Obama, Neo-Con

July 24, 2014

About this title: Obama enabled maximally prominent Neo-Cons to represent and govern the USA. When I asked Silicon Valley cognoscenti what it meant for a supposedly “democratic” presidency to nominate maximally prominent neofascists, I was told: “They represent the HIDDEN government of the USA.”

For years it was incorrect to point out that emperor Obama had no clothes, that all he had was playing with his brown skin. That observation was called racist. Yet, it has been made recently, loud and clear, by leftists of renown: president Obama has been incompetent, and a sell-out. As Thomas Frank puts it in Salon:

“Right-wing obstruction could have been fought: An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy is failure.

Yes, we know, the crazy House. But we were promised hope and change on big issues. We got no vision and less action.”

Change? Skin Color

Change? Skin Color

Within days of Obama’s accession to power, banks were given public money without any counterparts. This was an outrageous theft of public money. I advocated it was “Time for RICO“. I may as well have told the mafia to summon the police.

Just as Reagan-Bush 25 years ago, and Sweden later, after 2007, the UK and Germany nationalized giant banks such as Northern Rock, RBS, Hypo Real Estate, when they had to give them hundreds of billions to save them. Instead in the USA, the banks were given trillions, without so much as a change of management; the fact the banks were given money was hidden by the simple device of TARP, then giving plenty more to banks through Quantitative Easing, to reimburse TARP…

To the great applause of conscientious, politically correct “liberals”, such as drummer boy Krugman.

This has world consequences: it made American financiers rule the world, more than ever; GE, saved by Obama’s $60 billion, just bought a French giant competitor, Alsthom. This is the Faustian deal of the USA: its plutocrats may rule the USA, but they also rule the world, and that increasing empire profits average Americans.

The dying Roman Republic went through a similar Faustian bargain with its increasing militarization: the resulting empire profited the Populus Romanus, while killing the Republic. The most insidious corruption corrupts the souls.

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

[Profitable presidency: Obama spent at least 400 day raising billions from the richest plutocrats.]

Then, unbelievably, Obama kept on saying he could not do a thing without Republican’s approval (never mind that he had 60% of the votes in the Senate, and a strong majority in Congress). It was, Obama explained disingenuously, a new way of doing politics by consensus. The savages opposing him rejected it, Obama’s fanatics informed us, thus making him a failure.

In truth, Obama had such strong control of all the government and the legislative, he could easily have imposed “Medicare For All“.

I have said all of this in the past, but, from another pen, my point of view comes out stronger. Thomas Frank again:

“America should have changed but didn’t… [how] to explain an age when every aspect of societal breakdown was out in the open and the old platitudes could no longer paper it over—when the meritocracy was clearly corrupt, when the financial system had devolved into organized thievery, when everyone knew that the politicians were bought and the worst criminals went unprosecuted and the middle class was in a state of collapse and the newspaper pundits were like street performers… for an audience that had lost its taste for mime and seriousness both. It was a time when every thinking person could see that the reigning ideology had failed, that an epoch had ended, that the shitty consensus ideas of the 1980s had finally caved in—and when an unlikely champion arose from the mean streets of Chicago to keep the whole thing propped up nevertheless.”

As early as 2009, it dawned on me that Obama was neither incompetent nor a sellout. I said so on some leftist sites, and was promptly thrown out, as a “troll” and a “Neo-Con”. Obama was a Neo-Conservative from the start and was chosen for that, by the higher-ups of the “democratic” party: they gave him a keynote speech, and their top master operative.

Obama practiced Dick Morris and Bill Clinton’s theory of triangulation — basically the democrats do the republicans’ work for them: democrats deregulated, balanced the budget, and unleashed the financial markets of the USA, while allowing huge corporations to pay no taxes. Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over.” Big banks, small government.

All of this covered by noises to the contrary while the notorious weasel, Dick Morris, chuckled. Weasels are somewhat below apes in the evolution of evolution. Not to worry, French judges never heard of Dick Morris, and he is white, in any case.

Nearly all American leftists, including myself, did not see early enough that Obama was a Neo-Con with Martin Luther King’s mien. We got manipulated by his speeches and rhetoric. His King-style voice rhythms sucked all back to the nostalgia of the progressive 1960s.

We were blinded by political correctness. I recovered quickly, in the first few weeks of Obama’s administration: it was clear Obama was all in rhetoric, and no action.

Obama claimed he could not do a thing, because the “Republicans” blocked him. In truth, fifth generation plutocrats such as Max Baucus, a major democratic senator, were the excuse Obama evoked, in democratic circles, to say he could not a thing. (That Max Baucus lather authored “Obamacare”, is pretty telling.)

I wrote, on this site, about the commonality between Obama’s behavior and that of the “boys” who used to serve white masters in Kenya. Some in my family wrote to me I had trampled on their hearts, and had no common decency. I replied my decency was uncommon. (No doubt it made their stays at Camp David less comfy, so they have hated me ever since.)

Obama is a far more competent Neo-Con than Bush Jr., or even Reagan, ever were. Those had opponents. Obama got collaborators, all over. No banana peel shaking for him. No need for French judges.

The two Bushes generated a backlash and really could only rule in secret, or though devious means. Obama instead pushed the agenda of Wall Street Banks, USA corporations, and the CIA/NSA much further than Bush ever dreamed of, by going public about it while carefully misrepresenting the truth.

For example, Obama officially clashed with Netanyahu. However, below that surface of enmity, extensive cooperation developed, say on anti-missile systems (the fact I like those systems is irrelevant). Such systems were crucial to allow Israel to not negotiate with the Palestinians.

Clinton was the best president the republicans ever had. Under him Franklin D. Roosevelt’s revolutionary reforms of finance and banks were completely undone; Rubin, that is Goldman Sachs and their followers were solidly in command. Clinton, while officially at war with Newt Gingrich, was actually doing the work the Republicans could never have done, had Bush Senior still been president.

As the Republicans got all they wanted, the debate switched further to the right. When the democrats acquired control of Congress in 2006, they went right. Pelosi and company accepted to give all the money banks and shadow banks wanted in 2008. Without any counterparts. Obama became the best president the Neo-Cons could dream of.

Obama once convoked all the top bankers to the White House. He announced, triumphal, that the Obama team was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks”. He delivered. Thanks to political correctness, nobody important dared say that the emperor had no clothes. That, would, indeed, have deemed to be racist. Still is. But not for long.

The picture that will stick with Obama is the one I observed six years ago: a black boy, serving the white masters. and not for brains: under Obama, the share of scientific publications by the USA has collapsed. Why? Under Obama, plutocratization has jumped (as I said, because of the treatment of finance). So it has in academia. But money has deleterious effects on research (if nothing else, it creates the wrong mood and obsession).

Obama ran his first campaign as “change you can believe in”. Yes, none at all. Obama, at best consolidated Bush’s Neo-Con rule. At worst he is still the engulfing lie that appearance is all what reality is about.

Patrice Ayme’

War Can Be Good. Never So Political Correctness.

July 21, 2014

War can be many things. Kepler declared, his 30 year “war on Mars”. He won: Mars followed an ellipse, not a circle.

That war can be many things, some of them good, was understood by Jesus, and Muhammad. The Qur’an advocates “Jihad”, a war-like effort. Some situations, they said, are best dealt with the sword (for the record I do not approve of using the sword against “unbelievers” as Jesus and Muhammad advocated; instead I propose to smother them with ideas).

Real war can be, not just justified, but the only solution. In particular, war against those who want war for no good reason is always justified. Turning the other cheek won’t help.

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

Dean Mitchell: “I have to disagree. The history of war shows us that there is always a vested interest in war that has nothing at all to do with justice. Justified war seems like madness to me.”

