Why The Hyper Rich Hates The Poor

 

HATE IS WHAT HUMANS DO, WHEN NOTHING BETTER OFFERS ITSELF.

***

Abstract: The rage of the hyper rich against the poor is real. Even biological. It is pure, raw human ethology. As pure evil as evil can get. Turning people into carpets can be good, but, under normal circumstances, it should not be legal. And that is why the plutocracy is busy at work, destroying normalcy.

***

PLUTOCRATS CAN’T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AUSCHWITZ AND TAXES:

Fund managers such as the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman pay tax rates on most of their income at a 15% rate. Simple mortals have to do with huge tax rates instead, closer to 50% (once the "payroll tax", social security tax, federal, states, if not city, are counted). The hyper rich have often their mansions in some locale which allows them to avoid more taxes. And so on. In other words, in the USA, anti-patriotic crimes of the hyper rich are now legal.

The obvious proposal, made for many years by myself, is to make the hyper rich pay normal tax rates, those that receptionists, secretaries and janitors pay (see below how it would be done). It has been known by civilized people, for 10,000 years, that the mathematical function called the exponential requires to tax wealth more, just for wealth inequality not to get so much out of hand that so much wealth gets in so few hands that the economy stops existing. Neolithic tax legislators discovered the exponential millennia before mathematicians did. Trust neo-fascist economists to forget it carefully. Maybe they should remove it from the mathematical programs at school.

Finally Obama vaguely uttered the suggestion of closing a technical interpretation of the tax code that allows hedge funds managers to cheat on their taxes (namely the ridiculously low tax rates for "carried interest").

Of course, Obama did not need to do that: he could have given an executive order to Geithner (oops, sorry, I forgot Geithner himself refused to pay for 40,000 dollars of taxes he owed, on the ground that three years had passed; he is now chief of the IRS, among other things; when thieves lead, crimes are legal).

In any case, Mr. Schwarzman, head of the Blackstone Group, a giant financial conglomerate, declared at a private board meeting of a "nonprofit" organization about Obama’s suggesting that he paid tax at the same rate as everybody else: "It’s a war. It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939."

Four obvious remarks: 1) It’s like Schwarzman does not have a brain.

2) "Non Profits" are another trick of the hyper rich to exert power without paying taxes. It’s mostly, all too often, about fake charity, real power, and no taxes, while staying in 5 star hotels, worldwide. Another base plot of the plutocrats, and please be informed, as a hint of a proof, that the foundation law was passed at the same time as the income tax law during World War One (when the rates rose vertically from 2% to 77%!).

3) Supposing Schwarzman has a brain, he does not know history, and insults the memory of those who fell victim to it. That people with such influence can utter such dramatic obscenities is symptomatic of a sinking civilization.

4) For hyper rich Americans, paying less taxes than the people out there is a moral imperative. It’s deeply immoral to raise taxes on the hyper rich, just as it was immoral for Hitler to invade Poland (killing therein six million Poles).

[See more on financiers’ anger in notes.]

***

HOW PLUTO CAPTURES THE MINDS:

People who think more about their decisions have more brain cells in their frontal lobes, research just published in Science has discovered. People who are good at thinking about thinking (metathinking!) are PHYSIOLOGICALLY different.

In other words, different thinking, and different characters, lead to create humans who are so different, they are phenotypically different species.

The question naturally arise about the obverse. Can the political process create inferior species of humans? Obviously yes; if thinking about thinking is actively discouraged, as it is in the USA, one may end up with a society where people can’t think, because the crucial grey matter just is not there. A society where Obama is viewed as an intellectual or even a constitutional law professor (never mind that he orders the political assassination of citizens, those who nominated him can’t probably tell the difference between a frog’s croak and the constitution).

In the last 30 years, plutocracy has captured the political process, especially in the USA, making the minds themselves compatible with its rule. ( The process progressively gathered power in the last 500 years, as Francois I, Charles V, and the English monarchs got entangled with the hyper rich, to finance themselves; this led in the 18C to the invention of the privately managed fractional reserve system .)

In the present USA, one metaprinciple of correct behavior has become that, in good company, full bodied males will only talk about scores of sport teams. Enforced brain behavior has become very different from what it was when the demos was fully active in the polis, and therefore talking politics was the national sport (as it still is in some countries, such as France).

We have seen that before. This is a classical phenomenon. In the Sixth Century, in Constantinople, the mental life was all about the Blues, and the Greens, competing chariot teams. The involvement in these sports was so intense it led to massive riots, where thousands got killed. The emperor Justinian himself thought about abdicating when he mulled over the on-going riots .

