My unpublished papers

  • Uranium and the other alpha emitters and human health – and many, many other illnesses – in fact my hypothesis is that cannabis can counter all what is caused by uranium (but won’t cure hereditary diseases, it will however be able to kill their effects with a permanent treatment – and I won’t obviously comment on birth defects…)
  • A refutation of the R processes : heavy nucleii formation in black holes, an explanation for gravitational waves, linked to volcanism – unified theory showing there is no beginning in the history of the universe and that it is strictly infinite –>  Click

These two first papers have already been sent to a lot of peer reviewed journals, without success even though they both received encouraging comments from some editors.

  • The first thinkers of totalitarianism (with a focus on Sismondi) Article Pirot Sismondi (waiting for peer review at the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, but already made available here)

The Lipsey Lancaster paradox is intrinsically anarcho-capitalist

« True free markets have never been tried », this is the point of this article ; it is possible to make it clear with a simple « mathematical » abstraction.

One can assemble as X’s all forms of government intervention (Xa for the bank oligopoly, Xb for regulations and standards, Xc for all taxes, Xd for other infringements on personal freedom such as gun laws, the draft etc.) and Y’s all issues with the economy today (Ya for inequalities, Yb for pollutions, Yc for economic instability, Yd for insecurity, etc).

Most people tend to be simply unable to try and risk the following : bringing all X’s on one side of the equation and all Y’s on the other side.

They say for instance : « Ok I know that Xa may be linked to Yc but I claim that putting Xc and Ya on the same side will reduce Ya » (« I believe taxation can reduce inequalities », to write it non-mathematically). They never consider the simple argument that putting all the X’s on one side and the Ys on the other, by ending all forms of government intervention, has never been tried. We simply have no experience on what the results could be (we only have experience for partial attempts where not all the X’s where put on the same side – they never were). If you try to start a discussion you will receive replies containing themselves a contradiction, i.e. acknowledging the market is not perfectly free but still blaming the free markets, not recognizing that the equation has never been solved once anywhere in the world ; you cannot judge a result without knowing it. You cannot simply pretend the result (« a free market society ») is already here, while the equation is not solved.

Another way of formulating it is the Lipsey Lancaster paradox, which can be restated simply : « so long as some X’s will be on the same side as Y’s (i.e. the market is imperfectly free), then it’s not free at all » (which is why many have attempted to use that paradox to defend government solutions – « we have not managed to kill all the mygals, so let’s instead let them invade our homes and tame them » is a funny yet realistic restatement of that « second-best argument »). The fully free market of the neoclassics can be assimilated to Ludwig von Mises’ ever-spinning economy. Any argument such as « let us put one X with one Y because we believe government can solve Y » is idealistic. The X’s and Y’s are balanced and there is no way any exogeneous factor interferes. And Mises was certainly the first to really make the direct point that all forms of idealism have to be rejected strongly, as unable to do the equation-solving work, and to make way for a true free-market society.

The Lipsey-Lancaster paradox is highly interesting as it points out that so long as we are not at a 100 % free society, getting closer to it (i.e. from 98 % to 99 % and then from 99 % to 99,2 %, to 99,99999… % etc) is not getting anywhere (i.e. being at 99,999 % close to a free market is the exact equivalent of being at 0%).

Thus we are in a situation where people are still attempting to solve the equation by doing more work with solutions already tried while leaving vacant a simple way to resolve it which is also what all mathematicians, faced with an equation, do : putting the X’s on one side, the Y’s on another is the most basic way of going forward in solving the equation and to discover that, as Austrians have for long hypothesized, the X’s equal the Y’s and that there is no exogeneous factor making any of the X’s needed for the benefit of the many.

The Lipsey Lancaster paradox is a very simple way to reply to all the socialists of all movements blaming the free market – the situation that we are in fact at 0 % is obvious through many regards. Every entrepreneur with a sharp eye knows it, the barriers are just hidden deeper and higher, and banks, especially, make it look like « it is capitalism that is to blame ». It is extremely easy to see that banks are subordinated to governments granting them rights and organizing the financial markets, and will never support entrepreneurs with ideas going against the interest of the elected. Government will never help you solve the equation showing its direct responsibility in all the ills it claims to fight everyday.