Nathan Daniel Curry: “…To turn the other cheek requires a very deep metaphysics to make any sense. The problem is why war repeats. The reason is our societal models. Patriarchy does not work. Only a triune society can intuit the complexity of human nature and hear the sense of lack that breed the myopia that leads to helpless people lashing out in cruel and pitiful ways. The truth is they are not helpless. It is the ego that preaches that doctrine.”

Hearing this argument, Florent Boyer smiled: “What about the Amazons?” Indeed, the Amazons! They really existed. Women princess warriors buried with weapons. So much for the patriarchy thing.

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

[470 BCE Greek vase representing an Amazon. Notice the pants, the skirt, the shield, and the arrows' quiver.]

And so forth. With all due respect, all the objections above remind me of someone protesting a thunderstorm by pointing out that it damages leaves, except that smart insects can crawl and hangs below the other side. All true, indeed, but irrelevant to a family whose roof is been taken apart by a tornado.

Stopping war is not about calling Hitler “my friend”, and sending him love letters as the Mahatma Gandhi did. Stopping war is done by launching efficient systems of thoughts and mood.

The Franks shadowed the retreating Huns after helping to get them out of Orleans. A few weeks later, with the standard Roman legions headed by Aetius, and the Visigoths, the Franks crushed the Huns. 375 years later, or so, the Franks penetrated the three concentric rings that defended the Avars in Hungary, and destroyed them.

The Mongols of Genghis Khan, who descended directly from the Huns and Avars, remembered all this. So, after reaching the Adriatic in present day Croatia in the Thirteenth Century, they reminded each other that their weapons had proven of little use against the Franks (who had invented tactics the Mongols adopted). It was decided to stop the Mongol advance, and stay in the steppe.

That’s how one stops war. Through terror. Through past shock, future awe.

This master idea, that “Justified war seems like madness to us” was held by Central European Jews when confronted to Hitler. They clang to it with the intelligence of barnacles lashed by waves.

As I have observed, seconded by Hannah Arendt, that those “Jewish Councils” collaborators of Adolf Hitler. This deliberate, willing collaboration only incited the Nazis to go further. Instead, the Jewish Councils ought to have screamed bloody murder, and screamed for help from the French Republic. That would have made it easier for the French to declare war unilaterally on Hitler, without waiting for British agreement.

Those who believe there are no justifiable war, are not just mad, they are, with all due respect, the sort of people who enabled Adolf Hitler. And the like. And there are really a lot of Hitler-like leaders out there.

As I explained in the Will To Extermination, man is all about exterminating man. Complaining about war, is complaining about man. Instead of begging not to take part in war, ask what war is worth fighting, and which one to avoid.

In this light, Nathan’s eternal return of a state of war, sounds like the eternal return of man. That war repeats is not a problem. The problem is that the problems that made war the only solution, keep on repeating. Fortunately, change is in the wings. When the ocean starts rising 10 centimeters a year, and a billion people catch the fancy that they are not fishes, and would rather live somewhere else, while energy supplies get constricted, the military is going to be busy. The false debate of whether war is just in the mind, will vanish.

Especially as countries that have purchased pieces of other countries, try to impose their sovereignty.

Dean Mitchell: “I understand that position, Patrice, but the problem with Hitler was wholly contrived. Sniff out the danger when it is obviously there instead of encouraging it and there is no need for millions to die.

War is never an “only solution” except as a profiteering racket. Men go to war to act as pawns of the puppet masters.”

Patrice Ayme: Sniff out danger? Whatever, Dean, whatever. It did not happen like that. Hitler was not a the monster out of the depths, who surfaced like Godzilla, taking over the world. Quite the opposite. Hitler was the master tool of a massive conspiracy that involved Soviets, American, English, and even German overlords.

To this day, that conspiracy has not been “sniffed”. Mention it to the average Joe, and the reaction will be hostile: the notion disrupts the established order of thought.

The Devil is in the details, camping on one’s own good will, and self-admiration, is not a solution.

War is a solution, but it is rarely tried first.

The best example is France, from 1919 to 1939. France knew that the Germanoid superiority monsters, having got away with their demented crimes in World War ONE, would try again. The help of the British aristocracy (Lord Russel, Keynes are some of these famous double agents, on the intellectual side), and American plutocrats completely blocked the French Republic (Hitler got colossal financing from Henry Ford as early as 1920; while the entire government of the USA expropriated Germany before redistributing the proceeds to some of the most evil men in the USA… who found German henchmen to serve them, such as Schacht).

The French republic tried to stop Hitler and his fascist mentors for 20 years. Finally, on September 1, 1939, France gave Hitler with a 48 hours ultimatum to get out of Poland. On September 3, around 11 am, Great Britain and then France, declared war to Germany.

Yes, the Nazis were right, they did not want that world war (not yet! They were not ready). Yes, France started it. But it was a matter of survival.

Dean Mitchell: “Remove Hitler and the likelihood was that there would have been no war.”

Patrice Ayme: Once again, France tried her best. But France had in her way London, Wall Street, and even mighty German-American Jewish (!) plutocrats as the Warburgs. Yes, the Warburgs collaborated with Hitler, not, as the “Jewish Councils”, with the rat-like wishful desire of survival, but out of sheer greed for money and power.

The French secret services tried to break the Warburgs as early as 1934, while the French government tried to persuade Washington D.C. to stop the USA’s plutocrats support of Hitler. All that did was to make Washington hate Paris.

Dowd, historian at the University of Chicago and then USA ambassador in Berlin agreed 100% with the French. His best friend was Francois-Poncet, the French ambassador. Both used to amble the close by Tiergarten, the Berlin zoo, to escape Nazi eavesdropping, while fearing assassination.

Furious that Dowd could NOT get along the Nazi government, and his dire warning about those thugs, Roosevelt removed Dowd in 1937, and replace him by a pro-Nazi: Roosevelt was into helping his plutocratic class. In London Roosevelt put the outrageously pro-Nazi Kennedy as ambassador. And so on.

Hitler annexed 3 countries, invaded a fourth. Finally, Britain found its spine. At that point, France could only attack. What did the USA (plutocrats) do? Provide crucial military support to Hitler.

All of this has been occulted in official history.

But, yes, there are just wars, even if they killed 70 million, 4% of humanity. The Secession War, according to the latest, best estimates killed 3% of the USA. That, too, was a just war.

Bismarck said: ”Real philanthropy consists all too often into knowing to shed blood”. Bismarck, who was a great man in many ways, launched a lot of wars, and an empire, all quite successful, from his point of view, and yet bound to cause catastrophe because all too many Germans ended up confusing war and philanthropy. (Just as the present USA confuse plutocracy and philanthropy.)

So there is clearly a risk to overdo it. War can be an eternal return of the same, just worst: after two millennia of intense military activity, France has not recovered, by a long shot, the borders that Gallia (“Gaul”) had when the Romans started to invade it (Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Northern Italy… The natural borders, in other words, used to be in it, when the Romans were made to pay ransom to the Celts).

But then, again, when the Prussians attacked in August 1914, they committed war crimes and atrocities on a deliberate, industrial basis, as ordered from above, as soon as the first few days of the conflict. Surrendering to them, at that point was surrendering to barbarity (that was naturally the notion advocated by Lord Russell, a highest British noble, and thus a relative, spiritually speaking, of the Prussian aristocrats; the Kaiser was a descendant of Queen Victoria).

So it’s not just that “war is a continuation of politics by other means” (Carl Von Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege (On War) published posthumously in 1832). It’s not just that Bismarck’s more radical expression was correct. Let me go all the way, all the evolutionary way:

War is the continuation of life by the means of death, it’s what humans do. Forgetting this, is forgetting not just what humanity does, but what humanity is.