That insane passion about watching sports, an obsession about nothing, was in replacement, and complete contrast with the passion for politics in Byzantium, a thousand years earlier. Why the psychological replacement? Because in a dictatorship those who have power dictate, and the people obey, but do not talk back. Hence the people are deprived of the power of dialogue, debate, dialectic, and, as far as the dictator or plutocracy is concerned, it is crucial that the prohibition of debate perdures, and talking back does not occur.

Mental activity is thus corralled into innocent pasture, talking about nothing. This mental and civilizational retardation tends to become an irreversible mental condition. Obsessive talking and worrying about team sports has thus been, for two millennia, a marker of the capture of minds by the mighty few.

It is no coincidence that Obama bounded with Gibbs by talking about sport. It is not just religion which is the opium of the people. Obsessive sport talking about teams displaces the natural obsession of the prehistoric group about whether it is scoring in its environment, especially against other human groups.

***

DEMOCRACY TRICKLING DOWN THE DRAIN, THANKS TO MASTER IDEAS:

More superficial than the master behaviors, are the master ideas. One master idea, that the hyper rich imposed on the people, was that the hyper rich would be taxed ever less. After all, the hyper rich provide with jobs and charity, plus the edifying spectacle of its splendid superiority.

Another master idea was that massive immigration, by bringing a lot of servants, would make the USA more powerful ("A rising tide lifts all boats").

That a massive influx of the uncouth from overseas would also have the added benefit of diluting democracy was not mentioned. But Rome also used that trick, democratic dilution. The USA gained about 30 million (yes thirty million) in ten years. Mostly through immigration. California went from 17 millions in 1976 to 38 millions in 2010. California also has an unemployment rate close to 13%, directly related to the immigration tsunami (“a rising tsunami washes off all boats”). When one goes around in California, away from a few superficial window dressing, one often gets the impression that it was all ultra modern… in 1950. And has not changed since.

The spirit of the state of law implicitly contains the notion of equality. By refusing to pay their fair share of taxes, the share that prevents them to get ever richer without doing any work, the hyper rich flouts the notion of equality.

The clout of the rich, scoffing at the state of law, happened in the later phase of the Roman empire, as the rich retreated to their estates, defended by their private armies, keeping the tax collectors away. This made the public sector of the empire collapse. In particular law, order, and the military.

Soon Roman politicians had to make deals, even military deals, with small, but well armed invaders, including the Huns! At some point six Senatorial families owned most of North Africa. The most amazing part is that this extraordinary state of affairs benefited already Seneca under Nero, but that nobody seems to have connected it to the incapacity of the empire to defend itself against Germans under Marcus Aurelius, less than a century later (although it’s well known Marcus could not finance the war, and had to sell palace cutlery to do so).

Under Reagan, the theory that the rich are sacred came to be known as "trickle down" economics. Under Clinton, a new twist was added, never seen in the history of civilization. The enormous money making power of the state, through private banks, already a scandal nobody looks at, was harnessed to feed the derivative world, a parallel universe where real money was funneled to create fake profits. by mastering reality itself through a derivative universe, the plutocracy morphed into something much more dangerous, capable of greater propaganda.

***

IF THINKING FALSELY DOES NOT WORK, MAYBE RAGE WILL:

Krugman observed that the propaganda justifying lower taxes for the rich has gone mainstream (NYT, September 19, 2010):

The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses.

Some may find that rage curious. Obama has bent over backwards to please the hyper rich. Instead of changing the tax structure within the first week, as he had the votes to try to do, Obama did nothing.

Moreover, Obama made giant gifts of all kind, in the trillions, to transfer public money to private banks and other financial "institutions" (in a deliberately misleading contrivance, private company, if they are publicly traded, are called "public" in the USA, and private for profit companies are called "institutions", if they are big enough). The TARP inspector said in summer 2010 that the gifts to the private banks went over 3.7 trillion dollars. So why all the rage of the hyper rich against their pet? This is a psychological question, and Krugman does not answer it.

An obvious observation is that Obama has been weak, so weak that he has proven he can be pushed to the right, ever more, and with him the entire political system of the USA has been pushed to the right. One needs some passion to animate that quest of the neo-conservatives towards neo-fascism. Average Americans are timid mental creatures: they have been indoctrinated that way at school. The hyper rich, by getting all enraged, may hope to impress the commons so much, that they will intellectually collapse and reduce to spiritual crepe batter.

***

HUMANITY IS WHAT EVIL DOES, WHEN IT STARTS TO THINK HARD:

But the explanation goes further than that. The rage of the hyper rich has to do with the phenomenon known as Evil.

