Posts Tagged ‘war’

Understand, Predict, Innovate Judiciously or Die: Why The Maya Collapsed

May 12, 2021

Civilizations are dynamically technological, or they are not, and they fall, like a cyclist trying to stand on just two wheels without moving. It is actually worse than that: the man-made ecology, the bicycle any civilization is riding, is always changing, as the civilization depletes whatever it is exploiting.

And the more successful it is, the more the ecology a civilization depends upon gets depleted. It is not just a question of having limits to growth in general, but of a progressive collapse of the particular type of growth which brought success… to a given civilization, so far. When old growth is sick and exhausted, one has to get a divorce, and adopt a new growth model which is smarter. Staying faithful to an ecology one has killed, brings only more killing. We will focus here on the Mayan collapse which overall, lasted three centuries, and was characterized by a megadrought. Changes of Mayan behavior occurred during the collapse, but they proved insufficient to stop it. One can compare with other (partial) collapses, the most famous being that of the Roman empire in the Fifth Century.

The change from the Latin-Roman Catholic civilization to the Latin-Frankish civilization which succeeded it was primarily a change of growth model: the basic law, the spirit of Roman Republican law, was unchanged. The Franks adopted a superior growth model (in this order: religious tolerance, more secular education, no more slavery).

Eurasia and the “West” provide many examples of this, changing growth models in a smart way. This is why and how “the West” and East Asia came to dominate the world. A case in point is the contemporary rise of China, which, in light of full Chinese history and the secular technological-legal mood which often drove it, is more of the same “socialism with Chinese characteristics”… which is at the core of the Western success too.


The Maya provide a warning of what happens when one succumbs to hubris while lacking long duration smarts:

The Maya did not understand, predict, and innovate in a timely manner, and hubristically adopted an erroneous growth model, making a bad situation worse. By the Eighth Century, around 750 CE, Mayan society had thrived for more than 2,000 years. The population was at an all-time high: high-tech mapping suggests that at least 10 million people may have lived within the Maya Lowlands alone. 40 major new stone buildings were built every year (it used to be 10, it would fall back to zero after 900 CE). Mayans were experts in astronomy, mathematics, architecture, with a complex language of written symbols. The city-state of Tikal comprised more than 61,000 stone buildings.

Then a megadrought struck. It was the worst drought in 7,000 years, it lasted more than two centuries, and became terrible after 1000 CE (when most of the Mayan civilization had already disappeared). That megadrought was partly a consequence of human, Mayan, activity (greenhouse warming plus deforestation so drastic fundamental some raw materials were gone). Devastating wars of cities against cities, rebellions, killing of the incompetent elites, and the burning of cities followed.

Population collapsed. Less than 200 years later, the core of the Maya civilization (the southern lowlands) was no more (most of the rest would progressively go down in the next two centuries, as the drought kept on going). A civilization that had stretched across southern Mexico and Central America was nearly completely gone (the Conquistadores would meet its haggard remnants). 

The Mayan collapse was not caused by invasion (Toltec influence or not)… whereas Athens, Rome, Constantinople, the Xi Xia, and of course the Mexicans, fell partly, mostly, or completely, from invasion, the Mayan collapse is a study in self-generated devastation. (It is not that the Mayans were particularly stupid; just the opposite: they succeeded to create a massive civilization in an unlikely place, thanks to advanced technology, massively deployed; but that civilization was vulnerable: there had been a first collapse after a megadrought around 200 CE; see graph below.)

There are a number of theories to explain what happened to the Maya. However, from my point  of view it is possible to gather all these theories in just a single logic. The Mayan collapse was greatly an implosion of a highly technological society from ecological collapse with population, war and hubris loss of control as triggers: the social and religious implosions are consequences of the technological implosion

Graph from Professor Kennett, expert of the subject. Several things from it. Around 200 CE there was a first drought, and a first collapse. It is imaginable that the causes were the same, and that the absence of books and a strong intellectual class led to a repeat. When the late classic collapse started the drought was not that bad and just reflected poorly from the wet 2 centuries prior. However, the wars and the ecological devastation this relative difficulty caused made the situation way worse. Then the terrible drought after 1000 CE prevented any recovery.

There is evidence that the fall of Rome shares some of the elements of the Maya collapse:

Let me repeat this slowly: the Mayan ecological collapse started before the full impact of the mega drought. It was obviously caused by a population explosion in combination with mismanagement (namely Mayan wars; in the Seventh Century, Tikal lost its prominence thanks in part to an uppity warrior queen from a lesser city; Tikal would regain the upper hand, but with a mood that had changed towards more hubris than the climate could take).

Europe would experience something similar around 1300 CE. In the last two decades before 1300 CE, there were a few severe winters (foreshocks of the Little Ice Age). At the time, ushered by a technological and rational revolution, the European population was exploding, severely stressing the ecology. Successful intense agriculture and construction devoured the forests (a bit like Brazil nowadays)…

However, instead of sitting on their hands or going to war against each other, the European governments took ferocious countermeasures around 1300 CE, outright banning people from some mountainous regions to limit erosion and deforestation (Japan did something similar at the same time). When the Little Ice Age struck, followed by the Plague of 1348 CE, half of the population was killed, but society itself, give or take a few roasted noble families, and a few thousands peasants butchered, in the Jacqueries… society itself survived intact. Actually the economy rebounded and the Franco-French and Anglo-French gaily persisted into fighting each other for the control of France and Britain.  

Rome is another case of ecological implosion: clearly the metal mining of Rome collapsed a full century before the empire started to collapse socially, financially, militarily, and into barracks’ emperors anarchy. We know that Roman metal mining went down before anything else went clearly very wrong, by studying traces of metal in Greenland ice cores.

Why would the collapse of metal mining bring Rome down? Rome high tech society was extremely dependent upon metals. No more metal, no more economy, currency, military… or even roofs (!) When one reads Viking sagas, one is struck by the importance of mining, swords and forging. Superlative swords had names and were passed over the generations, and between clans. Rome had, by far, the largest army in the world all equipped with swords, helmets, armor, and other metallic objects. A Roman emperor would come to Rome in the Seventh Century to strip the metallic roofs, to make weapons to resist the Muslim invasion.


Often triumphant technology creates the conditions for its own failure. As shown by the Maya:

The Mayan irrigation system was gigantic. It used special materials. The Maya’s home was a tough environment plagued by droughts: what is called a seasonal desert. The land that they farmed was often porous limestone, rocky terrain with the water table often 100 meters below the surface, but also massive wetlands. How did they manage to feed their huge population in this chaotic environment?

It is estimated that the Mayan population may have been above 18 millions… Well, to start with, Mayans used the swamps, next to which their cities were located. About 40% of the Yucatán Peninsula is swamp today. The Maya mucked out the ditches, and tossed the soil onto the adjacent land, creating elevated fields which would kept the root systems of their crops above the waterlogged soil, while allowing access to the irrigation water. They also drained some land outright. That irrigated land is hundreds of kilometers across. Sixty or so cities each with a population of 60,000 to 70,000, sprouted during two centuries of abnormally wet weather, setting the Maya for a fall. 

On satellite pictures forests around Mayan sites look discoloured. On the ground remnants of orchards and edible plants are still in abundance.

Mayan lands are now a sea of green forest. However, their appearance in the Seventh Century was that of a man-made landscape. By 700 CE the Maya had completely run out of their main construction trees. It has been suggested that massive deforestation helped cause a megadrought. When the elites proved they had no solution but war of all against all, devastation followed.

The Mayan megadrought was caused mostly, or at least severely aggravated, by human ecological devastation. 

Not all megadroughts are that way. Across the Mediterranean and west Asia, the effects of the 4,200-3,900 years Before Present megadrought included synchronous collapse of the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, the Old Kingdom in Egypt and Early Bronze Age settlements in Anatolia, the Aegean and the Levant. That megadought left marks all over the planet, including in Alaska and the Yukon. There was an estimated 30-50% reduction in precipitation delivered by the Mediterranean westerlies in the eastern hemisphere, where they provide for dry-farming and irrigation agriculture across the Aegean, Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and Iran. There was a synchronous disruptions for the Indian Summer Monsoon. That was clearly a larger scale disaster where the human influence is not obvious… keeping in mind that a greenhouse caused by the rise of human agriculture, and herding which may have prevented what would have been otherwise significant cooling, 8,000 Before Present.

The Mayan megadrought was roughly coincidental with the “Middle Age Optimum”, when a warmer clime enriched Europe as glaciers retreated spectacularly (and the Viking got to Greenland and America). the phenomena are probably related (science to come). But the point is that Mayan agriculture made a bad situation way worse.


Agriculture Can Cause Ecological Devastation:

… This is something that the promoters of agriculture as a panacea keep on forgetting. Plants interact with the atmosphere and the climate. Large dark plants—such as dense tropical forest—absorb a lot of energy from the Sun. At the same time, they prevent much evaporation, thanks to their shade: a tropical forest is darker than a cathedral. Tropical forests restitute the sun energy, and the moisture, in the evening, making warm moist air rise high; it falls back as rain. 

Lighter colored plants (crops and dry yellow grasses like wheat) reflect some, and sometimes most energy. They act like snow, rising the albedo of the land, sending back sunlight energy to space. 

When a forest is replaced by thinner, less massive and less shady, lighter colored plants, the land reflects more sunlight, which cools the atmosphere (because the ground does not warm up, filling up with sun energy to give it back later). Cool air sinks, while water vapor needs to rise and condense to create a rainstorm. Without warm, unstable air rising into the atmosphere, rainstorms became less common. 

The lack of rain helps raise temperatures on land. When energy from the Sun reaches the ground directly, it either bakes the ground or it causes water to evaporate from the soil or transpire from plants. With forests producing less moisture and croplands holding less water, droughts deepened as more and more of the Sun’s energy heated the ground. Thus deforestation makes  droughts worse, and may even create a desert. An excellent example is an Hawaiian island which was deprived of its forest, and is now a baked red piece of land with low bushes, Kaho’olawe. 

In ancient times, the Maya had practiced good forestry management. They were not allowed to cut down the sacred groves. That changed during the Late Classic period with the adventures of Jasaw Chan K’awiil. The Tikal Maya had been defeated and had fallen to second-rate status prior to his ascendancy. Jasaw Chan K’awiil led an army to the competing city, Calakmul, captured its ruler, bound him, brought him back and sacrificed him. There was plenty of instability at the times, including the rise of ferocious warrior queens; one queen built the longest plastered white road going north among orchards and cornfields… to enable her army to go defeat a rising northern city, Chichen Itza.

In any case, Tikal had a one century hiatus characterized with neighboring competing cities having plenty of warrior-queens (at least ten). So agriculture can cause devastation and women can mean trouble… Queen Bathilde of the Franks outlawed slavery, successfully, not because she was weak, but because she was stronger than the (male) Chinese emperors who tried the same. Some of the pseudo-“woke” may be be rendered too awake from this essay….

Nice Quetzal hat… Maya Holy Snake Lord known as Lady K’abel who ruled El Perú-Waka’, a city-state one hundred kilometers west of Tikal…. for more than 20 years with her husband, King K’inich Bahlam II. She was the military governor of the Wak kingdom for her family, the imperial house of the Snake King, and she carried the title “Kaloomte,” translated as “Supreme Warrior,” higher in authority than her husband, the king. This representation is not a figment of imagination: we have actually ceramic figurines of her!… And much documentation besides. The exact chronology of what happened is not fully clear yet, but plenty enough for the theme of this essay!

After these wars between cities, the Maya rebuilt the city of Tikal in a way never seen before. They began building huge temples that required considerable resources, especially large, straight trees whose wood could withstand the weight of tons of stone. Their choices were limited to two types of strong trees.

Jasaw Chan K’awiil tapped into their sacred groves to do this. The stands of virgin timber were more than 200 years old in some areas. After building a few of the temples, the Maya ran out of timber from the Manilkara zapota (sapodilla) tree. That wood is easy to work, until it dries up and becomes very strong. It’s denser than water. Then they switched to an inferior tree —Haematoxylon campechianum, logwood or inkwood — which is found in swamps. This had adverse consequences on the maintenance or expansion of the irrigation system.

Tikal’s irrigation system was high tech. It contained at least eight large dams, the largest with 75,000 tons of water, was used as a causeway linking two parts of the city. Dams were equipped with filtration sand boxes, to produce clean water. The quartz sand is not found in the Tikal area; it was imported from more than 30 kilometers away.

How permanent was the change the Mayan civilization at its apogee inflicted on Yucatan? Climatologist Ben Cook from NASA compared climate conditions during the late Mayan era with conditions during the early colonial era (1500-1650 CE), when land use was at a minimum and forests had regrown over Central America. The warming and drying trend had disappeared. 