I also recommend my article on why repressed homosexuals are always and everywhere defenders of the State (link) and on how private police & justice & defense work easily (link).

Trump’s political strategy is like Dubya’s : the “Deep State Conspiracy” is a reality TV show

Trump is faking everything – he’s faking being an idiot to whom high civil servants are disobeying to. He’s faking being a Russian agent – his policies in Syria directly contradict that. He’s giving orders to organize everything, to make it look like “the Deep State is conspiring against him”. If the Deep State has a true representative, I think it’s for everyone John Bolton – how this man ends up right in the middle, handpicked by the president who campaigned against the war in Syria in 2013 ? Trump is a vile liar who understands that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to inoculate it safely. Trump wants you to believe he is full of contradictions ; meanwhile he can rule safely ; he just needs to permanently organize the “show”. The economic crisis is approaching and the US government is planning yet another forged chemical attack in Syria ; but everyone is looking for “the traitor of the op-ed of the New York Times” in a farce in which “he is rumoured to want to use the polygraph”… Comedy show of the 90s. Isn’t Trump a magnate of entertainment ? Isn’t this how he built his entire media career ? Reality TV,  the kingdom of the set-up…

It’s just a logical follow up to G. W. Bush’s “idiocracy” – everyone in Texas knows Bush’s Texan accent is faked, and that he didn’t had it in the 1970s – a political spin learnt certainly from Karl Rove – Bush studied at Yale – to seduce the inhabitants of Crawford, Texas… Journalist William Reymond notes in Bush Land how actors are used for scenography, “coming in bus from Waco” while “haystacks have just been set up”. Trump is doing the same, except he’s ramping it up. Trump expects everyone will believe the story but “the dear leader making appeal to the people” isn’t exactly a new strategy – Mao Zedong’s… Giving the people a way to unleash passions so that nobody is doing accurate reporting work. All “leaks” are under control. I’d point again to another interesting document by Booz Allen & Hamilton, a think-tank who suggested at least once that the US authorities do “managed release of confidential information” so as to divert inquiries farther from more important issues (such as what I raise on my website on DU weapons) :

Diversion material Booz Allen Hamilton
Found that in a footnote of a Chomsky book, What we say goes

Trump has in fact ramped up massively that strategy, it’s as simple as that. Trump has the “Deep State scapegoat” available in his communication tools so he may at any time use it to revert policy and foil people – for instance coming nicely having “discovered the conspiracy of the Deep State to forge chemical attacks in Syria” if the proofs circulate too widely – he crucifies a few high civil servants, makes a lot of noise, and comes back to more manipulation somewhere else (North Korea for instance) ?

What a US president needs is war because it’s the best way to spend lots of public money and ensure a lot of cash back in his own pockets through each call for tender (pay a lot to the company while forcing it to retrocede a big back part of it in your private accounts – cf the $21 trillion hole). So he will manipulate you into believing a war is needed somewhere, that’s all – Trump can switch between Syria, Iran and North Korea so may be swinging back and forth between these countries. That’s all.

The repressed homosexuals are, always and everywhere, enemies of the free market – Les homosexuels refoulés sont, partout et toujours, des ennemis du marché libre

[FR + bas] It is obvious how power naturally attracts the sexually repressed for the power can be used to lie to yourself more convincingly by getting access to that flesh through the sole material levers you have and not love.

I wish to direct my readers to Socialism by Ludwig von Mises for a more general discussion about socialism (in its general definition covering national-socialism and all forms of state intervention in the economy) and its failures. Mises makes that very significant point which the metoo movement has well propagated which is that socialism is highly favorable to sexual aggression and rape, because those with an arbitrary power i.e. the bureaucrats, administrators, and more importantly heads of government, in a socialist regime (where, in addition, resources are scarce and thus the need to go doorknocking to ask for social support or other privileges more present) are likely to use that to extort sexual acts from the young women or men they seek to rape – and they of course benefit from impunity, that’s Mises’ point (and it’s obvious that all forms of power today give that impunity, even in systems which appear very far from the typical forms of socialism, e.g. today’s crony capitalism). The metoo movement and many other scandals have shown once again how rape and sexual aggressions in general are extremely frequent in the palaces of political power. Competition is the only way to fight that and it must be absolute.

The market behaves as one individual’s subconsciousness – when you do not listen to it it always manages to control you in some way. It keeps always inadvertent “reminders” visible even when the person is fighting against his/her true self very strongly. « Reminders » that disappear when the person accepts his/her true self as normal…

There are a lot of people taking care not to get involved in any way into politics. They never express any opinion or, better, defend freedom, even without too much ambition, just casually.

But whoever feels the behaviour of the alter ego has to be controlled (through any form of state intervention) can legitimately be expected to be talking about him/herself i.e. to be willing to ask that somebody external be limiting their own freedom (i.e. to have an external insurance against their inner self they are afraid to see free). You cannot dissociate the two. This is a simple psychological analysis which can be checked this way : all majors founders of the socialist ideology were homophobic. Why ? Homophobia is the simplest of the « reminders » for repressed homosexuality and will ever be. Marx formed a true couple with Engels, which in its conversations of course despised homosexuality (1869 letter). Rousseau was highly homophobic, Sismondi (lesser known but significant founder, the only person quoted in the Manifesto together with David Ricardo) too (and well known for his repressed manners, and lack of success with women), the Soviet Union was from the beginning to the end hunting homosexuals, Allende (who showed unwillingness to extradite a German Nazi, Walter Rauff, in the early 1970s according to Victor Farias’s “The Nazis in Chile” – 2002) believed in “a cure for homosexuality” in his younger years and was also an eugenist and an antisemite – cf also Victor Farias.

When you are hurting yourself by repressing your inner self, you cannot help but also be willing to hurt the others – since there is a natural reaction which is you do not want to suffer more than the others, and the obvious compulsion is to make them suffer instead of alleviating that pain you are hiding deep by acknowledging your own self plainly.

So the compulsion will stay and grow – the more you gain power the more you demonstrate to yourself “the lie works” so you suffer more (because the real you regrets that) and so instead of “solving the equation” (recognizing the pain, stop the tragedy, acknowledge your sexuality) you increase the pain inflicted on others – which may actually get your system to work, in appearance, even more, enough to believe it is a success, reinforcing the cycle.

All defenders of state intervention try to protect themselves i.e. use market repression as a way to prove to themselves that repressing themselves work. Market is understood as the symbol they need to combat because the market, through its spontaneity, represents the spontaneity of human sexuality, and interfering with it materializes that dream of physically stopping these thoughts coming to remind them one way or another of their true self. So by unleashing themselves on the market they try to fight a perfect scapegoat for their own subconsciousness – a form of mystical fight against themselves in which the individual needs to convince themselves as he/she convinces the others – so he/she will select surrounding individuals that propagate the lie, etc.

Jews are seen as a “feminine” group (because of their usually strong integration in the social fabric) and assimilated to homosexuals. Antisemitism is simply a mutant form of homophobia. Etc.


Il est évident à quel point le pouvoir attire naturellement les personnes refoulant leur vraie sexualité, dans la mesure où le pouvoir peut être utilisé pour se mentir à soi même de façon plus convaincante en accédant à la chair par les seuls leviers matériels et pas via l’amour romantique.

Je me permets de pointer à mes lecteurs l’oeuvre majeure de Ludwig von Mises Socialism, pour une discussion plus générale sur le socialisme (dans sa définition générale couvrant le national-socialisme et toutes les formes d’intervention de l’État dans l’économie) et ses échecs. Mises soulève ce point central que le mouvement metoo a largement fait résonner au-delà des habituels réseaux sociaux, qui est que le socialisme est très favorable à l’agression sexuelle et au viol, car ceux qui ont un pouvoir arbitraire i.e. les bureaucrates, administrateurs, et surtout les chefs de gouvernement, dans un régime socialiste (où les ressources sont, en plus, rares et la nécessité de gratter à des portes pour quémander des aides sociales ou autres privilèges beaucoup plus importante) sont susceptibles d’utiliser cela pour exiger des rapports sexuels des jeunes femmes ou jeunes hommes ils cherchent à violer – et bénéficient bien sûr de l’impunité, c’est l’argument de Mises (et il est évident que toutes les formes de pouvoir aujourd’hui donnent cette impunité, même dans des systèmes qui semblent très éloignés des formes typiques de socialisme, ainsi du capitalisme de connivence (corporatisme, très mal nommé néolibéralisme, le système actuel). Le mouvement metoo et bien d’autres sandales ont démontré une nouvelle fois comment le viol et les agressions sexuelles en général sont extrêmement fréquentes dans les palais du pouvoir politique. La compétition est le seul moyen de combattre cela et elle doit être absolue.

Le marché se comporte comme le subconscient de l’individu – quand on ne l’écoute pas, il réussit toujours à nous contrôler d’une façon ou d’une autre. Le subconscient rend toujours visibles des « rappels » dans le comportement de l’individu, dans son vocabulaire et ses tics de langage par exemple, même quand la personne combat très violemment sa vraie personnalité. « Rappels » qui disparaissent naturellement une fois la vraie personnalité acceptée et vécue comme normale…

Il y a beaucoup de gens qui prennent soint de ne jamais s’impliquer en quelque façon que ce soit en politique. Ils n’expriment aucune opinion, ou, mieux, défendent juste la liberté, sans même trop d’audaces, juste de façon triviale.

Mais quiconque ressent le besoin de contrôler le comportement d’autrui (via quelque forme d’intervention de l’État que ce soit) exprime par un moyen détourné une envie qu’on le contrôle lui-même, qu’on limite sa propre liberté (i.e. d’avoir une garantie externe que sa vraie nature, qui lui fait si peur, ne s’exprime pas). Il est impossible de dissocier les deux. C’est une analyse psychologique simple qui peut se confirmer d’une autre façon : tous les fondateurs majeurs du socialisme en tant qu’idéologie étaient homophobes. Pourquoi ? L’homophobie est le plus simple des « rappels » pour l’homosexualité refoulée et il en sera toujours ainsi. Marx formait un vrai couple avec Engels, qui dans ses conversations, bien sûr, condamnait l’homosexualité (lettre de 1869). Rousseau était fortement homophobe, Sismondi (un fondateur moins connu mais significatif, le seul auteur cité dans le Manifeste avec David Ricardo) aussi (et il était largement connu pour ses manières d’homosexuel refoulé et ses déboires avec les femmes), l’Union Soviétique a été du début à la fin un régime dont le code pénal faisait la chasse aux homosexuels, Allende (qui a montré au début des années 1970 son manque de volonté pour extrader un nazi allemand, Walter Rauff, selon Victor Farias dans “The Nazis in Chile”, livre de 2002) croyait, dans ses jeunes années, à une “solution médicale” pour l’homosexualité et était eugéniste – cf aussi Victor Farias.

Quand on se blesse soi-même en réprimant son soi intérieur, on ne peut pas s’empêcher de vouloir aussi blesser les autres – car il y a une réaction naturelle consistant à ne pas vouloir souffrir plus que les autres, et la compulsion évidente est de vouloir les faire souffrir aussi, au lieu d’alléger sa propre douleur en se reconnaissant tel quel.

Donc la compulsion va rester et grandir – le plus on arrive à obtenir du pouvoir, le plus on se démontre à soi-même que « le mensonge fonctionne » donc on souffre plus (parce que le moi réel le regrette profondément) et donc, au lieu de « résoudre l’équation » (reconnaître la douleur, arrêter la tragédie, reconnaître sa sexualité) on augmente la douleur qu’on inflige aux autres – ce qui peut d’ailleurs faire fonctionner le système, en apparence, assez pour croire que c’est un succès, et renforcer le cycle.

Tous les défenseurs de l’intervention d’État essayent de se protéger eux-même i.e. d’utiliser la répression du marché comme un moyen de se prouver à eux-même que réprimer leur sexualité fonctionne. Le marché est vu comme le symbole qu’ils doivent combattre car le marché, par sa spontanéité, représente la spontanéité de la sexualité humaine, et interférer avec le marché matérialise ce rêve d’interférer physiquement avec ces pensées leur rappelant d’une façon ou d’une autre leur vrai moi. Donc, en se défoulant contre le marché, ils tentent de combattre un bouc émissaire parfait pour leur propre subconscient – une forme de combat mystique contre eux-même dans lequel il est aussi essentiel pour l’individu de se convaincre lui-même que de convaincre les autres… donc préfère des amis qui entretiennent le mensonge, etc.

Les Juifs sont vus comme un groupe “féminin” (en raison de leur forte intégration dans le tissu social) et assimilés à des homosexuels. L’antisémitisme est une forme mutante d’homophobie. Etc.

Private police and justice made easy

It is simple and natural to expect that private police services would tend to develop their own private judges, and vice versa. The simple way police is ensured needs no explanation : consumers would for instance buy small emitters allowing private patrols to quickly identify with masks or glasses their customers and care solely for them (except of course when there are economies of scale in indiscriminate protection e.g. terrorist attacks).

Cooperation between private polices, as well as cooperation between private judges, is a thing the market can be expected to deliver without difficulty. Mutual recognition is a simple principle. Companies have a very low competitive incentive to oppose the decisions of other companies – except when the whole public can be expected to agree, an extremely rare case in which absolute freedom to wear weapons happens to contribute to the social order, but having a company so corrupt that it requires such kind of stand-off is extremely, extremely unlikely in the spontaneous order where corruption is much more likely to be caught much upstream ; and absolute free market means users will have all time to bankrupt the company by simply leaving it.

Hence the only process that can be expected is a process of constructive competition in the framework of the very obvious cooperation agreements (i.e mutual recognition of the decisions that will, obviously, be a key criterion of decision for consumers).

Hence there is no need to fear a situation in which the absence of a centralized body for justice would mean constant discussion of decisions. It is also highly likely that judges will want to share as much files as possible publicly. Why ? Because of course judge is a career where your honesty is the main reason why you can be expected to be picked by new customers – hence transparency is interesting for them.

Mutual recognition is simple as the basis for the legal code is as well simple : absolute respect of the human body (dealt with as the property of the person) and of all the other private properties of the individuals, respect of private contracts. Common sense (for instance understanding that if proof can be brought that an individual has been manipulated, his decision cannot be really seen as his own). Understanding that there are some human activities that no one can be expected to be willing to undertake fully of his/her own will (I see a single one : selling his/her own body to dozens of customers everyday for sexual intercourse – to quote Mises in Socialism “prostitutes belong to the owner of the brothel”).

As explained in an earlier article judges could pay themselves by levying money on the culprits and free market will fix their income but judges could also be expected to become workers for security companies encompassing police and justice (as pointed out earlier). In this case the company seizing the suspect (free competition will be the best incentive for absolute respect of the human rights of said suspect) will have the hand in dealing with the enquiry, agreements between companies lead to recognition of justice decisions, and the judge will be paid through the subscriptions of the customers. This is certainly a much more efficient way of dealing with security.

As always the fast information network of nowadays (companies like Twitter for instance) allow for the quick discovery of issues (scandals…) and thus re-adjustment of market demand according to the possible failures of service providers.


For defense, as already pinned out it is clear to me that nuclear power makes it very cheap. It is a charity work some big company would want to ensure (to any area it wishes – no need for borders of any kind, it is obviously one of the actual purpose of abolishing the State) for self advertisement, while reducing spending by adopting all-out retaliation instead of gradualism to better discourage offense (for instance “Apple decides to shield California and Oregon under its 5 nuclear armed stato reactor powered cruise missiles” while “Dassault and EADS cooperate in offering to Western Europe nuclear defense with two nuclear submarine drones armed with SLBMs”, etc – it is a purely voluntary process, and economic calculation would drastically increase efficiency and lower costs – how do we need thousands of H-Bombs when a very, very limited number are enough to threaten with decapitation)… Also the disappearance of the State ought obviously to lead to the actual climate of peace needed to limit costs even more. In general : how come a single company be expected to want to start any war ? How could it fund something so deadly and costly ? And permanently alienating a big slice of the world’s consumers ? Even if (as can very legitimately be expected) the areas without State are a limited part of Earth. There is no single person that has any interest in putting his own life at threat in any war he/she would certainly be found responsible of, and attacked for. Doing this (building ICBMs, for instance) while hiding is, impossible, simply put. Business has all interest in protecting its own assets and customers against the invasion of States ; so business does the work.


To conclude I will just point to the Lipsey Lancaster paradox, as I can be expected to do very frequently now : it is the mathematical proof that so long as you don’t eliminate 100% of the Leviathan (the State) that disrupts the ever-spinning economy (Mises), it will regrow and keep sucking the energy out of your business (through intimidation with regulations and standards, or through the oligopoly of banking creating inflation, or through taxation, or maybe even through the military draft) – the State exists solely through the exploitation of resources produced by others. The $21 trillion hole in Pentagon accounting hidden by the US Treasury (Michigan State Univ research) is here to testify of it. Depleted uranium is the proof they are experts in lying of the same level than the Pravda (visit They will never change. Politics will be always for vampires. Eliminate all means they have to interfere, I mean all (remember again the Lipsey Lancaster paradox), or they will always find a way to turn your life into an inferno.

The Nov 14, 2014 fireball above Yekaterinburg

[article transferred from its original place on for more clarity in organisation]

The Yekaterinburg Fireball happened most probably at a much lower altitude than previously expected, say 15-20 km, on 14 November 2014, just before the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Org., the Russian NATO) conference on air-missile defence. These altitudes for explosions are typical of missile interception which would really take place at the last instants before impact of the ICBM. Furthermore the Gazelle missiles can sprint at 20 km/s and this is probably too short and too close to the ground to be detected by thermal imagery of missile reactors (used to watch for ICBM take off).

A nuclear EMP has 3 phases, E1 from gamma interaction with the atmosphere and E3 are the more significant but E3 was significantly reduced by the solar flare which was extremely intense in October – November 2014. E1 is not significant below 20 km (see the two Metatech reports E1 see p. 23, E3 see p. 15) and at the same altitude the double flash of light starts to be moderated by the lack of oxygen and fades into an ambiguous simple flash. The airburst is also limited for the same reason. This is even more significant since the power of the warhead was certainly limited to approx. 15 kilotons to reduce collateral effects. The warhead was certainly a neutron bomb : they are used by Gazelle missiles to pre-emptively fission part of the plutonium of the incoming ICBM and defuse it. Neutron bombs do not create as much fission products as a normal bomb because the usual depleted uranium shell (fissioned by high energy neutrons, a technology used to improve the yield of a bomb) is absent in neutron bombs. Furthermore, the closest country (Kazakhstan) to have an “independent” monitoring system for nuclear explosions is also a member of the CSTO.

Thanks to Megan Eskey for the help.



Repeal the 8th – abortion rights for all

For men explicitely fighting abortion rights the subjective rationality hides the true purpose which is the control of women’s sexuality – as if women were not able to “control” it exactly like men do.

The subjective rationality (point made by Raymond Boudon, French sociologist) : “we’ll save babies” hides the point : women should not be allowed to have sex with multiple men – and nothing else. With the hope of course that they will stay with them, and a total disdain for the (morally equivalent, on this stance) issue that men may have multiple partners as well. Eventually it signifies the deep association of sexuality with child making and thus rejection of sexualities that do not produce children, ie homosexualities.