Speaking of evil, a stupid essay in the philosophical series "The Stone" of the New York Times, suggested to kill all the carnivores, using the weasel question: "Would the controlled extinction of carnivorous species be a good thing?", as a hook. The essay was a typical wishy-washy balanced act about nothing. Left unsaid was the fact that man is the planet’s top predator, a family of species that rose to supremacy through meat eating, so eliminating carnivores means killing humankind. That puts the guy who wrote the piece lower on the scale of theoretical ethics than Adolf Hitler himself.

Thus, indeed, in a preliminary step, the essay in the New York Times, implied: "Would the controlled extinction of Jews be a good thing?" The essay does not seem as sedate, from this perspective.

Verily, Evil is necessary, but it has to be controlled by Humanity, to optimize, Humanity. Evil is one thing Humanity does, and needs, but Humanity does not reduce to Evil. However, as its name indicates, plutocracy is pure Evil.

***

CALL IT PLUTOCRACY, NOT ARISTOCRACY:

I avoid the concept of “aristocracy”, because it is flattering –it means rule of the best- and generally inaccurate. Far from being the best, so called self described “aristocrats were often the worst. In general, the concept of “plutocracy” is much more appropriate to qualify what has been historically designed as “aristocracy”.

Alexander the Great, for example, was not the best. He was, rather, the worst. He was just a genocidal maniac, as he proved by annihilating in a holocaust the Greek City-State of Thebes, a democracy.

Alexander committed this crime against humankind, to terrify the Greeks. Alexander was just the son of his fascist father, at the head of a vast fascist, plutocratic association of gangsters who fought Athens after the death of Alexander, and won, with the active participation of the hyper rich in Athens.

The result was an eclipse of democracy that lasted 2,000 years, holding back human progress in all ways.

The European feudal aristocracy, which transmogrified from Roman imperial “aristocracy” (those with the best assassination teams) was also mostly an hereditary plutocracy, which was carefully wrapped around their version of “god”, their great fascist in the sky (entangling a fascist god and the commander in chief an idea created and developed by Roman emperors, centuries before Constantine).

***

TAX FEUDALISM TO DEATH, BEFORE IT DEVOURS ALL:

Why not to restrict long term capital gains 15% rate only to those making less than a million dollar yearly income? Did Obama think about that? And to replace the 15% rate, above that, by normal income tax? This way the hyper rich would get to pay the same rate, above one million dollar of income as, say, firemen.

One has to remember that the fractional reserve system has given private bankers what used to be the privilege of the state, creating money. Thus the hyper rich got from the state a powerful instrument no one else has. By the very moral system they advocate, that everything has a price, it is only normal that they would pay something for this extravagant privilege.

One can refine this proposal by distinguishing whether the hyper rich at hand profited or not from state help; for example, Mr. Musk, getting huge sums from NASA, for his private rocket company, is another example of subsidies which ought to be paid for. The case of Boeing or Airbus getting subsidies is still another question: there millions, if not billions, of people profit, and we are dealing with Colbertism, not favoritism.

Allowing a few big financiers to create the money everybody uses is as absurd as when private individuals were endowed, by the state, to raise taxes for the state ( a system which, in the end, precipitated bloody revolutions in Europe).

It seems that Obama has understood some of this, as he suggested the creation of a national infrastructure bank. Simply it should be 500 billion dollars to start with, not 50 billion (by comparison, the war activities of the USA cost one trillion dollars a year).

Another long time suggestion of mine is a tiny tax on financial transactions. Piling up financial transactions is not an absolute good, but an absolute distraction. I explained, in the past, that it would be analogous to the speed of light as universal speed limit, and, similarly, it would enforce causality.

Also such a tax would bring huge revenues, as many revenues grabbed away from the financial vultures. Oxfam has analyzed the details recently and found that a half of a thousandth tax (.05 %!) would bring at least 500 billion Euros/Dollars. This would be as much money grabbed away from the powerful "pervert band" that want to re-establish a full new feudalism. (In Oxfam, Ox is for Oxford, and fam, for famine; the hyper rich are indeed in the process of promoting famine, worldwide…)

***

WHY IS THE RICH SO ENRAGED?

Back to the question Krugman did not answer. In the USA, the hyper rich got what they wanted, and always more of it, in the last thirty years: ever less taxes, ever more distanciation between them and the middle class, satisfying their impression of superiority. Now Obama is doing his seduction dance to the left, like a toothless cobra, and the hyper rich only knows he will deliver six more years of bromide to be spit in the left’s face. So why so much rage?

Why so much rage? Well, first of all, because rage is all what is left for them to express which has not proven unambiguously wrong: the trickle down theory has clearly, not worked for the majority of Americans. Their real median income has been going down for thirty years.