However the Mayan civilization had not recovered its splendor: after 1200 CE and until the Conquistadores appeared, it was a shadow of its former self, the population being perhaps just a tenth of what it used to be… But it was not for lack of aggressivity: a severe and vast ambush was set by Mayans for the Conquistadores who had to flee back to their boats… And the last free Mayan city, Nojpeten, would fall only in 1697. Some have suggested that the remaining Maya went to the coast, where the Spanish found them. It is fascinating to see that the Mayan civilization couldn’t get restarted: the numerous giant cities were gone for good. But this is often the case of civilizational collapses…

What probably happened is that the Mayan way of life was a huge system which needed a technological know-how which had been acquired during millennia, and then was lost. A broken system can’t be reinstated overnight: the system may have been elaborated over centuries (the case of Rome, Athens)… or even millennia: the case of Mesopotamia, Egypt… And the MesoAmerican civilizations. 

Moreover books are important, as they store information, and not just the concept of the proverbial wheel. This has long been known: when Rome annihilated Carthage, all Punic books were destroyed. Except one: a treaty on agriculture. And indeed the Romans would make Africa a Roman granary, the region became more productive than it would be until the arrival of French. 

The Greek dark ages after the adventures of the Trojan War lasted 4 centuries. However, Western Europe and China have proven quite collapse resistant, probably for having cultural systems smarter than most, thanks to all the books… and aware of collapse, thus keen to take resistant measures. For example when the “First” Qin emperor ordered books to be destroyed, especially of the 100 philosophical schools, many Chinese knew what to do: they copied and buried the books. 

In the 1970s, most Maya scholars concluded that the demise of the Classic Period Lowland Maya was the result of complex systems interactions. Another way to put it is that a civilization has a mind of its own

A civilization doesn’t truly collapse until its culture and know-how have been eradicated. In the case of the Maya remnants of the culture survived (they still knew how to write codices)… but what did not survive was how and why to make Yucatan work, as it did at the apex of civilization.

Could the Maya have prevented their collapse? Some will shake their heads and observe that Mayans would have had to understand science we are barely establishing now pertaining to drought and deforestation. Some of the conclusions above have a fair amount of guesswork, philosophy and modelling, and a few obstinate ones would disagree. However, this guesswork, this philosophy was done in Europe in 1300 CE, and a terminal ecological crisis avoided.

So let me tell a personal anecdote: the philosophical method rises the personal and anecdotal to the general and systemic. When I was in Africa I saw municipal authorities cut a number of magnificent trees. Apparently, inspired by a devious sense of esthetics, they had decided an immense plaza looked even better by making it more desolate. I was shocked, and revolted. How could Senegalese, in a country that was obviously desiccating, cut trees which provided shade, cooling and moisture? Tropical trees can have these huge, incredible thick oily leaves which block sunlight. For me it was glaring that this policy favored desertification, and I had seen many examples of it around Senegal already, so I viewed it as a systemic policy symbolizing a perverse mentality. I was ten years old. So if a ten year old can figure out, that cutting trees dries the climate, and causes a desert, no wonder more ancient Mayans protected sacred groves. And then the question becomes how come Tikal changed ecological policy? The answer is the war mood and the hubris it brings: flushed by taking enormous risks defeating their enemies, Tikal leaders kept on taking risks, this time with the ecology, flaunting, to themselves and others, their covenant with god(s). 

Human reality works that way: exaggerated behavior, thanks to hubris and provocation, fail, fix it, fly again. This is how humanity learns… in a tribal setting. Civilizations can also learn that way. In the best places of Eurasia, like the Fertile Crescent, the Latium, India, China. In such places of Eurasia, the collapse of one civilization taught others nearby: this is the story of the Middle East where civilizations kept on crashing and rising again, until the double headed shock of Islam, followed by the Mongols (after that it was pretty much all the way down)…

But it’s not how all civilizations can learn. A civilization can become such an immensely complicated systems, that, once broken, it can’t be readily reconstituted... Such is the sad story of the Maya.

Patrice Ayme


February 18, 2020

What was the fundamental truth of World War One? That civilization was assaulted by tribal barbarians who thought they were civilized.

Because plutocracy has make it so that it is fashionable to believe that the concept of civilization is not fundamental,  this lesson has been forgotten. Yet, the world was organized according to this lesson, if while the Second World War, a continuation of the First, was going on.

The movie “1917” relates a small piece of action in World War One [1]. It features telling contrast between the Democratic Allies and the fascist invaders. The Allies are human, humanistic, heroic, ethnically diverse. The Germans are pretty much depicted as the opposite. And so, indeed, it was. 

The story itself may be fiction, but actions similar to it, or even more dramatic, did happen continually during World War One. Some of these played a crucial role. French reconnaissance behind German lines before the Second Battle of the Marne come to mind: exquisite French intelligence helped to win that battle of July 1918, when Germany lost the war… according to its operational commander, Ludendorff. Ludendorff would go on to found the Nazi Party even before Adolf Hitler was assigned by the Bavarian police to spy on it. 

French intelligence based on aerial observation gave clear warning of the July 1918 onslaught,designed to occur before the US army’s might could be brought to bear.

The arrogant plume covered peacocks who launched World War First, so that they could preserve their position on top of the planet, exploiting everybody. So they deliberately launched a World War to make preserve their luxury and prerogative. The way they looked at it, if they did it serially, first France, then Russia, then Britain, it could work. (Dictator Kaiser Wilhelm II and his six sons…)

Heroes Can Turn Bad:

The main hero of French reconnaissances behind German lines was warrant officer Joseph Darnand. A reconnaissance patrol of the French Fourth Army, headed by  Darnand, deep behind German lines, in the evening of 14th July 1918, captured twenty-seven (27) German soldiers. Brought back and interrogated, the prisoners revealed the German attack plan for the next day, to the minute… so the French fired 40 minutes before the Germans attacked, disorganizing them, while evacuating the first lines, so the German artillery barrage, when it finally arrived, hit only empty positions. [2]

A dedicated fascist, but Germanophobe, Darnand would become head of the fascist, racist, anti-Jewish French Milice in World War Two. Being Germanophobe, whole fascist, in those times, was a mighty contradiction. Darnand tried three times to join the French resistance, but was rebuffed (because of his racist fascist leanings, trust didn’t flow). Then he turned to full collaboration (finishing with a rank in the SchutzStaffel, the SS!) Captured by the British in Italy, Darnand was brought back to France, sentenced to death on 3 October 1945 and executed by firing squad on 10 October 1945 at the Fort de Châtillon.

My grandfather found himself in a railroad engine, behind German lines at some point, and escaped capture or death by the Huns with a similar jaunt, for three days, through devastated landscape and the no-man’s land. He would be drafted again in WW2, and then joined the Resistance, early on, saving all sorts of fugitives and wanted (by the Nazis) “criminals” (although mostly Jews).


Britain and France Were Ethnically, Thus Mentally Diverse Democracies in 1917:

The “1917” movie represents that some of the British troops were actually… not British, but Commonwealth. That’s entirely correct. Huge contingents of non-ethnically French or British fought in the french and British armies. And they played a crucial role to change mentalities. At the Second battle of the Marne, the french command, may be deliberately, engaged a Senegalese division along the two US, white, divisions. The Senegalese, being all black, hated the very racist Germans, and reciprocally. Neither side was in the habit of making prisoners, when dealing with each other. Inspired by their fierce Black African allies the US troops did just the same: they didn’t focus on making prisoners, either… 

The first trench raid appears to have been mounted on the night of 9/10 November 1914 near Ypres by the 39th Garhwal Rifles of the Indian Corps. Fierce irruptions into enemy positions under cover of darkness was a traditional feature of Indian frontier fighting and this first murderous little action may have represented an introduction of tribal military practice into the ‘civilised’ warfare of western armies.

There were so many Indians in the trenches that the British army was asked to supply 10,000 live goats a month to meet the ritual dietary requirements of Indian troops in France.


WW1 Broken German robots resting in eternal peace with the flies among barbed wires, France, 1914… There was no excuse for Germans to take part in a war of aggression in 1914, especially because a few lunatic, despicable plutocrats gave them the order to make their utmost, to take over the world…

OK, as they say, spoilers ahead!

German WW1 Killer Robots obeying plutocrats were the main problem, but the USA made the situation worse, early on:

“1917” correctly represents German invaders as war robots, so proficient at killing, little humanity is left to them: they kill cows, cherry trees, all trees, terrify (French) civilians, and will keep on killing, even when facing certain death if they so persist. A rescued, burning German aviator, rescued at great peril, stabs (to death) his rescuer, and even when hit back by a bullet, is apparently keen for more. 

Politically Correct thinking, confronted to such scenes have long pretended that, to depict German invaders as the way they were was unfair, and a misrepresentation of reality. PC thinking insists that there were guns in August (as a famous history book title goes) and they fired, all by themselves, there just too many guns. Nobody’s fault. One should have killed the guns. But, in real life, it’s French guns, especially the 75mm field gun, which killed the war.

Indeed, it’s the PC view which is incorrect. It’s not the “Guns of August” which killed people, inasmuch as the savages who used guns in August to enact exactly the same feat tried again in 1939: win a succession of adversaries at such a fast pace, that they would be destroyed one after the other, and Kaiser Germany would rule the world. In 1914, the trick was to defeat the French Republic before Czarist Russia and Britain could intervene. It failed, because the French counterattack at the battle of the Marne, five weeks later, nearly destroyed the Kaiser’s war machine. 

Why the German leaders thought such a lunacy possible as making a world empire for them, had to do with stealth enticement, encouragement and support from the hyper racist US president Wilson. This, I allege, made the difference. The USA provided Germany, through the Netherlands, with enough goods, including military goods, to break the otherwise fatal Franco-British high seas blockade. 

Right, you will never read about this, USA as Deus Ex Machina, in official history textbooks as found in, say, Princeton University, where “Democrat” Wilson was president (before he became US president). Wilson was the most racist US president, even more so that the many US presidents who owned slaves. You will never read it, because it puts the entire history of the two “German” instigated world wars (1914-1945) under a completely different light, namely a tool of US plutocratic supremacy, a Deep State agenda…

WW1 German position of heavy artillery in France. Long range German guns hit Paris.



Belgium was more than overrun by the Germanic horde, it was deliberately terrorized to encourage submission. The German robots, under orders, razed Belgian villages and executed villagers—men, women, and children, eventually numbering into the thousands—en masse. Priests, and Nuns, as authority figures and potential symbols of moral resistance, were chosen targets. Outrage was deliberate, as when general Ludendorff, basically founder of the Nazi party, ordered the burning and looting of the famous university town of Leuven/Louvain. Over the course of five days, beginning on 25 August 1914, the Germans pillaged the city. Using petrol and incendiary pastilles. 230,000 volumes were lost in the destruction, including Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts, a collection of 750 medieval manuscripts, and more than 1,000 incunabula (books printed before 1501).


The Germans, in their insanity, their Terror Derangement Syndrome, believed they were fighting a war for civilization—for German Kultur against Latin decadence and Slavic barbarism. The highly educated German general staff, having read all the same books and drunk the same wines, had adopted social Darwinist ideas and applied them to the conduct of society (‘plutocracy”) and war (as rule of Evil)

An example: General Friedrich von Bernhardi’s book Germany and the Next War (published in 1911) called war “a biological necessity” in the struggle for existence. He added that war “is not merely a necessary element in the life of nations, but an indispensable factor of culture, in which a true civilized nation finds the highest expression of strength and vitality.

Basically, the entire Kaiser army which invaded France, Belgium and Luxembourg on August 2 1914 (starting without even a war declaration), was an army of war criminals… and acted accordingly. Right, this is a philosophical point of view: yours truly against Immanuel Kant’s grotesque morality.

WW 1 German Troops advancing in Ham, France, 1914. They all read Kant, or took orders from officers who read Kant. What literacy can lead to.



I found my morality upon basic humanity, our creator, the crown of evolution. Kant found his morality “a priori”. Namely according to what is providing him with everything, the murderously racist Prussian State. Kant concludes that “Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law”. When the law is made by the Kaiser, a crippled mass, war criminal, and certified criminal against humanity (per his racially motivated genocide in Namibia), duty, according to Kant, is then to violate all of humanity. This was exactly SS mass murderer and criminal against humanity Eichman’s line of defense in Jerusalem (the judges, rightly, condemned him to hang… and so should all the followers of that reasoning who practice murder).   

Only in August 1914, we have the very well documented proof of hundreds of crimes against humanity committed by the Kaiser’s invading hordes, down to mass murdering nuns, or killing two (2) year old girls. The invasion itself was a crime against humanity, and, just on that ground alone, the Kaiser and his main accomplices should have been judged and executed. 