As I explained before, the unique position of humans as the apex creature for millions of years, has made it so. War is how man is regulated. Just as there is the law of the jungle, there is the law of man, and its name is war.

To ignore this, and switch to the “politically correct” mode, where wishful thinking is the absolute good, facetiously brings, even more war. The Nazis said so much about themselves that they were and wanted to be, “immer correct” (always correct), that they forgot the big picture.

That sea, now rising by nearly two centimeters a year in Bangladesh, means war. Those who ignore it, are collaborating with the coming war, the greatest humanity will have ever brought.

And those who want to mitigate the coming disturbance, need to be armed with the correct theory of war, instead of just making war to reality, armed with comfortably numb illusions.

Patrice Ayme’

Note On Amazons: Advanced technology, namely the bow and the horse, made women into as capable warriors as men. Women ride better than men, and they can be just as precise, if not more so. Some empires that brought the Amazon phenomenon were distinguished by multi-decadal war expeditions by their men folk (up to a documented 28 years in one case), so the women had to do everything, including procreating with alien warriors.

Slavery: Black, White, Plutocratic

July 19, 2014

A French woman was condemned to nine months in jail, for insinuating that Taubira, a politician, was from the same family as a hairy relative of an apparently less intellectual nature. In France, when one insults the leaders, one goes to jail. That’s the law. A recent law, too, that did not exist four centuries ago.

And yet, as Galileo whispered, after been condemned for claiming that the Earth rotated: “she rotates”. But, in present day France, judges judge reality, they did not learn from their Papal forebears. Want some more reality? Here is the famous painting “Convoi De Femmes Captives

Africa: Steel, Slaves & Guns Before Europeans Came

Africa: Steel, Slaves & Guns Before Europeans Came

“Homo” and “Pan” (Chimpanzee) are of the same “family”, in the scientific sense. Both are “Hominidae”. French judges are blinded by the “politically correct”, rather than by science.

Because of the prominence of politically correct thought, rather than factually correct thought, the French unemployment rate is about twice what it is in Germany, Great Britain, and the USA. I probably just gravely insulted the “ministres”, and should be put in jail.

Dominique Deux, an esteemed commenter on this site said that:

“Calling Ms Le Pen an ape would be well beyond good taste, but nobody ever used that excuse to enslave her forebears. Calling Ms Taubira an ape is being an accessory after the fact to a monstrous crime. Jokes and insults have a rap sheet, and that one has a very heavy rap sheet. Hence the need to strike – hard.”

There are two issues here: a) The theory that alleged descendants ought to be punished for crimes alleged ancestors may have committed, centuries ago.

b) The facts of slavery: who committed the crime, and why, etc..

I will treat only the second issue here, as I treat many issues: with relentless truth, throwing away all caution to the wolves of commonality.

Ms Le Pen has probably slaves among her forebears. Does that give her a right to strike –hard?

Indeed, before the Franks under Queen Bathilde, an ex-slave, outlawed the slave trade within the Imperium Francorum (Empire of the Franks) in 655 CE, slavery was ubiquitous. Some of the largest slave owners were bishops.

Africans were enslaved for three reasons:

a) The occupying Muslims taught the Portuguese plutocrats that slavery worked harmoniously.

b) The king of Portugal asked the Pope for the right to reciprocate. (Portugal had never been part of the Imperium Francorum.)

c) The Pope wrote a “Bull” to that effect.

However, with all other “races” and the rest of Europe, slavery stayed unlawful. It was tolerated in the colonies, because the reach of the law there was tenuous (initially; then traditions were created).

That re-introduction of slavery has nothing to do with the facts Africans were deemed to be apes. The proximal cause of the reintroduction of slavery was the usual suspect, Christianity. Claiming that slavery arose from the theory of evolution is an argument that even the opponents of Lamarck and Darwin did not use.

That men and apes are basically the same is obvious to all, but French judges. Carthaginians captured what they called “hairy women”, with a strong fighting disposition, south of Mount Cameron. From their descriptions, it’s clear those were female gorillas. That identification to “women” was a stroke of genius, as we know now that gorillas are indeed hominids. Just like Taubira.

From: “Hominidae: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans:

Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae. Thus constituted, the Hominidae includes 4 genera and 5 species. Its nonhuman members are restricted to equatorial Africa, Sumatra and Borneo. Hominid fossils date to the Miocene and are known from Africa and Asia.”

Some view Taubira as a victim because she has a brownish skin. Does that mean it’s politically correct to view all the brownish ones as slaves?

Who transported the Black slaves? Some Arabs and Europeans traders working on behalf of white, or whitish plutocrats. Where did they purchase their slaves? In Black Africa. Who captured the slaves? Black Africans, or Peuls, or raiding Moroccans or Arabs.

But mostly Black Africans. A dozen black African empire thrived on the slave trade. It’s black power, black plutocratic power, which enabled the slave trade. By, say, 1800 CE, except for the extreme tip of South Africa, and Zanzibar (Arabs) Black Africa was, still, completely unconquered.

Why? European military force could not make a dent on Africa. Africans had steel, and they made arrowheads, and even firearms with it. Besides, Europeans died like flies from African diseases.

Purchasing blacks from blacks, does not make the whites using slaves any less criminal. But it spreads further the question of criminality. It stops making slavery a disease confined to one particular race.

Stopping the Black African slave trade and related human rights abuses was actually used as reason for the European conquest of Africa in the second half of the Nineteenth Century.

How was that achieved? In Senegal, 5,000 Tirailleurs Senegalais were led by ten French officers. Yet, in 1900, a third of the population of Senegambia was still enslaved. The French administration brought that down to zero soon (yet, it’s climbing back up because of Quranic schools recently).

So let’s not cry too much about the black person, tortured by the white demons. It’s demeaning to all, including reality.

Let’s stay weary, instead, of those with demonic practice. And a first demonic practice, is to pose as a victim, and use this to engage in physical violence. Especially when, like Taubira, one is, instead, an overlord, as a profession (Taubira enacted the famous Taubira law in 2001). Someone so divine that, should you brandish a banana when she comes around, you go to jail. Big time. And, yes, putting people in jail is physically violent.

All societies had slavery, in the past. It was better than mass execution. Both were necessary, from ecological balance. Complain to god, or thank technology, for the (momentary?) improvement. But don’t accuse today’s people, of crimes they did not commit, because of the color of the skin of their ancestors. Amen.

Patrice Ayme’

Don’t Monkey Around French Tyrants

July 17, 2014

Philosophy is nothing if not explicit. Plato represents Socrates in various debates with various characters. Politics is practical philosophy. And what is the fundamental philosophy of the genus Homo? Curiosity, associated with imperial inquisitiveness, and abrasive intelligence.

In turn the later have brought human supremacy, and a subsequent optimization of the pursuit of happiness (imposed by the USA Constitution, aping Aristotle).

The superiority of the present civilization is a direct consequence from the preceding, this imperial spirituality, and it rests on free speech (First Amendment of the USA Constitution).

No free speech means that tyranny is free to rule. It is pretty clear that the so called “representative democracy” is a form of tyranny. So it would make sense that free speech would be curtailed by tyrants, as doing so will encourage tyranny.

HONNI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE:

Don't Ape Me. Publish This In France, Go To Jail

Don’t Ape Me. Publish This In France, Go To Jail

[Logically challenged French judges, seeing this, apparently deduced that Taubira used to be the ape on the left, and condemn this inner revelation, as somebody's else racism; the logic of fools knows no bounds.]

In France, “justice” condemns sexual mutilation of girls… if one of the politically correct color,  (Contrarily to Britain, where it is tolerated as “multiculturalism). Yet the punishments have been light. Not so for calling attention to Taubira’s “family” (in the scientific sense, see below).

Some will say I exaggerate, and calling Hollande Le Grotesque and his ilk “tyrants” show an inordinate lack of measure unbecoming a philosopher. However, I know history. In France the tyrant Napoleon is front and center: he has his special resting place below the magnificent gold dome of the Invalides (erected by the Tyrant Louis XIV). I recommend to extract him, and throw the debris down the Rhine, the rough center of his exactions.

Napoleon and Louis XIV were disasters for Europe, killing millions, making million more fleeing for their lives, all the way to Capetown and the New Paltz (New York state). But don’t tell that to the average French practicing their idolatry.

On December 27, 1594, Jean Chastel attacked the king Henri IV, wounding his lip. Chastel, 19 year old, of good bourgeois birth, was drawn and quartered within two days. However, a few month later, Jean Boucher, Cure’ de Saint Benoit, doctor at the Sorbonne, and rector of the University of Paris, published an “Apologie” of the would-be assassin, where he commanded his act, and invited another attempt on the king’s life.

Freedom of speech in France was thus greater, in some ways, back in the Sixteenth Century. And the tyrants, less tyrannical. A really paradoxical observation.

In a country such as France, right now, a few guys without much intelligence, but all the levers of power, are taking a succession of idiotic decisions, and they do this by behaving as if they were great princesses and princes of the Middle Ages, endowed with an aura of sanctity. The truth? Well, it’s in their genes. Apes (or more exactly Hominids, see below) are just glorified baboons.

The Eighteenth Century biologist Buffon thought baboons were too obscene to describe faithfully.

Such is the inheritance, not to say the truth, that French politicians  want to hide the most.

A woman was condemned to nine months in jail in France for the preceding picture and attending commentary.

The woman is an extreme right blonde bimbo, not really my cup of tea: at least once, an extreme right commando tried to kill me, with an Improvised Explosive Device, so I cannot be accused of having a right wing bias! But that’s beside my point, which is free speech, and even more so, free thought.

If someone says something idiotic, it ought to be condemned verbally (and I have advocated Truth as the fourth branch of government). But only tyrants send people to jail for suggestions of a non criminal nature. I fail to see what is criminal about suggesting that an ape such as me, is, actually, an ape. Now, of course, hard core Islamists and Catholics, Calvin, or Saint Louis, would believe that’s a crime. Apparently French judges also go ape about the concept.

One thing about the picture above, that will escape no doubt escape idiots, at first sight. This is a juxtaposition of pictures. One shows a young gorilla at 18 months. The other picture shows the French “Guard Of The Seals”, the Justice Minister (equivalent to Holder), a woman called Taubira, native of French Guyanna.

Let’s cut the crap: she is basically the one who decides to send people to jail, or not, as in Russia.

The seal she guards is apparently most importantly is that of imbecility. She could not hide a large monkey grin after the verdict was announced.

And what was the deed that was punished? The fact that French judges, and the French government decided to build a logic between the two pictures. They actually made an implication, deducing that the picture on the left was supposed to represent Taubira at 18 months.

In other words, those fools are the ones who admitted publicly that, when they see an 18 month old gorilla, they think about Taubira, now. In other words, they are admitting publicly that they are themselves racist scums, and biologically confused. So they send somebody else to jail, in their frustration.

We know what happened to free speech in Putin’s Russia: if women gather in a cathedral to sing a prayer to the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Putin, they are condemned to jail (for racist insults against the church, basically).

What’s the problem with Putin? The West. Putin is aping what he sees being done in the West.

Or is it the other way around? Systems of thought are obdurate, and have a life of their own. What we see above is that the ferocity of the states is augmenting: USA goons are spying all over, and lurk within your computers. Mr. Xi will send you to jail if you invoke certain events that never happened in a certain place. Now France is showing clear signs of losing its mind.

Complete with censoring comedians (without any judicial decisions). The problem there is that the censoring Prime Minister is then supposed to steer the country just so… After demonstrating he is an obviously tyrannical little fool.

Systems of thought have a life of their own, for the worst, but also for the best.

After the Barbarians fought Rome for a millennium, they sort of won. And what did they do? They aped Rome. The principle of the Republic had won them over.

The Barbarians (Ostrogoths in Italia, Burgonds and Wisigoths in Gallia, etc.) reactivated much of the Republican ideals after say 500 CE, as the “Christian Republic” (from historical ignorance, and bias, the idea of Christian Republic is often attributed to Calvin, Locke, Rousseau; in truth it was partly enacted by the time of the Church Founding Fathers, by 400 CE… And led to a mess, because the political correctness that characterized Christianism, by groveling to the strong, was incapable of effective governance).

Systems of ideas have to be cultivated, educated, and, sometimes, destroyed.

Representative democracy has to be destroyed as an ideal.

Think Taubira. Who is Taubira? A primate. An ape actually. An ape dictating to seventy million people.

Yes, learn this, French judges: you are primates, not creatures of Allah. Or maybe you are creatures of Allah, but that’s a concept that exist only in your minds, and the books you read; it has no factual support. We apes, evolving smartly, over the last ten million years, pulled away from chimpanzees, not by denying what we were, apes, but by embracing it, understanding it and thinking about what it implied.

Denial may work when one has terminal cancer. But, otherwise, it’s hopeless. Maybe French authorities have cancer? A cancer of the mind?

If Taubira can’t stand that judges deduce it has been implied that she maybe just a primate, she should see the appropriate shrink. (Apparently the entire political class in France, we are told, approves of the judges’ Putin like diktat: so maybe they should all see shrinks? And reject Allah? Or then migrate to Turkey, by the feet of the Islamist Erdogan?)

Spiting people because of their origins is condemnable. Spiting condemnable ideas, though, is the essence of morality. Spiting science, such as the scientific discovery that the genus Homo is a type of ape, is extremely condemnable. So I condemn French “judges” for emulating Galileo’s judges.
Amusingly, I have been somewhat in error above. Political correctness has gained scientific semantics. So, instead of calling everybody “ape” from chimpanzees and gorillas to man, now everybody is called “Hominidae” (Hominids). Here it is:

Chimpanzee: Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Subfamily: Homininae, Tribe: Panini, Genus: Pan.

Here is Taubira, a “man”. Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Tribe: Hominini, Subtribe: Hominina, Genus: Homo.

Meanwhile the French People would be well advised to search for a new form of government more appropriate to the modern world, and the increasing democracy we all dearly need.

One does not have to look very far for inspiration: the Confoederatio Helvetica next door, an independent, and central part of the Franks’ Francia, is enjoying a much more direct form of democracy.

High time for Revolution.

Patrice Ayme’

Time Flies For Flies

July 14, 2014

I am an intellectual. I believe we are all intellectuals. Even animals and plutocrats think. It’s Descartes, upside down: Animals Think, Therefore They Survive.

I developed my idea that “INSTINCT IS FAST LEARNING.”

Time perception can only reflect how rapidly an animal’s nervous system processes information. To test this, researchers show animals a flashing light. If the light flashes quickly enough, animals perceive it as a solid, unblinking light: this is the principle of the movies.

Beyond 60 frames per second humans see a continuous motion; yet, anyone who has tried to catch a fly or a lizard know they move, and decide to move, faster than humans.

Time Is Relative In More Ways Than One

Time Is Relative In More Ways Than One

This gives a window for a lot of learning to happen in a bee, that looks like instinct.

The animal’s behavior or its brain activity reveal the highest frequency at which each species perceives the light as flashing. Animals that detect blinking at higher frequencies perceive time in a more frequent manner. Movements, events, learning itself, unfold more slowly to them—think slow-motion bullet dodging as recent movies.

The smaller the animals, the easier it is to turn them into dinner. So the more reactive they have to be, to dodge the bullets. Thus one would expect that species perceiving time more slowly to be smaller and have faster metabolisms. This is (roughly) was is observed (although some of the results are dissonant, maybe an experimental artifact: rats may be slow visually, but fast olfactively, say).

“Ecology for an organism is all about finding a niche where you can succeed that no-one else can occupy,” Andrew Jackson, an author of the study in Animal Behavior said. “Our results suggest that time perception offers an as yet unstudied dimension along which animals can specialize and there is considerable scope to study this system in more detail. We are beginning to understand that there is a whole world of detail out there that only some animals can perceive and it’s fascinating to think of how they might perceive the world differently to us.”

Flies, or plutocrats, may not think deep, but they think fast. And they cannot think deep, because they think fast. The most exploitative philosophy is thus the fastest, and shallowest. That is no doubt why, in one of his variants, the Devil, Pluto, Belzebuth, was represented as Lord of the Flies.

Patrice Ayme’

(Connoisseurs of Nazi philosophy will appreciate the connection with Heidegger’s “Sein Und Zeit“. Time is, indeed, the Dasein. As with a computer clock: no clock, no computer.)

Serres Decapitates France

July 13, 2014

I just landed in France with the elegance of the death star among minnows. A contributor to this site, Kevin Berger, attracted my attention to an editorial of Roger Cohen, “France Decapitated”, amplifying moaning from Michel Serres, a philosopher.

Probably to set the tune of fundamental idiocy that was going to overshadow his entire editorial, Cohen complained, to start with, that the Tour De France started in Yorkshire. In his crass ignorance, the connection between France and England eludes him totally (although Cohen is now a USA citizen, he originated as a South African Jew).

French Light Speed Communications, 18th Century

French Light Speed Communications, 18th Century

Cohen whined that having the Tour in England showed that “nothing was sacred anymore, and pigs will fly”. Well, since pigs already write for the New York Times, they may as well fly. As this essay will show, given enough ignorance, anything flies handsomely.

Mark Cavendish, the (ex) number one sprinter in the world, tried to force his way in the first sprint of the Tour, in Yorkshire (he himself recognized). He fell, dragging others in his fall, injured himself and then had to abandon the Tour, on day one. On day four and five, Christopher Froome, who won the Tour last year, fell three times on Northern France’s cobblestones, and also had to abandon. Cavendish, Froome, are British. At one point they owned the Tour. It’s only natural the Tour comes by where they are from. The roads were packed along the Tour in Britain, driving many a rider furious from too many cameras in their faces.

Ah, lest Cohen did not get the news, the Franks conquered England in 1066 CE, and stayed permanently after making an alliance with the people and freeing the 20%-25% or so, of the population who were slaves. English democracy was definitively launched by a number of Frankish rebels.

The Franks ruled what they called “Renovated Rome”. Indeed they spoke Latin, used Roman Law, and originated as the Roman army.

The original Roman army had evacuated Britain in 406 CE, for budgetary reasons caused by plutocratic will. (On the continent, the Franks had officially replaced the legions in 400 CE.)

Knowing there was no more highly trained, superiorly armed legions facing them, but only local soldiers, the unconquered savages of Northern Germany and Scandinavia attacked in the following six centuries and overran Britannia, including the Roman successor states (Northumberland, etc.), in a succession of complex invasions.

For centuries Britannia and Gallia had been part of the same Roman state. Earlier both were part of the same Celtic civilization, for more than a millennium. After 1066 CE, they were again part of the same polity, itself officially the “Renovated Roman Empire” explicitly proclaimed under Charlemagne… But effective for more than three centuries.

However, the rulers of Western Francia, gained by Gallic arrogance, proclaimed that the Paris/French king was “emperor in his own kingdom”, sometimes around 1000 CE. This brought a mess of little leaders, all over Europe, with no central authority until the European Union.

The mess of too many little great leaders after 1066 CE, all over Western Europe, led to no less than 50 major wars.

This is the fundamental reason to make a united Europe that Europhobes do not know about, in their crass ignorance, and immanent treacherousness.

Cohen, by refusing the Tour in Britain, on the ground that makes pigs fly, rejects history, plays dumb, and embraces hatred for European unity. In the garbage, please.

Cohen: “That the French are unhappy has become a commonplace. A nation that loves ideas is living in an ideological void. If that void is filled by anyone it is the rightist leader Marine Le Pen with her cleverly dosed venom about Europe, immigrants, crime, globalization and the other supposed culprits behind French national decline.”

That is roughly correct. Except that rumors of a French decline have been much exaggerated. And the solution is thriving next door in an independently managed part of Francia: Switzerland. (Let alone Germania, also independently managed Francia.)

Cohen: “France is a modern country as well as a beautiful one. Its attributes, from its health system to its rail system (when not on strike), are well known.”

I had a very personal demonstration of the superiority of French health care this week: my four year old daughter was cured within hours, from French antibiotics, after a harrowing flight. Californian doctors were apparently firmly set to leave her fate to the will of God. In the USA, antibiotics are for plutocrats and their animals, much dying keeps We The People in check.

French rail has held the world speed record for rail for seventy years or so (but for a few months of German domination). In the late 1950s, the Japanese bought and deconstructed French electric engines for building their own high speed trains.

The French health care system is not just good, it’s innovative, and the world profits from it. In the 1950s an observant French surgeon discovered the modern psychiatric drugs. Meanwhile a French woman discovered that Down syndrome was caused by an added chromosome. More recently deep brain stimulation was discovered in the Grenoble CHU as a method to cure Parkinson’s and other diseases.

A serious French effort has been underway for years to make a permanent artificial heart (a patient died mysteriously, so it’s not easy).

Cohen: ”But the French dislike modernity. They mistrust modernity. That is the nub of the problem. They dislike and mistrust it for two reasons. Modernity has redefined space and relegated the state. This is intolerable.”

A “modern” country that dislikes “modernity”, while inventing all sorts of “modern art”, and “art deco”, and “nouveaux philosophes”? And the number one inventor of “Relativity” was Henri Poincaré, who even named it, not Einstein. France, as the country that brought E= mcc (Poincare’ 1900, Einstein, 1905)? Intolerable. Quick let’s attribute that to a German Jew.

Lest you ask, Poincaré also invented topology. Among other things. Unfortunately he died while middle aged. If Einstein was turkey size, Poincaré was T Rex.

Modern, modernity and modernism are French attributes, thus are absolutely not the nub of the problem. Cohen, parroting three pence philosopher Michel Serres, is wrong as wrong can be.

Cohen is off the deep end here.

France is not just modern. France’s fundamental tradition is modernity. France’s Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, rests on modernism.

And so it shows. France invented the first cars (Eighteenth Century), hot air balloons and planes. All the preceding were private efforts under government (military) contracts. But the first submarines or helicopters were also made in France. And also cameras (both black and white, and color). Also the first (and, so far, only, ever) ram jet plane. The Concorde, by the way, still holds many speed records (the ones without air refueling).

The nuclear chain reaction and how to extract energy from nuclei, was so discovered in France, that the French government yanked all the patents out in January 1938, lest the Nazis read and understand them (fortunately, that understanding dawned on the dumb Nazi physicists led by Heisenberg only August 7, 1945).

More recently, the Minitel was a highly successful precursor of the internet. Astoundingly, and little known, the transistor, the integrated circuits and the PC were all invented in France (and quickly stolen by Silicon Valley and other USA propagandists). Optical pumping, a necessary precursor to the maser and laser, was also discovered in France.

On Mars the Curiosity Rover is mostly Americano-French. Besides scientific instrumentation, a French company made its supersonic parachute, another, Thales, made its laser.

Thales makes the world’s most powerful lasers, when it’s not building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. The most advanced American material science labs purchase Thales lasers. French laser physicists are scared that, if they do not stay financed enough, they will lose their edge on the rest of the World. In ten years. (The NSA is supposed to fix that.)

The major advance of the Franks beyond Antique Rome, freeing Europe of slavery, was made possible by more advanced technology where it really made a difference (mechanical advantage, hydraulic hammers, super-horses, more advanced agriculture, including the new genetically engineered beans of the Tenth Century).

That was also necessary. The moral advance of “Equality, Fraternity” occurred only because more advanced technology allowed to get rid of slavery, in the 7th century. Just as, someday, it will allow to get rid of work.

Let’s not forget that the Franks replaced the Romans, first of all, because they had better, and that means more modern, weapons. Similarly, four centuries later, the steel of the Franks proved superior even to the superb Damascus steel of the Islamists.

So modernism is the essence of France: no modernism, no Francia. One does not change essence overnight. Cohen does not know what he is talking about in the matter of French culture: it is centered, in the fullness of time, around modernity. To put it mildly.

Cohen: The redefinition of space has involved the technology-driven elimination of distance. As Michel Serres, a prominent French philosopher, put it in a lecture last year at the Sorbonne on the digital world, “Boeing shortens distances; new technologies annul them.”

Philosophers are like blades of grass in the French prairie. Yet, I like Michel Serres. Once a mariner, his feet are firmly planted in the waves, essence of the universe. However, why did Serres use the sentence: “Boeing shortens distances…”. This is a deliberate lie, a sophisticated lie, but still, a lie: it is construed to give a misleading impression. Serres could have said: ”Jets shorten distances…” Jet engines were not invented by Boeing, but by Messerschmitt, a European company. The Brits were the second to realize jets. Even several years later, captured Me 262 operated by American test pilots were much better than the best jets made in the USA.

Boeing, indeed, is an American company. Airbus is European, French dominated, and makes as many planes. So Serres wants to depict France as under aggression from the USA, rather than from Toulouse (where Airbus churns out more than 50 jets a month; arguably the world historical capital of aviation).

To deliberately inflict on the naïve a misleading impression, that’s behavior unbecoming a philosopher.

All the more as the French were big time pioneer of aviation to the point many parts of planes wear French names. French military aviation was huge as early as 1914. The Aeropostale in the 1920s and 1930s, inaugurated long range airmail, all the way to Chili (as readers of the Petit Prince may know).

Besides the French invented the proto-Internet with Minitel, and it was a massive success. A French government program, as early as 1945, enlisted top German scientists, to make fast signalization for very high speed trains.

Hard for me to take seriously philosophers who make such stupid mistakes.

Cohen: “Humanity has also changed its relationship to the state. The French place deep faith in the state. It is the righter of wrongs, the mediator of human affairs, the source of social justice, the object of duty, and the repository of power. The very word deregulation is odious to the French.”

Humanity is changing its relationship to the state in Switzerland. Elsewhere, not as much, if at all. Actually the argument is common in Europe that the state, in the guise of the European Union, is taking too much importance, and that the EU is regulating too much.

Cohen, aping Serres: “A revolution in communication is underway, not seen since the invention of the printing press, but it is not a French revolution. It is in fact an anti-French revolution. It challenges fundamental French values, the French sense of self, and the French attachment to the state.”

Whatever. The French state, centuries ago, had set-up a semaphore signalization system. France was covered with 556 stations. In tall towers placed upon hilltops, 10 to 35 kilometers away, a two armed device depicted symbols read through a telescope. That was retransmitted, just the same. This signalling system could transmit a signal 250 kilometers (150 miles) in two minutes.

According to Serres and his parrot Cohen, that’s supposed to be anti-French? On January 7 1785, a Frenchman, Blanchard, having thrown his pants out to lighten the ship, succeeded to cross the Channel in a Montgolfiere. A few weeks earlier Pilatre de Rozier, who had flown over Paris 15 months earlier, died, when his hot air balloon caught fire during the crossing. Were all these attempts at modernism, anti-French?

Articulating one’s logic around idiocies, amplifies idiocy. Let’s heap spite on such critters, in Quranic style.

The question still arises: what ails France? As France, clearly, is ailing. If not Serres’ dumb hypothesis that France hates modernity, then what? I will answer this in another essay. Interestingly, while presently the greatest fuel for the right wing Front National, it is easy to fix.

Patrice Aymé

The .01% Conspiracy

July 11, 2014

KRUGMAN WAKING UP TO THE .01%

Student Krugman is learning economics, or what one ought to call meta-economics, ever better. We will give him a gentleman’s D. Said he in Who Wants A Depression?”:

“One unhappy lesson we’ve learned in recent years is that economics is a far more political subject than we liked to imagine. Well, duh, you may say. But, before the financial crisis, many economists — even, to some extent, yours truly — believed that there was a fairly broad professional consensus on some important issues.”

Yes, we know all too much: on so many issues, the economists’ consensus was both very injurious to society in general, profitable to economists, and thoroughly idiotic counterfactual. For example, a master idea was that hedge funds and the future markets, in spite of their leveraged size dwarfing the real economy, had neither impact nor even any connection with the real economy.

This monstrosity of a lie was long fostered by Krugman and his self-admiring society of friends and estimable Nobelized or Nobelizable colleagues.

That sort of fairly broad professional consensus on some important issues allowed all these creatures to live a grand life of importance and influence, as it pleased the Masters of the Universe to no end (what the Masters do then, is that they bring some money or chairs, or buildings to some Pluto universities such as Princeton, and everybody is happy: Meg Whitman get her sons in Princeton, where they can do whatever, etc.)

They can call it whatever, I call it corruption.

Krugman agrees that there is corruption:

“Who are these always-wrong, never-in-doubt critics? With no exceptions I can think of, they come from the right side of the political spectrum. But why should right-wing sentiments go hand in hand with inflation paranoia? One answer is that using monetary policy to fight slumps is a form of government activism. And conservatives don’t want to legitimize the notion that government action can ever have positive effects, because once you start down that path you might end up endorsing things like government-guaranteed health insurance.”

But it does not stop there. Krugman and colleagues have discovered the obvious:

“The really big losers from low interest rates are the truly wealthy — not even the 1 percent, but the 0.1 percent or even the 0.01 percent. Back in 2007, before the slump, the average member of the 0.01 percent received $3 million (in 2012 dollars) in interest. By 2011, that had fallen to $1.3 million — a loss equivalent to almost 9 percent of the group’s 2007 income.”

That low interest rates punish the “rentiers”, there is no doubt. Wealthy people in the Nineteenth Century were called by the French word “rentiers” precisely because they could live off rents. Being wealthy means to be able to live off interest, without touching the inflation adjusted principal.

So this is a reason to dislike low interest rates if one is very wealthy. But those with an aversion to risk, inflation or wild market fluctuations also detest very low interest rates, and rightly so.

Thus the question: are there other aspects of a policy of low interest rates that the wealthy do not like? In other words, can we go further than pointing out the obvious as our little Krugman does?

Well, first of all, THE WEALTHY LOVE DEPRESSIONS. During those, everything is so cheap that the wealthy, especially financiers, buy things for pennies on the dollar.

Nowadays, hedge funds allow the hyper rich to profit handsomely from financial and economic shocks. That’s why vultures funds are out to get countries that restructure their debt, with help from USA courts. They dearly regret not to have forced Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy into bankruptcy. So Argentina makes an excellent target.

A successful economy is, by itself of little value for the hyper rich. Quite the opposite. As said above, they tend to be rentiers. They are lions who made a killing, and want to keep what they got for themselves. Empowering, with a more economic clout the Populus is to be feared: if the poor is empowered, it can shake things up, and made demands to the rich, force them to share. The Revolution of 1789 was driven by the small bourgeoisie: newly empowered poor people.

Fundamentally, wealth, power, are relative. Nearly everybody lives so much better than Louis XIV, that, after due consideration, they would never exchange their lives for his. To be wealthy means to have things others do not have. Depriving the poor some more works as well as enriching the rich.

So our plutocratic leaders pursue both now.

Patrice Aymé

 

Elites’ Bad Faith

July 7, 2014

Bad faith was central to Sartre’s philosophy. He should have known, being a magnificent example of it. Bad Faith is vicious. It has to be dealt adequately, that is it has to be outmaneuvered.

An example: the Nazis contacted the greatest photographer in Berlin. He was asked to present his ten best pictures of Aryan babies. The lame Goebbels (a PhD and information minister) selected the best. The picture was published all over the Reich, as the definition of the magnificent human being that the somewhat degenerate Himmler, Hitler and Goebbels were not. Unbeknownst to those idiots, the famous photographer had selected the picture of a Jewish baby, here on the cover of “Sun In The House”, a Nazi magazine.

Aryan Ideal: Jewish Baby Became Chemistry Professor

Aryan Ideal: Jewish Baby Became Chemistry Professor

“I wanted to make the Nazis ridiculous,” the photographer revealed to the amazed parents (who then had to hide their baby, lest she be recognized, and fled to France).

However, Nazism was not about smarts. It was about grabbing riches and power. For that, smarts were the enemy. Similarly, nowadays, “conservatives” are not about smarts, or being, actually, conservative. They are all about grabbing power and riches, thus smarts are something that’s in the way. So they target smarts for destruction, and this is exactly what refined studies reveal.

A New York Times’ article reveals that divisions about facts, such as whether the biosphere is warming or evolution happened, commonly attributed to ignorance, is nothing of the sort. The divide “is wider among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn’t a lack of information…

[We] found that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines. With science as with politics, identity often trumps the facts… Unfortunately, knowing what scientists think is ultimately no substitute for actually believing it.

… we also need to reduce the incentives for elites to spread misinformation to their followers in the first place. Once people’s cultural and political views get tied up in their factual beliefs, it’s very difficult to undo regardless of the messaging that is used.”

This is why I suggest that deliberate lying on facts, in a mass media setting, is a crime, and ought to be pursued with as much ardor as some forms of, say, pedophilia. A new branch of government ought to be created: TRUTH (independent of Justice, Executive and Legislative).

Paul Krugman chimes in Beliefs, Facts and Money Conservative Delusions About Inflation with: “The problem, in other words, isn’t ignorance; it’s wishful thinking.”

Wishful thinking? Wait a minute, Paul. It’s, conveniently, the thinking which plutocrats wish for Americans to have. It’s more vicious thinking than wishful thinking. The researchers mention euphemistically “elites”, because they want to keep receiving money. Elites with money, that’s plutocrats. Pluto, Satan, all that: it’s no good. “Elite” is a good word, though. A fresh coat of paint on Satan, should make Satan happy.

Krugman believes that knowing more about the issues widens the divide, because the well informed have a clearer view of what they need to reject, so as to sustain their belief system. Except, of course, and that’s not a small detail, that the “elites” don’t really “believe” in their rejection, as the researchers found. Instead they believe they have to exhibit belief to sustain systems of thought that are convenient for their way of life. In other words, they are lying.

I notice this all the time. I talk to the “elites”, and I notice they use “anti-ideas” namely slogans, while their body language and conversation strategies tell me they absolutely do not believe in the garbage they affect to consider self-obvious (“the climate changed before”) .

In any case, Krugman wrote the article linked above, inspired by the Bad Faith of the elite. He speaks of “Great Recession”, “Disdain for Government”, “Fiat Money”, but he does not go far enough. Either his semantics, or the concepts attached to it, do not go far enough.

So let’s correct Krugman gently:

Great Recession? Great Recession of democracy. How does one make democracy recede? By making the People really stupid.

Much of the pseudo-progress under Obama falls into that category: Obamacare is a pseudo-reform, giant wasteful programs such as the F35 have been left intact, environmentalism has been turned into a Macbeth like contemplation about a particular, irrelevant pipeline, banks have not been reformed back to the much more advanced system president Roosevelt had created in 1933, and plutocrats have been turned into the hidden government, somewhat officially.

Disdain for government” in a democracy, means disdain for the People: in a democracy, the People is supposed to rule.

“Printing money”? Enough money has to be printed to support enough exchanges to support the employment that the potential economy, and the real society, calls for.

But that’s true only in a democracy. If one is attempting to change a democracy into a plutocracy, mass employment, aside from slavery, is counterproductive, as it empowers the People.

In the end all these economic theories that are obviously incorrect in democracy, are profoundly conducive to plutocracy. That’s no accident.

Krugman calls for “Fiat Money”… Through the Central Bank. However, the Fed creates the economy through private banks. That’s still plutocratic.

The really democratic solution is to create money through the Treasury as needed for mass employment projects projecting progress (in efficiency, ecology, hedonism, etc.). Let the government create huge spending programs, and run a so called “deficit”. Sell bonds, whatever. As in Japan. At worst, if there was a default the bonds would turn into a tax (of those rich enough to buy said bonds).

Those who want to reduce the money below what society demands, want mass unemployment, and thus the reign of those who have massive private capital, the plutocrats.

None of those crazily erroneous ideas of the far right and its attached financial and CEO class are thus crazy, when looked at as a system of mood and thoughts that drives towards plutocracy. Then they are entirely logical.

Bad Faith is a mood that produces solid logic. One needs greater emotions to break it, rather than meek reason.

Patrice Ayme

USA Financial Extortion

July 6, 2014

Individuals (famous economists), and organizations that are profiting from the present oligarchic system cannot be too critical against what feeds them. One has to read beyond the mellifluous lines.

Here is The Economist, June 28, 2014:

“Share and share alike… America should also embrace the OECD’s efforts, already backed by more than 50 countries, to create a truly multilateral system in which tax information on residents’ accounts and certain investments is shared annually. For that to work, America would need to hand over data similar to those which it demands from others—something it has hitherto appeared reluctant to do. The financial superpower looks ever more a regulatory bully, setting rules it ignores itself.

Bullies Kill, Vultures Feed, Justice The Old Fashion Way

Bullies Kill, Vultures Feed, Justice The Old Fashion Way

Setting rules for others one ignores for oneself is the essence of viciousness.

The financial superpower looks ever more a regulatory bully?

The USA is a financial bully, and it started in 1944, when the USA tried to bully Lord Keynes himself (head of the currency commission at Bretton-Woods), into accepting the Dollar of the USA as the world’s reserve currency.

The fact that it started so long ago means that the bully’s institutions have evolved accordingly. A particular case if American justice, which finds American violence to be just: the case of the vulture funds is exemplary. Whoever stands in the way of American vultures is unjust.

Keynes wanted to use the International Monetary Fund to create “Drawing Rights” as needed, a solution Dominique Strauss-Kahn implemented to the tune of 450 billion dollars until his fateful encounter with the maid from hell, taken super seriously by New York “Justice” (until she proposed so many tricks to the officers in charge of “protecting” her, that, well, it was embarrassing, even for New York “Justice”).

Keynes resisted totally, so the government of the USA forged the documents that made the USA into the one and only financial superpower. When Saddam Hussein begged to differ, and started to use Euros, he was hanged. So the BNP executives, who have not been executed yet, ought not to complain too much, as The Economist astutely points out, somewhere else.

What is The Economist alluding to above? “… hand over data similar to those which it demands from others.” To the fact that the USA is the world’s largest tax haven for global plutocrats, while busy destroying all other tax havens. The destruction of Swiss banks and bankers is exemplary that way.

In other words, the USA sucks up capital from all over the world, by stealing other countries’ taxes (as it provides plutocrats, worldwide, to escape taxation, thanks to… Delaware).

Says The Economist in: “Tax havens, The missing $20 trillion How to stop companies and people dodging tax, in Delaware as well as Grand Cayman”: a lower rate on a broader base, combined with vigilance by the tax authorities, would be more efficient and would probably raise more revenue: America, whose companies face one of the rich world’s highest corporate-tax rates on their worldwide income, also has some of the most energetic tax-avoiders.

These reforms would not be easy. Governments that try to lower corporate tax rates will be accused of caving in to blackmailing capitalists. Financial centres and incorporation hubs, from the City of London to Delaware, will fight any attempt to tighten their rules. BUT IF POLITICIANS REALLY WANT TO TAX THE MISSING $20 TRILLION, THAT’S WHERE THEY SHOULD START.”

From the horse’s mouth: to tax the missing $20 trillion, start from London to Delaware… Exactly what I have been saying for years. The global financial exploitative mess is part of an Anglo-American imperial situation.

I have condemned the way “judicial” authorities in New York siding with the financial vultures therein. The Economist now agrees with me, and goes somewhat further, as it alleges state corruption. Here is an extensive extract from:

BNP Paribas in the dock: No way to treat a criminal. The French bank deserved a clobbering, but America’s legal system looks like an extortion racket.

BNP argues that it broke no European laws… That is true enough, to Europe’s shame… It is also true that the underlying transactions had nothing to do with America, but because they were denominated in dollars they had to be cleared in New York, which provided America’s lawmen with a toehold.

But the guilt of a suspect and the justice of a cause do not make a tribunal fair. And America’s system for pursuing errant banks, especially foreign ones, is anything but fair… BNP had little choice but to settle. Defeat in court might have led to the loss of its American banking licence—a death sentence for a big international bank. America’s prosecutors can also wield the threat of criminal charges against individual bankers.

Bank against the wall

Not only were BNP’s tormentors, such as Benjamin Lawsky, New York’s politically ambitious banking regulator, able more or less to dictate their terms, they also had an incentive to make the fine as big as possible because the agencies involved divvied up much of it among themselves. Mr Lawsky’s outfit gets $2 billion, four times its annual budget, which it will triumphantly deposit in New York state’s depleted coffers.

There are no meaningful checks on this process, let alone a plausible procedure for BNP to appeal. Bank bosses cannot even publicly criticise deals they agree to under extreme duress. No precedent is set and no guidance provided as to the limits of the law and the proportionality of the punishment.

So even if BNP fully deserves its punishment, the legal system that meted it out is closer to an extortion racket than justice. France’s economy minister, Arnaud Montebourg, has compared America’s pursuit of BNP to “economic warfare”. In other words, a bank that catered to mass murderers has had some success in portraying itself as a victim. Any process that can make BNP’s dealings with Sudan look anything less than shameful must be very flawed indeed.”

“Catered to mass murderers”? Is that not the story of the invasion of Iraq by the USA? Did BNP invade Sudan? Is the USA pursuing the invaders of Iraq?

No, the USA is using imperial might in ways very similar to Putin. (Putin also has laws and judges and Congress on his side, nota bene.)

Two months ago Argentina reached a settlement with the Paris Club, a group of government creditors.

On June 16th the Supreme Court of the United States decided twice in favor of NML Capital, a “vulture” fund (and subsidiary of hedge fund Elliott Management) that snatched dirt cheap bonds after Argentina’s 2001 default. The fund and its plutocratic owners have since pursued the country for the payment of all principal plus outstanding interest in US courts. For at least 1.6 billion dollars.

The ability of struggling countries to restructure their debts has been dented. Hold-outs everywhere have greater incentive to litigate; creditors who might accept exchange offers could see them gulped down by vultures, catered to by USA judges.

Those who play with fire to burn others may find where the concept of “backfiring” comes from.

Patrice Ayme’

Will To Destruction

July 4, 2014

The West rots in a crazy political crisis propelled by carefully engineered ignorance, misunderstanding and herd like behavior. It has drastic economic, social, and even ecological consequences. None of this is an accident. Instead, it’s the expression of a will. And no, it’s not just a Will To Power, as Napoleon and Nietzsche would have it, in their simplicity, and general lack of cynicism.

Before taking flight above the morass of commonality, let’s roll out Krugman in “Build We Won’t” (07/ 3/ 2014):

“You often find people talking about our economic difficulties as if they were complicated and mysterious, with no obvious solution. As the economist Dean Baker recently pointed out, nothing could be further from the truth. The basic story of what went wrong is, in fact, almost absurdly simple: We had an immense housing bubble, and, when the bubble burst, it left a huge hole in spending. Everything else is footnotes.

From Obama To O Blah Blah

From Obama To O Blah Blah

Krugman pursue, playing naïve: “And the appropriate policy response was simple, too: Fill that hole in demand… In prosperous times, public spending on roads, bridges and so on competes with the private sector for resources. Since 2008, however, our economy has been awash in unemployed workers (especially construction workers) and capital with no place to go (which is why government borrowing costs are at historic lows). Putting those idle resources to work building useful stuff should have been a no-brainer.

But what actually happened was exactly the opposite: an unprecedented plunge in infrastructure spending. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, public expenditures on construction have fallen more than 20 percent since early 2008…an almost surreally awful wrong turn…

And it’s about to get even worse.”

Krugman explains that public spending is evil, because that would increase the deficit. Deficits are evil, when there’s a Democratic government that can borrow at incredibly low interest rates. We can’t raise gas taxes: that would be a tax increase, and tax increases are even more evil than deficits. So public infrastructure can decay.

Krugman does not know if this is politics or madness: “If this sounds crazy, that’s because it is… The collapse of public investment was, therefore, a political choice… how self-destructive that political choice has become. It’s one thing to block green investment, or high-speed rail, or even school construction… But everyone… thinks we need good roads. Yet the combination of anti-tax ideology and deficit… means that we’re letting our highways, and our future, erode away.”

In simple terms:

Trillions of dollars are sitting idle, a huge amount of work needs to be done, around 40% of the working age cohort is not employed. Crazy? Not at all. It’s the logic of the plutocratic phenomenon. Gut the People. We have seen this before, when the Roman empire entered its terminal decay (which took more than two centuries).

Here is my explanation:

Public investments are those made for the common good, because they are too large, or too much about public property, or too unprofitable, short term (fundamental research in science and philosophy).

No capitalist can buy the air, for example. The air is a public good. No private individual ought to be allowed to possess the atmosphere. Thus it’s public investment that has to take care of the air.

And so on.

Of course, civilization has decided that what is the most precious: free will, freedom, life, cannot be owned any more. They used to be, at occasional, crazy points of history, never sustainable: in this country, nearly four centuries ago, slavery was reintroduced, and human beings, and their children could be owned, and abused (the slave trade was unlawful in the Empire of the Franks since 655 CE, in the Seventh Century, the great conceptual, and technical break with Greco-Roman Antiquity).

As the most precious cannot be owned, and traded privately, they can only be taken care of publicly. By cutting down on public investments, the powers that be have decided that what was the most precious was not worth investing into.

So the economy, society, and civilization itself go down.

You may wonder: what usage are the powers that be pursuing, by smothering the most precious values? Are they not suffering too? Well, by making ever more life into a living hell, the plutocrats who lead our politicians feel ever more at home.

Who needs roads, or trains, when one can private jet around? This is exactly the reasoning that was made when plutocrats destroyed the tax base of the Roman Empire: plutocrats did not need roads, they could live in their villas. They did not even need a public army: they had their own private armies. Nor did they need public schools, they had private schooling. It is the same now!

What drives this Will To Destruction?

Something deep in the genus Homo. The Will of Homo To Destroy… Homo.

This is what the plutocratic phenomenon taps into, that Will To Destruction. It is its reason of being.

Patrice Ayme


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 323 other followers