Another thing is that Americans are brainwashed into behaving like sheep in primary school. Expressing rage is big no-no in the USA. Thus, by doing so, the hyper rich acquire the high ground: they terrify, they impress, and how could they be wrong if they are so enraged? It is a variation of the Big Lie technique, dear to Hitler: the hyper rich express an exaggerated emotion, to get their way, and hope that, by doing so, they will make average people believe that they really believe they are in their right. Hitler’s argument that little people expect only little lies, so are unprepared for big lies, can indeed be adapted: little people in the USA expect little emotion, so, when confronted with huge emotions, they are unprepared to resist them, especially when they come from their leaders (because the hyper rich lead in the USA: the political apparatus, especially the US Senate, is just a rather cheap, but most profitable, appendage).

Another reason for the rich to be genuinely enraged. The rich is enraged because the rich has got away with what they knew they ought not to have get away with. Then they learned to justify this unfairness by modifying their sense of fairness, and now they know nothing else. Dubious justification for past orgy has become virtuous expectation for ongoing repast.

By taking away their special absurdly low taxes, one does not just reduce their future riches and power, one also takes away their perceived rectitude. The rectitude they project, and the rectitude they perceive about themselves. Hyper rich Americans are ‘philanthropists" remember? they also say that about themselves. Not only that statement reduces their taxes, it augments their perception of themselves, it makes more of the world orbit around them. The hyper rich knows that plutocracy is good, they feel that plutocentrism is better. They should not just enjoy themselves, they should be celebrated.

The problem with Obama is that his best rhetoric, as found in this blog, cuts down on this sense of celebration. Under Obama, the rich becomes a problem. An abstract problem, but still a problem. The fact that Obama did not do anything about this problem has compounded the problem, because the rich feels irritated, not chastised. Obama has even humiliated them by suggesting that only him, Obama, "stands between them, and the pitchforks". They may want to prove they can take the pitchforks all by themselves.

Thus plutocracy feeds on itself not just mathematically, through the exponential function (the more riches, the easier it is to acquire more), but also psychologically, as it adapts its morality to viewing as moral, and normal, its past crimes, and the weakness with which it has been tolerated.

The behavior of the hyper rich, throughout history, is reminiscent of what happens when lions, or leopards, learn to feed on humans. In the beginning the predators are cautious, even afraid. Roman trainers gave their carnivores human meat to get them to appreciate it. But soon the ferocious beasts consider that human flesh is their due. That’s how man eaters are made; let them get away with it, and soon they know nothing else.

The obscene fund raising system of the USA makes things worse. And then the rich and their servants become petulant; see Obama making fun of his liberal critics at a $30,000 dollars "event at the home of Richard Richman" (!), for not applauding all the derivative loopholes the president prepared for his very rich friends he is so anxious to be accepted by.

***

WHY HYPER RICH SO FUN? EVIL. TO DO WHAT? EVIL.

Is there something more, in the behavior of the hyper rich? Why do they want ever more riches, ever more power in their hands, over the rest of humankind? This obscenity is completely obvious in the USA; the most useless of the hyper rich, the likes of Mr. Hedge Fund manager above, and the hyper wealthy bankers, got trillions for their operations, so they could give themselves hundreds of billions in bonuses, while Mr. Obama, misguided by the lamentable Lawrence Summers, spent only 50 billion dollars on the infrastructure stimulus, tat is, on jobs, over two years (calling it the "700 billion dollars stimulus"; for comparison, France spent as much on a special infrastructure stimulus, in 2009 alone!… And France has arguably already the world’s best infrastructure…)

The Romans used to say that Man Was A Wolf For Man. Unkind to wolves. In truth, paleontologically speaking, wolves had to fear hyenas, (cave) lions, all sorts of saber tooth predators, giant eagles, and man… Moreover, in the last few million years, the ferocious beasts first teaching to their children was to avoid man, at all and any cost.

But who predated on man? But who did man fear? Who maintained the numbers of human population within ecological sustainability? Well, man, could only fear man, and that is why man became frightening to man. And learned, genotypically, to love to exterminate man.

People such as Lawrence Summers exist, so that they can reduce the ecological footprint of other men, reducing them to misery, so that they consume less. In the past, such men would have outright eaten other people, as the fat kings of the Pacific used to. Human inherited psychobiology became the master of Evil, to save the earth, and thus, the species.

Thus, there is in man an instinct of destruction of other men. There is in man an instinct of destruction of man in the name of the world. This instinct goes all the way to self destruction (hence Hitler’s little adventure, teasing Britain and France in a war he was sure to lose).

This instinct of destruction is what animated the priestly class of the Aztecs (and it was pretty explicit, with the theory, and practice, of the "Flower Wars"). This is also why the Hebrew bible and the Arab Qur’an are so ferocious, or why Shiva creates and destroys, and why the Polynesians found each other so tasty, prepared as a luau. Not that the Polynesians had any choice; protein was rare, and saving the fish in the reef was more important than sparing the inhabitants of the valley next door.

When one cannot outright destroy others, one can at the very least oppress them, torture, them, humiliate them. Destruction has to start somewhere. That is why American plutocrats push for immigration of dozens of millions of aliens, while emigrating most American jobs to China: because it destroys the middle class.

The American plutocrats know just enough history to have determined that European plutocracy was brought down by European revolutions and rebellions by the middle class, a problem that will be prevented by destroying the middle class. First.

The hyper rich is driven by the instinct of destruction of humanity, an instinct way beyond the will to power. Ignore them, and that instinct, at your own risk.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

The preceding explains Krugman’s observation that: "When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply." The beast ruling the earth has reasons that intellectuals did not dare have yet.

***

Speaking of Krugman, the later deplored that: "Forbes magazine ran a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anticolonialist” agenda, that “the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.”

…Well, Obama invited that one on himself by calling his book:"Dreams FROM My Father". "From", really? As those who think he is right to use a teleprompter always point out: every single word counts. So "from" counts. I believe this, too, that every single word counts. But also I think it’s good to be occasionally messy, because it can then lead to deeper questions about the context that one really means. The intriguing title of Obama’s book: from my father, not of my father, invites further questions, as intended. Anyway, it’s not the Luo who have been problematic. It’s Summers.

***

Note on joking about the holocaust of World War Two:

A question in passing. Why did the Anti Defamation League not denounce Mr. Schwarzman? After all, they denounced a mosque. Or are we supposed to utter jokes in the same vein, at the same lyrical level, such as:"It’s too bad Hitler did not put that one in the oven too?"

Well, the later joke is more innocuous, it is more of a joke, than the invasion of Poland. The invasion of Poland was the start of the Holocaust. Forced into a war he could not win, Hitler was all enraged. He started his holocaust with Poles, as early as 1939.

Everybody agrees nowadays that to put more than ten million (Jews, Gypsies, Resistance, etc.) in the ovens was a bad idea… And only some lunatics believe it did not happen.

Whereas the real support of the USA for Hitler in 1939, diplomatically and in military support, is still ignored, let alone not believed.

Joking is about evoking a separate reality, which people know is not the truth. But nobody in good mental standing is supposed to know that the USA actually came to the help of Hitler in 1939 (as FDR himself deplored). So the wound is real, and not yet closed, not even recognized. It’s not a joke, it cannot yet be a joke.

Nor, it seems, can the support for, and incitement of bin Laden, by the USA, be made into a joke yet. Obama is too busy supporting the Salafists (Saud, Karzai, etc.)

***

Further notes on plutocratic rage and blackmail: "If, as a result of this anger, credit becomes unavailable, particularly for small and mid-size businesses," Mr. Schwarzman wrote in The Washington Post, "then at best the economy will slow and, at worst, we will find ourselves in a dire situation." He said bankers were responding to attacks by "becoming conservative," a lovely little allusion about lending being politically motivated.

"Obama’s pissing on us and Wall Street and bankers and capitalism; then we have gotten afraid," a “senior executive” said. "We then are not investing in maybe what we should invest in." Well, it could not be any clearer that the plutocracy is abusing the privileges given to them, and which have allowed it to rise.

About these ads

Tags: ,

19 Responses to “Why The Hyper Rich Hates The Poor”

  1. V07768198309 Says:

    _______________________________

    Our economy is slowly dying, it is kept alive artificially. No one is proposing a solution because no one has the slightest idea of why it is happening and many have vested interest in the present system. However an objective observation of the phenomenon can help us understand it and provide us with an innovative solution. Of course we can’t solve the problem with the tools that brought us there in the first place and we need a new ideology.

    _______________________________

    - Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

    - Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to — to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.

    - You found a flaw in the reality…(!!!???)

    - Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

    - In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

    - That is — precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

    _______________________________

    An Innovative Credit Free, Free Market, Post Crash Economy

    A Tract on Monetary Reform

    _______________________________

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed about all the preceding, except about nobody knowing why the economy of the USA is dying. Start with the failure of adopting the metric system or the rights of children of the UN (everybody else has, but for North Korea). The USA is suffering of an increasing cognitive deficiency made possible to start with by being deeply enthralled with oneself, the idea of American exceptionalism (the USA knows best, is best, and can only be so). In particular the constitution of the USA needs to be changed, so that the Senate be modelled after the French Senate (say) rather than the instrument of the plutocracy it has evolved in.
      PA

  2. JMG Says:

    Patrice,

    Summer is finally leaving. Why did it take Obama so long to figure it out?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Answer:
      Because Obama is not smart. Not smart enough for the situation at hand. An exmple is his tinkering with Nixon’s health care, which solves very little, and makes health even more expensive for most.