That’s why, when supposedly educated individuals come around, and attribute Auschwitz only to Hitler and his gang of maniacal murderers, they are misinformed: what would come to be called “Nazism” was already fully grown by 1914. Yes, most of Germany became criminal by following the Kaiser. That’s why, just 15 years after goose stepping behind the Kaiser, the german nation was goose stepping behind Adolf Hitler. That’s why Germany, under the Nazis operated no less than an unbelievable 42,000 death camps (or ghettoes meant, and organized to kill people through disease, starvation, physical abuse). My own family barely escaped a round-up, before being outright being hunted by the Gestapo in the forests around Grenoble (for having saved 100+ Jews, among other “crimes against Germany”).


The Kaiser and his class were “PARASITES”, plutocrats making a country criminally insane Fundamentally, the movies “1917” and “Parasite” both depict what the Dark Side of Humanity leads to:

“1917” represents male Germans invading France as they were: killing robots. Is it why the movies didn’t get “Best Pictures” at the “Oscars”? Instead the prizes went to “Parasite”, a dismal Korean horror tale. Whereas “1917” is about what happened (reconstituted in a movie), “Parasite” is a complete fiction. Both movies, though, fundamentally address the same subject: beware because humans, even though they may look civilized, will partake in the greatest crimes, if given the opportunity. 


The roots of German Criminal Insanity in 1914-1945 were very deep, centuries deep. Much German culture and history came in play:

The mass criminality against humanity of Germany in 1853-1945 had very deep roots. Maybe as deep as Arminius, a German who had become an Roman officer, and then brought three Roman legions to their annihilation. Arminius was a traitor… still he came to be celebrated as a great German hero by Prussian nationalists. Celebrating treachery as heroism is a slippery slope. In the end, Arminius (“Hermann”!) was assassinated as other Germans suspected he wanted to become sole autocrat.

In any case case, the deadly cocktail of racism, extreme tribalism, intolerance, extermination and nationalism started with the crusade of the Teutonic Knights against the original, Pagan Prussians. It had dawned on the Knights that the Muslims were too hard to exterminate (especially after Saladin passed laws to punish Islam Fundamentalism with the death peanalty). So they went to invade Prussia instead. It was a long and hard war of extermination. It lasted decades. Next the Teutonic Knights turned against the Russians… and were crushed by Alexander Nevski during the Battle of the Ice on 5 April 1242… Hence a durable German ressentiment against “Slavs”. 

WW1 German soldiers having fun with Polish girls, WW1. Saying no would not be polite

Prussia, became legally racist against Slavs, Poles and Jews in the Eighteenth Century, Financed by Britain, Prussian then became a war machine against the Austrian empress, and France. Ultimately, by 1815, that turned out immensely successful, and racist militaristic Prussia was able to extend its racist militaristic Zeitgeist all over its empire in Central Europe. That’s when the young Marx, a German Jew, learned to hate, while at the same time, imprisoned by the Prussian mentality that dictatorship was the way to efficient governance. 

To prevent Nazism, one would have had to invade Germany in 1918, take control of it, arrest the top 1,000 war criminals, and hang them. In other words, do to Germany in 1918 what was done in 1945: a thorough cleaning and cleansing. Hanging a thousand war criminals would have prevented the Nazi Party to sprout: many leading Nazis were actually young (or not!) commanders in World War One. Of the young ones, an example if Hermann Goering. Of the old ones, the initil sould of the Nazi Party, Ludendorff, definitively a criminal against humanity… With lots of guts. The German army opened fire on the Nazis who were attempting to stage a putsch in Munich in 1923 (financed by hyper racist, anti-Jewish  US plutocrat Henry Ford, a US car maker). Many Nazis fell dead, Hitler was wounded, and fled. Only one man was left standing, and kept on marching towards the firing troops: Ludendorff (recognizing their famed commander, they finally stopped).



“1917” depicts British and Commonwealth heroes, with a French heroic background, fighting a monstrous fascist war fighting machine devouring humans and humanity alike, in the name of a perverse notion of morality as obedience. 

The English heroes depicted are thoroughly human: they are attached to life, to their own lives, dearly, but transcend them in the name of the highest values. The fascist German invaders, however devoted to killing they are, do not rise to the same level of heroism, precisely because they are Kant killer robots dying in the name of the Kaiser World Empire project (same as, a few years later, the Nazi World Empire project: it is easy to see where Adolf Hitler and his goons got the inspiration).

This is of course why democracies win wars. And why at Thermopylae an army of a few thousand Greeks (including 300 Spartans headed by the Lion-like Leonidas) blocked, for days, the Persian juggernaut of three millions (says Herodotus; some modern historians, to show they were smart, have contested Herodotus number by an order of magnitude; truth is probably in between…).

The defeat of the Achaemenids in Greece preserved democracy… which lived strongly to the West, in Greek cities of independent republics along the Greek model, say in Magna Grecia, Rome and Marseilles.

The fascist plutocratic temptation is always strong, because a fascist dictatorship mustering evil to the rescue is always better at sudden vicious attack shattering the peace: August 1, 1914 is the best proof of that, when Kaiser Germany attacked the world, but imperial Japan proved that when it attacked China, especially in 1937, etc. But such demonstrations are found throughout history, as on December 31, 406 CE, when several German tribes galloped across the frozen Rhine, surprising the Frankish(-Roman) army. 


WW1 A convoy of German prisoners escorted by French Algerian Spahis, of which there were 14 regiments in the French Army.

french army Spahi regiments had 1,000 men. The First Moroccan Spahi Regiment 75% Moroccan, 25% European, was the most decorated unit in the entire French army. This was not bad colonization, but good globalization, ladies and gentlemen… Multi-ethnicity won first on the battlefield.


When Evil Mentality Rules When The Herd Is More Valued Than The Rest:

Some will think I am going overboard, telling too many truths above, my usual sin, and the one philosophers are always charged with. And this is why “1917” didn’t win the Oscars: too many truths. 

But we have a problem. The “Axis”, Germany, Japan, Italy demonstrated that, using modern technology, then the radio, one could make the herd believe anything, as long as the herd believed the essence of morality was to be a herd. 

It is completely obvious that the German attack on the world in 1914, same as in 1939, was caused by the evil mentality which animated Germany at the time. Instead, a persistent myth has been successfully implanted that the first World War was purely mechanical, no one was to blame. This is hogwash: it was all caused by the Evil-Rule in Germany (Pluto-Kratia) [3]. 

The excursion of Germany into a mentality, fascism, completely opposed to the old German mentality, freedom, as in the Franks, is a precious (the price was high!) story, rich in wisdom. One has to learn from it. The Germans thought they were hyper civilized, when they were mostly just the opposite. So one would expect the youth to learn from that tragedy, right?

OK, Israel learned the lesson well: one should have listened to Hitler more carefully (this is an inner slight directed at Isaac Berlin, a British Jewish philosopher who had learned nothing from Nazism). But what about the rest of the world?

An obvious case of herd phenomenon is Islam, and the apartheid it calls its home. Fundamentally Islam distinguishes the “House of Peace” (where Islam is) and the “House of War”. A distinction which French president Macron just called “Islamist Separatism“… a good concept. Islamism, as Catholicism before it, rests upon the herd instinct: who is in, who is out. hence the importance of “excommunication” or “apostasy” (both initially Catholic obsessions, three centuries before Islam was invented.


Lack of Awareness:

In 2017 a Körber Foundation survey found that 40 percent of 14-year-olds in Germany did not know what Auschwitz was. What in the hell? A 2018 survey organized in the United States by the Claims Conference, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and others found that 66% of the American millennials (and 41% of all U.S. adults) surveyed did not know what Auschwitz was. No wonder I have so few followers when many 20 year old credit card fraudsters can get 400,000 followers (there were several such cases; now in prison). OK, the fraudsters propose money, whereas I propose knowledge non conducive to money, just to save civilization. In 2019, a survey of 1,100 Canadians found that 49 percent could not name any of the Nazi camps in German-occupied Europe. There were 3,000 camps in Berlin alone. Twenty million innocent people, millions of them children, died in Nazi camps.

Nowadays fools such as all too many so-called “millenials” feel that, as long as it is Politically Correct to not know any history, to show one belongs to the herd, the head deep in the sand, they and their values are safe. Well, not so. The German orchestrated holocaust of 1914-1945 was plotted, and enabled by people who thought they knew, and had a good feeling, for all that was important.

And they were wrong. To start with, a herd can’t replace a heart.

World War One was a plutocratic phenomenon. Plutocrat Duke of Brunswick, Kaiser son in law, former Duke of Cumberland, behind German lines in occupied France. The Kaiser was the grandson of UK Queen Victoria, and cousin to the Czar. Kaiser, empowered by Wilson, also enabled Lenin and Stalin…

This 1914-1945 German lesson in abomination has extreme validity nowadays. In the USA, a presidential election is in the process of being bought as never before [4]. In China, a pandemic was allowed to proceed, thanks to the extreme secrecy, thus information impotence, of the population. In either case, mechanisms similar to Nazi Germany are at play. Europe is not doing much better, as plutocrats are all the more firmly in command there, because they have learned to operate stealthily.

Ignorance was the main engine of the world wars: it enabled very dark forces to operate from beneath without everybody knowing. And that goes on to this day: the troubling role of the USA in 1914-1917, and again, in 1933-1942 was not properly analyzed by historians… because it’s way too dangerous. (I do not have a career to lose, being an independent scholar…)

World War One “Crown Prince”, the eldest son of the Kaiser, and would be dictator of Germany, commander of the largest army groups with death cap on his hat. The analogy with Nazism is total: the famous SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV; literally “Death’s Head Units”) was the SS organization responsible for administering the Nazi extermination camps for Nazi Germany, among similar duties. The SS TV used the same symbol, the exact same drawing, a few years later.

The essence of plutocracy is that it feels, and knows, and wishes, and enforces that hell can be construed as paradise. This goes to the core of the human condition. Hell as paradise goes to the core of the human condition. Carefully studying 1914-1945 shows this. It got so severe because of technology… which has considerably in power since.

The world doesn’t want to be ruled by Lords. Because human beings are not meant to be ruled by anything else than reason. Only war justifies otherwise. Thus Lords love war, another reason not to like them!

Patrice Ayme



[1] To remind readers unfamiliar with my version of the most significant facts of World War One, the Kaisers and six other plotters had decided upon preparing public opinion through media action for war as early as eleven December 1912. By July 1914, under the pretext of Russia stiffening Serbia about unacceptable Austrian demands consecutively to the Sarajevo assassination of the Archiduke, Germany executed its detailed plan for war. The other powers had only defensive, belated reactions. The French leaders, in particular, were in vacation (surprise). The German plan was named after the army chief of staff who drafted it, Alfred von Schlieffen. It solved the problem of Germany’s two-front war against France in the west and Russia in the east. The solution was to invade France from the north (through Brussels and Belgium, bringing it into the war as well), sweep around Paris, and turn east to crush the French army in the rear where it would be deployed on the German border. The idea was to go fast enough that Britain could not intervene in a significant manner to help its ally and relative, France. This would take the Germans, Schlieffen calculated, 42 days. This was less time than Russia needed to mobilize, and after finishing off France, Germany would then invade Russia. 

Unfortunately for the fascists, fortunately for civilization, desperate Belgian and French resistance slowed them down (the counterattacking French lost 27,000 soldiers Killed In Action, in one day, on August 22, 1914, alone; 10% of the French officer corps was killed in action in August 1914 alone;  after staggering losses, the French army would change its striking red white and blue colors to something as drab as the Germans). 

Slowed down, confident that the French had lost all their heavy weapons, the Germans shortened their swing from west to east of Paris. Meanwhile the Russians attacked faster than anticipated, necessitating transfer of eight German divisions to East Prussia (which arrived after a tremendous German victory at Tannenberg). Plus the British Expeditionary Force, equivalent of one French Army Corps, was in the war. Finally, using all motor vehicles they could find, the French Paris garrison was flung into the side of the German army juggernaut… At the First Battle of the Marne, from 5 September to 12 September, 1914, two million men fought; only fast action by some German army corps commanders preserve the German army from annihilation.


[2] Guderian, chief, soul and early organizer of Nazi armor, said he learned the usage of tanks in coordination with planes, when French general Mangin (10th French Army) and general Degoutte (6th French Army) counterattacked on July 1918 (using Allied troops besides 44 French divisions… US troops were massively used, for the first time, two US divisions were courageously victorious… and annihilated). Ironically enough, World War One was a learning experience for the Nazis.


[3] Conventional description of why the First World War was fought, instead of accusing the racist, fascist, militaristic, dictatorial, expansionist, plutocratic “Second Reich” insist on something mechanical, a clockwork shared by all, from various unstoppable mobilizations. For example, French mobilization, with three million men and 4,278 trains on the move, couldn’t be stopped. That forgets that said mobilization was ordered by the under Secretary for Agriculture, the only government official in vacationing Paris, when it became certain that the Germans were going to attack.

This forgets that German mobilization was fast, a few days, whereas Russian mobilization would take weeks. It also forgets that Britain had, basically “no army” (as its chief, Lord Kirtchner declared at the time, after he was nominated). It also forgets that Germany supposedly attacked to help Austro-Hungary which obstinately refused to declare war, days after the Germans had invaded Belgium and France, in spite of Berlin’s pressure…


[4] The establishment always feared Sanders much more than Trump… All the more as much Trump hatred was just an orchestrated circus act. So is now doing whatever needs to be done to stop Sanders.  Fortunately for plutocracy, Bloomberg is riding to the rescue with many billions, buying all that can be bought, including hearts and souls. Voters believe whatever the plutocratic media is telling them to believe… And not just in the USA. France, Britain and their ilk have the same problem. Direct Democracy would help, as voters would have to learn to become more discriminative… By themselves, the exact behavior Germans were incapable of, in depth, a century ago. 

Better Win War Now, than lose it tomorrow. 

January 4, 2020

The history of civilization is a struggle between fascism and democracy. Fascism confers military power and the extinction of the enemy. Democracy confers intelligence thus progress of the brutal evil of nature, and provides with the natural state of the genus Homo, comprising all the freedoms.

Thus any battle against fascism is a battle for humanity against the Dark Side… Except when the most advanced, most human party, has to use the power of fascism and the Dark Side to destroy its enemies… This later logical twist, that of the “Just War” has been known ever since civilization exists, and assuredly for much longer. Unsophisticated individuals friendly to fascism and the Dark Side always brandish the utilization of the later as the ultimate defense of the most advanced civilization to claim that the forces of greater light and goodness are not any better than their inferiors.

At the Battle de la Marne, Civilization, carried by the wings of the human spirit, Won Over Racist, Holocaustic Fascism, And That’s The Truth. Racist fascist prone to exterminate others (for example exterminate not just Jews, but Iraqis), will disagree… But with these truths we will extinguish them…

They even go further: they claim there is no such a thing as “better” (I have explained that this is exactly what the Nazis, and Soviet and US plutocrats wanted to hear, after 1933, and this is why the theme was embraced with such alacrity by European intellectuals basically paid, by the new masters, to destroy their own civilization. This is why someone like De Beauvoir served the Nazis, and then the Americans (under cover of “decolonization”), then Castro, Mao and other degenerate dictatorialists (Marxist In Name Only Weasels: MINOWs).

The incapacity of many indoctrinated since has enabled them to deny the very concept of superiority (thus progress). They became perfect slaves for plutocracy, the Sheep-People, the Sheeple. I talk to some recently, they attacked even the idea of controlled thermonuclear fusion, because it would lead to better tools, hence better weapons, hence the idea that there is such a thing as progress, thus superiority.

It’s not even the Inversion of All Values plutocracy is keen to achieve, it’s they very denial that there are values: nihilism to serve The Man, Pluto.

US President Trump authorized the attack early Friday at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Major General Qassim Suleimani, head of the Quds Force (declared a terrorist organization in the West).

White House: “Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. But we caught him in the act. We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.

The elimination of that famous enemy of democracy and friend of Allah (in His Shiite version), was achieved apparently with new weapons, ultra precise small rockets…

What was Suleimani, one of Iran’s most feared killers doing in Iraq? Was he invited there by the government? Why shouldn’t the lethal enemies of democracies not be destroyed in a timely manner? When Hitler rose, the US did just two things: 1) prevent the French Republic to strike in a timely manner to respond to the Nazi invasions of Spain and the Rhineland. 2) Let Texaco fuel the air bridge and then the rogue army which enabled the fascists to destroy the Spanish Republic… with Texas oil. That amused Hitler for years.

Superstitious religious terrorism, quickly followed by the invasion of small, very determined savage barbarian tribes, and alliances thereof, caused the Fall of the “Occidental Part” of the Roman state. In 394 CE, using savage Goths as shock troops, emperor Theodosius I destroyed the secular occidental Roman army led by the very experienced Frankish Roman generalissimo Arbogast. By 406 CE, the Roman Occidental Part was pierced through by many German nations… Soon all the way to North Africa.

Something similar, a brutal military collapse, unrecoverable and unrecovered, happened to the Oriental part when the small Arab army shattered the Roman army. In both cases, the consequences were civilizational collapse and an enormous diminution of the population.

Why did this happen? Why the collapse of the Greco-Roman world state? Democratic forces didn’t take seriously enough religious terrorism fed militarism, the exact mix Iran is now brimming with. “Taking seriously” means that you go to war and reduce the enemy into insignificance, before it grows too powerful… as Hitler had become in 1939, when France and Britain, unprepared, declared war to the Nazis. If the French army had fought the Nazis earlier, it would have learned the tricks needed May 10, 1939. But it didn’t. So French tanks didn’t have radio, and too few crew members. The suggestions of De Gaulle to create large tank formations had been followed by the Nazis more than by the French. Also the French and British air forces needed a few days to perfect the aerial air combat and ground support stunts the Nazis had three years to refine in Spain. So the British and French air forces couldn’t destroy the provisional Nazi bridges on the Moselle.   

The fulcrum of the Western Civilization which became the World Civilization most of the planet enjoys now, was France (long story, lasting more than 3,000 years…) Not by coincidence, France has also been the country most at war. Ever. And, also not by coincidence, the next most bellicose country was China.

War, fundamentally is not just always a deranged rage, but also, when it turns out to have been a good war, a debate where the best ideas won… An example is the crushing of German racial lethal fascism by France and her descendants. It promoted better ideas, for example the fact that the US Army realized it became a better fighting force by incorporating Afro-Americans and other “coloreds” in combat (see the Tuskegee Airmen of the 99th and 332th Air Squadrons, the Black squadron engaged spectacularly at the precedingly faltering Anzio beach head).

It’s not just that civilization has to be defended against fascism. It is also that it has to be born violently from the prior fascism it has to escape to rise again, like the Phoenix (example abounds such as the rise, and the rebirth, of Athenian democracy, or the rise of the Roman, French or American Republics, etc.)

The phoenix exists, it’s human intelligence, always born by branching out from the intellectual, and political, and economic, and plutocratic fascisms which preceded them.

Want progress? Engage in war, and it will be a good war, if it starts with an alliance with truths. Better and deeper truths. And remember this: it will be hard, and you better love fighting!

Patrice Ayme


NO MILITARY SUPERIORITY, NO REPUBLIC, 30 Centuries of Franco-Gallic History Say

October 26, 2019

This is in answer to the following question:

How has modern France become such a military powerhouse? When did they become more powerful than Britain and Germany?

France did this by having the correct mindset, which has been necessary to the apparition of a large, unified military power where France and its Gallo-Roman predecessor has been for 20 centuries.

Arguably, France is, by far the country most involved in war. Ever. And there are three excellent reasons for that: location, location, location. 

France declared war to Hitler on September 3, 1939. The British army was tiny even smaller than the 400,000 men US army. So World War Two, initially was a duel between the French Republic and the unholy alliance of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Japan, and the fascist Soviet Union of Stalin. By 1945, Italy, Japan and Germany had been utterly vanquished, thanks to France and her Allies. They had no more army. However, France had reconstituted the strongest army in the West, behind the US and UK. The USSR had been forced to switch sides.

For reasons I will now expose, France is, first of all, all about her military.

Paul Jamin’s Gallic King Brennus “and his share of the spoils”. He contemplates Roman ladies at the ready. The Battle of the Allia was a battle fought c. 393 BC between the Senones (a Gallic tribe who had invaded northern Italy, who lived at the source of the… Seine, hence the name) allied to the Averni (modern name: “Auvergne”) and the Roman Republic. The battle was fought at the confluence of the Tiber and Allia rivers, eleven Roman miles (16 km, 10 mi) north of Rome. The Romans were routed and Rome was subsequently sacked by the Senones, who were bought out by Roman dictator Camille, to bring them to leave.

France is a Republic built at the crossroads. Some may sneer that it is only a Republic since September 21, 1792… But that’s overlooking the REPUBLICAN way political power in France was built and justified itself. Even before the Romans came, many of the 60 polities in Gaul had senates, and were de facto republic. Each of them struck coinage. After five centuries of Roman unification, invasions broke the unity. The latter, though was quickly rebuilt by the Franks, who were Roman Confederates.

Thus the Frankish army was a Roman army, and beat the Goths at Vouillé (507 CE). Far from being savages, the Franks endeavored to rebuild the State, using the general program of the “Christian Republic”… To understand the “Christian Republic”, one has to backtrack to the Fourth Century, when Christianism was imposed onto the empire: the excuse for that, among intellectuals, was that a “Christian Republic” would be established. The idea goes on, to this day.

The Founding Fathers of the Church” tried to establish the “Christian Republic” after emperor Theodosius I’s death in 395 CE: the bishops were in charge and governed (the Jew-hating bishop of Milan, Ambrose, after excommunicating him, got Theodosius I on his knees, begging forgiveness). That first attempt at establishing a Republic that would be “Christian”turned into a disaster. Indeed Theodosius’ military alliance with the Goths, plus the empire-ruling bishops’ hostility to military force, and funding the latter by force, brought the main Germanic invasions, in 406 CE. The most important thing the Roman Bishops’ government did was to formally put the Franks in charge of defending the three Roman provinces of the north-west: the two Germanias and Gallia.

The mass murdering Catholic fanatic, emperor Theodosius I, had hated the anti-Christian Franks (the Parisians had elected the de-Christianizing “Julian The Apostate” earlier). To the point that the god crazed Theodosius allied himself with the Goths, to defeat Arbogast, head of the mostly Frankish occidental Roman army at the battle of Frigidarius,in 394 CE. This destruction of the Occidental Roman army led, within 12 years, to the fall of the Occidental Roman empire… The catastrophic defeat of the Roman Occidental army at Frigidarius in 394 CE of secularism against Goths allied to fanatical Catholicism should be seen as the real moment the Roman state was mortally wounded in Occident.

The Franks, who were very fierce and free (that’s what their name means) understood, and all could see, that the Republic (Christian or not) could only be established by military force. In 507 CE, they did what Rome had never done before: they beat the Goths, and threw them out of Gaul. In the next three centuries, they would establish, through military force Western Europe as it is today (completed by the conquest of England in 1066 CE). The Franks also did something the rest of Roman power had been unable to do: they repel three invasions of the Muslim raiders between 721 CE (battle of Toulouse, huge Muslim defeat) and 748 CE (battle of Narbonne, another victory of Charles the Hammer, his phalanx and heavy cavalry). The Umayyad Arab Caliphate, based in Damascus, deprived of its army destroyed in France, then fell (750 CE).

In the Ninth Century, two things happened: disunion (think Brexit), leading to the monster (first) battle of Fontenoy, of Franks against the Franks, when the streams ran red (848 CE). Around 50,000 were killed in this fratricide (the second battle of Fontenoy would be of the French against the British, nine centuries later).

Soon enough, left without enough of an army, the “Renovated empire of the Romans” (aka Carolingian empire) was invaded on three fronts: Viking, Hungarians, Muslims. This showed to the collective French mentality, once again, as circa 400 CE, that military weakness led to devastating invasions. Disgusted by the attitude of the emperor, who negotiated with the Viking instead of destroying them during the siege of Paris, the Parisians and then the French, seceded from said empire (“Frexit”; turned out to have been a very bad idea, as it led to 1,150 years of war)… France didn’t secede formally, but by refusing to elect a Roman emperor, preferring to elect a French King “emperor in his own kingdom” as the official formula had it (so the elected French king was equivalent to the elected Roman emperor).

In the next millennium, that means in the thousand years prior to the present times, it would be proven again and again: the key to comfort, health, survival, morality, happiness, let alone sufficient food, was a strong French military. Everything else was secondary. (When the Germans invaded France in WWII, they stole as much food as they could so that the French would still be able to produce food and other stuff for them, Nazis…)

Why is France attacked so much? For the same reason as French is a melting pot, morally and intellectually superior: France is at the crossroads of Europe, it’s how one went conveniently from north to south in the last 12,000 years. If one is in the Mediterranean (thus coming from the Near East, or even further: Indies, Silk Roads, etc.), the way to reach the Atlantic or Northern Europe was through France (one route is to travel north of the Pyrenees, the other two go up the Rhone valley, one branching up right to Germany, the other, straight up to the Northern European plain and Great Britain.

The defeat of May 1940 occurred in a few days, when drugged out Nazis full of amphetamines, broke through where the Second British armored division was supposed to be, and was not, where the Prince of Wales, inspector of the British armed forces, had told his dear friend Hitler, that the French front was the weakest. Indeed, the French Front was held there by just one reserve infantry division, and three elite Panzer divisions attacked, helped by the elite Gross Deutschland regiment, and the entire Luftwaffe, concentrated their assault on a few kilometers. The French Republic had started a nuclear bomb program in January 1938 to drop bombs on Germany (it would take seven and a half year for the first bomb to be ready). The French were the first to bomb Berlin (the Nazis called for execution of the French fliers… although that was in retaliation of the bombing of French cities).

Ultimately British heavy bombers fleets (followed by US ones, years later) wreck havoc with Germany (one million soldiers had to man air defenses and German industry had to be relocated in the woods, underground…) This showed, once again, that if one is the most intelligent civilization, military superiority is all the moral right one needs to crush infamy.

The Romans purchased, for centuries superior Gallic armor and swords. At the battle of Poitiers in 732 CE, superior French steel and superior heavy cavalry on genetically formidable horses, destroyed the Muslim army (Muslim corpses were left to rot, out of contempt). The so-called “100 year war” finished when the Bureau brothers engineered the first battlefield guns. The 75 mm gun was indispensable in WWI. During the French Revolution, superior French artillery, with superior French explosives did much, if not most of the work (in particular at the crucial Battle of Valmy, September 20, 1792). Hot air balloons, invented in France, were militarily used. One of the first planes was also militarily financed, and flew, long before the Wright brothers. The first cars also made in France were the fruit of a military program: what was specified corresponded actually to tanks. The French taught the USA how to mass produce them with the required precision (this is how precision mass engineering was introduced to the USA). So the connection between superior tech and superior military was long ingrained.

The defeat of May 1940 was due in part to the exploitation by the Nazis of a few tricks which took the French military by surprise: amphetamines, good connection between the air force and ground forces, the usage of radios inside tanks… And lack of practice and arrogance of the top commanders. Morality: the Righteous should make war all the time, so as not be surprised by Evil.

All of these Nazi tricks could be fixed quickly, and they were, but not before the Franco-British being defeated in the most major battle of the Western front in WWII (the Franco-British never suffered a major defeat after that). The lesson for the future here was simple: if the French Republic had fought the Nazis in Spain in 1936, as it was asked by the Spanish Republic to do, it would not have been surprised in May 1940, and superior French military might would have done the rest. Why did France not attack the Nazis in 1936? Because the Anglo-Saxons asked France not to attack Hitler, who was, at the time, a source of enormous profit for the most major US corporations. So what is the meta lesson here? In spite of the affectionate parent to child relationship between France, England and the USA, the latter two self-obsessed buffoons should not be taken seriously all the time. France has 30 centuries of institutionalized, partly oral and behavioral tradition, that the UK and the US do not have. Only China or maybe India can reflect as deep upon the errors of history…

After World War Two, which started with the betrayal of the USA, France observed more betrayal, as the US Deep State was firmly intent to replace the French empire by an American one.

So now here we are. The defense of the West is mostly insured by a reconciled France and the US… which are at war in a dozen countries. This is good: in Libya, the French air force demonstrated it could overwhelm Russian air defense using stealthy Rafale fighters (the US is now using the same method in training with the stealthy F35). Recently, in the attack on French and US ally Saudi Arabia, the powerlessness of the most sophisticated US air defenses against drones and cruise missiles was demonstrated: now the US and France are scrambling to find counter-measure (it’s no coincidence, and entirely related, that the laser which blasted rocks on Mars was French made).

France has no oil, no gas, and no more coal. France can have only ideas; it is the only large country with a large economy which produces so little CO2 per capita that, if all countries did it, the CO2 cataclysm would be much delayed (only 4 tons/person/year for France; US is at 16 tons, and Canada and Australia are even worse). Ideas which can create technology enabling military superiority. The USA and Britain long embraced the same credo.

To be a real, thoughtful French citizen, steeped in history (as they used to be) is to learn that the Republic needs to be defended by force, that this is mission number one… of the Republic, something that the cultural ancestors to the French Republic, the Athenian and Roman ones, discovered 25 centuries ago. And just as 25 centuries ago, this superiority has to rest upon military and thus technological superiority.

As the ice caps melt, great wars are coming… And if they don’t happen this will be simply because potential aggressors understand they can’t win (as they do now). And the climate catastrophe is a war too, and only superior technology can win it. Same old, same old: if one wants a better existence, or existence at all, one has to fight for it.

Patrice Ayme 


P/S: Although the preceding is centered around France, it fully applies to her child, the USA. We have peace now because the relatively better guys (France, US, UK) have had military superiority, and the bad guys (Russia, China) aren’t that bad (although Putin engaged in invasion lately) and other guys surrended (Japan) to what passes for democracy, and the rest of the world is pretty powerless…

World peace depends upon the military might of that trio, another reason to look at Brexit with fear and suspicion…


80 Years Ago, France Declared War To Hitler

September 3, 2019

September 3, 1939. Hitler had invaded Poland two days before, and had been served by an ultimatum from France and the UK:”Get out of Poland, or we declare war!” Yes, Great Britain declared war too. But the UK had just a few divisions, and France more than 104 divisions… on the north-east front, ALONE (2.25 million soldiers on that frontier)! France would engage 11 armored divisions in May 1940, one more than Germany… Britain would engage just one armored division; the absence of the Second Armored British division at Sedan, enabled the Nazi “Sickle Cut“… With its superior Matilda tanks, and highly trained professional soldiers, there is little doubt that the British Second Armored division could have held up the Nazi army long enough until the main French formations could have maneuvered to back it up… And crush the Nazi snakes.

In 1939, Germany mobilized some 7 % of her population, France 12.5 %. French public opinion was grim in 1939, but determined: one had to do away with Hitler. Both in Britain, and France, all believed that, because of their gigantic empires, the Franco-British victory was unavoidable, and would follow the same pattern as during 1914-1918: a successful blockade, and blocking, followed by revolution in Germany.

However, France had lost more than 1.4 million soldiers killed, fighting German fascists, just 20 years earlier…  And now, France was facing a conspiracy and alliance of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Even for the combative French. that was a bit much. And then there were snakes like Sweden, arming Hitler to the hilt, with the “Iron Road”…. We are still waiting for Swedish collective psychoanalysis.

I followed a documentary of WW2, to commemorate September 3, 1939, on the Franco-German channel Arte. The writers didn’t find anything better than extensively quoting Simone De Beauvoir, who, sure enough, claimed nobody knew why WW1 was fought… Well it was fought because the fascists attacked…. Now, for De Beauvoir the concept of “fascists attacking” doesn’t exist. By 1944, De Beauvoir would pursue a career of collaboration at Radio Vichy, tight with one of the worst collabo… who was executed by the Resistance in 1944 (De Beauvoir being smart, she was able to put the mask of a feminst and leftist later).  

Bombing of Warsaw, September 1939, Luftwaffe picture… Zentralbild
II. Weltkrieg 1939-45 Überfall der faschistischen deutschen Wehrmacht auf Polen am 1.9.1939.UBz: Flugzeugaufnahme des brennenden Warschaus, das am 27. September 1939 kapitulieren mußte.

Hitler’s ally, Stalin, attacked Poland jointly with the Nazis, and then attacked Finland late in 1939 (with the idea of grabbing all of Finland; Stalin would end with smaller, yet crucial parts). The French government then outlawed the French Communist Party and stripped of French citizenship those who fled to the USSR. It was then decided to attack Hitler’s crucial ally, Sweden, to come to the rescue of Finland. France was really fighting over all fronts, including an internal one.

This outlawing of Communist Party is not an anecdote but the cause why many French fighter aircraft were armed too late in Spring 1940 (smart politicians were afraid of French communist workers seizing weapons). By 1940, the French government of PM Daladier was losing its smarts, often freaking out about the hundreds of thousands of German refugees in France (who were of course all anti-Nazis, but that the French government suspected nevertheless…)

Attacking Poland from west (Nazis) and east (Stalin) was no accident: German generals, now Nazis, had trained in the USSR, secretly, in violation of the Versailles Treaty, for years… Poland capitulated in 4 weeks. France would be attacked later, by tanks fueled with Soviet oil….

Bravely, the US, after first condemning and punishing France and the UK, finally instituted “cash and carry”. The grim determination of the French and British navies may have helped. Although out gunned (280 mm against 200 mm), the Royal Navy destroyed the battleship Graf Spee in Rio Della Plata…

The destruction of the Graf Spee clearly showed that France and Britain were going to strangle Germany.. as long as they could separate it from Stalin…

A major problem was that Belgium was “neutral”. It means that the French army entered Belgium only after Hitler invaded Belgium. Worse: it means that, when two-thirds of the entire German army entered Belgium… Belgium did NOT notice! The French High Command was not told. Had it been told, huge French forces, like the unstoppable Super Heavy Third French armored division, just north of Sedan, could have been fueled and move south and block, or, better cut from behind, the Nazi armor thrust. Also forces could have been moved from the Maginot Line and long range guns thereof got ready (they didn’t in the few hours they could have been effective).

9 April 1940, Hitler attacks Denmark, Norway:  they are neutral, but Hitler and the Nazis were aware of a secret alliance between Norway and France to produce heavy water, as part of the French nuclear weapon program (somehow the Nazis could tell when the heavy water was transported to France, and intercepted the aircraft… However, by then the French had substituted on the airfield the heavy water for granite; the heavy water made to France, and, later, Buckingham Palace’s deepest and most secure cellar… With the Corwon Jewels…).

Even more worrisome for Hitler, France and Britain were getting ready to attack Sweden, Hitler’s ally (yeah, I know, the Swedes claimed, claim, to be neutral… they were not. Not at all. Sweden enabled Hitler in a crucial way, with the 88mm gun, and all that high quality iron ore to make hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes with…) 

Even before invading Poland, Hitler had given a (very) secret discourse to his top commanders, explaining that speed and brutality would win the war in Poland. Hitler explained that the “SS units with death heads” would kill all the Jews and Poles to enable the Germans to acquire the “Lebensraum” (life space, vital space) they needed. Accordingly, Hitler displaced 600,000 Germans of German ancestry, to settle them into West Poland. There they created the Warthegau, nicknamed, the “Blonde Province” (Himmler:”I am going to create here a blonde province!” … funny neither he, nor Hitler or Goebels were blonde… And lots of Poles were blonde… such blonde kids were taken from their parents, and “germanized”. We know of 30,000 such cases. There were more.) 

When the Nazis killed the Poles, they killed some secretly, but they also killed dozens of thousands, very publicly… To scare the rest. 

10,000 assassinated in the first few weeks in the Warthegau alone, for all to see, 10,000 leading Poles, typically intellectuals, doctors, etc…

Between 12 November 1939 (first attempted attack, stopped by weather), Hitler gave 20 orders of attack of France. However his generals were not keen… and resisted The generals knew that they were going to be defeated. But then they had no choice: time was working against them. The Manstein plan finally selected had a low probability of success. But, at least, it had some. The other plans (dully anticipated by the French) had none. The Prince of Wales, Inspector General of the British army, helped, telling his friend Adolf where to strike. Gott mit Uns did the rest…

Finally, the USA relented a bit, and established the “Cash and Carry” program, enabling France and Britain, and only them to use the USA to help arm themselves (as the Nazis were locked out of the Atlantic, by the French and British navies, they couldn’t carry anything…), to buy weapons in the USA (one such weapon ordered by Brits and French was what became the famous “Mustang” fighter aircraft, later the main long range superiority fighter of the US Air Force!)

The Nazis expelled the Jews from Germany, threw them in Poland, and in ghettos, but then those became unmanageable. Then a propaganda operation over Germany claimed the Germans had build lots of western Poland, just to see it invaded, starting in the 17 century by eastern ethnicities (the Jews).

The US Americans finally clicked morally in a correct way later in the war (after Hitler declared war to the US, Dec 11, 1941). By then they reacted similarly to the French in 1939, 1940…

Detailed Nazi plans had anticipated to kill all the Jews, and then march to death, towards the Urals, 50 million Slavs. Then German colonization could proceed, in axes of cities, towards Leningrad, Crimea…

Why the USA didn’t move immediately to help its parents, France and Britain, against Nazism, stays a mystery as US intelligentsia refuses to consider the subject [1]. Ah, you may say, there is not such a thing,as a US intelligentsia… Yes, but then loom at French intelligentsia: De Beauvoir, the collabo, is a towering figure there, so low have the expectations sunk…

Madness of the crowds need to be analyzed… So that, for example, one can steer better as in crises such as Hong Kong, Brexit, or biosphere collapse. That is why the US American attitude astoundingly inhuman at the beginning of WW2 will have to be answered… Only by effecting such analyses will things turn out for the best (often, they don’t, but now we have no choice)

Anyway, that was just a little memorandum, a community service… Remembering that France and Britain did the right thing on September 3, 1939. Not only they end up losing their empires, replace by the US empire, but, together, they suffered more than three million killed… The French empire alone suffered nearly three million killed (worst estimates) most of these losses in French Indochina… Such losses are hard to understand to Anglo-Saxons: the UK (451 K) and the US (419 K) suffered together around as many killed as metropolitan France.

World War Two end up killing 85 millions (at least; latest evaluations, 2019; for political reasons, massive underestimates were long presented)… That’s 3% of world population… Killed, by the Second World War. If the USA had come to the help of its parents, France and Britain, in 1939 or 1940, it would have kept losses at a fraction of that. No Jewish holocaust

Had the US intervened in the first half of 1940, there would have been an anti-Nazi coup… German fanatical support for Hitler paradoxically augmented later in the war, not really because it was nice to see German cities burn, like the Jews, but because too many military personnel and authorities, let alone simple Germans, had helped the Nazis with their crimes

Weirdly, the Allies were kind with many of the top Nazis. For example Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein was capable of exerting his evil Nazi influence on the German army in the 1950s, 1960s and beyond. Never mind that he ordered all Jews to be killed at some point: he couldn’t quite recall… Manstein became militärische Kult- und Leitfigur… who made sure that those who organized the coup against Hitler were NOT honored (German policy has changed since Von Manstein died in 1973… Weeks before the last Nazi Feldmarshall, another condemned war criminal).

To learn to analyze madness of the crowds, one needs to study particular cases. All the more, as much worse is potentially around the corner

Patrice Ayme



[1] My well known position is that the US Deep State and US plutocracy had empire envy, and felt Hitler was a good enough tool to grab the European empires. So US media and Plutos and Deep State all collaborated with their C in C, FDR…

Homo, Naturally Born Capitalist

April 19, 2019


Capitalism presided to the evolution of the genus Homo. First, apes are territorial. They have to be to survive: land and its resources do not reproduce at will, yet species do. But species can’t survive without land or resources. So, unfortunately, survivors exist, because they have defended successfully land and resources.

As a study by top experts put it in Nature: Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts.

Chimps On War Patrol. The species can’t survive without war. Or then, in a zoo!

The apparition of tools and weapons extended the notion of property crucial to survival to other capital. That coincided with a bigger brain and the rise of the genus Homo.

During those millions of years of human evolution, some limits to inequality were intrinsic, because the group could only survive if all worked for it, and that could only be done willingly. Force was not an option to ensure collaboration, because force was needed against outside threats and enemies.

Civilization threw these evolutionary conditions off, as the increasing powers it yielded enabled the apparition of a superior class capable of fighting enemies, foreign and domestic.

The monopolization of the means of production by these superior types included intellectual capital, which, in turn, brought superior weapons. However, intellectual capital grew the more, the more intellectuals, scientists and engineers were at work. Thus oligarchic regimes, by monopolizing those mental powers found themselves less militarily inventive than democracies, which unleashed those mental creative powers (hence developed better weapons).

Therefrom, the old struggle between  oligarchies and democracies.

How to create democracies? By outlawing runaway oligarchies. Thus the Roman Republic put an absolute limit on wealth. Enforcing equality is the fundamental reason for taxation.

Continually, the naive arise, and ask for an end to war and capital. When they get better organized, those plaintiffs succeed to hold ultimate power for a while. Spartacus, the Paris Commune, and Lenino-Stalinism are examples. However, that very organization, which put them on top, is itself from superior capital and war capability (however ephemeral). For example the Kaiser, and later Trotsky (head of the Red Army) took the military actions necessary for success.

Capitalism, war, democracy, oligarchy and plutocracy all belong to the same space. One can’t leave it. It, and only it, provides the human experience. Thus simplistic slogans have to be put to rest. It’s the correct analysis of subtlety which should rule, not this, or that idea, let alone person…

Patrice Ayme



From the Nature article about the killing of chimps by chimps in the wild:

“Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing… Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates1,2,3,4,5

…Several robust patterns emerge from these data. Killing was most common in eastern chimpanzees and least common among bonobos. Among chimpanzees, killings increased with more males and higher population density, whereas none of the three human impact variables had an obvious effect. Male chimpanzees killed more often than females, and killed mainly male victims; attackers most frequently killed unweaned infants; victims were mainly members of other communities (and thus unlikely to be close kin); and intercommunity killings typically occurred when attackers had an overwhelming numerical advantage. The most important predictors of violence were thus variables related to adaptive strategies: species; age–sex class of attackers and victims; community membership; numerical asymmetries; and demography. We conclude that patterns of lethal aggression in Pan show little correlation with human impacts, but are instead better explained by the adaptive hypothesis that killing is a means to eliminate rivals when the costs of killing are low.”


War The Architect: Who Unified Italy? Basically France! Thus, No Brexit…

December 6, 2018

France is heading toward civil war, the war of We The People against Banque Rothschild (which employed the objectively corrupt official who rules France as a monarch presently), and, more generally the financial plutocracy (which fundamentally organizes who gets loans, that is, money). In the USA, starting under Obama, life expectancy is collapsing… and indications of war of the powers that be, the plutocracy, against We The People blossom all over.

A war of resistance is needed in the USA (to install some sort of Medicare For All). In Great Britain, where the pain was real, We The People got manipulated into Brexit, a trick to make Europe more friendly to global plutocracy. Time, there, again, to make war to those who led the British people astray.

Who created Italy as a unified country, for the first time in 16 centuries?… France and Savoy! How? War! War, violence is how serious things in need of seriously moving, finally move. Just ask Jesus. Let alone Muhammad.

(The sort-of-French and certainly Gallic) Piedmont (from the Duchy of Savoy) in alliance with France, defeated Austria-Hungary at Magenta (Austrian losses: 7,000) and the mass butchery of Solferino in 1859. At Solferino, 300,000 soldiers met. The French suffered more than 3,000 dead, Savoy/Piedmont, 2,000 dead, and the defeated Austro-Hungarian 12,000 killed (for total Austro-Hungarian losses of 23,000 soldiers).

French commanders commanding. The carnage was so great at Solferino, that a young, wealthy, influential Swiss who saw the battle (a few hours from Switzerland), was aghast from the massacre, and decided to found the Red Cross… Napoleon III, initially also a Swiss, and extremely involved in Italian revolutionary circles, was also shocked by the butchery (which he personally commanded…) He ended up with a weakened French army, easy prey for Prussia, 11 years later…

Twenty-one years earlier, a purely Savoy-Italian war against Austria had miserably failed, after losing several battles, during the so-called First War Of Independence. Thus the military intervention of France was crucial in creating Italy. Italy had not been independent and whole, since the 400s (except, technically, when Charlemagne was Roman emperor, and Italy was notionally united, except, and including the Republic of Venice, a vassal state with special prerogatives and a huge navy). In any case, the point is, war makes the difference. One way, here independence and unification, or the opposite (when Italy was ravaged in several military campaigns launched by Roman emperor Justinian, in the mid Sixth Century, when he was hell-bent to reconquer Italy from the Ostrogoths… A drastic crime.)

One could go on like that. Athens in her most famous period, the Fifth Century BCE, was created, ironically enough, by a war of Sparta against the Athenian dictatorship… War doesn’t just destroy for the worst, it can create, for the best.

Modern Greece was (partly) liberated in the early 19C, by fighting the Ottomans (who had conquered Greek speaking lands over 5 centuries, just after they made Islam, a war religion, their religion…) Perversely, the present Algerian dictatorship controls the gas and oil of the Sahara, let alone Kabilya, thanks to the war France fought there to acquire control (one-third of Kabiles live in France now, though) …


The entire world was forged in, and by war.

Some claimed history stopped 25 years ago, and made lots of money and reputation, with that absurd thesis, which added, of course, that “neoliberalism” had established world peace (no less), and that’s why history stopped.

Verily, Fukuyama, a student and disciple of French Theory Heideggerian philosopher Derrida, was the “Last man”, meaning the basest, as far as a modern intellectuals can go (forgetting Saint Augustine, Saint Louis, Heidegger, Carl Schmidt, and other Nazi “thinkers”)

The folly of that thesis was fully revealed by the obvious instauration of world, global plutocracy, for all to see, with the biggest actors (GAFAM, major plutocrats) going untaxed, and ever more powerful, buying “representative” politicians as if they were pets (confer the Obamas’ getting 60 millions to describe how they toasted peanut sandwiches, once… and other symptoms of what Michelle Obama herself calls the “Impostor Syndrome“: all politicians, like Clintons and Obamas, bought by plutocrats and their subsidiaries, are, indeed “impostors”… But they rule the world…)

The future will be forged in, and by war…

Except if a world empire keeps order.

Don’t laugh. There is, de facto, already, a world empire. And that’s a good thing. Because it’s mostly a good empire (as long as it sticks to its main charter that of Human Rights). 

Indeed, that world empire already exists: the United Nations. And a reason: the mightiest nations on Earth are themselves vast empires, which have everything to fear in a war. Certainly gigantic Brazil is not going to attack any country around: Brazil has natural boundaries (except in the jungle bordering Peru and Bolivia, extremely remote and relatively narrow…) Certainly Russia will not attack China, and reciprocally, they would endanger their vast territories. And so on. If the USA invaded Canada, nobody would notice, and the US certainly doesn’t want Mexico.

One exception? Pakistan versus India. There the borders are not natural, not historic, and the protagonists are nuclear armed. That Pakistan is an Islamist state is a further risk… A calming factor is that India is a representative democracy. World safety rests in the other nuclear armed superpowers containing the problem, avoiding propagation, should local nuclear war break out….


Advice going forward?

Reverse Brexit, by a second referendum. The first Brexit referendum was illegal (it was announced as “consultative”). A referendum on the British EU membership that is announced to have force of law will terminated the stupidity of Brexit (that doesn’t mean the existing EU system is tolerable: it’s not, we need British help to make it right).

What does Brexit have to do with the preceding?

Germany has proven, once again, a bad actor. OK, not as bad as in Namibia, more than a century ago, and not as bad as in 1914-1945. However, it looks as if Germany has learning difficulties. Germany used the EU as a boosting mechanism, forbidding constructive debt, and constructive construction in southern Europe, reducing the Untermenschen there to poverty and depopulation.


Mein Herr, Ich liebe dich nicht:

A personal example you will not find in plutocratic media? In the huge Alpine valley where I live, the potential for solar energy is huge: 300 days of high altitude sun, every year. However the French state, strangled by German fiscal strangling, has cancelled subventions for solar energy, years ago. So, basically, not one new solar panel.  

However, there are plenty of brand new tractors for agriculture. Mountain agriculture is not profitable, so it’s highly subsidized by the governments. Yes, governments, with an s. The French government gives heavy subsidies for mountain agriculture… So does Brussels, that is, the EU government. The result? I saw fields, tended in full forest, with an angle so steep, only skiing looked appropriate. Ah, and what is that flood of subsidies for? Buying tractors from Liebherr, and originally German family business, now partly ensconced in Bulle, Switzerland. Liebherr family members are billionaires. They sold for dozens of millions of Euros of equipment in my Alpine valley, in the last few years.

Twenty years ago, there was not one Liebherr tractor in the entire valley (which is 300 kilometers long; Hannibal used it, to cross the Alps… And when he left it, he was ambushed…)

How do Liebherr profits profit France? Not all. But they profit Bad Wurttemberg and Switzerland… It’s the same all over Europe: a locality in Greece was the one with the highest density of Porsches… in the world. Some will cackle that this was a Greek problem: not just so. The freedom of European governments is restricted, in all sorts of ways. Meanwhile German industry, subsidized by small bankrupt German banks, profits.

Meanwhile, a German minster, one of Merkel’s minions, suggested that France should give up her permanent UN Security Council seat to… the European Union (namely, in the present state of affairs, Germany!)

Similarly, if Brexit happened (it won’t, I always said, because it’s way too insane), Great Britain would have broken apart (Northern Ireland and Scotland, which voted against Brexit, would secede). Thus, exit the UK permanent seat at the UNSC, too. Hence the pressure for France to abandon hers… from Germany. Funny: is Germany behind Brexit too? (Of course and in more ways than one.)

This sort of instabilities is worse than the ones that many fear Trump is causing. Notice that much of the instability comes from Europe, not the USA. The funny part is that the USA is often acting more like the United Federal Europe one needs… than Europe itself….


Some may scoff. However, mentalities are inherited. France and Britain, initially the same polity for several centuries, have been at the forefront of civilization for most of the last millennium. France did more, not surprisingly, being central to Europe, geographically, historically technologically, ethically, demographically, economically, politically and militarily. Europe is pretty much what the Franks fabricated (they even invented the word “Europe” in the sense it is used now).

The Franks opposed at the outset Christian fanaticism (Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Century; popes surrendered in the Eighth Century), unifying Europe, and pushing the Islamists out. The Normans (Franks) and Angevins (Franks) pushed Byzance and especially the Muslims out of Italy and Sicily. This how France got into Italy.

Meanwhile, Trump is having fun. After diagnosing  3 weeks ago that Macron’s problem was his lack of popularity, he now adds:

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

I am glad that my friend @EmmanuelMacron and the protestors in Paris have agreed with the conclusion I reached two years ago. The Paris Agreement is fatally flawed because it raises the price of energy for responsible countries while whitewashing some of the worst polluters….

Yes, well… Facts are facts, Trump us not, they do. The Paris Accords made no sense in all ways. Now everybody can see they didn’t work: world CO2 emissions augmented by 1.6% in 2016, 2.7% in 2017. (They are diminishing in the USA, not in France or Germany; OK, from a much higher basis…) In France, unbelievably, non transportation diesel fuel was supposed to rise by 50% in January, according to Macron’s insane, economy and life killing proposal (he put a “moratorium” on that insanity today… while warning of “killers” coming to Paris this weekend… thus demonstrating he, Macron, is still insane).  

In France, only the president can propose a referendum: that’s of course outrageous (it takes just 100,000 Swiss…) Let’s make a war to change that.

Wars happen between nations, but they also can happen inside, that’s always the only way to progress.  The USA, the UK, not just France, had gigantic inner wars, civil wars… Often for the best… Even for the bloodiest…

The Climate Catastrophe will bring formidable wars.  And they won’t be wars of unification… At least, at first. War is best, when it confers civilization meaning. At this very moment, it means war in France to try to break this insufferable unilateral world plutocratic order. The French government just announced it would tax the GAFAM world monopolies on its own in 2019, even if Germany disagrees.

It was high time.

The wonders burning a few cars among the wealthy bring…

Patrice Ayme



November 10, 2018


Evolution is not Politically Correct. Evolution just is. But evolution is our creator. Some have said: we are not evolution. Yes we are not just evolution, we are also the culture ourselves and our predecessors, evolved. But still, we have to understand this evolutive part we are entangled with… and which gave birth to our cultural capability, if not directly, our culture.  

New Ideas, wisdom, or even the love of wisdom, never come from a crowd howling together. However, we now live in times of crowds howling together on social networks, sharing silliness, superficial love and “likes”. But, even more enthusiastically, those crowds share hatred towards those they don’t want to understand, so that they can hate some more. Genuine creators have to make war to those brutish crowds, otherwise they won’t be able to create anew, that is above and superior.

Can’t escape War: war is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity.War is tied in to the essence of the human project, curiosity: that’s not really a problem, it’s tied in with Homo (or then Homo itself is viewed as a problem, and that’s nihilism). However, it’s a problem if, as “humanism” so far did, it’s ignored. Christianism viewed evil of curiosity, the original sin, tellingly contradicting Zoroastrianism.


Stupid people howling with relish didn’t start yesterday: just look at the way Christianism took over the Greco-Roman empire, one burned library at a time. More recent examples: generations ago, philosophy was heavily contaminated by so-called brainless structuralism, or “French Theory”, a medieval harking back to the times of no-thinking (which lasted more than a millennium before that, thanks to Bible). Before structuralism it was Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism which destroyed debate, and replaced it by lethal mob rule. Now, things are getting worse: increasing plutocratization depends upon stupidification (and thus the push towards controlled social networks, Communitarianism, Islamization, etc.). Wisdom, and its love, are on the wane.

Communitarianism is an enemy of wisdom and mental creativity. It categories people, and make these categories what’s most primordial about people. Instead of categorizing people, one should categorize ideas. If an idea is good, wherever it comes from, it’s a good idea. Roughly all thinkers have had some good ideas at some point, even Hitler or Saint Augustine! Thinking is about ideas, not howling together.

John Michael Gartland commented: “Thank You. One of the most astute observations I have seen in a long time. The insane fanaticism of the tribal political party narrative with no deviation from the party scriptures permitted no matter how fantastically fictional and politically convenient, steeped in the fantasy of something masquerading as the common good and self-righteousness has become a worldwide contagion.”


A dirty little secret of humanity is that, absent friendship, one can always befriend hatred itself. As social networks, paradoxically, have increased loneliness, they incite more individuals to partake in hatred and pack attacks. Hence the increasing venom in said social media!


In the Spanish Civil War, Republican forces arguably had more losses fighting each other than the devastation that they suffered from the Nazi and Italian fascist armies and Franco’s rebel army. The entire take-over of Spain by mass murdering lethal, church allied fascism, was financed by US plutocrats and corporations (many car companies and oil companies such as Texaco, which provided the Nazi air force in Spain all the fuel it needed to transport Franco’s army…

By allying itself with Islamists now, the left is making the error it did then, allying itself with Stalinists! Stalin and his goons ordered the killing of all the left. At the time, Stalin was secretly in a crucial military alliance… with the Nazis, on Russian soil.

Actually, the present alliance with Islamists is even worse than the alliance with Stalinists: the Soviets could claim to foster a new system of thought. A new man, let alone a new woman. Attacking the USSR in 1941, Italian tankers were amazed to find female Soviet tank officers, killed in action.

Instead, Islam was a new ideology… In 632 CE, in savage and primitive Meccan Arabia, which had been kept away from the major civilizing influences from all around (to the north, Rome, north-west, Egypt, north-east, Persia, west in Ethiopia, south in Yemen, and east in India). The Muslim prophet, speaking in the name of the great vegetable in the sky, ordered men to change in such a way it led to a demographic explosion, most militarily profitable (for example it was suggested not to kill girls, and have sex with slave girls…)

The success of Islam long baffled top Christians, such as this Byzantine emperor who debated an old Muslim scholar. In 1391 CE Manuel II Palaiologos debated a Persian scholar and recorded the exchanges in a book he authored (See dialogue 7 of “Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian”) in which the Roman Emperor stated: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Right, the whole point!

Many Muslims were offended by this characterisation of Muhammad, and protested against it. For others it may simply have been false indignation or the assumption that non-Muslims had been offended by it, and they had to look outraged, to keep the reputation of Islam as peace.

In his book, Manuel II, apparently a personal acquaintance of “god”, continues: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”

Well, we know better. Our creator is biological evolution and our creator used war to conquer the world, and shape up our genetic and epigenetic. War made us, not just love. Islam understood that perfectly well, hence its success.

War, hatred and extermination have propelled humanity through evolutionary gauntlets (leaving lots of genocides behind). Evolution intelligently selected those strategies, from the first ape who braved the savanna, and forged human neurology with them. Ignoring them is ignoring not just wisdom, but incoming fate!

Humanity is more complex, and more perverse, than humanitarianism has imagined so far. Ignoring that complexity ignores the opportunity new technology (“social networks”) offers for old fashion hatred. There is an architecture an evil, and humanity was built with it.

To demonstrate here the aggressivity of advancing wisdom, let’s victimize Albert Einstein a bit. Einstein famously said:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” (One could call this definition, “Einstein Insanity”). Guess what? Nonlocality predicts that, indeed, doing the same thing all over again, will lead to different results. And that’s how the universe work, experiences & logic show. So Einstein was as wrong as wrong can be. He missed the point entirely, by assuming the veracity of its opposite, which is false. And Einstein was clever enough to realize that what he called “spooky action at a distance”… could be true, by just evoking its possible existence.

Tying evil, strife and mental creativity exaggerated? No. Unavoidable. Morality and the principle of precaution have to admit it.

So I was just nasty to Einstein, in a sense (after all, I’m saying I see something that could be seen in Einstein’s day and age… And Bohr saw some of it…). I can do better: I can spite all mathematicians between Euclid and Bolyai. Gauss made a point to spite Bolyai, daring to say that recognizing and flattering Bolyai’s work would be to flatter himself… as he had, he claimed, secretly got the same results (but didn’t reveal them as he “feared the cries of Boeotians”, a classic allusion to Athens northern neighbors… whom Athenians thought honorable to view as stupid). Here is Gauss, in full nastiness mode: “To praise it would amount to praising myself. For the entire content of the work…coincides almost exactly with my own meditations which have occupied my mind for the past thirty or thirty-five years.” In 1848 CE Bolyai discovered that Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky had published a similar piece of work in 1829 (but only on hyperbolic geometry). Discouraged by Gauss, Bolyai published only 24 pages, ever, out of the 20,000 pages of math he wrote…

In reality, after Euclid, mathematicians forgot that there was a wheel, a sphere, or even a cushion: Aristotle’s works contain SIX (6) theorems of non-Euclidean geometry (one hyperbolic, the rest elliptic). For all to see! Thereafter, in spite of these demonstrated theorems, an idiotic debate on the parallel axiom unfolded, for 21 centuries . Even worse, Non-Euclidean geometry had been used to measure Earth with great precision, around 300 BCE, in Marseilles, by Pytheas!

In the same vein, I have dared to stand all of mathematics on its head, and shake, by pointing out the infinity axiom makes no sense.

Any debate, in a sense, is a fight. Refusing all and any fighting, is refusing all and any debate. Hence, refusing us, the essence of what made us. It shouldn’t be a debate…

Patrice Ayme

EXISTENCE MEANS WAR: the Case of France, Western Civilization

June 25, 2018

No country, arguably, has a fiercer and longer military history than France. Only China compares… Not coincidentally, these two are the two longest running civilizations (all Western

However, not really, since China, like India, was composed of several very different ethnicities, until very recent times (whereas France was all united under the Romans for centuries, before her name switched from “Gallia” to “Francia”… even then, the language, the lingua Franca, didn’t change; France had one language, Latin, which displaced three underlying Celtic languages; China had around 100 languages, although with one writing system… India, several, of both languages and alphabets).

The history of the world is the history of victories, military or philosophical (philosophical includes religious). Countries such as the Central State, China, exists, because they didn’t lose crucial battles, or when China did lose to Genghis Khan, and then Ogedei, Chinese civilization awed the Khans enough for them to spare it

This drastic solution had been cooly proposed by Mongol generals, after the crushing Mongol victory, to solve once and for all time, the Chinese problem, by eradicating China’s population and ecology, solving the Chinese problem many Mongols thought they had… The Mongols didn’t to China what they had done to the Xi Xia (annihilated). 

The Mongols did annihilate several highly original civilizations. And mauled others beyond recognition, destroying their spirits. For example the Mongols eradicated the Republican spirit in Russia, along with all its independence, for three centuries. In Baghdad they extinguished enlightened Islam…  

France is the successor state of Rome: the first king of the Franks was Roman imperator (he had the “imperium”), and Roman Consul. France could only exist through a long string of victories… What Rome got deprived of in the few decades during which the Occidental Part of the empire collapsed. 

French victories were most notable against the Muslims. It was crucial, considering what the Muslim invaders and their Islamist ideology did in North Africa: a ferocious, total eradication not just of North African history, but of the will to civilization, the defeat of Islam was the defining moment of Western history. As the great historian of Rome Edward Gibbon observed. Gibbon said in a famous passage that had the Muslims won at Poitiers in 732 CE (or Toulouse, in 721 CE or Narbonne in 737 CE, the city itself being evacuated by the Islamists in 759 CE):

“the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

And considering what Islam ended up doing to intellectuals (for example punishing printing with death, as the Ottoman Empire did for centuries)… It would have been the end of civilization. Instead, as I have alleged, in all appearance, the repeated exterminations of the Muslim invaders in France brought the collapse of the Arab Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE (destroying the myth of the Arab Caliphate just then: after that the influence of Iran was overwhelming…)

Russia and Ukraine were abandoned to their sad fate when the Mongol “Golden Horde” invaded them in the 13C (and Russia has not forgotten). However, not so for the rest of Europe: pretty much all of Europe was molded by the large empire Francia created and was the center of. (Including more or less directly Scandinavia, as the kingdom of Denmark waged a long war against France, starting under Charlemagne when it refused to return Saxon refugees and lords.)

From there on, Russia resented Western Europe, for child abandonment… Hence the jostling for power with France in the Middle East, which brought the Crimean War. (To some extent, Putin is repeating the pattern…)

Capture of Crucial Tower During the Siege of Sevastopol, Crimea, 1855. Notice the pretty red pants of the French army. From a Provence plant. German gunners found those scarlet pants most practical for target practice in 1914, when the French army suffered up to 23,000 killed in one day during unsuccessful counterattack (before successfully counterattacking 2 weeks later). This a painting by French painter Vernet, not plutocratic-we-own-the-world-because-we-say-so  thug like “Getty”…

The military might of France, driven by her central position, history and demography, was considerable: not only the French invaded England, creating the UK we have now, but at Bouvine in 1214 CE, a grand coalition including England and the Roman-German empire, was defeated by Philippe Auguste. And on it went: fascist Catholic Spain was ultimately broken by France, creating the Netherlands in the process.

The war of Spain against France lasted two centuries. Its initial aim was for some Spaniards to capture the French possessions in Southern Italy and Sicily which had been wrestled from the Muslims, centuries prior.

The war of France with ultra-militaristic, fascist and racist Prussia started in the mid 18C. Prussia was financed by Britain, and things didn’t go well for France, which lost the 1756-1763 world war (7 year war, “Indian and French war” in Americanese). Ultimately, though, Prussia and its thought system (racism, anti-Judaism, anti-Slavism, ultra militarization, etc.) were annihilated in 1945, in ALL ways.

Animated by a spirit of vengeance, France created the American Republic (king Louis XVI was warned that he was creating a republic in America; he shrugged that off). France won that war against the UK, but the financial cost was so great, that the French Revolution ensued (not only French agents contributed to the insurrection, but France provided more than 90% of the ammunition used by the American rebels. The war finished with two French armies (generals Rochambeau, Lafayette) converging on the besieged British army blockaded by the French fleet (admiral D’Estaing).

Since the Napoleonic era, or, rather, the Napoleonic error, France won many victories. Some were military, some philosophical (but with major military consequences). The military victories enabled France to keep on existing (Europe too). The philosophical ones, well, as Chou En Lai said, when asked to evaluate the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell how much impact they will have on humanity.


France defeated the pirates and potentates of Algeria (1830), then occupied and modernized this enormous country (half of my family is from, so I guess I am a French victory too!).

French and British armies and fleets defeated China, which had to make a number of treaties, opening up to trade and the world (1856-1860;1884-1885; UK got a tiny help from the USA).

France and Britain, mostly France, defeated Russia in Crimea (in many ways reminiscent of today’s demons.).


France crushed the Austrian empire at the battles of Magenta and Solferino (24 June 1859). That freed Italy from Austria, creating Italy as a state. And even a nation. Ironically, later the dictator Benito Mussolini would force Northern Italians to speak “Italian” (whereas before they often spoke other languages closer to French, or German…)


France lost the war of 1870–1871 with Prussia. However, when Prussia, now the German empire attacked to finish the French Republic in August 1914, it nearly lost its entire army six weeks later (First battle of the Marne). Ultimately, after enormous losses, and thanks to delayed but considerable British help, France won, and had won even before the USA came fully to the rescue of victory (France had cut off the German food supply in the south, and the entry of the USA in the war had cut off Germany from crucial US help through the hypocritical Netherlands!)

France declared war to the Nazis (September 3, 1939). Victory was delayed several years by the stupendous and improbable loss of the Battle of France (deadliest battle on the western front in WWII). That was lost through a combination of bad luck, treason (Duke of Wales told Hitler of the Allied weak point), major incompetence of the French commander (who was warned by his second in command of exactly what happened), fighting Germans battle hardened in Spain for four years (thus superior tactics and training in the first week, when the battle was lost).


The next crucial French victory was Bir Hakeim, a modern Thermopylae, but with a much lethal, yet positive outcome (June 1942). The French were around 3,300 men (and one woman!) Those heroes resisted incredible pounding, preventing Rommel’s Afrika Korps from encircling the defeated British Eighth army, by stopping him for weeks. Half of the force was evacuated in the end, half died on the spot.

The French Republic won the Algerian war, militarily (using torture, true, but so did the other side, which was also in terrorist bombing against innocent civilians). However, De Gaulle was an epistolary racist and wanted Algeria cut off from France. France was also getting enormous pressure from the USSR and the USA to become a secondary power (“decolonization”), so he treacherously gave Algeria to a party of thugs, the FNL (which still has it, complete with the last surviving character from the 1950s as dictator).

There were other French victories, of a more subtle type: the leaders of Communist China and Vietnam were instructed, not to say indoctrinated by French Communists in Paris. When negotiating with them, French Socialists gave them half of Vietnam. Many in France viewed the “defeat” in Vietnam as a victory (of French Communism!).

The greatest French victory of all was the establishment of the United Nations (the SDN, prototype of the UN in which the US refused to partake, was actually a French idea from 1916, later captured by US racist president Wilson, the guy who operated a U-turn in World War One, when he saw that the Franco-British victory was in the cards… said victory was delayed by the collapse of Russia, itself due to the Kaiser allying himself with Lenin and his henchmen…)


Conclusion: The history of the West, post-Rome is pretty much the history of France. By 800 CE, Francia had officially “renovated the Roman empire”… And the Eastern Roman empire, saved by the annihilation of three successive Islamist invasions of France (721 CE to 748 CE) could only agree. In 846 CE several Frankish army  annihilated the Muslims who had raided Rome, burned the Vatican.(one army was headed by Frankish Dux Guy… often Guy is presented as a “Lombard” because the Franks decided they were Lombards… after, and because having defeated the Lombards. Actually Charlemagne proudly wore their Iron Crown; the Lombards, Long Beards, had come into Italy from Northern Germany, and occupied it for two centuries before the Franks consented to submit them to stop the whining of the Popes, who the Franks tortured… through the Lombards…)

And what of China? China, by my own reckoning, spent 6 centuries under foreign occupation, most of it under the “Jurchen” later self-relabelled as “Manchus”. However the Mongol invasions and occupation were a near-death experience. China is mightier than ever


Morality: Sometimes, war should give peace a chance. Yet, without war, by those states most advanced in matters philosophical, not only peace has no chance, but nor does civilization. Philosophical correctness means you can’t have your dictator and eat it. If you want to eat it, you have to make war. That’s French lesson number one.

Patrice Ayme



Note 1: I allude above to one of the scariest moment of history. The most capable and efficient general Subotai was put in charge of the assault against the Jin in their emergency capital of Kaifeng. Subotai wished to massacre the whole of the population, and change the ecology (from agricultural to pastoral, Mongol style). But fortunately for the North Chinese, general Yelu Chucai was more humane, wiser, and under his advice Ogodei rejected the cruel suggestion of eradication which had befallen many civilizations which opposed the Mongols, including the longest existing and mightiest Buddhist empire of the Xiaxia.


Note 2: The preceding essay was motivated by an impudent, ignorant, dumb and offensive (“troll-like”) question in Quora: Did France have any major combat victories since the Napoleonic era?”


We War, Or We Are Not: Chimpanzees On Patrol

June 29, 2017


Most advanced animals are territorial. (It’s also true at sea: that was discovered with Orcas, Killer Whales, recently: the high sea races don’t mix genetically and culturally with the land-hugging races!)

Where does this territoriality come from? Researchers have no guesses. I do: it’s as simple as supposing that animals are smart. I run through the woods all the time among dangerous animals, and I can see them thinking fast, across many species, and adjusting their attitude accordingly.

It’s easy to see why, economically speaking, territoriality should arise. Economy means: environmental management. At this point many feel like writing a few equations that would justify everything, and such equations have been written, and those who wrote them achieved fame.

Equations tie concepts together. Concepts which can be measured. However, one has to be careful. The case of gravitation is famous. The master equation, call it Einstein’s equation, says:

Curvature = Mass-Energy

As Einstein himself pointed out, the right hand-side is not well-defined. However, one can still draw non-trivial consequences from it. But do those “prove” the equation? No.

Posing With That Special Attitude Can Speak Louder Than Words!

Researchers used 20 years of data from Ngogo in Uganda to explore collective action in chimpanzees.

When male chimpanzees patrol the boundaries of their territories they walk silently in single file.

Normally chimps are noisy: it’s a deliberate tactic to scare everybody. But on patrol they’re like silent death. They sniff the ground and stop to listen for sounds. Their cortisol and testosterone levels are jacked 25 percent higher than normal. Chances of contacting conspecific enemies are high: 30 percent.

Ten percent of patrols result in violent fights where they hold victims down and bite, tear, hit, kick and stomp them to death. It has been observed that a chimpanzee tribe could completely annihilate one next door.

The result of these savage acts of war? A large, safe territory rich with food, longer lives, and new young females wandering into the group.

Territorial boundary patrolling by chimpanzees is one of the most dramatic forms of collective action in mammals. Patrolling, and killing, together benefits the group, whether individual chimps took part in the action, or not.

Some Chimps In The ASU Study, While On Patrol

A team — led by Arizona State University Assistant Professor Kevin Langergraber of the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Institute of Human Origins — examined 20 years of data on who participated in patrols in a 200-member-strong Ngogo community of chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda.

Males joined 33 percent of patrols that occurred when they were in the group and young enough to take part. Young females have been observed to join patrols.

The behavior is evidence of what’s called group augmentation theory. What is good for the group is ultimately good for the individual. Some sacrifice from each member translates into a larger, safer group. By 2009, the Ngogo chimpanzees expanded their territory by 22 percent over the previous decade.

“Free riders may increase their short-term reproductive success by avoiding the costs of collective action,” Langergraber’s team wrote, “but they do so at the cost of decreasing the long-term survival of the group if it fails to grow or maintain its size; nonparticipants suffer this cost alongside the individuals they had cheated.”

“Cost” though, is a human concept tied to record keeping.

Chimpanzees are one of the few mammals in which inter-group warfare is a major source of mortality. Chimps in large groups have been reported to kill most or all of the males in smaller groups over periods of months or even many years, acquiring territory in the process. Territorial expansion can lead to the acquisition of females who bear multiple infants. It also increases the amount of food available to females in the winning group, increasing their fertility.

The researchers found no consequences for those chimpanzees that did not join patrols (but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist). Most studies have focused on short term benefits of cooperation, said lead researcher Kevin Langergraber, “but our study shows the benefit of long-term data collection, and also that we still have a lot to learn from these chimpanzees.”

Male chimpanzees remain in the group they were born in their entire lives (females wander to settle somewhere else). Because they can live for more than 50 years, patrolling when they’re young produces personal future benefits.

However, if they don’t patrol, there aren’t any consequences — no sidelong glances, snubs or being chased out of the group, claims anthropologist David Watts of Yale University, who worked with Langergraber on the study.

“We know from a lot of theoretical and empirical work in humans and in some other specialized, highly cooperative societies — like eusocial insects — that punishment by third parties can help cooperation evolve,” Watts said. “But it doesn’t seem to us that chimpanzees punish individuals who do not patrol. Sometimes individuals will be present when a patrol starts, and thus have the opportunity to join the patrol but fail to do so. As far as we can see, these individuals do not receive any sort of punishment when this occurs.”

Chimpanzees are extremely intelligent, but usually they aren’t considered to be capable of what’s called “collective intentionality,” which allows humans to have mutual understanding and agreement on social conventions and norms.

“They undoubtedly have expectations about how others will behave and, presumably, about how they should behave in particular circumstances, but these expectations presumably are on an individual basis,” Watts said. “They don’t have collectively established and agreed-on social norms.”

What Watts seems to want to say is that he didn’t see punishment. Thus, he says, there is no enforcement of norms. Thus there are no norms. Thus norms were not collectively established.

There are several problems with this reasoning. First all is not stick: there is also the carrot. A chimp may not be punished, but them he may lost opportunity. One opportunity lost? The pleasure of the hunt of the biggest game, fellow chimp, the pleasure of killing.

To expects animals establish norms as we do is, with all due respect, a bit silly. They do it, as we do when we don’t have language at our disposal.

“… this tendency of humans to cooperate in large groups and with unrelated individuals must have started somewhere,” Watts said. “The Ngogo group is very large (about 200 individuals), and the males in it are only slightly more related to one another than to the males in the groups with which they are competing. Perhaps the mechanisms that allow collective action in such circumstances among chimpanzees served as building blocks for the subsequent evolution of even more sophisticated mechanisms later in human evolution.”

Yes, sure. And what are these mechanisms? Can we imagine them?

We know how WE do it in civilization, and the million of years before that: we talk. We talk digitally, enabling us to communicate extremely precise information: this is the interest of equations.

What did we do before digital speech? Well we could whistle and do other sounds… which animals readily understand: a whining sound in humans of the sort my seven-year old daughter is expert at when she wants cake, is readily understood by a dog from 100 feet away. And by another 500 species besides.

There are other languages: action, gestures… They can vary. Most animals though, understand man is the top dog. I have been charged by bull elks, weighing 1,000 pounds, horns down, until they realized I was no mountain lion. Similarly, a bear or lion will immediately be reminded of human supremacy, from just the proper attitude. Then they instantaneously deduce they should moderate their rage, hunger, and other animals spirits inhabiting them.

The point is that they reason. They fear humans not “instinctively”, but because they were taught, by parents, or circumstances. Chimpanzees are also taught. From their first months on Earth. Then they deduce, in particular, friend from foe. Friends are in the tribe, foes are not in the tribe.

When I run in a National Park, all the dangerous animals out there, even the dangerous snakes, not just the bears, lions and various ungulates, know who I am, even before meeting me in person. They also know what a creature such as me is expected to do: left alone, I, and my ilk, will leave them alone.

So the missing link is that animals spent a lot of time thinking: their lives depend upon it.

“Collective Intentionality” results from all this collective thinking out of the same initial conditions. Chimps, from the earliest ager, learn that defending their traditional fruit trees enable them to survive, because they need to eat, to survive. And so on… It’s basic neurogenesis…

Patrice Ayme’

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

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

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner