Posts Tagged ‘Nazis’

Why Giving So Much Space To Nazis?

October 19, 2016

For Evil To Rule, Give The People Evil Heroes To Look Up To: Their Tolerance For Pluto Will Be Heightened

The following is on the borderline of subconscious theory applied to the collective (more on the subconscious, pretty soon). Psychological analysis, without sex, but full of rockets. I explore why the US gave such a prominent place to Nazi scientists after World War Two. The probable explanation is not obvious. And it is not pretty, and has a bearing on the subsequent US subconscious, that we are enjoying, to this day. Yes, because there is something as the national subconscious, and yes, the masters of a nation know how to make it their nest. It is in part because top Nazis were promoted as great minds in the 1950s, that we now enjoy ever worse political choices, as our masters succeeded to change our very values deep down inside.


Space And The Nazis:

The Saturn V program made the Apollo landings possible. The head of the program was Von Braun. The program could have been led by a born US citizen, educated in the USA. Instead, top Nazis were chosen in a leading role, and it was known with 100% certainty, as early as Spring 1945, that those individuals were major criminals

SS-Sturmbannführer (Major) Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun was a Prussian aristocrat (as the “Freiherr Von” label indicates). Most Prussian aristocrats did not like the Nazis, and very few enrolled in the SS. Yes, less than one million individuals served in the SS. The SS was recognized, after the war, by the Allies, as a criminal organization. In the state of Alabama alone, at least 118 top US space program engineers were Nazis. Many of them, as Von Braun, in the SS. They directed personally the extermination of dozens of thousands of slave laborers (in their drive to build “revenge weapons”).

Right, the Nazi, Russian, US, French Chinese rocket programs were developed for military reason (after 1942, rockets had been brutally efficient in WWII, against ships, planes and troops; it became clear that top military needed the best rockets). However, the usage of rocketry in the military happened thanks to the Mongols, even before the inventions of field guns by southern French.

The State Of The Art French Vulcain Hydrogen-Oxygen Engine Lifting This Ariane V, And Actually The Entire Rocket, Was Developed Without Any Nazi Help

The State Of The Art French Vulcain Hydrogen-Oxygen Engine Lifting This Ariane V, And Actually The Entire Rocket, Was Developed Without Any Nazi Help


Von Braun developed the V2.

The first V2s were fired on Paris (some hours later by some hit London). The V2 was the first ballistic missile. It could get out of the atmosphere, and reach Mach 5. Von Braun had pushed for a rocket to bomb New York with, and sang of the charms of orbital warfare (the US Space Shuttle had huge wings to go sideways and help wage nuclear war).

Several French slave-prisoners testified that they witnessed Von Braun’s personally oversight the abuse, torture, terrorization, and the extermination of dozens of thousands of slave workers. The Dark Side was strong in the “charismatic” Von Braun. (An Internet lie is that von Braun donned his black death head SS uniform just once. Not so, said former colleagues and witnesses.).

In a just world, and for future reference, Von Braun should have been executed 100 times. Instead his agents went to the moon. And his face to Time magazine’s cover. He rose to the top of NASA, and got the National Medal of Science (although rocket “science” is not really “science”, but technology). 

A Hero For Our Times. SS Major Von Braun On Cover, 12 Years After He Commanded the Extermination of Dozens of Thousands Of Slaves

A Hero For Our Times. SS Major Von Braun On Cover, 12 Years After He Commanded the Extermination of Dozens of Thousands Of Slaves

Thus a main motivation of the space program was by and from the Dark Side. It is neither bad, nor good. Just a fact to keep front and central: it plays in all ways.

Admittedly, not having enough of the Dark Side can lead to slumber. The Ariane V rocket was developed by Europe (mostly France and Germany). It is human rated (that is safe enough for launching people). However the European (mostly French Dassault) shuttle, the Hermes, was never launched. Why? Europe does not have enough of the Dark Side (differently from Brexiting Britain, the US, Russia, or the PRC).  

The USA tends to be motivated by war best (because, historically, war has been a mostly win-win proposition for the English colony in North America) . After getting to the Moon, beating the USSR (whose Big Rocket exploded spectacularly), the US public did not find space exploration appealing. It did not help that the McCarthyist Nixon, then president, selected the incomparably dumb Space Shuttle as the new US space effort.


Was It Technologically Necessary To Involve The Nazis In The US Space Program? No!

The involvement of Nazis in the US space program was opportunistic, but it could have been avoided. Indeed the top expert of liquid fuel rocketry was not German, but a US citizen, American physicist Robert H. Goddard.

Before 1939, German engineers and rocket scientists contacted Goddard directly with technical questions. As Von Braun said in 1963: His rockets … may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.”. Von Braun used Goddard’s plans from various journals and incorporated them into the building of the Aggregat (A) series of rockets.

Thus the US could have developed rockets without any Nazi help. Several important components of the US space program (such as the rockets of the Mercury and Gemini programs, which launched the first Americans in orbit) were 100% American.

Another proof that Nazis were unnecessary? The most sophisticated rocket in the West is the Ariane V (it launches most of the mass of the geostationary satellites, and is scheduled to launch NASA’s James Webb telescope, the successor of Hubble). Ariane V has mastered the very difficult  hydrogen-oxygen propulsion system (in its latest version a stop and go hydrogen engine is developed, with laser ignition).

All this state of the art French rocketry was mastered without any Nazi help.


Glorifying Nazis Like Von Braun Was Part Of The (Deliberately Subconscious) Nazification of the US:

Let’s go back to that Time cover. Why the glorification of a major Nazi criminal? I confess that I used to admire Von Braun too. I was a victim of pernicious propaganda, like hundreds of millions of others. Although coming from a family of “Justs” (de facto: saving 100 Jews qualifies in my opinion, although some official woman I wrote too told me to get lost, something I found rather strange…) on one side and an authentic anti-Nazi warrior on the other, I cannot let it pass…

So what was behind the glorification of Nazis? Well, the implicit glorification of many of Nazism ways and means. This had started by adopting the SS motto: “God With Us” (Gott Mit Uns), and morphing it into “In God we trust” (not to be confused with my personal motto: ‘In God we thrust’).

Mostly, by glorifying Von Braun, one of the most mass criminal of the major Nazis, the American Deep State, or its collective subconscious habituated the American public to overlook massive war criminality. Good things happen to plutocrats who rig the conceptual debate.

Nazification of the American psyche by mitigation of major crimes against humanity, by presenting one of the worst perpetrators as a saint for the space age would all blossom later. Not just with the Vietnam War. Not just with the will of destroying Iraq (the Bush-Clinton-Bush signature achievement).


No. In the end, what the American Deep State and its propaganda machine imprinted in the minds of the gullible was that it was OK to use some of the worst criminals ever, as long as it was opportunistic. So using hordes of Nazis provided some advantage, so let’s use them. In other words, opportunism rules, even if it means rewarding crimes against humanity.

And what was the advantage? As I said, overlooking the commission of major crimes. And even, to brandish top Nazis as great heroes, fit for unabashed worship. And this is exactly why the US presidential elections now pits a most corrupt plutocrat against a pretty stupid plutocrat.

More generally, the unabashed rule of the financial plutocracy, a form of mass criminality of the type which gives rise to massively unequal society and a new tyranny could be inaugurated under Bill Clinton (by repelling FDR’s “Banking Act of 1933”, so-called “Glass Steagall”).

To this day nobody has noticed, not any more than the colossal jump in incarceration of minorities, under Bill Clinton was noticed by the same minorities, which adore him, because he plays the saxophone with them.

Why all the blindness? People had been trained to not notice major ethical breaches. Let alone trained to expect not to see them punished. Thus, the same financial plutocracy, or at least the same mood of said financial plutocracy, which made the Nazis possible (contemplate Dr. Schacht, a creature of top world banker, JP Morgan), are now in the driver’s seat. Who said space and it rocket scientists did not impact the bottom line?

For tyrants to rule, terror and torture are not enough. One needs to control the mood of the slaves. And the way to do this can be subtle.

Michelle Obama recently said that:”If they go low, go high” (and everybody has lauded this recycling of the building principle of the European Union, which consists into “sortir par le haut”, finding a way out by going high… and which worked fine until the UK government sabotaged it). To exit by the top works, except if all values have been inverted. In particular if the notion of high is admiring some of the most cruel masters the world has ever known. Go back to that Time Magazine cover, typical of the times: the most glorious “rocket scientist” was one of the most towering criminal against humanity ever known. And that was on purpose, to make the Dark Side in its most evil aspect, most glorious.

A job obviously well done: please enjoy the present US election, where evil and infamy mock fight each other to death by hurling sex accusations, and the like. While plutocrats, the world over, enjoy caviar topped by gold leaf, silently chuckling, sailing the oceans of dark, undetectable money that their political servants made possible. It all started with flaunting major war criminals as those who incarnated the future. Here it is.

Patrice Ayme’

Nazi King Betrayed France

June 11, 2015

For the gullible, and thoroughly manipulated public, worldwide, British king Edward VIII abdicated because he wanted to marry an American. How silly is that story? Churchill was himself born of an American heiress née Jennie Jerome (who slept all around society high and low, from king Edward VII to all sorts of businessmen, who got much richer as result, some from the colonies). So Winston Churchill was, actually, half American.

The truth about Edward VIII? It is sordid. Edward was a Nazi King. Edward VIII had a romance with Hitler, while the woman he fancied to sleep someday with, got from the Nazi foreign minister, 17 carnations for every time he, the Nazi plutocrat, had slept with her. Ms. Simpson had free access to the king’s residence, while he courted her (and she slept with others, besides Nazi plutocrats). Simpson was widely suspected to be a Nazi spy by Western counterintelligence agencies.

Plutocrats Of The World Unite: The Secret They Want To Hide Absolutely

Plutocrats Of The World Unite: The Secret They Want To Hide Absolutely

[Simpson on the left, Nazi King center, “Guide”, to the right.]

The book was contaminated by some deliberately planted forgeries in national archives, on secondary points, in the hope of discrediting the entire research. It worked. See below.

Speaking of Churchill, he and his entourage, like much of top British society, longed to German style plutocracy (no wonder as Churchill was of plutocratic descent from both sides of the Atlantic). Churchill in 1929 threatened to bomb France, because France had detected secret, unlawful German rearmament programs hidden in Portugal and the USSR, and wanted to do something about it.

In 1935, at the apex of Nazi influence in the UK, Great Britain concluded a treaty violating the Versailles Treaty with Hitler’s dictatorship. France, and the anti-Nazis, were livid. As Admiral Chatfield, main negotiator of the Treaty stated in 1938 “that we might say that we now understood Herr Hitler had in 1935 thought that we had given him a free hand in Eastern and Central Europe in return for his acceptance of the [Treaty]…”

In fact, the secret understanding was of trilateral trade between Germany, Britain and the British Empire. Basically raw materials versus German high tech, in exchange for letting the Nazis carve an empire in the East.

By 1936, the king threatened to abdicate if britain protested the invasion of the Rhineland by Hitler’s army, and then Nazi Germany attacked the Spanish Republic. At that point, things had clearly gone too far, and the anti-Nazis overwhelmed the pro-Nazis in Britain. His delirious Nazism is why the king was thrown out.

The ex-king, as Duke of Windsor, was made Inspector General of the Armed Forces. The Duke, a honorary field marshal, and a major-general, was attached to the British Military Mission in France.[11] In February 1940, the German ambassador in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the Duke had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium.[77] (Consecutively, the Nazi attack plans were changed; to devastating effect.)

However, the Duke was not removed from the military, and spent more than a month inspecting the French fortifications (while communicating with Hitler in several manners).

Not surprisingly, this part of history cannot be found on the Internet. It has been carefully buried by the powers that be. I read the documents on paper, long ago. However the Nazi King was there, inspecting the French defenses, as British Pathe newsreel show.

For now seventy years, all British governments have been involved in a systematic destruction of all and any proofs of Edward VIII’s betrayal (and thus the betrayal of those who supported him strongly, such as Winston Churchill). When one tries to consult Edward VIII’s scrapbooks, there are none surviving, even in the USA, for the period when he was sending “Dear Mr. Hitler” letters to Adolf Hitler. The situation is actually astounding. The British government has admitted that very sophisticated false documents, and forgeries, pertaining to Edward VIII, some made on laser printers, were spread throughout national archives. Still no elucidation of the mystery was made (even documents relative to Himmler’s probable assassination are kept secret).

The advantage that the existence of these official forgeries provide, for those who want to hide the extensive cooperation between the highest Anglo-Saxon authorities and the Nazis, is that, whenever one evokes an inconvenient document or fact, now the authorities claim it may well be a false document (since said false documents were found throughout). This method is used to systematically discredit those who want to expose the relationship between plutocrats and the Nazis (it started with the Simon Warburg affair of 1934, when the French secret services tried to divulge the relationship between American plutocrats, some Jewish, and the Nazis; Anglo-Saxon plutocracy successfully extricated itself from it, by having some Dutch judge call the book inaccurate, and order its destruction, worldwide; only one copy survived in Switzerland).

Edward the Nazi King then communicated the result of his observations to Adolf Hitler, according to Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect, confidante, and minister of armaments. Speer stole a compromising paper signed by “EPW” (“Edward Prince of Wales”; the signature was authentified), from Hitler’s desk. Speer left the document with his son, to be revealed at a time after his death, when the document would not be outright destroyed. In it, the Duke of Windsor recommended to Hitler to attack exactly where the Maginot Line ended, as that was the weak point. Indeed most of the Nazi army was committed there.

So the Duke of Windsor was a serious traitor. He was not the only one. The Treaty with the Nazis of 1935 was signed on the anniversary day of Waterloo, when a British and Prussian coalition defeated the French. So is this why a British armored division arrived too late in May 1940 to make a difference? Or why it took a month after the hostilities started between the Nazis and the French in 1939, for the first British soldier to show up?

In May 1940, France and Britain were defeated, unexpectedly, and astoundingly, by the Nazis. A factor in the defeat had to do with the Nazis having practiced the art of war in Spain and then Poland, for four years. Thus the Nazis knew how to use modern weapon systems.

Another factor in the defeat was sheer luck: most of the German army was on three small roads in the Ardennes mountain, and, although detected by a British pilot, this seemed so unlikely, that he was not believed.

Yet, the main factor in the defeat was an incredible succession of extremely bad, quasi insane decisions at the highest level of command. the entire strategy of throwing the best armies into Belgium, at the risk of an attack at Sedan, exactly as in 1870, was, unbelievably, neglected. Both by the French and British government.

We know the King betrayed. But who else did?

The answer is simple; when too much power is in too few hands, civilization is betrayed. Watch our potentates going around, traveling in style, brainless as they are, secretly deciding the world’s fate, from their whims and greed. A “democratic” system where greed for power is needed to be elected to lead, breeds corruption absolutely: it selects greedsters for leaders.

Patrice Ayme’

8 May 1945 Versus 8 May 2015

May 8, 2015

That was the second day when the Nazis surrendered. The true capitulation, without conditions, had been made May 7, in Reims, France. (The Soviets insisted to conduct another ceremony in Berlin, the next day… and they celebrate it the 9th…)

As the French Republic had declared the Second World War, the surrender in Reims was appropriate. At the time when France declared war to Nazism, the USSR was allied to Hitler (and it as also, de facto allied to the USA, as the president and congress of the USA took sanctions against France and its belated ally, Great Britain… on the ground that those two parents, direct genitors of the USA were “belligerents“).

The rendition of Nazism was celebrated with extreme seriousness, and the same spirit, in France and Germany, on May 8, 2015.

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

France, Joined By USA Sec. Of State John Jerry, Celebrate V Day, May 8, 2015

[Republican Guards Horsemen.]

May 8, 1945, is also the same exact day the Franco-Algerian war started, with a wound that was pretty much fatal. Both facts are related. French civilization (and lack thereof) was central to both facts. While racial fascism was smashed in Germany, for all to see, it exploded on French soil (in an atrocious contradiction).

Let’s recapitulate.

1) The leaders of the French Republic knew, as early as 1919, that there would be another war with Germany. That was mostly caused by the hyper-nationalism, racism and fascism mindset which reigned in Germany. Also Germany had been immensely successful industrially, technologically, economically, leaving both Britain and France behind.

That very successes of German fascism (under Bismarck and then the Kaiser Wilhelm II) seemed to prove that fascism was a system superior to the degenerating democracies of Britain and France.

2) France, all along, prepared for the third round with German racist fascism. However, Great Britain and the USA had opted for the opposite approach. It is of course insufferable for contemporary citizens of the UK and the USA to read that their countries aided and abetted the Nazis (some come to scream about that periodically on this site).

However there is a deep lesson there, a warning for tomorrow: British and American plutocrats drove the collaboration of the UK and the USA with the racist and fascist mindset. So doing, they set-up the conditions for the violent death of more than 70 million people, among other inconveniences. Indeed, if the USA and the UK had made a block with the French Republic, in the 1920s, and especially in the 1930s, the fascists in Italy, Japan and Germany would not have had the possibility to dream that they had a chance in the land grabs they envisioned.

Actually the plutocrats which helped the fascists so much were nearly as culprit as the crazy, murderous tribal nuts they encouraged.

Lessons? Plutocracy can manipulate not just the minds, but history itself.

When democracy stand divided, tanks can roll all over it. Something to remember with Putin. Those who cannot stand firmly for democracy, encourage fascism.

3) War can turn badly, unexpectedly. The Nazis use insane, desperate, strategies which turned around the mightier French army and its slow poke little British bulldog. This military disaster of May 1940 is nearly impossible to reproduce in war games.

Lesson? Don’t underestimate the ability of fate, incredible stupidity, really very bad luck, to surprise even those who felt the best prepared.

This is valid now more than ever. A few nuclear bombs could bring losses comparable to all of World War Two, within hours. North Korea is arming itself to the hilt, and threatened to use its nuclear devices, even against the USA. This should not be taken lightly.

The Franco-Algerian Massacre in Setif:

As in places all over France, there was a massive demonstration of joy in Setif, Algeria. A young demonstrator carried an Algerian flag. He was killed by a gendarme. A first wave of retaliation led to the death of a few dozen colons (or more). The later, in further retaliation, supported by the French army, tanks, even planes, killed in turn tens of thousands of Algerians.

Philosophically, this was a tribal reaction not substantially different from Nazism and the like.

This event is not commemorated enough (neither the French state, nor the FNL, which became the Algerian state, but got started in a different mindset in 1954 are anxious to remember it).

It exhibits a lot of warnings about human nature. It needs to be analyzed more. How could the French forget 15 centuries of tribal tolerance? Because they just finally defeated the Nazis, they could act like them? Inhibitions were lifted for a day? Well, whereas France and Germany are now (re)united, and now share a common fraternity, much work remains to be done in the case of France and Algeria.

A work of truth. Thorough truth.

And that’s not just about Europe and Africa, and the USA. Establishing, and imposing the methods to elucidate, uncover, and make everybody admire truth, is the general first order strategy to deal with the world’s ills.

Patrice Ayme’

Of Jewish Europe & Mad Germany

April 6, 2015

Jews lived in Gaul before the invention of Christianity. So Judaism is the oldest European religion in existence. The problem of Judaism in Europe originated in the Middle East, so fleeing back there, as Netanyahu suggested, is counter-intuitive. That Jews should flee Europe would of course profit Israel. Americans tend to find everything worse in Europe than it really is. It makes them feel better. Moreover, the more intelligent immigrants to the USA, the stronger, richer the USA.

I was just telling a few truths to a site managed by Jewish Americans who installed themselves in contemporary Germany. Those truths are generally either unknown, or deliberately ignored. Revealing that, in various ways, including antiquity, Judaism is more European than Christianism itself, is sure to ruffle a few feathers! Yet, it is the truth. And it means, practically, that to be anti-Jewish is to be fundamentally anti-European. Many “European” ideas are actually Jewish, starting with, well, Christianism (mythically founded by a crucified rabbi).

So how come Nazism?

"Wir Sind Adolf." Mass Criminality, Germany.

“Wir Sind Adolf.” Mass Criminality, Germany.

Long story. As long as Christianism? Even longer. The Roman imperial state had problems with the Jews from Jerusalem, not fully of its own making. Shortly after Emperor Julian started to make up, he was killed (in present day Iraq). But let’s go back to 20C Germany.

I was listening to a show on the rise of the Nazi engineered holocaust. In passing contemporary professors were claiming that Germany was the most intellectually advanced, the most literary, the most civilized nations on Earth.

Heidegger was presented as the world’s most advanced philosopher of the Twentieth Century. He is nothing of the sort. At best, Heidegger was Nietzsche’s mentally retarded parrot. (Heidegger stole a lot from Friedrich… In the rare cases he has something valuable to say.)

Heidegger was proud to have kicked out all the Jewish students and professors from the university he led (Nazis are leaders… And all too many leaders suffer from the same sort of occupational hazard…)

In the SS and the like, top German intellectuals were recruited. Heydrich was an expert violonist; his father owned a music school. Goebbels was a German PhD (something long and hard to get at the time). In literature.

And here we see the problem: intellectuality, as defined in Germany, was an erroneous notion. The attack against the Jews, under the Third Reich, was mostly an enormous mass theft organized by the state. By stealing the Jews, riches and businesses were redistributed to Nazi supporters.

Roosevelt, trying to hide that he prevented Jews to come to the USA (except celebrities) decided to organize a conference. Nobody wanted to host it.

Finally, in Évian-les-Bains,, France, 32 countries, and many organizations came to a conference to accept the “refuges” from “Central Europe (namely, the Jews expelled by the Nazis, nobody wanted to name a car a cat).

Hitler agreed. The mustachioed inferior mental, and cultural retard pontificated that: “I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships.”

Canada, the USA and the UK decided to do nothing. Some added refined cruelty: Australia declared officially that “we can’t accept Jews, because we don’t want to encourage anti-Semitism”.

Canada did better declaring: ”One Jew is too much.” (“Un. C’est trop”)

Switzerland did was tops, declaring that “no Jew was already too many Jews”.

The Confederatio Helvetica asked the German State to mark the passports of Jewish Germans with the letter “J”, for Jew; non-Jewish Germans were welcome to Switzerland, not the Jews! Although of course, their money was welcome.

In the end, nearly all countries closed their borders to the Jews. It was the time of the Great Depression, and Jews left Germany without a Mark: the Nazis took all their property, not just houses, but bank accounts. (The Nazi state allowed 60,000 Jews to migrate to Israel.)

After the Evian conference, Adolf Hitler spewed his contempt: “It was disgusting to see democracies oozing pity about the poor Jewish People, and then do nothing when it came to helping them.”

This is why Hitler could not believe it when the hereditary enemy, the French Republic, sent him an ultimatum on September 1, 1939 (Britain joined France, but Britain was not ready for a world war, having no significant army; France was, and was to take the brunt of the clash with the Nazis.)

Well France did a lot for the Jews, accepting hundreds of thousands. But France fell to the Nazi army in June 1940 (in part because Britain could not engage enough planes and tanks, in a timely manner).

If there was one cause in this whole tragedy, what is it? Intellectual self-satisfaction. Glorification of German culture then. All of this tragedy happened because Germany, then, was viewed (and still is!) as towering mental, cultural giant. In truth, it was a country so idiotic that it let itself be led by the lowest of the low.

What was glorified then was one of the worst culture, and meta-culture, ever.

Were there ever lower mental forms than the top Nazis? Well, of course, in Germany at the time, most Germans were unable to think.

Mass book burning started in May 1933. This was a demand from German students TO Goebbels (as he visited some universities). Goebbels was stunned, charmed and persuaded. Goebbels was a fanatic anti-Semite: a beautiful Jewish girl whom he had courted, had rejected him (instead he found himself married to his wife, a crazed out assassin of children).

How come Germany had got so idiotic and base? Reading Nietzsche shows that the problem had exploded sixty years earlier, under Bismarck. Nietzsche dissected the German mind, vomiting it thoroughly when he realized what he had swallowed all too long.

Nietzsche observed that the clash between Jews and Anti-Semites had become so fierce, that the only solution was to force out the Anti-Semites, so that the superior race, the Jews could grace Germany in peace. But that seemed unlikely as his own sister married the top Anti-Semite.

Nietzsche observed, again that Germans had become “Herd Animals” (“Herdentieren”)

Herdentieren, Herd Animals, are not smart. And they charge, all going one way. So the problem of Germany in the 1930s was not that it was on top, mentally and culturally, but instead was hugging the bottom, as a vast herd of stupid animals. Yes, 1930s Germany was a stupid herd.

It is high time to understand this. Be it only because the lesson is timely.

Patrice Ayme’

Sometimes, The Ends Justify The Means

March 6, 2015

Putin’s Reich, like Hitler’s Reich, can be thoroughly surrealistic.

Russia captured an Ukrainian army pilot, a well-known woman who served against in the Middle East. That an Ukrainian combat helicopter pilot ended in a cage in Russia is even stranger: did Ukraine invade Russia? No. Did Russia invade Ukraine? How else does Putin capture famous Ukrainian pilot (and then accuse her of “murder”).

Meanwhile, all over the Middle East, The Islamists bulldoze the past, as it proves that their so-called Prophet was just an analphabet raider who came thousands of years after the invention of civilization and secular law, in exactly the same place. The advantage, is that they show Islamist ideology for what it is. Here is how Islam conquered the Middle East:

Nazis Hid Such Pictures, Islamists Gloat About Them

Nazis Hid Such Pictures, Islamists Gloat About Them

OK, 13 centuries ago, they used swords, not guns. The child is Christian Armenian in Syria. Armenia was the first Christian nation (early Fourth Century, more than 400 years before the invention of Islam by a raider called Muhammad).

Per Kurowski, having read my Savage, The Franks? Islam Is Worse in Learning From Dogs, made the following comment, which I found weird (but it gave me an opening for a strong retort):

“Here a (nasty) question asked by Daniel C. Dennett in the book “Thinking” (2013) edited by John Brockman.

“Suppose that we face some horrific, terrible enemy… and here’s two different armies that we could use to defend ourselves. The Gold Army and the Silver Army: same numbers, same training, same weaponry. They’re all armored and armed as well as can do. The difference is that the Gold Army has been convinced that God is on their side and this is cause of righteousness, and it’s as simple as that. The Silver Army is entirely composed of economists. They’re all making side insurance bets and calculating the odds of everything… Which army do you want on the front lines?”

And Dennett has introduced the question by citing William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) with: “Far better is it for an army to be too savage, to cruel, too barbarous, than to possess too much sentimentality and human reasonableness”. 

So now you ponder on that for a while.”

Thanks Per, for mentioning Daniel Dennet, a well-known American philosopher, with a towering reputation, and this ineffable property of colossal boredom that seems to emanate from all American philosophers.

Like a giant Black Hole at the heart of a galaxy, I need to swallow stuff, so I can make light. Dennet will do for now.

First, let me say that I approve Paul’s answer 100%. Here I go:



The big mistake in World War two was to realize too late that Nazism had to be physically destroyed, with maximum savagery.

The French Republic understood it: by January 1938, the French War Ministry launched a hyper secret NUCLEAR bomb program (Irene Curie, daughter of Marie, had not already a Nobel Prize, but she also had discovered the nuclear chain reaction, and taught it to Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, both German, who, fortunately, had not understood too well what the much smarter Irene had found).

The aim of the program was to atom bomb Berlin: Nazis were to get what they deserved (the project fled later to England, and then MANHATTAN, becoming the project by that name).

Morality? Against those who have none, but the Dark Side, only darker ways win. 

The British followed the French example (Churchill of course knew about the nuclear bomb project): against the Nazis, only a deeper darkness would do. So they prepared a strategic bomber fleet. The idea was to eradicate Nazi cities, if it had to come to that. The British were ready for the worst.

The British were ready for the worst, the Nazis were not: it would have meant, for the later, to look deep in their ugly souls.

So they did not look.

So they did not anticipate that they ugly souls would lead them to be at war, again, with France and Britain. Or, maybe in 1945 (some of them, including Hitler, planned, secretly). But not in 1939. Thus the Nazis did not prepare with a bomber fleet and enough anti-aircraft defenses. Britain did, because Britain anticipated the ugliness of what could follow: as the British soul was pure, it could look into the possible consequences of Nazi evil. So Britain prepared for the worst, all-out war (something the ex-director of Mi6 just suggested may happen with Putin).

To fight evil, one has to draw the line somewhere. Thus, in 1939, Britain followed France, which had a defense treaty with Poland, and told Hitler that invading Poland was out of the question.

Hitler, stuck, made his hyper secret alliance with Soviet dictator Stalin official.

France and Britain, and Poland were undeterred. Poland refused to concede any territory for its Prussian tormentors who had occupied her for centuries.

Hitler attacked. France and Britain declared war.


At that point, it was clear Hitler had lost. It was just a matter of time. The Nazis tried to get lucky, and they were, in May 1940, after several inconceivable blunders by the French and British commands, who had not anticipated how insane the Nazis were. And Lady Luck was Nazi in May 1940.


When the Nazis had to turn to air war against Britain, though, they were not ready. But the Brits were. Nazi attacks against English cities met the wrath of the RAF. Ultimately savage city bombing at night reduced Hitler’s Reich to smoldering ruins. One million men manned the anti-aircraft guns, but still, British bombers inflicted war hindering damage. (By comparison, the Nazis had never more than three million men trying to invade the USSR.)

Why could not the Nazis reciprocate in kind? They had no (long range) bomber fleet. Their puny force was mostly wiped out in 1940. they had never anticipated they would find themselves in total war with Britain… While they were still unprepared. They had not anticipated that the French and the British would see all the way through their nasty Nazi souls and decided to do away with them, mustering whatever it took.

Later the USAF joined, and the Nazis ran out of everything. Especially the capacity to make ammunitions, explosives, and fuel.

Was it rough? Sure. But there was no other way to win the war.

And if that war had been lost, the Nazis, in the end, would have simply killed most of humanity.


That the ends never justify the means is cheap metaphysics. It’s a perfect metaphysics for slaves to have, if you are a master, as the servants will thus never revolt.

In practice, metaphysics ought to never contradict physics. In the real world, absolute force is justified by absolute morality.

Pointing guns at a toddler, and, or, gloating about it, is an absolute wrong.

Chimps or simple monkeys, or even dogs would understand this (once they have been shown what guns can do). Not only is morality absolute, but, ethological research shows, it is shared among all advanced species.

This is why dolphins rescue people at sea. It is also why dolphins do not attack people, although people do hunt, kill, and eat people in some parts of the world (I discovered that myself as a child in Africa; I have more to say on this another day).

Why is the genus Homo so demonic?

Well, it is a question of superiority.

However, that sense of superiority, with its Dark Side can only be moderated with even greater force. God is not our friend, as it is just an illusion, and allusion, that primitives have. However, force, inflicted with enough demonicity, is all the god we need.

Obama has learned that way: he has, de facto, allied himself with Iran (whose Prime Minister Abadi justified said alliance by claiming it was like that of the West with the USSR against the Nazis; I wonder if he realizes this means that he is working for Stalin…)

One should go one cynicism further: the strength of the Islamist State has come from officers from Saddam Hussein’s army. Should one want to finish the conflict, one could make them an offer they cannot refuse. But then, of course, does not want to really finish that conflict?

Situations develop an intelligence of their own, and conflicts are debates, at another level.

When rats are pressed in a cage, they become vicious. We have been building a cage, and it has not become more comfortable.

Belgium had, a little while back, 381 species of wild bees (crucial to the survival of the biosphere). Three years ago, it was down to 11, and a recent survey found only 5.

What, or rather, who, is killing the bees?

More on this later, and the connection with the world’s richest, and, according to himself, best man, the one who should pay no taxes, Bill Gates. Gates of hell are for those who make it so that too much power comes into too few hands.

Patrice Ayme’


February 16, 2015


Misreading the history of what happened centuries, or even millennia ago, can have drastic consequences today. As the European Union is been constructed, it is important that the enormous lies of the past get exposed, for the lies they were.

(Just as it is important to expose the all-powerful Christianism of the Middle-Ages, and especially of the Late Roman Empire for the civilization devouring monster it was: then we can turn to it scion, all-powerful Islam, and condemn it, just as vigorously, instead of licking its toes, respectfully, as Obama did.)

Greece owes around 65 billion Euros to Germany, from the Greek “rescue” plan, a neat trick to have the Greek People pay for (mostly foreign) banks. Syriza, the new government in Greece (in coalition with a nationalist party) is asking for more than 160 billion Euros in reparations for the assault, invasion of Greece by Germany in 1941… Which may have brought the death of more than 800,000 Greeks.

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ "Work Makes Free"?

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ “Work Makes Free”?

[As we have seen before, and will see again below, the tradition in American circles, is to accuse the French to have invented Nazism… And that’s exactly what the Nazis said. It’s also a giant lie. A racist, holocaust force lie.]

The Nazis’ exactions in Greece were so extensive, that it is difficult to know how many died; a typical assassination by the Nazis was not an orderly extermination in an extermination camp involving processing by IBM computer (!), but shooting of an entire family in some thicket, as the Nazis wanted to leave no trace of their activities.

Paul Krugman is getting bolder Weimar on the Aegean:”Try to talk about the policies we need in a depressed world economy, and someone is sure to counter with the specter of Weimar Germany, supposedly an object lesson in the dangers of budget deficits and monetary expansion. But the history of Germany after World War I is almost always cited in a curiously selective way. We hear endlessly about the hyperinflation of 1923, when people carted around wheelbarrows full of cash, but we never hear about the much more relevant deflation of the early 1930s, as the government of Chancellor Brüning — having learned the wrong lessons — tried to defend Germany’s peg to gold with tight money and harsh austerity.

And what about what happened before the hyperinflation, when the victorious Allies tried to force Germany to pay huge reparations? That’s also a tale with a lot of modern relevance, because it has a direct bearing on the crisis now brewing over Greece.”

Krugman argues that the policy imposed on Greece now is what sank the so-called Weimar republic. Nice on the surface, false when one looks at the details. (Weimar was NOT a republic, to star with.)

But here I am going to set Krugman right about history:



In 1953, the victorious Allies decided Germany ought nothing for Nazism (this is what Syriza is nowcontesting).

The history of Germany in the period 1912-1953 is relevant to the present Greek tragedy.

On December 11, 1912, it was a Sunday, the Kaiser brought his six top military men in a conference. It was decided that the ascent of the ever more prosperous French Republic and her vast empire, combined with the democratization of Russia, left the German plutocracy behind, and that only attacking them militarily would solve the problems.

The two admirals objected that they would never be ready to fight a world war within 18 months. The Kaiser insisted that they had to work more on the press to get the German population ready for war.

On June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the right hand man of USA president Wilson, secretly proposed to the Kaiser an alliance, with Britain, against France, if the Kaiser would stop his naval force built-up.

Germany attacked in August, and nearly lost its entire army in a French counter-attack next to Paris, in September (in the First Battle of the Marne).

However, corporations of the USA, for years, fed the otherwise landlocked Kaiser kingdom with war supplies, for years, through the Netherlands.

France and Britain complained to Washington, but they were not going to declare war to the USA.

After Wilson re-election in 1917, the USA declared war to Germany, just as the Soviets made peace with Germany, conceding a gigantic territory Russia occupied in Eastern Europe.

In 1918, Germany lost the war it had started deliberately, surprising everybody.

A last, all-out attack by the German army on Paris, the second Battle of the Marne, was decimated by a deluge of French artillery fire, and was finished with a pincer counterattack by 50 Allied divisions (including 2 American and 45 French).

The retreating German army, under orders, scorched north-eastern France, flooding the mines, dynamiting all production centers, and even Middle-Ages castles, burning all telephone poles.



The Kaiser fled. However, the Prussian-German plutocracy he left behind still controlled most of the press, and the legend took hold in Germany that the German army had not been defeated.

Instead, Germans were indoctrinated: their army had not been defeated, it had been stabbed in the back. Germans were told that traitors inside Germany made the revolution that caused the defeat (the other way around from the real reality).

Those traitors were the Communists, and the Jews, they had to be killed. A civil war started, and units of the German army were employed to do just that.

As Germany was not occupied by the Allies, the Allies basically did not prevent those satanic ideas to take hold of Germany.

The Allies had not cut-off the head of the snake (as would be done after May 1945). Clemenceau predicted in 1919 that Germany, would attack 20 years later, again (as it did).

Except, next time, Germany was out to kill all the Communists and Jews.

The Paris peace conference of 1919 forced Germany to give independence to the countries it had long occupied, such as Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

It is shocking to see Paul Krugman repeat what would become one the mantra of the Nazis. Krugman: “First, Germany’s economy had already been devastated by the war.” It’s France, Belgium and Eastern Europe who had been devastated. Not one square meter of Germany had been occupied and thus “devastated”.

“Second, says Krugman, the true burden on that shrunken economy would — as John Maynard Keynes explained in his angry, powerful book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” — be far greater than the direct payments to the vengeful Allies.”

Yes Keynes may have said this, but this was not his most important message. Lord Keynes explains in his book that amputating the German empire from all the nations it occupied (“the economic consequence of the peace”) would indeed devastate the German empire.

And that it sure would, because the entire idea of many nations in 1919, including the French, was to dismantle the plutocratic empire Germany had set for itself in the middle of Europe. Lord Keynes showed his true intent, when he wrote in his racist book, that the Poles were an inferior race, and that they cannot manage an economy.

Such things are never said, so nobody knows them.

Thus our friend Krugman intones what became the German credo: “In the end, and inevitably, the actual sums collected from Germany fell far short of Allied demands. But the attempt to levy tribute on a ruined nation — incredibly, France actually invaded and occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland, in an effort to extract payment — crippled German democracy and poisoned relations with its neighbors.”

What is truly incredible is how ignorant of true history Krugman is.

My opinion, shared by Belgium and France in 1923, is quite the opposite. Even Paris itself had been bombed by the attacking Germans, and under long range artillery fire. That’s devastation. Germany was intact, differently from devastated Belgium and France.

The legend that Germany was devastated was most profitable to the Nazis and their plutocratic collaborators, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

“The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister).

The biggest Nazi lie of all was that the Versailles Treaty devastated Germany. And this is what many an American university parrot has said ever since (as it allowed to punish France, that was USA profitable!). For more on the Big Lie Technique, see: “Mediating Pluto“.



Germany was intact, but Germany did not want to pay. That would have been to recognize what happened in 1914, namely that Germany attacked France and Russia deliberately, knowing full well it would cause a world war (that its racist plutocracy hoped to win, with the a little help from the USA).

Why was history not learned in 1919? Some of the worst men who had caused World War One were in power in Germany, after the war.

An example is Dr. Schacht, a protégé of JP Morgan (yes, the American banker). Schacht was such a crook, his commanding Prussian general fired him for exploiting occupied Belgium. However, in 1923, he commanded the German Central Bank. To foil the French, Dr. Schacht decided to make German money worthless, by hyper inflating the money supply.

Paul Krugman wrote in his blog: “We know that part of the reason large postwar reparations were such an unreasonable and irresponsible demand was the dire, shrunken state of the German economy after World War I.”

Large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations” were a German Nazi legend.

Why did the Germans think of this legend? Because they had tried that trick, just prior.

Indeed, Chancellor Bismarck, after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, imposed on the French Republic exactly that sort of “large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations”.

Bismarck’s hope was that France would not be able to pay, and so war could be started again. In any case, his plan was to hinder the French economy indefinitely.(He got disappointed, as France paid, unexpectedly, in five years!)

So Germany was expert at the idea of mutilating reparations: after all, it invented the idea. (That’s why it should pay Greece now!)

The German economy shrunk by 25% in GDP, most of it during 1914, the year Germany attacked the world. Pushing a two million man army through Belgium will make your economy shrink.

What are those “large postwar reparations”? Intact Germany disingenuously argued that it could not pay, except in worthless paper.

The French Republic insisted that Germany had enormous forests, and could easily replace the tens of thousands of French telephone poles it had just destroyed. Was replacing the telephone poles the German army had deliberately destroyed in 1918 throughout a large part of France “large, unreasonable, and irresponsible?”

It was the refusal by Germany to replace these telephone poles that precipitated the crisis of 1923.

The French Republic, reasonably enough, decided that the German refusal to replace the telephone poles it just destroyed was indicative of a total lack of cooperation. So France, accompanied by Belgium, invaded the Ruhr.

What went really wrong is that it did not stay until reason had prevailed in Germany. Suppose that the French army had occupied Germany, until the Germans calm down, and wiser heads told the Germans what had really happened in World War One? How bad would have that been?

No Auschwitz?



In 1945, the French military fought inside Germany, and would stay there for the next 54 years, until the creation of the Franco-German brigade in 1999.

Properly digesting history is what enables civilization to survive and progress. History cannot turn into civilization unless it has been thoroughly examined.

Krugman is a Jew. He had said so himself, while recognizing he was very much cut off his roots. For Jews (!) to repeat like deranged parrots the very legends that gave rise to Nazism is beyond the pale, it’s falling into the abyss.


Because sometimes in the future, people in the West will ask: ‘Why was Israel created, if what the Nazis said was true?’ If it is true, as the Nazis claimed, that the French were the ones who launched Nazism with their exploitation of Germany, treacherously using the German Jews to stab the glorious German military from behind, did not the Jews deserve to be punish?

Well, the answer is the Nazis lied, and having Jews like Paul Krugman telling us that they did not, cannot change the reality of what happened.

Human minds cannot distort reality all they want. Nature, even human nature, is out there to correct outrageous errors. The hard way.

Patrice Ayme’

Questions About Genocide

November 16, 2014

Periodically, the question of genocide resurfaces. What is genocide? I believe that it is quite a bit like all obscenity. A famous American judge, speaking about the latter, quipped that he knew it, when he saw it.

A problem with genocide is that mass homicidal violence can be perfectly justified. By this I mean that there are cases, in history, where it looks as if it were justified.

The vast coalition which exterminated the Assyrian empire seems to be a case in point. The vigorous way with which Charlemagne annihilated Saxon power in Northern Germany (deporting part of the population in South-West France, among other feats), is another example. The Saxons had stood in the way of civilization for centuries, when not eradicating it outright, after landing in Britannia. Charlemagne’s view was that, after trying everything else, deportation was in order.

A Cherokee Born Long After The Trail Of Tears

A Cherokee Born Long After The Trail Of Tears

A recent example of massive violence to save us from unfathomable evil was the defense against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII.

A number of philosopher have struggled mightily, splitting hair to define genocide. Examples are found in Scientia Salon.

Trying to find a general definition of genocide is best done through examples: by kidnapping their children, did Australia commit genocide against the Natives in the 1960s genocide? According to the United Nations definition, it did. Or was that just a good gesture to give those children a chance?

Was what the USA do to American First Peoples genocide? If so, are there mental structures in the American psyche deriving from that?

Did the invasion of America by Europeans constitute genocide, and, if so, was the genocidal aspect necessary? Otherwise asked, was the genocidal English American invasion model superior to the French “Mission Civilisatrice” in Canada? And if so, in which sense?

Studying particular examples informs the general definition. In mathematics, physics, law, or ethics.

Exterminating the most spectacular aspects of the Aztec civilization was certainly culturocide, and, according to some, all too broad, definitions, would also constitute genocide.

In general stamping out a nasty religion, such as the Punic, Celtic, or Aztec, does not constitute genocide, just well-deserved ethical cleansing. Nobody is crying because we don’t conduct human sacrifices, Celtic, Punic, or Aztec style.

The Roman civilizing principle was that religions requiring human sacrifices ought to be obliterated. Everybody agrees (so why is Abraham, the would-be child killer, so popular?)

However, extermination of 15/16 of the Aztec population, including its leaders and thinkers, certainly constituted genocide (although how it happened was not clear: immunity was partly at fault). After a spectacular trial instigated by rancher cum adventurer and bishop Las Casas, the highest authority in Spain and the Roman Empire, Charles Quint, decided to stop the Conquista.

Revenge and exemplary killing do not constitute genocide: they may be viewed as measures to prevent future genocide, by telling future perpetrators that they could not get away with it.

An example is the 40,000 collaborators executed by France in 1944, and thereafter. Although they all got justice, as deserved, some of this justice was express justice, as deserved.

On the other hand, the behavior of Stalin in Ukraine in the 1930s, or Putin in Chechenia around 2000, seems to fit the definition of genocide. The latter case is an example where a bad man and his collaborators (say the French actor Depardieu) could be put under public disapprobation (Depardieu actually owns property in Chechenia: does that make him an accomplice of genocide, and a violator of the Fourth Geneva Convention?)

And the awkward questions keep on coming: when a nation commits genocide (say Turkey with Armenians) do other nations which conduct business with it become accomplices of said genocide?

The question of the Kurds also surfaces: by cutting Kurdistan into little pieces thrown to the four winds, did colonial powers become accomplice of conditions conducive of genocide against the Kurds?

The genocide of the Jews in World War Two was a mix of the deliberately vicious (Zonderkommandos, as early as June 1941), and deliberate happenstance (famine in 1945). The latter means that one should include in the will to genocide, the will to create such circumstances that cause in turn genocide.

The Nazis knew they were going to go extinct, in 1945. However, consumed by rage, but still full of desire to escape their well-deserved punishment, they remembered the “Trail Of Tears”.

The government of the USA had deported the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, among others, exterminating many in the process. One third of the Cherokees died.

Thus the Nazis decided to force march all concentration camps inmates they did not outright assassinated in a rush. Their hope was that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these embarrassing witnesses and hated subhumans, would died. They did.

Rwanda’s Kagame is a modern example of that: after having shot down the Rwandan and Burundi presidents, or stealing through proxies the wealth of Congo, he deliberately created conditions for the evil spirits of genocide to raise.

A crime should be defined: endeavor conducive to genocide.

We need to refine our analysis not just of facts but mental plays on the fragile condition of the human spirit. This is true not just for genocide, but for war in general.

Patrice Ayme’

No Burning Curiosity, No Morality?

September 18, 2014

What Else Those Who Don’t Want To Hear About Burning Kittens, Don’t Want To Hear About?

A video was linked on Facebook, supposedly showing a burning kitten. Some have clamored for Facebook to withdraw the video. That’s pusillanimous.

For evil to triumph, all what has to happen is for good people not to want to know about it.

What’s next, pusillanimous people? Are you going to censor the expert goring of a lion by a buffalo?

Horn Thru Belly Puts Lion In Orbit

Horn Thru Belly Puts Lion In Orbit

Shall we censor too, this gory violence against big kitty? He was just kindly eating the grounded fellow’s big rump.

(Contrarily to some PC description of that incident had it, there is no way the lion survived: the horn was only stopped by the tough hide after going nearly all the way through the kitty’s belly).

I am afraid all the people who ask for censorship are friends of Big Brother. What’s next, indeed? Each time a monk sets himself on fire, you will censor? What about respecting him enough to hear the case he is trying to make? Yes, showing the act is different from just entering that it happened, as a data point. More emotional content.

If one had shown people being gazed at Auschwitz, should people of upright character have asked Facebook to withdraw the video?

Well, I have news for you: that’s basically what Hitler’s Germans did: they censored everything. Hitler’s Germans did not want to see, they thought it would be immoral to see what was going on, they viewed as immoral those who wanted to show the immoralities.

If the Germans had seen the video of Auschwitz, there would have been no Auschwitz, and no Nazi regime, in a matter of weeks (this means the Allies were derelict in no advertising the extermination camps… But, of course, they had not seen the video, either. The democratic leaders knew the Nazis were evil, but did not guess that they were that evil… they did not want to know, either, as many of the leaders of the West had been accomplices of Nazism, prior).

I would personally love it that all crimes be made into videos, and put on Facebook. Start with the banksters.

For all the naïve, or ill informed, out there, burning a kitten is actually a crime, a prosecuted activity, by law. (Don’t try this at home, you would end in the slammer.)

I do not know where the kitten torture happened, but if the perpetrator could be identified, then he could be prosecuted (say as he crosses a border). Certainly in many EU countries, and in the USA, he could be prosecuted. (Cats and dogs are protected by special laws: however, torturing a mouse or a mole is perfectly legal.)

More than 3,000 people have died from ebola exponentiating: time for adult subjects, people. There is more serious stuff out there than perforated lions and burning kittens.u

Meanwhile Daesh (the so called, self-declared “Caliphate”, also known as ISIS; “Daesh” sounds in Arabic like “crushing under foot” and a period of trouble, so it’s a strongly pejorative propaganda trick which I recommend) has killed thousands of innocents.

Yet some selfish “pacifists” demonstrated in Washington when the top generals of the USA testified in Congress that they may advise the president to send ground troops in Iraq, if the situation changes (the French Republic has already troops on the ground in Kurdistan, fighting Daesh… while keeping a low profile).

Withdrawing that burning kitten video from the Internet will just allow the perpetrator to escape justice more easily. And it would set a very bad precedent.

Namely the precedent that, if it’s criminal, it should be hidden.

I am of the opposite persuasion: no information, no moralization.

BTW, I am also all for full beheading videos of journalists, and good Samaritans, to be shown (after appropriate and strong warnings). It puts the factual, thus correct, light on some religious philosophies.

I am not an ostrich. My ancestors actually ate ostriches. And I cannot understand why ostriches would ask for ever more sand in their eyes. But then again, higher understanding determines who eats what. Or whom.

Patrice Ayme’

D Day Racket

June 6, 2014

In brief: As long as official history does not teach the truth, namely that all too much of the Anglo-American elite (let alone Stalin) supported the Nazis, the truth about D-Day will not appear. A sacrifice is celebrated: millions dying in combat to defeat a crazed racial mass murderous dictatorship. Yet, the greatest lesson is not drawn.

How is that possible? Obviously the same “special interests” which profited from the wars of the Twentieth Century, had interest to write a special version of interest that suited their ongoing purpose. Just compare who were the powers in 1939, and who they are now, to get a hint.

American "Philanthropists" Love Hitler

American “Philanthropists” Love Hitler


D Day was a very bad thing. That day 156,000 young Allied soldiers, most of them just out of childhood, confronted 56,000 young Nazis. An entire division of German teenagers faced in the Americans in the Western sector. They were so young, that officers of the Wehrmacht had organized the distribution of daily cow milk for the growing bones of those children. Most of these 212,000 youth became murderers, or attempted very hard to commit murder, that day, and most were treated like expendable killing machines, with total disregard for their humanity.

An example? At least 80% of Allied paratroopers, and there were thousands of them, were expected to die on June 6, 1944.

Inside France, 250,000 fighters of the Forces Francaise de l’Interieur (FFI) (im)mobilized the equivalent of 20 Nazi divisions. Within hours, Normandy was effectively cut-off from the rest of France (in one small sector alone, railroads were cut in 500 places; all land lines were cut).

Capable to move their forces at night ONLY, only with the greatest difficulty, the Nazis struck back with mass atrocities against civilians. In only one village, nearly 700 French women and children were burned alive.


Why did this holocaust happen? The obvious reason is that, by a stroke of big, bad luck, the Nazi dictatorship defeated the French Republic in May-June 1940.

The five million men French Army, a colossal force with three times as many tanks than the (German) tanks the Nazis had, and the entire British army, got cut from behind, and saw it too late.

In that Battle of France of 1940, nearly 200,000 soldiers died. Officially only 50,000 Nazi elite soldiers died, but the real number was probably twice that: the Nazi regime was not going to admit the war was a disaster. To pierce through, the Nazis had used suicidal charges by explosive laden engineers.

Exasperated by fierce, and lethal, French resistance, the Nazis committed systematic mass murders of French civilians. They deliberately assassinated thousands of French children. All the more as the French army at Dunkirk succeeded to block the Nazis long enough for the entire British army to flee back to England.

That was not exactly a detail: if the Nazis had made the entire British army prisoner at Dunkirk, they could have easily landed across (where they could have defended against the Royal Navy with long range guns, and the Royal Air Force by fighting only above the Channel). So Dunkirk prevented the Nazis to defeat Great Britain.


Abandoned by all, submitted to mass atrocities, a few men decided to limit the massacre with a cease-fire. The Nazis agreed to it, as they were bloodied pretty bad, and, drugged out and exhausted, could not fight anymore. (Actually the conditions for an Air Force led French counter-attack existed, but France did not look forward another butchery as in 1914-1918, when most combat age Frenchmen were either killed or wounded… All the more as it was not clear, whether, just as Stalin’s regime was, the regime in Washington was not allied to Hitler. )

The Nazis would occupy the second half of France after the French army had restarted combat on the largest scale, in North Africa (joining Operation Torch, 6 months later).

The Nazi rage was understandable: in May-June 1942, the 3,000 men army of French general Koenig, in a modern, and, this time, successful, version of Thermopylae, blocked Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the Italian army, for weeks. Whereas Leonidas held just three days, Koenig held three weeks, allowing the entire British army to escape (once again). Six times more French died at Bir Hakiem than Spartans at Thermopylae. Don’t hold your breath for Hollywood making a movie about it. Even at that late time in a three year old world war, no American had fired at a Nazi (although the converse had, interestingly, happened).

Rommel, having failed in his major encirclement battle in Libya, thanks to the damned French, was unable to eradicate Israel and seize Iraqi oil. Desperate, Hitler ordered an all-out attack, with insufficient forces, on Stalingrad (to cut-off the Caucasus, where the oil was:  as he could not get Iraq, Hitler needed the other source of oil, the Caucasus).


Questions: Why could not these American landings have happened earlier, say in 1940? More precisely, why did the Americans from Canada land divisions in France in June 1940, but the Americans  from the USA did not? Why did the USA not declare war to Hitler, after it became obvious that Hitler had killed millions already? (Between the eugenics program inside Germany, the holocaust in Poland, including deliberate destruction of mills, to starve Poles, and the attacks in the West, including terror bombings on cities?)


The usual explanation why the USA did not help its parents, France and Britain, in 1939 and 1940, against Nazism, is that the USA was “isolationist”. A careful examination shows, that the “isolationists” were all, but in name, Nazis.

And consider BNP Paribas. The French bank turned around an embargo. (A made in USA embargo: Europe does not embargo Cuba.)

It’s not the first bank to do so. HSBC was condemned that way: the fine was 1,9 billion dollars. So was Standard Chartered, for also going around the embargoes: 667 million dollars, and ING: 619 million. When asked, under the cover of anonymity, a high American authority said that BNP made a “bras d’honneur” to American justice.

Yes, indeed, what sort of justice is the justice of the USA? It’s a “justice” that officially condoned racism up to extremely recently: only in the last twenty years or so, the last states of the USA authorized “interracial” marriages  (whatever a race is: something for American justice to condemn you with, apparently).


Plutocrats are diabolical: hence their name. Hitler and the top Nazis were also diabolical, and also crazy hence easy to manipulate. Why would Hitler launch himself in a war he was sure to lose? Because he was crazy? That’s the usual explanation.

Yet, top German generals, after living through the First World War and the  massive French counter-attack, 5 weeks after having surprisingly invaded France, were not keen to renew the same disaster. On paper, the French army was invincible. Allied to the British, they would control the seas. So why did the German generals not try to stop Hitler? Well they did. The only reason they did not go all out was that, they believed Hitler was supported by those who truly controlled the USA. And so did Hitler.

Roosevelt himself made no mystery that he repressed Jews at Harvard, and used that as an argument to demonstrate that he did not want war with Hitler!


People had taken decisions on reduced data sets. If only one of these data sets had been changed, D-Day would never have happened.  Clearly, had the Germans know about Nazism and the Nazis, what their descendants know now, they would have allied themselves to the French Republic (which is what they did in 1948).

But how could they know? When German Jews tried to flee Europe, the USA denied them. The USA even prevented a liner crammed with fleeing Jews to land in… Cuba (here is the BNP again, get it? Cuba is the USA’s thing.) Baffled Germans saw the ship full of Jews returned to Hamburg. (All those Jews were later exterminated.)

Did not that prove to the Germans that even the USA’s Justice thought Nazi Justice was best to deal with Jews?


By 1934, the relationship between the French Republic and Washington had turned really sour. Washington was using plenty of methods that Hitler was duplicating (massive re-armement, with Roosevelt’s 24 fleet carrier program, devaluation, trade war, inflation), and was profiting from (American plutocrats were flocking to Germany, to help the Nazis, a continuation of a USA policy started in 1919… before Henry Ford himself had created Hitler).

That bitterness kept on going. Throughout the war, including on D-Day, countless American corporations were working for the Nazis. IBM had the monopoly of computing in Hitler’s Reich, and was managed from New York, by the mass murdering criminal whose picture adorns this essay.

After the Nazis had been defeated, US services, including the OSS, were busy exfiltrating IBM directors from Europe, so that they could escape the French Justice system.

Now we consider Putin, after his access of Hitleritis,  and the political-financial system of the USA, still in the grip of the same plutocracy as a century ago, but steadily getting worse.

The first thing to understand is that there much more for the public to know, before the public can feel right about the grandest issues impacting not just civilization, but the planet itself.

This was send, with great difficulty, from a mountain redoubt. I will be off the Internet for a few days, running about the Sierra Nevada, talking to devious bears, impacting, if need be, the local mountain lions, networking through the ranges. Nothing like a sense of reality to refurbish the mind. After that, I will be able to strike back against the Multiverse with renewed ferocity.

Patrice Aymé

Plutocracy & Nazism Are Entangled

January 28, 2014

We are, of course, nothing. Krugman wrote the editorial “Paranoia of the Plutocrats”. A  dishonest critter at the New York Times dutifully censored my own comment, lest its readership realizes that Krugman’s latest observations form a light version of those I have long held. Besides, I pointed out that both the search for power, and the craving for wealth, select for evil behavior, and the more evil, the more obscurity is called to cover it. 

That makes the hyper-wealth-fed Dark Side into something growing proportional to itself, in other words, into an exponential phenomenon.

This is why Obama’s and Bush’s own obscurantism in deed and will went hand in hand with the rise of plutocracy, the rule of the Dark Lord, Pluto, down below, mythically, heuristically, practically, and theoretically.

Collapsing into darkness characterizes, and enables, plutocracy, and this is exactly why plutocrats defend stridently whatever obscures, obfuscates or confuses (see BHL’s “philosophy” of obscurantism in the final note below).

If We Own All, We Rule You

If We Own All, We Rule You

Indeed Bernard-Henri Lévy (= « BHL »), the hyper wealthy French celebrity-philosopher published in the Daily Beast “The French Were Right to Ban Dieudonné’s Offensive ‘Performance Art’”. BHL used the traditional argument tyrants always used to justify “banishment”. I commented. As usual, BHL censored me. (He just read my comments, use some ideas therein in his books, and carefully never publish anything I say: after all, he is a professional thief, of the highest order, those who steal the planet, see below.) Surely the fact that Dieudonné is half Black African is playing no role? (BHL was born in Algeria… A very white place.)

Dieudonné Enrages French Plutocrats By Shoving The “Quenelle Up Their Ass”

Dieudonné Enrages French Plutocrats By Shoving The “Quenelle Up Their Ass”

Israel’s Parliament is contemplating a law making the usage of the word  « Nazi » unlawful. That’s rather strange : the old name of god in Hebrew was the abbreviation for « the one whose name shall not be uttered ». If Israelis are required by law to not pronounce the word « Nazi », that means « Nazism » is divine. Will masochism now become the law?

Seriously: among the primitives, not pronouncing the name of the divinity in anything but awe was always viewed as a major sin, sometimes deserving of the death penalty. Is Israel getting THAT primitive? A case of gathering plutocracy? The more one steals Palestinian land, the worse one gets inside one’s own mind?

Or is it simply that the land grabbers inside Israel do not want to be reminded that they behave like the Nazis used to? (Compare with the Nazi’s theory of “Lebensraum”, the Life-Space, and replace “Deutschland” by “Israel”.)

Then Thomas Perkins, an eight billion dollar plutocrat, famous for his 150 million dollars yacht, the “Maltese Falcon”, wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal (January 2014):

“Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich”.

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent.

There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these ‘techno geeks’ can pay,” Perkins concludes by warning of a “very dangerous drift in our American thinking… Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?”

OK, so “progressives” are Nazis? Interestingly, that is just what the Nazis tried to make the folks believe. Another lie, which the Nazis also tried to impart upon the folks, with some initial success, was that the Jews were Germany’s “one percent”. It is troubling to see a major actor of Silicon Valley embrace both major Nazi lies, as if they were obvious.

Germany had a complete plutocratic class, little of it was Jewish. Perkins’ world is upside down. (Long ago someone writing a comment on my site had the same exact objection as Perkins, and called me a “Nazi”; he wrote  that to be against plutocrats was similar to be against Jews. I left the comment: I never censor. BHL, see below, says something exploiting the same mood as Perkins.)

In November 1938, on Martin Luther’s birthday, the Nazi leadership ordered an attack on all businesses in Germany held by Jews. 91 Jews, officially, were killed, more than 30,000 sent to concentration camps.

There was glass all over the streets, and it came to be known as “Kristallnacht”. As I explained, it had everything to do with Luther (a notion the politically correct New York Times ferociously censors: it views comparing Hitler and Luther a form of racism).

Kristallnacht also had everything to do with the plutocrats who supported Hitler, and had supported him, from the start. Not one plutocrat was hurt by Kristallnacht. The people who were hurt owned, overall, property, true, and the Nazis, facing the failure of their economic policy, stole said property, to redistribute it to their followers.

OK, now for plutocrat BHL, high priest of the inversion of all values.

Dieudonné, a ‘performance artist’ was banned by the French Conseil d’Etat, a sort of high court. The pretext is that as BHL puts it: “He was an incendiary, anti-Semitic ideologue whose silencing poses no threat to real freedom of speech.” Notice the past tense: does that mean that some henchman paid by BHL has already “silenced” Dieudonné?

Dieudonné is half from Cameroon, and French president Hollande called him “M’Bala M’Bala”. BHL claims that: “The man banned by the French high court was not a political comedian, satirist, or any kind of humorist but rather—and this cannot be overemphasized—an ideologue whose credo, endlessly repeated over the course of long performances, is that the Jews control the world, that they have a monopoly on the media and political establishment, and that the duty of the enemies of that establishment is to shove the quenelle (as Dieudonné’s distinctive variant of the Nazi salute is known) “up the ass of Zionism.”

Now, wait a minute here. BHL and all his friends, including those dear friends at the French presidency, from Mitterrand  to Chirac, to Hollande, were, or are, always “up the ass” of any woman in sight, and boast about it all the time, by word, or deed.

Why is it bad when Dieudonné talks about doing too? Because he is black?

The “quenelle”: an arm pointed to the ground, the other hand helping it down is an extremely mild version at worst, of the aborted Nazi salute in Kubrick’s Doctor Strangelove, a classic of the movies. The guy parodied in Doctor Strangelove is no less than Dr. Kissinger, a German Jew who became a sort of Evil Doctor in the USA establishment, complete with Nobel Prize for Peace.

Confusedly, the Fascists-Nazis-Stalinists made a lot of propaganda against the “plutocrats” (a word used by Hitler and other top Nazis). The confusion was deliberate. The fascists, to cover their tracks, came to equate “plutocrats” (who supported them) and “Jews”.

That was rather ironical, because, although some of their partisans were stridently anti-Jewish (say Henry Ford), other were actually… Jews (say the Warburgs in the case of Hitler; countless “Jews” helped to instigate the Soviet Revolution; for example Trotsky, head of the red Army, was from a Jewish-Atheist family… later those Jews found themselves victims of a vengeful anti-Soviet population). The same phenomenon was inaugurated by the Kaiser Wilhem II. Although he had many Jewish friends before the war that he started, he turned virulently anti-Jewish afterwards.

If one changes “Jews” into “plutocrats” in BHL’s statement above, one gets:  “the plutocrats control the world, that they have a monopoly on the media and political establishment, and that the duty of the enemies of that establishment is to shove the quenelle…”

Is not it exactly what is going on?

BHL is for “silencing” critics.  Yet, the problem is that “silencing” this is against the law, and the spirit of civilization. In other words, like all good plutocrats, like Perkins, BHL is just a savage. He can sue me about this if he wants: suing the truth is hard.

In a state of law, one ought to roll out the specific expressions at fault. If Dieudonné broke the law, give exact quotes that are demonstrably false and condemnable, and let justice do its job. Otherwise what one engages in is just trial by innuendos, and dictatorial fiat, both of them forms of hate crime.

So why is BHL so willing to silence critics? Because he is himself a plutocrat in the classical mold, namely his fortune is inherited, and he slept with the state. As a dashing young man, he went to see his close friend, France’s president Mitterrand, an ex-Vichysiste, who collected women as others do butterflies.

The Vichy state of Mr. Mitterrand (Mite-Rat?) loaned BHL millions when the family business was going down, in the early 1980s. Later Pinault, a major French plutocrat, one of the world’s richest men, who tried to flee to Belgium last year, bought some of BHL’s business for dozens of millions of dollars.  BHL was also friend with plutocrat Jean-Luc Lagardère, who besides his main business making weapons, owned Hachette Livre, the largest publisher in France, and Hachette Filipacchi Médias, the largest magazine publisher in the world.

BHL is plutocracy central, French version (that is arrogant and lesson giving, while pocket filling) .

BHL’s main business, as a dashing young man? Kill the equatorial rain forest. He can sue me about this if he wants: suing the truth is hard.

I do appreciate BHL as a philosopher: he can be very right, deep down inside, although, fundamentally, his main theory is as wrong as wrong can be. And that makes BHL as interesting as a venomous cobra. For the venom, that is. The neurotoxicity.

Basically BHL, naturally enough for a plutocrat, hates the Light… And he writes about that, in some of his most famous quotes. At least, it’s coherent. (See note.)

BHL followed me on Libya, and I persist and sign. So why is BHL panicking about Dieudonné? Why is Perkins panicking? Why is Israel panicking?

They are all faking it, and using indignation as a manipulation, just as firemen will start a counter-fire.

Because they all suspect that We The People, worldwide, may realize that they have been manipulated. Not so much by “Jews” (although they would like us to say that, so that they can accuse us to be racist!). But by the plutocratic phenomenon.

What’s that? An international of plutocracy, the Republic Of Offshore. A similar phenomenon was at the root of World War One, as I have explained. And certainly at the root of World War Two (JP Morgan and his creatures covered both). And at the root of the so called “American Century”.

The danger now is exactly the same as a century ago: left to its own instruments, the people of Germany would have reigned in its own plutocracy, in 1914. Instead, to shut down the Socialist Party Deutschland (SPD), the German plutocracy launched a world war.

In a way, it worked: a plutocrat such as Krupp survived World War One, and became one of Hitler’s main support (he conveniently died before being tried as a war criminal after 1945). Thyssen (“I paid Hitler”) survived with his family fortune intact, and his industrial group, until a recent merger, was the most powerful in Germany. It worked especially well for the plutocrats made in USA who supported Hitler: many of these corporations are still household names.

So the danger now is that frantic plutocrats will impose a police state. Obama is well on his way, complete with death by robots of civilians, and NSA unleashed. Meanwhile , plutocrats try to impose state of hysteria. Just to change the conversation from the Republic Of Offshore, you know where the money to feed Obama and other propagandists come from.

Patrice Aymé.


Plutocrat BHL’s total inversion of all values, so grotesque, I cannot find the strength to translate that garbage: “Fascism does not come from Obscuratism, but from light… Rationality is totalitarianism”, etc.: « Chacun sait aujourd’hui que le rationalisme a été un des moyens, un des trous d’aiguille par quoi s’est faufilée la tentative totalitaire. Le fascisme n’est pas issu de l’obscurantisme, mais de la lumière. Les hommes de l’ombre, ce sont les résistants… C’est la Gestapo qui brandit la torche. La raison, c’est le totalitarisme. Le totalitarisme, lui, s’est toujours drapé des prestiges de la torche du policier. Voilà la « barbarie à visage humain » qui menace le monde aujourd’hui. »

Translation: If you want to bring to Light the untold destruction of the primary equatorial forest in Africa brought by Bernard-Henri Lévy and his henchmen, so that they could make billions, you are a totalitarian. Besides, BHL won’t have dinner with you in the Manhattan’s most expensive restaurant.the law.