      Obama is not smart, he just plays one by reading his telepromter. Moreover everybody tells him he is so incomparably smart, and professorially knowledgeable, that he has become deeply arrogant. And when you points that out to him, he flippantly says:”Look where I am!”

      It is hard to reason with stupid people. Obama’s horrendous decisions, such as quadrupling the effort in Afghanistan, have not hit the fan yet. But they will. For Obama to become intelligent as he needs to be, he first needs to realize how stupid he has been. He could have done anything in the first two years of his presidency. Instead he read from his teleprompter, and did what the plutocrats told him to do.
      PA

  3. Roger Henry Says:

    PA
    Another fabulous essay grounded in your unique grasp and retention of world history. Its application in providing parallels to current political trends, activities and motives helps greatly in getting a grasp on the propaganda vortex we are subjected to each day.
    That thinkers are phenotypically different coincides with the studies showing pre- puberty memory training also creates brain structures that are of greater size and capability to facilitate this thinking.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Roger:
      You are very generous, I appreciate a lot! I need the encouragement, because I am leery about pushing the envelope too far, as far as the tolerance of the public is concerned… I take early on extremely controversial positions, which later, become standard. An example was about Obamacare, that I detested even as it was elaborated, and thus some of the left accused me to be racially against Obama! verily, I am a friend of Obama. I have sympathy for what he is going through… In spite of my robust critiques… Another example is that I am not anymore against “Islam”, or rather, its best variants, than I am against the best variants of Catholicism… (Islam varies much more than Christianism, in truth…)
      PA

  4. keith Says:

    You know Patrice, that I have usually been unwary of not acknowledging your erudition and intellect as displayed on your pages here, even though you didn’t seem to know, a while back, that the absolute value of the derivative of a real function could and often does exceed the value of its derivative at that point.

    But with your strange method of tangentially supporting the obscurantism and downright libels of the forbes society, especially in their abysmal and wholly disproportionate to any rational means of understanding anything recent character assassinations of The President Of The United States which you not only quote but don’t mind being seen as supporting, and you don’t hesitate to capitalize, but concerning which such indulgence anathema was pronounced long before you were ever conceived or born I find myself having to take great exception, even though for a while I considered myself entertained if not somewhat educated by your journals.

    Therefore, let this stand out as an objection to things you suggested concerning the President and the Country Where I Was Born And Raised, if you don’t mind.

    Warmest Regards,

    Keith

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Keith:
      As you said: It “seems” that I do not know about the derivatives. I sometimes use poetic licence. I do not have to keep a mathematical standard of rigor, throughout. Anyway it was just something about the class of functions I was (implicitly) considering. Most functions describing classical physics are well behaved. One could make some renormalization group argument to make more precise my train of thought…I have in my library more than one book on counter-examples in topology and analysis, and I probably visualized cos(10x) before…

      I am not aware of a “Forbes society”. I would suggest that the tangentially implied libelling, and “character assassination” of the POTUS that you seem to find in these pages is another misunderstanding. I actually like Obama, and I consider him a personal friend.

      I deeply assassinated the idea of Summers, Geithner and company, the ones who put the economy and society in the ditch, to be viewed as esteemed economic advisers. Fortunately, their plutocratic incompetencies are, finally, on their way out. To replace them by Google’s CEO would not be progress, though…

      I also tried to assassinate the idea of plunging more into the Afghan civil war by supporting some Salafists against others, as NATO is presently doing now. More than 2,000 NATO soldiers killed because one has a different interpretation of Islam is not just grotesque and criminal, but anti-constitutional (in all NATO countries, not just the USA).

      I am happy to hear now that Obama shared some misgivings about the Afghan adventure, too. Too bad that was just about losing “the entire democratic party“, a meek political positioning, instead of the strategic and moral point of view one would expect.

      My positions and clear conscience are not subordinated to my personal friendship to Obama, that’s all. Somebody has to tell him what’s up, and what’s down. Another point: the last essay was about why the plutocrats are enraged about Obama, it was therefore in support of Obama, so I am a bit confused that you seem to have taken some umbrage… except if you believe that the back and forth between Obama and hyper rich financiers is just a comedy to hide the true relationship that really matters…

      Last point: even more than in the 1930s, being born, raised, and having a presidential cult, is, in any influential country, not something that can be restricted to that country. Hitler was Chancellor AND President of Germany. Germans were born and raised there, generally. But that did not make Hitler’s ideas something other people in other countries did not have a right to speak about it. Actually they had a duty to mull it over, and then go to war about it, whether the Germans went to war about it, or not. And that was not even being anti-German. Quite the opposite.

      Obama is in the ditch because, although he was following what was in my pages closely before the election, he deviated mightily from them after November 4, 2008. In truth, he started to do the exact opposite. He lost his message, and his strategy. From internal politics, to Afghanistan. This is dangerous, and not just for the West.
      Warm regards to you too!
      PA

    • multumnonmulta Says:

      What do you all make/think of this?

      WASHINGTON – Admonishing his own party, President Barack Obama says it would be “inexcusable” and “irresponsible” for unenthusiastic Democratic voters to sit out the midterm elections, warning that the consequences could be a squandered agenda for years.

      “People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up,” Obama told Rolling Stone in an interview to be published Friday. The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and “if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.”

      WHAT DO DEMOCRATS/PROGRESSIVES OWE THIS GUY OR THE OTHER FACTION OF THE ONE-PARTY IN POWER?

      • multumnonmulta Says:

        ONE MORE:

        Last week, Senate Democrats did not even bother to schedule a debate, let alone a vote, on the expiring Bush tax cuts. This week, House Democrats appear poised to follow suit. The idea is to spare incumbents from having to vote before Nov. 2 on whether to let the rich go on paying less taxes than the nation needs them to pay.

        This particular failure to act was not about Republican obstructionism, of which there has been plenty. This was about Democrats failing to seize an opportunity to do the right thing and at the same time draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the Republicans.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Well, I have a serious problem with Obama, and I started to have it November 5, 2008 Since then we met and were very friendly to each other. However the problem is compounded by the people closest to Obama, who are not aware enough, of so many things, in so many dimensions, that I cannot even start to describe it, without being what I view as offensive. For some of them, creative thinking seems to be a no-no, and that makes me unpredictable, hence dangerous. As one who has known Obama for much longer than his wife told me:”We never know what you are going to say.”

        I agree that Obama did not fulfill his contract with the USA, or the World. He is basically the best bipartisan republican money could buy. I agrree that the statement above (which I read here for the first time), is outrageous. It’s a case of the Black Mamba calling the mice poisonous. Nevertheless, what is the alternative?
        In France, and now, increasingly, all of Europe, people go into the streets, they do not just depend upon their elected representatives. Democracy, people-rule, is not just about elected officials.

        Obama betrayed his own agenda. He squandered it. What happened to the Public Option in health? I would have just expanded Medicare, opened it up, and moved on (Medicare would ultimately kill basic privates, and would have pushed, through market competition, towards a publi-private system, as in France, where public health and private insurance co-exist; the French health system, best in the world, is not “socialized medecine”… except for truly heroic treatments, such as those that private insurance cannot afford in the USA; Obama’s computation is that he will break private health this way, but, instead he is going to get republicans elected, who will put the whole thing in the trash).

        It was 119 Fahrenheit in Los Angeles yesterday, the all time record. What did Obama do about CO2 emissions? Adopt EU standards of a few years back for cars, someday?
        As I expressed dissatisfaction about Obama, on the Daily Kos, way back, I was called various insults, racist, birther, etc., and was barred as a dangerous fascist (meanwhile, they had bonus bankers, including one who threatened me personally as reverred figures of the DK).

        In truth, I probably did more in all ways for Obama than anyone on the Daily Kos (including a huge financial sacrifice, when Obama was down, and with no money). If the left, and the progressives, do not see even the most basic truths, they will see the left, and progressivism fail.

        By being blind to Obanma’s deviationism, and squandering, early on, the left and the progressives pushed him to the right. So here we are.
        PA

  5. latte Says:

    really very excellent post.

    i’ve similar theses regarding the overlay and inseparability of what i can only imperfectly refer to as the memetic and the genetic, or culture/nature, oppositions. it’s a very deep discussion, the full development of which would entail substantial improvements in a variety of scientific and philosophical channels.

    it’s a very important discussion given the present situation, as you outline. alas…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      latte:
      Thanks. Very complicated, indeed. That is why the solution proposed in the New York Times (“kill the carnivores“) is no solution (and deep down inside what Hitler proposed by killing those he viewed as the plotting pestilent: Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, or the carnivorous, such as the French). Instead we welcome the fight to establish superior solutions, through superior values.
      PA

  6. latte Says:

    …that early part in Idiocracy vein was what i was referring to.


    attempt at constructive crit: wonder if sometimes the need to create comprehensible narrative situational explication within (your particular) human articulation limitations and range forces you to give short shrift to full development of nuanced characterizations: hence for example alexander was a (blanket term) fascist, destroying democracy in thebes, etc… the continued simple binary of ‘democracy’ vs ‘fascism’–i think it could be a good conceptual framework but am wondering about the details), really the complications and nuanced qualifications can put everything into an incomprehensible state of ambiguity. still, i really applaud your examination/analysis of the most salient catch-terms in the liminal consiousness of power and politics, notions of aristocracy vs plutocracy especially. ( the/an operating concept of nobility, and corresponding operating esthetic(s)? )
    highly recommend Gilles Deleuze’s “Nietzsche and Philosophy” for potential insight into further development of the concepts. i was going to elaborate but i’m out of brain energy so i need to stop writing this, get up and stretch or something. better to not write than to make a mess of it… oh too late.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I elaborated a lot about fascism versus democracy on my Tyranosopher site (which is dormant because it was managed for a fee by a friend, and my friend has been very busy, and I am not paying the fee anymore).

      The idea is that the superiority of Homo is democracy (pooling the minds). it’s an instinct, the one of conversation. But, in combat it’s better to fight as one, behind a leader. That’s effected by the fascist instinct.

      So called parliamentary democracy is organized as a mix of both. It remains though, that we have an essentially military organization to handle peace, and daily life. No good, and obsolete.

      A number of French philosophers have recognized Nietzsche’s importance. Nietsche had a lot to say. Sade, often, even more, deeper.

      Thank you for the applauding. I love it when my 11 month baby do that (twenty times a day!) Nietzsche and sade had no child, they missed out the essential.
      PA

  7. multumnonmulta Says:

    Patrice, I take your question beyond the rhetoric. You give a 1/2 answer, “The hyper rich is driven by the instinct of destruction of humanity, an instinct way beyond the will to power. Ignore them, and that instinct, at your own risk.”

    The other half is about the poor themselves, they/we’ve been corrupted into accepting self-destruction. I’m afraid this goes for the ‘well fed’ poor people anywhere and anytime. The problem is that we’ve run out of bread, and the circus will be self-inflicted.

    The rich f…ed-up with their end of the bargain; learning Chinese won’t do it for many of them either…

    P.S. I think Keith is honest in his displeasure with your tone when talking about Potus, however good Americans of such type should understand that the mythology surrounding US presidents gets shattered in the first hours of any serious encounter with presidential history. Size them up by their actions and results!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear mnm:
      I do think that Keith is honest in his displeasure for my tone about the POTUS. But I do observe that this presidential system is not working. Not in the USA, not in France, not in Russia. Whereas in the later two, the presidents (one of them much younger than Obama) are old political hands (and very courageous in the case of Sarkozy), one should not expect one man to be in charge of all the miracles.

      I personally know at least one person who has known Obama for more than 30 years, and is much more clever and knowledgeable than Obama, let alone less self promoting. American born too. (Not that I am saying that Obama is not.) From American citizen parents (oops). Is that much more qualified person USA president? No. Would that person have gone deeper in the Afghanistan mess? No.

      Is that person tougher, more courageous than Obama? Yes. She has done dangerous rock and mountain climbing for decades. That is why she would have resisted the generals better.

      Something more like Suisse (election of Federal Council of seven members) would be better than the present monarchy.

      I do not see why I should respect a political office. Socrates thought he had to, to show that the law is the law, and his above, etc. Aristotle reached the opposite conclusion and so was not executed in a timely manner. Actually, he was not executed at all.

      I do believe in the supremacy of philosophy above politics, and I do not see that happening now.
      Obama deliberately chose to take advice from the establishment doing, deliberately, the exact opposite of this blog once president, although he was CCing it before his election. I don’t see that as honorable, and, a fortiori, clever.

      None of this is an accident, and I do not have to respect a wreck, especially when it is deliberate. On a personal basis, I do respect Obama, and I agree his task is not easy, but that is another question.

      What did I do only 1/2 answer?

      The corruption of the poor, their mental, emotional, rational, cognitive corruption is fundamental to the rule of any oligarchy. By letting themselves be corrupted, they collaborate with the plutocracy. I have a healthy contempt for otherwise healthy adults beaching themselves like elephant seals in front of the wide screen TV to watch steroid stars bang into each other. It is a central part of the attenuation and diversion of anger, and finding it unworthy, undeserving objectives.
      PA

  8. banks Says:

    banks…

    [...]Why The Hyper Rich Hates The Poor « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts[...]…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 300 other followers

%d bloggers like this: