on steroids. And TRIBALISM MEANS THE MAINTENANCE OF GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL BALANCE BY THE MASSIVE KILLING OF OTHERS.

That art of balancing the ecology through war is already practiced in chimpanzees (as documented first by the very Christian Jane Goodall, good-all around).

With weapons of mass destruction, and an enormous human population with its own delicate technological ecology, tribalism reborn would mean humankind dead, and no rebirth. Far from bringing the spice of originality, TRIBALISM CAN ONLY BE NOW THE END ALL OF BE ALL.

The Argentinean howling towards the Falklands would be funny, if seeing human beings reduced to the lupine condition by their cult of the primitive was funny. But it is less funny than French and English lords from the same families arguing about the merits of beer versus wine in the twelfth century. And that did not end well.



Another emotional ultrafilter, that ought to be viewed as always bad, is superstition. Whereas nationalism means the gathering of evil feelings and ideas to promote the mass extermination of other human beings, SUPERSTITION EXTERMINATES FIRST REALITY ITSELF.

Superstition is also known, by abuse of language, as "faith". Faith is an excellent behavior, the milk of hope. Superstition is what pigeons do. Superstition hides behind faith, like a murderer behind a grandmother’s smile.

After killing reason, or torturing it, or making seriously fun of it, unsurprisingly, anything goes. Then an elite can kill whoever they do not like. Emperor Justinian used Christianism that way, during four long decades, and Stalin used Marxism-Leninism that way.

That is why superstitious religions can be tolerated only when their superstitions make themselves very discrete (Rome was very tolerant with any superstitious religion, as long as practical bounds were not breached).

Superstition is a natural abuse of the metaprinciple of causation that intelligent animals discover early on in their mental development. As the famous American psychologist Skinner observed, pigeons kept associating in their minds facts which are truly unrelated if they had happened together first in their experience. "Some pigeons responded up to 10,000 times without reinforcement when they had originally been conditioned on an intermittent reinforcement basis."

Tell children that God wants this, that and the other thing, plus a few murders besides, if need be, and they will believe it all their lives. Advantage, if you are an oligarch; once your subjects believe this, they are ready to kill, and get killed, and you will stay on top, as the masses murder each other.



Greed is called the "profit motive", in the present USA, and now, undeterred by the weak and scared Obama, the private health, military and banking industries of the USA are running away with greed, pushing around the naïve and overwhelmed young president.

Some health insurance jumped by 39% (now delayed by weeks, to Obama’s naïve satisfaction), and the number of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan tripled in the first year of Obama’s naivety, now having passed 1,000. The military budget of the USA, also augmented enormously, bigger than the rest of the world combined, has jumped up, in a country with 10% deficit. And bankers own the place, now that all taxpayer money, and more (borrowed from China), was sent to them to lose again.

Greed is another bad emotional ultrafilter, and it is related to nationalism and superstition. Greed basically asserts that having power on others is the emotion that matters most. In a sense greed stands above nationalism and superstition, because it is conducive to them both.



When one has removed such bad emotional ultrafilters, as nationalism, superstition and greed, what are we left with?

Well, with those emotional ultrafilters resting and encouraging reason, and love, pure and simple.

Reason resting on animal and human nature, as they profit to individuals, and the masses. What is there not to like?

Why are such bad emotions, such as nationalism, superstition, and greed, fostered, instead, with such enthusiasm? Of course, ecological constraints can lead to the necessity of reducing considerably a human population, the hard way.

But sometimes the natural ecology is not to blame. What else is there? Well, the ecology of elites.

Oligarchies. Oligarchies are those mostly exploiting bad emotional ultrafilters. Why? Because they are bad, precisely, meaning bad emotions lead to mega death, thus activating the main defense mechanism in the collective psyche, in other words, fascism.



Fascism is first an intellectual reflex, that of allowing a mass of individuals to operate as one: "E Pluribus Unum". Thus the mass of individuals is made by the fascist instinct into one super-organism, fighting as one: discipline is the strength of armies, because of this, precisely (and chimps on the war path behave very differently, as one silent well coordinated mega individual, and so do fighting baboon troops, fighting, or the threat thereof, being something that happens to baboon troops many times a day).

So oligarchies, be they the power elite in Argentina, or some religious-superstitious order, or the American financial military oligarchy have interest to activate those bad emotional complexes. Because that single mind at the top, it’s precisely them.

This could be viewed in the financial crisis of 2008: it was an economic and financial assault, and fascism, economic fascism, was activated. It was decided that the People would give all and support, as one man, its leader, and that leader was the same as the one that precipitated the crisis, namely the exact same group of corrupt financiers. The crisis augmented the economic fascism, because it reinforced the leader, as all crises do, if one is not careful.

This is why, as the disasters they provoked unfolded, Napoleon and Hitler and Stalin, and countless other demented leaders, got ever more support; disaster activates mental support for the one who leads the fight, whatever the fight is, and even if he started it. All independent thinking on the big stuff is shut down, and left to the leader. The mass just follows.



Bad emotional ultrafilters favor the exploitative leadership of the few, hence the great deference of the American power elite for bad emotional ultrafilters such as superstition (Christianity or Islam), greed or nationalism (remember Obama in the "State of the Union", telling us America invented the automobile, whereas the USA invented none of automobile technologies, at least in the first 150 years of the history of the automobile; but American oligarchs love this sort of national glorifications, to use them as emotional red herrings)…

The final enlightening step is to realize that greed, nationalism and superstition introduce themselves humbly always, in the small, and that is in the small that they shall be crushed most readily.

Here are concrete examples of nationalism light: When some Americans claim that the USA invented things they did not invent (the car, the plane, the transistor), that’s nationalism. When Americans claim that French cars are "crappy", that’s nationalism, or that France is basically a communist country, an American protectorate, where nothing gets done except wine, cheese, and welfare, that’s nationalism too. When Americans claim the USA is the land of the free (implying thus that other lands are not), that’s nationalism. When Europeans claim that all is bad in the USA, or that the USA is all about money, and private enterprise that’s also nationalism (but a mistake Americans themselves make: in some ways the USA is more public than the EU! Say about water…).

There are subtler forms of nationalism. Say, just from ignoring other people’s cultures, thus weakening one’s reflection on the very existence of one’s nationalism. An example of this is the USA’s discrimination against those of its own citizens not born there. No other country does that. It is a screaming example of natio-nalism: only those born there, in the USA, are fully human. Others, less so, with fewer rights. Thus establishing that principle that there are several types of human beings, even inside the nation.

Such screaming tribalism is rendered possible by being blind to American exceptionalism, through the ignorance of other countries. No other country has two kinds of citizens (but it is nothing new: think of the slaves). [After I wrote this, Roger Henry kindly observed out that this was not quite true, and he pointed at Germany. Although Germany had a multi track citizenship under Hitler, not so before, or since. The question of naturalization in Germany, although scandalous, was different, and has been addressed; for more details, see the comments. Muslim states DO have multi track citizenship, just like the USA.]

Being blind to one’s country’s major defects is a form of nationalism, unwittingly, or not.

The last infiltration of greed in USA society is charging ($300) for emergency calls: soon you will be asked for your credit card number if you want to live another day. Greed. Then, again, no other country does this, but for the USA (or, more exactly the great city of Tracy, California!). But a consequence of nationalism is that Americans do not know this.

One will have noticed that examples of nationalism gone mad abound in the USA. Am I exhibiting anti-American bias? Some will excitingly clamor that this is so. And they would be right, if I were wrong, but I am right. To deny the truth in national matters is also nationalism.

Some will say that this is my opinion. Yes, sure, but not just my opinion. My opinion is not coming naked and screaming. It is coming armored, intelligent, knowledgeable, and well escorted by facts.

The fact that the USA has a scandalous two-tracks citizenship, is hard, harsh, cold reality. The fact that the USA has the lousiest health care system in the developed world is also a fact, and the fact Americans mostly ignore this, and never miss an occasion to sing the praises of the USA health care system is a nationalistic fact. The fact the USA spends so with a "defense" system that girdles the world is undeniable too. In Europe, people would know what it means: nationalism out of control, foaming at the mouth. In the USA, American hyper militarism is nationalistically interpreted as American goodness, next to sainthood, as militarism used to experienced in Imperial Germany.

Europe learned that nationalism was conducive to the deadliest things around, the hard way. Whereas in the USA exhibiting strident nationalism is viewed as an indispensable part of the mien of a citizen in good standing, in countries such as France, nationalism is viewed as in poor taste. This, to look down on nationalism, the Europeans, and, in particular the Germans, have learned the hard way. Things have really gone a long way, because the Germans and the French used to be extremely nationalistic a few generations ago, much more than the citizens of the USA used to be.

After 1945, top intellectuals in Europe understood that nationalism ought to be abated. That ought to be a primary mission. A change people ought to believe in. And abated it was. It was even mutilated. a point was made that European superpowers ought to have no more rights than others (starting, of course, with Germany and its insufferable past tendencies). Malta (population: 400,000) and Slovenia (population, 2 millions) have, on paper, the same rights as France (population close to 70 millions). By 1945, Europe had learned something important: nationalism pays back, big time. But only in blood, sweat, and tears.



Nietzsche famously pointed out that: "Verily, there is a future, even for evil." Well, there is plenty enough of a future for evil. New technologies open new avenues to evil all the time. So we have to be busy closing those we have identified, already. Nationalism is one of those.

The savage wars that wrecked Europe for seven centuries (1250 to 1945… after many centuries of quasi peace…) have been a lesson for Europeans in the dangers of nationalism. Nearly all nations on earth existing today are of recent vintage (even China ought to be viewed as recent, just as the Kaiser’s Germany in 1914 was only 44 years old, China is about 60 years old in its present philosophical nature). Fresh nations have learned nothing much yet.

It is hilarious to see the Americans furiously reproaching the Chinese the under-evaluation of, well, the Sino-American currency: talk about blind nationalism.

The fundamental reason for nationalism is the same fundamental reason for evil: too many people do not a world make. So, shall we rise above fatality and the weight of natural evolution? And impose man above fate?

As Voltaire said:"One must crush infamy"… And one should not miss a single occasion to do so. There is not just morality in crushing infamy, but the prospect of sheer survival for all concerned. Blind and unexamined nationalism is the most dangerous infamy. Let’s crush it, it’s good exercise.


P/S 1: The notion of ultrafilter comes from topology, and has a precise meaning there, as a maximal element for inclusion. It basically corresponds to (being perceived as) ultimate concept.


P/S 2: I said nationalism was justified if and only if ("iff") a defense mechanism. Critiques will point out that offenders always claim to be defending themselves under some sort of perceived aggression. The wolf had to kill the sheep becomes the latter’s brother polluted the canine’s water last year.

For example, NATO claims to be defending itself during its occupation of Afghanistan, already much longer than WWII, and still killing completely innocent civilians there with wild abandon. Indeed, one has to be careful with the concept of defense. NATO is clearly under attack from hard core Islamism (just as the West used to be under attack under the extremely similar hard core Christianism) , but NATO is not under attack by Afghanistan… And never was. (Bin Laden and friends were put in Afghanistan by the USA, and equipped with fancy weapons.) Thus, differently from the WWII started by Franco-Britannia on September 3, 1939, it is not clear that the Afghan war is a just war. It will be just, only if well done. Which is not presently the case.

As far as the Afghans are concerned, though, their war against NATO is a just war of national defense. Thus, the real enemy of NATO is not just that reality, but also that perception.


P/S 3: The Chinese have pegged their currency to the US dollar. So, as the USA proceeded to lower its currency to gain unfair economic advantage (although the USA has 25% of the world’s industrial production, 2010). The Chinese peg meant that the Chinese currency went down with the American dollar, ruining the little American plot for gaining…unfair advantage. This is now over, as the European Union had enough, and found a way to ruin that unfair little plot. These could become tragic games, if people stopped seeing the humor hidden in them…


October 9, 2008


Introduction: Russia has followed her better instincts, for a change. Under the watchful gaze of EU observers, including cute French gendarmes in their blue uniforms, Russia has just evacuated Georgia 48 hours early. Russia also came to the (financial) rescue of Iceland. All this should be inspirational.

Motivation for the considerations below: Nationalism is very bad, it should be crushed; otherwise, civilization may be the one getting crushed. The nationalist impulse was used by some very bad people throughout history. The poorly conducted, poorly justified invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration is a case in point.

By the way, in the case of Afghanistan, the nationalist impulse from the West to go out and kill people there, although legitimate as pure defense, transiently, has become the only politics of the West there, many years later, still, and de facto, right now, that is VERY wrong. So very wrong that it deserves to fail… as fate will insist. 

The West is arguably way less reasonable at this point in Afghanistan than Russia is with Georgia. It is high time to reconsider Afghanistan in a much more supple mental way.

Now, perniciously, some in the West have called Russian nationalism justified. The (outrageous!) claim is that Russian nationalism should be rightly worried by the angry small countries on Russia’s borders, little more than mice to the Russian elephant. But from our point of view, nationalism in any shape or form, except purely spiritually, and even then, is not justified.

Interestingly, Russian leaders, after two harrowing months in Georgia, seem to have understood this. The mice around Russia should understand it too (there are indications some do now, even the Georgian president, who, perhaps misled by his very large physique, seemed under the illusion that he was somehow towering over Putin, an illusion hopefully thoroughly dispelled by now).

Neither NATO nor the EU have to be adversarial processes to Russia. Far from it. In truth, and in the long view, it’s just the opposite. Hopefully, Putin and Medvedev may be understanding this now. That would be wonderful. But it is far from clear. And what is a country where all depends upon one guy? A Putinocracy? 


Helping Russia and the world means restraining Russian nationalism, at every occasion one gets. Actually, one should restrain nationalism every chance one gets, worldwide. (This applies particularly to the world financial credit crisis presently unfolding; see the P/S below; if nationalism gets involved in it, outright war could be a consequence.)

Russia became, ever since the fall of the wall, an example of the modern restraints that have been put on nationalism. Russian leaders, emulating the leadership of Gorbachev, have made great efforts to dominate their nationalist impulses. Since those impulses had run wild under the Soviet tyrants, thus helping to impose a terrible fascism inside the USSR, it is not helpful to be too respectful  nowadays of those very nationalistic impulses that have caused so much pain to Russia.

Roger Cohen, in the Herald Tribune (October 9, 2008) said that Zapatero, the Spanish PM, sounded all too respectful of a harassed and worried Russian nationalism legitimately confronting Georgia, NATO, and other adversaries. This is wrong, said Mr. Cohen, and he is very right to say so.

Respecting Russia’s worst nightmares, and establishing policy to encourage them, is not friendly to Russia, or to anybody else. Ideally, Georgia, NATO, the EU, and all states surrounding Russia should be collaborators, and irreplaceable friends. To establish a context where, at the outset, it’s taken for granted that they are enemies, and have to be enemies, is not just erroneous, but extremely wrong morally, on the largest possible scale.  

Putin, a top judoka, should use the very momentum of those among his interlocutors who are adversarial, to place Russia in a better position, in the fullness of time. If some people with an anti Russian agenda think they can bog down Russia with NATO, well, let see what would happen if and when Russia joins NATO (France, for one, would be delighted to get some help from the Russian soul, sometimes).

In general, nationalism should indeed be respected inasmuch as it should be understood enough to be dismantled thoroughly. One of the secrets of the Roman state, or the empire of the Franks that succeeded it, has been to have risen as (non nationalistic) melting pots. Modern France, Britain and the USA have followed that time honored recipe.

All nationalisms, worldwide, have their good aspects, of course, and some of these aspects could be, and have been, exported to other countries’ delight (Judo is an examplary export from Japan). But the negative sides of nationalism should not be tolerated, and there are more of those. Nations are giant tribes, and their fundamental role is predatory: there was only so much land to go around, and culling human populations was a necessity. This positive contribution of holocausts has been found increasingly counter productive . Clearly wars, overall, in the last two centuries, did not improve France, and were a disaster for Russia, more recently. Both countries (and Poland too) have suffered enormous population deficits. Wars have these little ways of starting, and then never stop.

In the case of Georgia, Putin himself offered a sort of mix of an excuse and an explanation by suggesting that Russia had some trouble in the North Caucasus, and, we have to guess, needed to go around screaming and break something in South Caucasus, like a dominant chimp has to break something, drag a branch, when it wants peace to be respected, looking forward.

Russia is, by far, the largest country on Earth. That immensity is a great wealth, a great treasure, profiting only a small fraction of the population of greater Europe. Fundamentally, Russia is a European colony, just as the USA also is. Neither is a creation from God, sprung from Jupiter’s thigh. It’s time to re-embrace the European cultural basics, and review their deepest truths. Because those truths are the cultural roots of Russia (or the USA). Those which proved so profitable…

Both the USA and Russia have walked along similar psychological pathways. Both Russia and the USA conquered vast spaces by pushing against sparse tribes with primitive technology. Both became affected with hubris in recent times, much confusing their luck with their due, and their European inheritance with savagery. The savagery was a bit more subtle on the US side, and the Russian fascism was justified by the moral of survival, since German fascism was intend to win a final showdown with France and Russia (the deep cause of W.W.I). In any case, Russia enjoyed Lenino-Stalinist fascism, that, in combination with Hitlerism, made Russia’s present population not even half of what it would have been otherwise. Meanwhile, the USA used various devious schemes surfing other people’s fascist tendencies to advance its empire (from the creation of IG Farben by Wall Street, and helping Hitler, all the way to using crazy Muslim Fundamentalists and invading Iraq, on the other side). What has been, was, but it’s time to change methods (Weapons of Mass Destruction leave us no choice).

Going back to the origins, namely the Enlightenments, should be the guiding light. After all, deep down, both Russia and the USA got their power from there. And not just going back to the Enlightenment of three centuries ago. The original Enlightenment was of course with the Franks, who outlawed slavery, centuries before the first stirrings of Russia lurked deep in the woods.

Sometimes, it seems the light of the Enlightenment still has to reach Russia (the USA has been equally challenged that way). Conquest proved more profitable than understanding. All too often, Russian dictators forgot to outlaw slavery (“serfdom”). During the twentieth century, Russian fascist (“totalitarian”) leaders enslaved hundreds of millions of people, submitting entire nations on the periphery of the Tsarist empire.

It’s high time to cease and desist with the systems of thought that were compatible with slavery. Old style Russian “nationalism” often viewed slavery more of a solution rather than concertation. That may be a great way to build an empire, using Cossaks, but less so when the opposition can build nuclear weapons in the heart of mountains. Those who want to respect Russian “nationalism” want Russia to survive, and Russia will only do so by adopting the only pathway out, namely replacing old fashion wars with debates of ideas, until the victory of the best ones (this is basically the constructing principle of the European Union).

So the following ideas should guide Russia and others:

First, nationalism has caused many wars, especially when it is interpreted as a right on other countries or populations. Many of the biggest European countries also had to learn lesson number one of modern European history: military based nationalism is a terrible crime. Doing without it has brought immense prosperity to Western Europe.

Second, to abandon nationalism, Russia has to join the European Union, an international system of thought based on the imperialism of debate, not the imperialism of tanks. No worry, it will not happen in five minutes.

Third, China used to own some of the Vladivostok area, where 7 million Russians face 120 million Chinese, in close quarters. The area is full of resources, and, differently from much of China, it is not too mountainous, or too much of a desert. If China veered away from its pathway to democracy, it could try to recover the area by force, something it would be much less inclined to do if Russia were part of the EU. The EU is also a defensive solution for Russia (and, ultimately, for the world at large!)

Fourth, to develop gigantic Russia, all the resources of the rest of Europe and its colonies will not be too much, and Russia will be the first to profit from it.

Thankfully, the Russian leadership has operated a 180 degree turn since their ill considered Georgian invasion. Russia withdrew from where they clearly should not have been, has cooperated with EU peacekeeping, and came to the financial rescue of Iceland. It’s all very good. In a European Union set up, problems such as Abkazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo can’t exist, because the EU was made, first of all, to dissolve nationalism and tribalism.

It’s high time for Europe, its colonies, and its sympathizers (all the most important countries of the planet) to refurbish the Enlightenment. It will not happen without Russia (or the USA). There is too much to do, and replacing the Will to War by the Will to Debate is too fragile as yet. one single powerful nation could sabotage the whole thing, and bring back the dogs of war.

It’s more important than ever, especially as the poorly conceived world financial system has melted down, to remember that we are all on the same boat together, it’s called Earth, and going crazy will only insure that we all sink together.


Patrice Ayme.


P/S: The Great Depression of the nineteen thirties started because some Senators in the USA decided to be smart by declaring economic war to the world to solve a bubble that had been deliberately engaged in by the US government and the US Federal Reserve (in part for the international reason of trying to reflate Britain!). Then it was aggravated because the US government re-established internal discipline, too late and too badly. While trying to make off the foreigners.

The result was an economic and financial conflict in which every one went its own way (there is a bit of this so far). It quickly led to that other excess of Wall Street, Adolf Hitler his name, getting power, and the rest is history. Although Russia suffered enormous losses, and the USA got handsomely out of it, there is every reason to believe it will not be so next time.  Discipline and anti-nationalism should be maintained at this late hour, whatever it takes. So far, so half good. In that sense it’s great that Russia re-integrated the fold. Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, points out that there are NO national solutions. “Il faut un plan global, coordonne'” (“One needs a global coordinated plan”). Strauss-Kahn insists, and he is right, that one needs more, and more powerful, international institutions. No future for nationalism.


Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever


Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever


Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

%d bloggers like this: