Philosophers Are Offenders

December 7, 2014

Offending All, From French Haters, To Christ Adulators:

So SCNF, the French National Railways, will pay American lawyers 60 million Dollars, because French railways were used to transport people against their will during World War Two. That has got to mean the French living today are culprit of something, and should pay American greedsters (mostly based in New York City, as usual).

In other American news, sheep, condemned for having kept the Nazis warm in World War Two, agreed to compensate Jewish rackets with 60 million sheep skins.

As Wikipedia puts it: Nearly 1,700 SNCF railway workers were killed or deported for resisting Nazi orders.[9][10] 150 Résistance-Fer agents were shot for their acts of resistance, 500 of them were deported. Half of those deported died in concentration camps.[11]German occupying forces in France also requisitioned SNCF to transport nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims to Nazi extermination camps.[12][13] These deportations have been the subject of historical controversy…”

Holocaust Train Loading. Contemplate the Many Armed German Nazis.

Holocaust Train Loading. Contemplate the Many Armed German Nazis.

American Holocaust connoisseurs are a funny sort. They are all indignant about messy details, generally about the French, so that, being so busy in an irrelevant manner, they can forget the big picture.

While the French Republic declared war to Hitler in 1939 (long time coming), the USA, as a society and polity, supported Hitler’s regime. Without that American support the Nazi regime would have collapsed in a matter of weeks (the topmost German generals said). That ambiguous, but crucial, American support is exactly why the Nazis thought they had a chance to win against France and Britain.

How come none of this interests American Jews? Too hot to handle? But I can assure you that when France declared war to Hitler in 1939, Hitler was much hotter to handle.

Had the USA supported the Jews, few of them would have died. But, because the USA did not support the Jews, the Nazis interpreted this lack of support of the Jews as an expression of support of Nazi policies. Very strongly American anti-Judaism, and financial by Jew haters (such as Henry Ford, who gave $50,000 personally to Hitler, each year, a considerable sum at the time, among other things).

Worse: the USA propaganda machine, and its government suppressed the reality of the Jewish Holocaust. The Polish government in exile announced, as early as fall 1941, that 700,000 Jews had already been assassinated by the Nazis, in Poland alone.

Although the BBC, New York Times and the Boston Globe reported the news (anticipated, and then confirmed by the French government in exile), the government of the USA ignored them. That was deliberate: the breaking of Nazi and SS codes by British Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Studies of the USA revealed, by summer 1941, dozens of mass assassinations of Jews and Communists.

There are two sorts of collaborations: active, and passive. The USA, in 1939, 1940, and 1941 practiced both. (Later, astoundingly, the collaboration was pursued, but under a thick veil of censorship and secrecy, the case of IBM being the most famous. Moreover the indifference to the fate of the Jews stayed official American policy, down to the bitter end, 1945)

So why don’t American Jews sue the American government for, say, 6,000 billion dollars?

It is not that the SNCF had a choice: the French Republic had been defeated on the battlefield in 1940. Hundreds of thousands of French soldiers and civilians had been killed (scaling up to millions relative to the present population of the USA, as France had only 40 million people then, and the USA has 320 million, now).

Wikipedia again: Following the 1940 Armistice and until August 1944, SNCF was requisitioned for the transport of German armed forces and armaments. The invading German troops were responsible for the destruction of nearly 350 French railway bridges and tunnels. According to differing estimates, SNCF surrendered between 125,000-213,000 wagons and 1,000-2,000 locomotives.[4][5]

France’s railway infrastructure and rolling stocks were a target for the French Resistance aimed at disrupting and fighting the German occupying forces.[6][7] This allowed SNCF employees to perform many acts of resistance,[8]

By refusing to see the big picture, American Jews are engaging in the sort of behavior which enabled Nazism: primary French bashing. (As Jews probably did not read Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, this Nazi Bible starts with pages of French bashing; having disposed of this fundamental enemy, only then does Hitler attack Orthodox Jews and their show-off clothing.)

***

Another strange day of censorships. Thursday the New York Times censored one of my comments, “With Democrats Like that, Who Needs Republicans?”, but allowed another. That is really the truth they don’t want to be known: there has been Republican leadership all along, under the supposedly “Democratic” administration.

Then the administrator of a philosophical site informed me that “I decided not to publish your latest comment (below). It is unduly harsh and offensive, and I say this as an atheist. If you wish to rephrase your historical points more neutrally, I’ll be happy to let through a new version.”

I thus joined the long procession of philosophers condemned for offending god(s). I replied (in part):

“You have indeed quite a few religious enthusiasts among your commenters, so I understand your quandary.

I would gladly remove chunks of reality to let the comment go through, but at this point I really don’t see where to start (that is, which chunks to remove to qualify for atheism light… hmm, publication).

I am also preparing a blunter, more robust, and more detailed version for my own site, and I don’t have infinite amounts of time. I concentrate mostly on the extermination of the Cathars, down to the last “Perfect”, and the last book.

To avoid too much of a shock to Christians, in this next essay of mine, I will NOT expose the deliberate mass cannibalism (on children!) of some of the Crusades. Not this time.

This, by the way, is very well documented by direct eyewitnesses (Joinville, etc.).

If Christians have been horrific, that’s their business. If we cannot expose it, that’s our complicity.

I don’t know if god(s) exist, or not, so I will not bother to define myself as an atheist. But I do know some elements of incontrovertible historical reality. As we explore reality further, it is not surprising that it will be found more harsh and offensive than Sade or Nietzsche have found it. Philosophers are offenders.

Telling me I am harsher and more offensive than Sade, or Nietzsche, simply means that I fulfilled a qualification for my job.

Let me mull over all of this. Maybe I could remove considering that Jesus possibly wanted to rub his buns on the cross?”

Yes, it’s all very obscene. But what is more obscene than Jesus’ cross?

Saint Dominic and Calvin burning alive non-believers, close and personal?

New wisdom, if really new, will always roll-over old wisdom: Literally, physically, brains have to be re-arranged. That’s a lot of work, and even pain. A crucifixion of the soul, or, at least, of neuronal networks. It’s easier to censor to re-hash the old philosophies, shun the new ones, and identify new wisdom to the incredible hulk, unlikely and repulsive. Easier, but not wiser.

And what of the silly payments to so-called “survivors”? My family saved more than 100 Jews, to great fright, stress and effort, then barely survived an enraged Gestapo’s wrath, and pursuit. My family did not get a dime. Not to say that I am complaining about the trials, and lawsuits in the name of “Holocaust Survivors”: they force people to look at the past in a more critical way, and one step that way, is better than none at all. Besides, my family qualifies as “Holocaust Survivor” (saving more than 100 Jews definitively qualified a family for the death chambers).

But the SNCF culprit of operating trains with a gun pointing at its head? Give me a break! Primitive anti-French racism. The proof? The French haters forgot to sue the Deutsche Bundesbahn (the new name of the Nazi Deutsche Reichsbahn, which deported tens of millions of People). The U.S. Congress sues the French for Nazism, not the Nazis!

The Holocaust Rail Justice Act mentions by name the French, but not the Germans: to create the mood that Nazism was a French invention? If you ask the average American endowed with a bit of education, she will tell you Nazism was caused by “Versailles“, a French city. Nazism is all about France: did not Keynes say so?

In a supreme effrontery, the legislation of the USA even accused the SNCF to have deported French resistance fighters. Never mind that some of the French train conductors accused by the USA were certainly themselves in the Resistance.

“Only” 77,000 Jews were deported from France and assassinated by the Nazis, most of those were stateless refugees (stuck in France, because the USA refused to admit them!) So most French Jews escaped assassination, thanks to a lot of heroic resistance acts; by comparison, nearly all Dutch Jews were assassinated.

The Nazis also deported and assassinated hundreds of thousands of French citizens, and now American politicians have drafted legislation to punish the French for letting the Nazis kill…the French.

What for? Maybe to find a scapegoat for the Nazi temporary victory of 1940. After all, Hitler’s prime collaborator was the USA itself (even more than Stalin). Hence the vital interest of the powers that be, to divert attention, by accusing an innocent third party, and victim, France.

Time for a Holocaust Truth Act.

Patrice Ayme’

With Intellectuals Like That, Who Needs Savages?

December 6, 2014

With Progressives Like That, Who Needs Conservatives?

With “Democrats” Like That, Who Needs “Republicans”?

How did the West, so superior in nearly all ways in the 1950s, got in its present predicament? The main predicament being the educational system: in the 1950s, France, Britain or the USA had, by far, the best educational system in the world.

Now they are far, far behind. More exactly three years behind by the age of 15, says the UNESCO’s on-going PISA comparison study of more than 65 states.

How did the West, progressing by leaps and bounds technologically around the 1950s, came to stagnate relatively speaking? How come we are stuck with an energy system which kills the planet? When alternatives exist?

One way to get mentally despondent, is to be submitted to heavy propaganda… From thinkers who are paid, or appreciated, to not be that smart. This started long ago, and affected philosophical circles first; the fish rots by the head.

The poster example is “French Theory”, and the anti-“colonialist” movement. Both have excellent things about them. However both made the truth short-circuit.

Short-circuiting the truth is never a good idea… If you want real progress. So it should really be a no-no, no matter what. On the other hand, the “Big Lie Technique” as Hitler called it, works very well. As Hitler explained, common people expect only little lies, not gigantic ones.

In 2008, Obama was elected for “Change You Can Believe”. Indeed: namely no change.

It’s painful to see proto-intellectuals such as Paul Krugman, crawl desperately in search of the truth which keeps on eluding them. Or maybe they are paid to find truth elusive?

In “Democrats Against Reform”, Dec. 4, 2014, Paul Krugman is mystified:

“It’s easy to understand why Republicans wish health reform had never happened, and are now hoping that the Supreme Court will abandon its principles and undermine the law. But it’s more puzzling — and disturbing — when Democrats like Charles Schumer, senator from New York, declare that the Obama administration’s signature achievement was a mistake.

In a minute I’ll take on Mr. Schumer’s recent remarks. But first, an update on Obamacare — not the politics, but the actual policy, which continues to rack up remarkable (and largely unreported) successes.”

A dog with a bone. And like dogs with bones, indeed the “Democrats” were treatd in the last elections. They are now cruising towards a full right wing Republican government, effective January, and probably with the presidency added, in two years. Why? Because they have been lying.

Krugman: …”health reform’s efforts to create meaningful competition among insurers are working better than almost anyone (myself included) expected. Premiums for 2014 came in well below expectations, and independent estimates show a very modest increase — 4 percent or less — for average premiums in 2015.”

It’s painful to read such “faint praise” for Romneycare, aka, Obamacare.

Yes, Obamacare is a great success! Oyez! Ten millions insured. The lie? Only Another 40 million uninsured to go. But who is counting?

Krugman exults: “independent estimates show a very modest increase — 4 percent or less — for average premiums in 2015.”

The lie? The latest inflation forecasts for 2015 are less than 1.5%. So what the honorable professor is telling us is that health insurance premiums will augment more than twice faster than inflation. What a success! Calling that a success is a lie.

Said otherwise, Krugman forecasts an augmentation of premiums of 50% over ten years. As average American family income is stagnating, the wisdom of Obama is clear: his friends from the insurance cartels will be able to make 50% more profits within ten years! Alleluia!

In short, if you think of Obamacare as a policy intended to improve American plutocrats’ lives, it’s going really well. Yet it has not, of course, been a political winner for Democrats, as We The People can now see for itself that plutocrats’ heaven is not necessarily a decent place for We The People to be.

The real killers in Obamacare are not the premiums, but the deductibles (what you have to pay before the “insurance payments” kick in). They are stratospheric.

In some of the policies I looked at for my family, they were up to $9,000. That meant one had to spend $9,000 from one’s own pocket, before “insurance” would kick (over a year, for the whole family).

Finally, we need to ask, what is the purpose of winning elections? The answer, is to do good fund raising , with the president going to Silicon Valley, sleeping (in the homes of) the rich, famous, and NSA connected— not simply to set yourself up to win the next election. In 2009-10, Democrats had their first chance in a generation to do what we should have done three generations ago, and ensure adequate health care for all of our plutocrats. It would have been incredibly cynical not to have seized that opportunity, and Democrats should be celebrating the fact that they did the right thing, insuring handsome profits for their health care plutocracy sponsors, for generations to come.

Or come revolution, or high water. (Wait…)

Overall, the Obama presidency reminds me of a plane making lots of noise, and smoke, barreling down the runway, while the pilot and his aides are accusing Republicans, but, having reached the end of the tarmac, it never gathered enough speed to take off. A sort of Guantanamo of hope, all about posturing, not substance.

Logically, and probably deep down in the hearts of hearts of extremely wealthy democratic sponsors, this Obama presidency fiasco, far from being embarrassing, promises what they truly want, a total “Republican” lock-down for a generation to come.

Obama has boasted that his health care program was actually Romney’s invention (when the latter was governor of Massachusetts). That is the ultimate silliness, the Freudian slip which reveal “Republican” Drag queens” to be the “signature achievement” of the present “Democratic” Party.

After all, if the “signature achievement” of the democrats is to implement the health care program of the Republican presidential candidate, why not to elect a Republican outright?

A simple question that the American People have started to answer.

Patrice Ayme’

Live Within Our Means, Say Mean Plutocrats

December 5, 2014

Austerity Is A Conspiracy By Those Who, Having All The Money, Want Us To Have None:

What do plutocrats want? In the common, all too restrictive sense of plutocracy as the “rule of money”, “plutocracy” is supposed to mean that plutocrats want their money to rule.

Yet, plutocracy is not just about money. Even if one starts with “money”, one ends up with much more. Indeed, money is power onto others. By establishing charities, foundations, political financing, and other networks of influence, plutocrats extent invisibly their power beyond the horizon, and below the ground.

However Homo Sapiens Sapiens not being made to be submitted to others “power”, we have there, in this will to quasi-infinite plutocratic power, a form of cruelty, not to say, mayhem. Power struggles kill, among chimpanzees.

Britain Won Its Place In The World Through Ultra Massive Borrowing & Money Creation

Britain Won Its Place In The World Through Ultra Massive Borrowing & Money Creation

Notice that, with chimpanzees, even the alpha male has very little power: as soon as three of his subordinates gang up against him, he is toast. The same holds with wolves, or lions.

But civilization is all about power. When only a few have its reins, they become like gods. At least in their minds, habits, ways, and means. That’s why plutocrats, their obsequious servants, and those they have hypnotized, worry so much about “us living within our means”.

 

A Few Guys Have ALL The Power, What Could Go Wrong?

Whereas a modern bureaucrat, like Eichmann, can send millions to death. Some will say the analogy is in poor taste. But not so. People such as Obama, Hollande, Putin, can literally launch actions that, in the worst possible case, could lead quickly to the death of billions (it takes just one 300 kiloton thermonuclear bomb to destroy most of any city on Earth).

I do believe that so much power, in so few hands, in so few brains, is not just immoral, but unwise. This makes civilization highly unstable.

However, a meta-discourse has been held, not just logically, but emotionally: it is OK to have so much power in so few hands.

Let’s put aside the main problem aside. The main problem being that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that Czar Putin, for example, has more power than all the Czars who existed before him, put together: it’s not just that Stalin, had no H bombs. Both him, and Brezhnev, were worried by the Politburo (their top communist colleagues). Putin, by comparison reigns on a coterie of obsequious plutocrats, anxious about Polonium in their tea, or homicide by heart attack.

Not that Putin needs to give a direct order. For someone who can roughly kill half of Chechnya, and then get away with offering luxury homes there to his gregarious friend the “star”, not to say czar, Depardieu (not prosecuted for war profiteering, whereas the French government prosecutes commoners for basically nothing, commonly), letting it known to its secret services subordinates that he would love it if contradictors could just vanish, is elementary.

An aside here: when top official of the Nazi administration asked Adolf Hitler directly whether there was a systematic policy in place for killing Jews, Adolf Hitler firmly denied there was. At the Wannsee Holocaust conference, top Nazis confronted SS General Heydrich, and told him that Hitler had personally told them that it was not the policy of the Reich to kill the Jews. And they felt sure that, should they ask Hitler that same question again Hitler would give the same answer.

To that Heydrich icily replied, with a thin smile: ”Of course, he will!”

The fundamental problem with the top Nazis was not that they had some very bad ideas, it was that they had too much power. That enormous power (greatly enabled by the dog-like submissivity of the average German at the time), led them in a quick succession of choices, ever more abysmal, starting in January 1933. (To this, as soon as 1933, the French and American Republics reacted by engaging in giant military spending to equip themselves for a world war; Poland and Britain, instead, reacted by becoming Hitler’s best friends… They would realize their mistake in 1939)

 

If A Few Guys Can Fry Us All, Why Can’t They Own Us?

If it’s OK to risk thermonuclear Armageddon with a few morons in control (for vicious moron, consider Putin), why is it not OK to risk an economic apocalypse, let alone a climate apocalypse, with even more morons in control?

Is it not more… democratic? If Obama has too much power, does not giving ever more power to the Koch Brother, Bill Gates, and the Z guy from Facebook counterbalance that?

In any case, bleat the sheep, if plutocrats have all the power, they take all the decisions, and we can rest.

So, indeed, we have to ask again, what do plutocrats want? What train of evolutionary thought do they come from?

Well, simply the cruel streak which leads to extermination. The main problem of man has been man. For millions of years, being the top predator.

 

Insane Austerity Is Plutocracy Under Another Name:

One of the appreciated commenters on this site, Chris Snuggs, made the observation that:

It is not “austerity for austerity’s sake”, Patrice. It is simply the principle of “living within one’s means”. NO COUNTRY IN EUROPE IS DOING THIS. The idea that “ending austerity” is the solution is risible leftist claptrap. It is the failure to live within our means that has led to this as politicians at all levels either bribe voters with the latters’ own money, or in the case especially of Italy and Greece simply steal it.

If it were just Italy and Greece, we would be safe. Stealing from politicians is a worldwide phenomenon.

The son of the preceding (“socialist”) president of Senegal, found himself with a fortune of more than a billion dollars. After a change of president, judges put him in jail, in the hope of finding out where the money came from. Senegal is one of the world’s poorest countries (having no resources of any sort, but for fish devoured by Korean factory ships, which, I am sure, paid very well; the fish came back after the new president asked the Koreans to pay, and the French empire lent a military jet which takes pictures).

Living within our means” sounds good, but a sovereign country is not a family (contrarily to what Obama said).

The money within a country is not a store of value (only gold reserves are; most countries got rid of them). Instead, money enables the population to do a number of things. If there is not enough of money around, these things cannot be done.

Moreover, money, like blood, has to circulate.

However, it’s not doing that anymore, as the wealthiest store it, and have less use for it than the lower classes.

 

How Not To Live Within The Means Of the Wealthiest:

Take the case of France.

Suppose France borrowed a trillion Euros on the free market, at the present rate of less than 1%. Investors, in their despair, are ready to lend to France at that rate, on the ten year bond.

Such a borrowing would allow the government to augment enormously its spending: it could pay for the best universities in the world (as China is presently trying to do), it could finance all sorts of fundamental research, it could even fabricate large Thorium reactors, with the whole economy to go with them (mines in Brittany, U 233 breeders, etc.). Presto, no more energy and CO2 crisis, and reactors which could be sold worldwide.

The pessimist would bemoan that we cannot afford it.

Of course we can: it would cost, nothing.

How so?

Hopefully, inflation, over the next ten years, will be 1% per year, entirely cancelling the interest payments. Higher inflation, though, would devour the principal.

Is this all fancy? Today the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Britain’s finance and economy minister), G. Osborne, announced that Great Britain will, finally, reimburse its First World War debt. How? By borrowing at 4%, the lowest interest in Britain for a very long time.

Says Osborne: “This is a moment for Britain to be proud of. We can, at last, pay off the debts Britain incurred to fight the first world war. It is a sign of our fiscal credibility and it’s a good deal for this generation of taxpayers. It’s also another fitting way to remember that extraordinary sacrifice of the past.”

Actually it’s even better than that: some of the debt to be repaid comes from the Crimean War, the wars against revolutionary France, and even the South Sea Bubble (three centuries ago).

 

Borrowing Can Buy You The World:

As Dominique Deux, another esteemed commenter on this site, reminded me: “Britain did not get to be the world’s first industrial power by “living within her means” but by extensive long-term borrowing.”

Right.

It is even better than that: The Bank of England, the world’s first central bank, was created to support the Royal Navy. Basically, if the Navy needed money, the Bank would print it.

That was put to good use a century later. France was much larger economically, economically, not to say intellectually, than Britain, so fighting the French superpower seemed ridiculous. However, as France was in the way, this is exactly what Britain did in 1756-1815. Paying Prussia as an attack dog, creating a huge Navy, etc.

How?

By borrowing extravagantly. So much borrowing that Britain won, but for the little problem of the French engineered creation of the American Republic (a foundation which proved the undoing of both France and Britain…)

 

To Make Money, Government Can Just Grab It From The Filthy Rich:

Famously, confronted to the invasion of Francia by the Arab, Syrian, Berber, and generally hysterically Muslim armies, and navies, in 721 CE, the Merovingian government of Prime Minister (and effective head of state) Charles Martel, just nationalized the Catholic Church, selling its precious metals, and stones.

That was a stroke of genius, as it defeated both Christianism and (what the Franks viewed as) its Islamist sect. (OK, it took a full generation of total war.)

That method is more available, the more plutocrats there are.

Osborne (out hero of the day, the conservative plutophile who heads things financial in the UK), spoke yesterday of introducing a “Google Tax” of 25%. Says the Guardian: “Responding to outrage about the minimal contributions big corporations make to European governments, the Treasury is targeting Silicon Valley companies such as Google, Amazon and Apple, but the measures will reach beyond technology to high street chains such as Starbucks.

“We will make sure that big multinational businesses pay their fair share,” assured Osborne. That will not be easy: one is talking here about what some view as the richest criminal enterprises in the world.

Facebook made something like 100 million dollars of profit in Britain, and paid not even five thousand dollars of tax. The Guardian: “Google paid just £20m tax in the UK last year. But its actual British revenues were £5.6bn. The group as a whole has a profit margin of 20%, suggesting the company’s real profits in the UK could have been as high as £1.2bn. Taxed at the proposed 25% rate, this would deliver £280m a year in revenues for the Treasury from just one company.”

Having plenty enough of money to accomplish important work, is pretty much how the West went through the 30 glorious years of strong economic expansion after World War Two.

In practice, though, debt can be reduced by taxing the wealthy. Why to borrow from the rich, when one can tax them? Well it all depends if one lives in plutocracy (borrow), or in democracy (tax).

Under general-president Eisenhower, the wealthiest were made to contribute (Ike used his 93% upper margin tax rate; it was of course the same in Europe).

That’s how to live within the better means we could create for ourselves.

This means, first, defanging what, and those who, have too much power, be it thermonuclear, political, economic, or even ideological.

Democracy is not just a way of life, but the way to survival… Just what the cruelest, and fiercest instincts do not want.

Patrice Ayme’

Bad Germany? Or Bad Advice From Pluto?

December 4, 2014

Germany decided to go greener than green. Weirdly, that meant increasing the production of the most polluting fossil fuel, lignite. Apparently scared by the tsunami in Japan, it also involved closing down nuclear power. Nuclear power makes zero emissions of greenhouse gases, and it’s nearly as cheap as wind power.

Thus, instead of a fast tsunami increasing sea level by fifteen meters in minutes, Germany has opted for a slow tsunami increasing sea level by seventy meters over, well, a much longer time.

OK, nuclear power has drawbacks: ever since civil nuclear power was used in the USA, nobody ever got killed or injured from it, there. (Whereas coal kills at least hundreds a month… some of it probably from radioactivity, but never mind…) So nuclear power is dreadfully boring. Hence the need to freak out about it.

Going green by going lignite, is a parable for all too many, slightly demented German policies.

All of the Eurozone is on the verge of recession, Germany has grown two percent, total, in six years. Main cause? Not enough money to make the economy turn properly. Also a despondent inner German economy. Hence the need to sell German luxury cars all over the world. OK, machine tools, too.

I used to disdain Paul Krugman’s opinions on Europe, as he was too unaware of the fundamentals, be they historical, political, or economic. However the situation has changed: he had much to learn, and he learned much. Also change did my opinion of German policy, as Merkel got ever more obstinate. In any case, I agree with all of Krugman’s well researched article, Being Bad European. Let me quote from it:

“Unemployment in the euro area is stalled at almost twice the U.S. level, while inflation is far below both the official target and outright deflation has become a looming risk.

Investors have taken notice: European interest rates have plunged, with German long-term bonds yielding just 0.7 percent. That’s the kind of yield we used to associate with Japanese deflation, and markets are indeed signaling that they expect Europe to experience its own lost decade.”

Paul has the courage to go in full PI mode. PI? Politically Incorrect, or Profoundly Investigative:

“Why is Europe in such dire straits? The conventional wisdom among European policy makers is that we’re looking at the price of irresponsibility: Some governments have failed to behave with the prudence a shared currency requires, choosing instead to pander to misguided voters and cling to failed economic doctrines. And if you ask me (and a number of other economists who have looked hard at the issue), this analysis is essentially right, except for one thing: They’ve got the identity of the bad actors wrong.

For the bad behavior at the core of Europe’s slow-motion disaster isn’t coming from Greece, or Italy, or France. It’s coming from Germany.”

Germany has a dreadful history to use its own population as cannon fodder for its plutocrats (see the 1914 German invasion and attack), and currency has a spoiler for reason (see the 1923 inflation, engineered by Schacht, an agent of JP Morgan, and later an instigator and puppet master of Hitler; don’t worry, Dr. Schacht came out of WWII, and a little Nuremberg Trial, just fine).

Here is Krugman again:

“If you try to identify countries whose policies were way out of line before the crisis and have hurt Europe since the crisis, and that refuse to learn from experience, everything points to Germany as the worst actor.

Consider, in particular, the comparison between Germany and France.

France gets a lot of bad press, with much talk in particular about its supposed loss in competitiveness. Such talk greatly exaggerates the reality; you’d never know from most media reports that France runs only a small trade deficit. Still, to the extent that there is an issue here, where does it come from? Has French competitiveness been eroded by excessive growth in costs and prices? 

No, not at all.”

One thing that was out of line with Germany, is that it mistreated its working class:

“Since the euro came into existence in 1999, France’s G.D.P. deflator (the average price of French-produced goods and services) has risen 1.7 percent per year, while its unit labor costs have risen 1.9 percent annually. Both numbers are right in line with the European Central Bank’s target of slightly under 2 percent inflation, and similar to what has happened in the United States. Germany, on the other hand, is way out of line, with price and labor-cost growth of 1 and 0.5 percent, respectively.”

Dis-information about France is great in the USA, because plutocratic propaganda knows France is the number one danger country, the place out of which the most dreadful anti-plutocratic, atheist policies emanate. But Krugman has now understood this, so he pounces some more:

“In other words, to the extent that there’s anything like a competitiveness problem in Europe, it’s overwhelmingly caused by Germany’s beggar-thy-neighbor policies, which are in effect exporting deflation to its neighbors.

But what about debt? Isn’t non-German Europe paying the price for past fiscal irresponsibility? Actually, that’s a story about Greece and nobody else. And it’s especially wrong in the case of France, which isn’t facing a fiscal crisis at all; France can currently borrow long-term at a record low interest rate of less than 1 percent, only slightly above the German rate.”

What Germany did was cutting salaries as low as one Euro per hour (completely illegal in France, where the minimum wage was at least ten times that; in 2014 Germany introduced a minimum wage comparable to France’s.)

And Krugman to conclude:

“What we’re seeing, then, is the immensely destructive power of bad ideas. It’s not entirely Germany’s fault — Germany is a big player in Europe, but it’s only able to impose deflationary policies because so much of the European elite has bought into the same false narrative. And you have to wonder what will cause reality to break in.”

It’s true that “German” policies have actually been plutocratic policies: France, Italy and Spain, together, form an economic behemoth much larger than Germany, so they could easily force “Germany” to do whatever they decided. They did not, because they are all serving Mammon.

German policy at this point is irresponsible. It is demonstrated with the numbers Paul rolls out. But there are others. Germany, weirdly, has resisted French efforts at a Banking Union (it agreed only to phase in slowly a reduced version).

The Banking Union would be similar to the FDIC in the USA: banks would be forced to pitch in what would be a mutual insurance fund. With some rules attached.

However Germany is scared that thousands of its banks are under water, so it has refused the oversight of Banking Union. This tends to show that Germany cares more about what Europe brings to it, rather than it can bring to Europe.

When Greece was in full corruption crisis, a small city in Greece was the greatest purchaser of Porsche in the world. This kind of details was viewed as good for German business, but it actually means that the Germans cooperated with the very corruption they later denounced.

So why is Germany behaving this way?

Tough German reforms were instituted by Schroeder, a “Socialist” who turned out basically into an employee of Putin. The West has known many of these pseudo-socialists, who are actually greedy agents of Plutocracy Supreme. (The latest case is the preceding “Socialist” PM of Portugal, who made millions under the table; he was just arrested.)

Schroeder squeezed German workers as much as possible. That depressed German demand, making Germany more dependent upon exportations. But it made the wealthiest, wealthier.

Same old same old: plutocrats reign.

Some will say: ”Oh, but then you agree with the Brits?” Not at all: London has arguably displaced New York as the world’s dirtiest plutocratic center. London is rich, for the worst reasons, to a great extent (not to a full extent: there are actually some good policies in England, if one searches carefully for them).

So what London does cannot be duplicated elsewhere: its unicity makes it wealthy, mostly by attracting plutocrats from all over, insuring they escape the taxman and the lawman, and any sort of decency.

Ultimately, although Krugman praises France, he did not say that France, herself probably the mightiest country in Europe, all around, could very well break out of the plutocratic mold.

What the government of the French Republic has to do is simple: just look at the European Commission in the eye, and say: ”We plan to run a 4.5% deficit for the next two years. Submit.”

Guess what?

In a break with the plutocratic tradition, this is finally just what France did. The preceding European Commissioner of Finance and Economy, a man completely sold to Pluto, bleated his approval. He was then replaced by a Frenchman, ex-finance minister Moscovici.

This whole situation is about a system of thought. It’s time to change it. Understandably, Germany does not trust its revolutionary instincts. That leaves us, once again, with France to lead the way.

Although it’s hard to imagine Hollande leading anything, his Prime Minister is more of a man. Thus, probably, the change.

Patrice Ayme’

Christ Preached Lethal Violence Against Non-Christians

December 3, 2014

He Was Obeyed, by Christians, and Muslims!

Islamism is a direct consequence of Christianism. Muhammad was initiated to all this god stuff by a close relative who was a monk. Who, in particular told him that the apparition in the desert was Archangel Gabriel. Muhammad the analphabet and Gabriel the super-angel were to have a long and fruitful relationship.

Islamism is violent, because Christianism taught violence. Two centuries before Muhammad’s birth, Christian monks, the famous “men in black” had devastated places of learning and people of wisdom, and in particular the world’s intellectual capital, then Alexandria. Jesus is a prophet of Islam.

What does the Bible say about Non-Christians? They are without God:

“Whosoever … abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” [2 John 9]

Looks Like The Jesus? It's Probably the Devil (Said the Cathars)

Looks Like The Jesus? It’s Probably the Devil (Said the Cathars)

Non-Christians are atheist! Not just that, but they are all antichrists:

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” [2 John 7]

They should be shunned. Neither marry nor be friends with them:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? … Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” [2 Corinthians 6:14-17]

They should be killed.

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” [Dt.13:6-10]

Is this where the stoning habit of Islamists comes from? It would seem so:

Deuteronomy 17

“If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”

At this point, the Jesus lovers are bound to come out and contemptuously observe:”This the Old Testament now, and you twerp, do not know even know the difference between the Old Testament, and the teaching of our Lord, Jesus. This is called the New Testament. Clearly you are no Bible Scholar.”

It is not as easy to become a Bible scholar than a Quranic scholar: the Bible has more words than the 83,000 words Quran (so says my computer). Yet, the Bible is not Quantum Mechanics, nor even Classical Mechanics. Actually it’s less rich than Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks.

 

In the New Testament Jesus stated that he had not come to change a word of the Old Testament. In Mathew 5:16-17 KJV, Jesus says: “Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in “no” wise pass from The Law, till all be fulfilled.”

The Law” is the Bible’s Old Testament.

So Jesus endorses fully all the demented sadism of his Old Testament dad, a lunatic devoured by Will to Power, who tortures children to death, just to punish their parents. Actually, Jesus, the love object of billions of cretins Christians, himself partakes in the Will To Mayhem, making Adolf Hitler himself sound like a considerate gentleman in comparison:

Here is a typical quote of the unhinged Jesus:

But those enemies of mine, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

That’s Luke 19:27. Yes, that is one of the four most sacred Evangels of the New Testament.

Say you know someone and all the time he says you should love others, as you love yourself, and then occasionally adds that he will kill you if you do not let him reign over you. What to do? Call the police! That’s what I do. Actually, that’s what civilization did, and Christians were short-circuited.

The Franks and Parisians did most of the short-circuiting, starting around 355 CE (when they elected the “Apostate” Julian Augustus). However Christianity became manically insane again in the period 1099 CE to 1789 CE (although never enough to threaten one of the major states; whereas in the Fourth and Fifth Century, it brought the fall of the Roman state in the West, and the near-annihilation of the Roman Orient in the Sixth and Seventh Century… and, indirectly, the victory of the Muslim raiders).

To all this fanatical Christians reply that this is not what it looks like, that it is taken out of context, that Jesus is love, that these are just parables, etc. It is the exact same sort of denialism that fanatical Muslims use, say about women: it’s because they love women so much, that they keep them between four walls, or allow them to drive not, or allow them to walk without a possessive man not, or insist they should be hidden below a blanket, or keep them in harems, or marry them religiously on the battlefield.

In truth, the differences between Hitler and Jesus are much smaller than tradition has it.

Both spoke of peace ad nauseam. That was just a front, as they both had a will to kill non-believers and their “enemies”. However, Hitler kept that between four walls, and left nothing in writing (I have read a lot of what one could call Hitler’s complete works).

Jesus, on the other hand, was loud and clear: “those enemies of mine, who would not that I should reign over them, slay them before me!”. The message was embraced by Saint Louis, Martin Luther, Calvin. Saint Louis wanted to torture his enemies to death, and wrote nothing would give him more pleasure. Calvin, a Frenchman who had taken over Geneva, really did it.

“Those enemies of mine, who would not that I reign over them, slay them before me!”

Oh, Jesus, we the vicious invaders anxious to reign all over, we love you! Who can deny the stroke of genius in the service of the son of man? How else would the Conquista of the Americas happen? Let alone Siberia?

Patrice Ayme’

State Religion Unavoidable. Now Republican Secularism. Or Die

December 2, 2014

Give Me A State, I Will Show You A Religion:

Any state needs a way to tie up its citizens together again, after whatever trials and divisions they have been through. Trials and divisions there always are.

Said otherwise: having a state means having a religion. As the regime changes, so will the religion.

A clear example is Rome. In the five centuries of continual regime change, from the collapse of the Republic, to the establishment of the Frankish Empire in 507 (defeat of the Goths), Rome continually changed religions. There was the Imperial Cult, and later the cult around “Sol Invictus”. The Nicene Faith of Constantine (325 CE) was not the “Christian Republic” of the Franks (although both were outwardly “Catholic”).

Real Revolutions Need, And Are, New Religions.

Real Revolutions Need, And Are, New Religions.

[Demachy, Fete de L’Etre Supreme.]

In the USA, the de facto religion has been a mix of secularism and obsequious reverence to “Jesus Christ”, a guy supposed to say good things, whom one is supposed to love, to prove one is so good, one can go shoot the Indian heathens in full good conscience, and religious justification. Amen.

Thus, not believing in “god”, or Jesus-love, in the USA, tends to show one is not looking for justification to dispose of Indians and the like (Saddam Hussein), and thus one is treacherous to the nation.

The necessity of a state to have a religion is why, after a revolution, or serious change of regime, any really new state that fought a previous state (of things) dominated by a previous religion, establish a new religion.

An example is Henry VIII, establishing the Anglican Church, or what happened throughout German speaking lands after Luther appeared, and many local lords opted to play a game with the new religion, Reform, to further their own power. Even the French Revolution introduced the “Culte de l’Être suprême “.

This is why all significantly new regime, such as the “Socialist/Communist” regimes establish “Personality Cults”, which are religions by another name.

The vanishing of the old religions in Europe is directly related to the progressive political changes there: the Nazis hid behind “Gott”: “Gott Mit Uns” (God with us) was the motto of the SS. All other old regimes were tied to Christianism. As the regimes lost power, because of the rise of the European Union, if not outright apocalypse (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italian monarchy, and countless smaller empires… in the “imperare” sense), the old religion lost its reason for being.

It has been replaced by a mild version of the Republican religion, which was very strong in France, ever since 1789.

The Republican religion was actually strong before that, throughout the centuries, simmering below the surface. Thus, even during the Middle Ages, republics were allowed within the Renovated (Roman) Empire. Venice was the most famous, and Charlemagne let it be (although Venice had a gigantic fleet, and the Franks very little).

This underground Republicanism is why King Louis the XVI decided to create the American republic. Yes, create: without massive French support the pathetically weak American Revolution would have failed. Louis was told by his advisers, his cabinet members, and his own brother, that he was creating a Republic, and that he would be next. He was explicitly told that he had lost his head, and that this decapitation would be made public all too soon. His brother kindly hanged the famous painting of the decapitation of the English monarch, upon Parliamentary vote (the exact same mechanism that would cost Louis his head). Louis shrugged.

Why? Louis, a deeply religious man, deep down inside himself, having tried everything else, had clearly deduced, subconsciously, that it was time for a new religion. A new way to tie the People together again. So Louis convoked the “General Estates”. The “Third Estate” (namely not the aristocracy and the Catholic Church) promptly proclaimed itself to be a Constituent Assembly (similar to the one then sieging in the USA).

Louis indeed lost his head. But he went to death very calmly, in full respect, in full faith, of the new Republic that he had contributed to create. Louis was a sort of real Jesus Christ, dying from his own mechanism.

A lot of the trouble of the European Union have to do with not having enough of a common Republic, to have faith in it. Let’s have enough faith in the Republic, for the European Union to become a new religion. Otherwise, it will fail.

And this true, worldwide.

Secularism, living in one’s age, is not new: it has been around for millions of years, for the most successful, precisely our ancestors: others died off. Secularism, living in one’s age, is part of human ethology. Fighting secularism is fighting the essence of what it means to be human.

Secularism is another word for accepting science and technology. Those have never changed faster. States which don’t adopt and create them swiftly will be left behind: China has understood this very well.

Yet, to create significantly new science and technology one needs intelligence, thus enough democracy to be called a Republic. Absent the preceding, states who are not Secular and Republican enough, will have a higher probability to lose the next big war (when push comes to shove, and the seas rise big time).

We are in the age of Republican Secularism. This is all the religion we need. But we need it bad.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: To broach a subject I generally avoid: does the preceding mean Israel will die, as the Crusader States did? Well, any regime comparison is relative to its environment. But it sure means that “Orthodox Judaism” is a deadly danger for Israel. It certainly means the EU will die, lest it accelerates progress and democracy enough to look better than the alternative.

Western Civilization Is Not Christian

November 30, 2014

Needed Guidance For Naïve, Deluded Christians:

Let me emphasize at the outset that there is everything good in embracing the good aspects of Christianity, as those fit human ethology at its best. Ethics, indeed, is absolute.

Christianism is, of course, much more than ethics at its best. It is also the superstition tyrannical Roman emperors running out of ideas, but not of Satanism, imposed on the Greco-Roman Empire.

The creator of Christianism was Emperor Constantine. He killed many, including most of those closest to him: his wife (steamed), his famous and talented son, and his nephew.

Thirteenth Apostle, Emperor Constantine: Homicidal Tyrant, Founder, Christian State Religion

Thirteenth Apostle, Emperor Constantine: Homicidal Tyrant, Founder, Christian State Religion

Christianism, hopefully, is a spent force. Yet it retains some vitality, as it rests on some myths, which are outright lies. It’s important to demolish them, be it only as an example to Islamism.

Among those lies was that the Roman Empire hated Christians and killed millions of them. The truth is the exact opposite: imperial Christians killed millions.

Another myth is Jesus himself. Still another myth is that France was a very Catholic country with a special relationship to the Church (France was said to be the “eldest daughter of the [Catholic] Church“).

The importance of the latter myth is that the Franks, Francia, created Western Civilization, by “renovating”, as they put it themselves, the Roman Empire.

By claiming that Francia was infeodated to the Catholic Church, the Christians were able to claim that we, who owe everything to Western Civilization, owe something to the “Lord” (allegedly their nowhere man, Christ, but actually any plutocrat above, who wanted to be called “Lord”).

Thus arose the myth that Western Civilization was, somehow, “Christian Civilization”.

Yet, a quick study of Charlemagne’s life shows that he certainly believed in study and philosophy (some of his closest advisers were the top philosophers of the time, for example Prime Minister Alcuin). Charles also believed Christianism was a very efficient military weapon. And that having ten wives was better than having just one. And that to be called “David” as if he were the king of the Jews was a good approach to life (for those in the know, God, aka Jesus’ dad, tortured to death David’s son… to punish David… that’s the Christian way…)

So let’s now dispel those myths with a bit more description of what happened:

The Roman Empire was pretty well organized: we know that exactly 6 people got executed under Marcus Aurelius for charges related to Christianity. The most famous case was that of a high officer and author who rejected his military oath. He was made into a Saint, of course.

There is no direct evidence for a Mr. Jesus Christ having ever lived. Three Christ-like Bible inspired crazies got duly condemned during that century, though, and we have detailed proof of their existence. The contrast is striking.

It is enlightening to read that Saint Paul, the first human to evoke Mr. Jesus Christ, admits that he never met Jesus in the flesh… but in his head.

Only fools could not suspect something fishy: is not Saint Paul admitting he made up Jesus in his head? (Saint Paul, a Roman prosecutor condemned to death by the Jews, was spirited away by Roman authorities; nobody knows what happened to him, as Roman officialdom was anxious not to spite the Jewish authorities too blatantly).

There were only around 3,000 Christians executed under Emperors Diocletian and Galerius (it all started with too many very high officials and at Court, making the sign of the cross!).

With those Christians executed for which ever reasons over more than 250 years, maybe we have been double that number of Christians executed. But there were never millions of Christians executed. It was actually legal to be a Christian (with freedom of cult but for a very few years, when Christians, and especially priests, were required to take an oath to the state… Not differently than what would happened during the French Revolution, 15 centuries later).

Yet, because of their secretive, paramilitary ways, and dislike of Jews (extremely numerous in the Empire), Christians often got in trouble.

Galerius, maybe delirious from cancer, called off the Diocletianic Persecution when he issued an edict of toleration in 311.

The Roman emperor Constantine, the self-declared “13th Apostle” (and, of course, a Saint, like the famous sadist Saint Louis) selected and invented Catholicism (Constantine called and presided the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE). Constantine imposed Christianism fiscally on the empire. Emperor Theodosius, a Spanish general, imposed it with lethal force (so the Christians killed millions, and this is why they pretend it was the other way around)…

So Christianism aka “Orthodox Catholicism”, as it was known, became the Roman State religion. Only the Jews got tolerated enough to not be massacred outright.

Thus, far from being eaten by lions in the millions, imperial Christians devoured civilization for more than three centuries as deranged tyrants. All the books and intellectuals fled to Persia. The empire got immensely weakened by the flight of the intellectuals. (Then the Muslim raiders swooped in, gobbling Persia and much of the empire in a few years.)

In the North-West of the Empire, the Franks took power and humbled the Catholic Church, while re-establishing the freedom of cult, de facto.

Catholics, mostly because of the dreadful influences of the semi-demented tyrant, Louis XIV, and the slave master Napoleon, had acquired an imbalanced power in France that they did not have before, in most of the history of France.

There were Protestants in France since the 12th Century, and they were sometimes top rulers: the Comte de Toulouse, Admiral Coligny (who was Prime Minister), and even the most admired Henri IV.

The Jews were treated equally for 6 centuries, throughout the Renovated Roman Empire, until the First Crusade (pogroms in Alsace and further east), and the rule of dictators like the abominable Saint Louis. The thoroughly despicable Louis XIV threw millions of Protestants out of France, terrifying, molesting and torturing the rest. France, the place were Protestantism was invented, degenerated into infamy. France became a shadow of her former self. Louis’ grandfather, Henri… had been the Protestant-in-Chief. What a dreadful piece of history!

Jews were re-recognized as full citizens in 1789.

All this to say that real “French Intellectuals” cannot be Catholic (apparent exceptions are illusions).

The famed relationship between France and the Catholic Church was that of master (the Franks) to a tool.

Yet, as Catholicism is intrinsically fascist, Absolute Monarchy, when it arose, starting with the first official king of France, Philippe-Auguste (1165-1223), found in Catholicism a convenient justification for its tyranny of biblical proportion. Just as Constantine had.

Patrice Ayme’

Why Plutocrats Like Pollution

November 29, 2014

The obvious reason for the wealthy to love pollution is that fossil fuels companies dominate the present economy, and they own most of it. Yet the psychoanalysis of plutocracy reveal much deeper and sinister reasons, for this perversion.

Paul Krugman makes in his “Pollution and Politics” (Nov 28) the observation that the wealthy sponsors of the Republican Party have the pecuniary interest to pursue with fossil fuels, and their attending pollution.

Careful, as usual to not hurt the feelings of the mighty, Krugman did not mention the evaluation, from the World Health Organization, and other knowledgeable institutions, that seven million human beings die, each year, from carbon burning pollution.

He also forgets to mention that the poor tend to live where it is more polluted, say along freeways, and the wealthiest in the most pristine places, such as mountain tops or remote islands (Aspen, Obama’s Bali). Preventing pollution can be done, but it eats profit margins.

Yet, it one should go much further than this: defending pollution is a way for the plutocrats to inure We The People to viciousness:

ENLIGHTENING THE CONCEPT OF PLUTOCRACY IN ITS FULL HORROR:

Hades acquired a very bad reputation, so his name got changed to Pluto, an early example of the tritest manipulation of language. While metamorphosing into Pluto, though, Hades acquired further nefariousness. Pluto was the god of all things underground, from riches, such as silver, gold and precious stones, to all things undercover, including darkness of purpose, invisibility and hell.

Thus Hell-rule (Pluto-cracy) is thus not just the rule of money. Plutocracy is not just the rule of greed. It is not just the rule of unfairness, injustice. It is also the rule of all the emotions, strategies and tactics necessary to implement all this nastiness.

As all that nastiness, piled up high, is deeply abhorrent to human nature, it has to be applied with generous viciousness, and the more viciousness, the more necessary it has been to become even more vicious.

A crook such as Nixon was amateurish: he did his nasty misdeeds with a few accomplices, drew, all by himself, enemy lists, organized a break-in. He did not put all the power of the state to bear, to further viciousness (as the FBI’s Hoover, or the Nazi friendly Dulles, had done before).

Now though, viciousness has reached industrial proportion, it contributes massively to GDP. An example is the giant banks. They caused the 2008 crash, an under-performing economy, and increasing inequality (by lending to the richest of the rich, preferentially, and making, more generally the richest of the rich ever richer).

Yet, they got rewarded for all this. The Fed was recently admitting its gifts to the banks since 2009 (“Quantitative Easing”) total more than 4 trillion dollars ($4,000 billion).

In the 1980’s Reagan and his sponsors told us: “Greed is good, and it’s the only thing that’s good for the economy”.

Thus the rise of plutocrats. Plutocrats love to breed and multiply: thanks to their advice, Russia became a preserve, where they run wild.

Plutocracy is incompatible with democracy, by definition. So the plutocrats have a problem: once the Demos finally understands this, the Demos will want to shut Hell Rule, Plutocracy, down. Plutocrats are smart enough to guess that. They can see even the Pope, to great applause of the Atheist European Parliament, condemn the “austerity”, which the latest device plutocrats have invented to transfer money from the People to themselves.

The Pope used to be on their side (Pi XII wrote to Hitler, Ghandi-like, calling him “my friend”).

To stabilize their rule, plutocrats need to persuade We The People that viciousness and the rule of the few are the ultimate values, just as they successfully persuaded We The People that greed made the economy optimal.

So the plutocrats have engaged in a program of mental vaccinations: condition We The People to accept the intolerable, and infamy, learn to call it “philanthropy”.

To create a cult of viciousness, plutocratic propaganda is going over the top, embracing dubious causes, such as pollution. The more dubious, the better.

So we are told to love pollution and climate change, as in the fifties We The People were told to love the Bomb.

Plutocracy wants viciousness, rejecting loving values, to become normal. As in many of the Twentieth Century totalitarian regimes.

And what better way to achieve the rule of hell than making the viciousness of a cause its ultimate justification?

Patrice Ayme’

Wingsuit Philosophy: 400 Million Years Strong

November 28, 2014

 

If Life is Quantum, why do Quantum assemblies jump off cliffs and peaks in wingsuits, with a high probability to be blown to bits? (See flying off the Aiguille Noire de Peuterey, Mont Blanc Range.)

Is it the love of danger? What else? Indeed, most of these ladies and gentlemen, when interviewed, insist that they love life. And most of them, indeed, seem to enjoy life, and are extremely lively.

Flier Jumped Off Peuterey (Peak on the Right)

Flier Jumped Off Peuterey (Peak on the Right)

Wingsuit flying is an extreme form of extreme sport. It entangles extreme neurological control, extreme speed, and extreme terror. Plus extreme contempt for probabilities. In other words, all what makes man tick where it counts most, in what counts most, in battle.

The film concludes with a list of more than two dozen wingsuit fliers known to have died in 2013, while practicing their passion.

The first attempted wingsuit flight, more than a century ago, was off the Eiffel Tower (then the world’s tallest structure). The gentleman long hesitated before jumping. He received a significant hole in his head. However, an autopsy revealed that he had died of a heart attack during the flight (so great was his fright?). Frenchmen invented the modern suits in the 1990s. Tubes inflated by air pressure rigidify them. The explicit aim was to land with them (to do this, I believe a 6 meter wing span is needed, thus further, hard, but imaginable, progress in material science).

Wingsuited Corliss Popping Balloons Before Zooming Into A Gorge

Wingsuited Corliss Popping Balloons Before Zooming Into A Gorge

So why is danger lovable? Danger is not just lovable, it is adaptative, in the evolutionary sense of the term. That means that, for human beings, to love danger present greater advantage that the alternative. Can I prove it? Well, wingsuit flying and all sorts of behaviors potentially lethal to those who indulge in them, are only explainable by the thrill of danger. If this thrill is perceived as more valuable than life, it’s that life cannot do without it.

As Sherlock Holmes noticed, when one has eliminated all other explanations, what’s left is what is going on.

The usual suspects, the loud vegetarians, mosquito lovers, peaceniks, Dalai Lama worshippers, partisans of the intrinsic goodness of man in general, and of the extreme placidity and sanctity of themselves in particular, will meekly bleat that from such violence comes the undoing of man. Assuredly, they will reckon, loving danger leads to war, mayhem, and horror of horror, violence, to put it in one hated word.

Yet, what is man if not the creature of ultimate force? Violence is how man was built, one mutation at a time.

After these vigorous considerations, I went running more than twenty miles in the mountains, some of it above 8,000 feet. Never mind a little snow and ice: the greenhouse presents advantages in late November. At some point I met some mountain bikers: ”What are you doing, so far from anywhere?” I did not tell them I was philosophying, as I already looked crazy enough with my skimpy outfit (running is higher metabolism than biking).

Back in the land of computers, I stumbled on an interview of Jeb Corliss, an expert of “proximity flying” (see above). He reached pretty much the same conclusions as yours truly, in an interesting article with a stupid title:

“Courting popularity has never been a priority for Corliss. “Listen,” he tells me, “I talk about the deaths. I talk about the disasters.”

“And if you die?”

“If I die, I want that footage on TV the next day.”

“Why?”

“Why? Because this is not chess. This is not backgammon. This is not . . . ” (Corliss racks his brain for a yet-more-contemptible pastime, and finds one) “golf. This is dangerous. I believe that footage of fatalities is way more important than film of some guy flying across a beautiful meadow. What we are doing here is very important. I believe that flying is what evolution is about. Think of the squirrels.”

“OK.”

“At the beginning, there were probably only a very few squirrels that even contemplated flying from tree to tree. The other squirrels thought they were crazy. I imagine hundreds of them died in the attempt. But then, in the end, one of them managed it. Now that, to me, is evolution. And now we are evolving, through technology and through skill. I liken what we’re doing in proximity flying to the first animals that left the water. We are evolving and growing. And becoming stronger. What else,” he asks, “is the purpose of life?”

The usual suspects, if they have time to stop grazing their pastures, will call the preceding Nietzschean, or Hitlerian, and condemn it. But that would be wrong on both counts: Nietzsche hated evolution, and Hitler loved regression. Corliss’ philosophy wants progress. That philosophy, which has been mine, ever since I reflected in the wastes of Africa, is very close to Lamarck, and… Sade.

400 million years ago, during the Devonian Period, the earliest tetrapods derived from the lobe-finned fishes.

It is an important point that, although plants did not need brains to conquer the land, brainy animals, having brains, had to decide to conquer land.

Strict “Darwinists” speak as if they cannot understand this, and brains are just what genes do (see in particular Dawkins). Does that mean they never decide anything, except what class and genes gave them? (Lord Matt Ridley, one of the most strident advocates of total gene control, and of plundering the planet, is a major and most propagandizing plutocrat; believing “genes” control all means class controls all).

Yet, that’s obviously wrong: if all and any fish had been so terrified of land that they had not tried to crawl on it, all the mutations in the world would not have made the vertebrates conquer land.

For 400 million years, our brainy ancestors took great chances, and very few of those who took the greatest chances, that is, the most lethal chances, could reproduce. They died early, they died hard, but they tried something crazy, to give some mutation a chance… And, as we will see in a companion essay, a chance for this mutation to appear!

Without the will to progress, there would have been no progress. There would be only plants, bacteria, viruses.

Patrice Ayme’

Bad Government Economics

November 27, 2014

How Government Ought NOT to Act Economically

I am often mean to Obama, all the more as I know that, after all, he is just the president. So he presides over a whole system of oligarchies. Best economic advice? For the “Democratic” establishment, it meant Larry Summers, Bob Rubin, Bill Clinton, Greenspan, etc. Who was he to contradict Summers or Krugman? Those two were within the White House nearly 30 years before Obama got there. They both, and all other very serious economists, told Obama he had to save the banks, no strings attached.

In the matter of energy and science policy, Obama made apparently the best choice: Chu, a Physics Nobel Prize winner who was also the successful manager of the giant Lawrence Berkeley Research Laboratory.

But getting a Nobel in something does not mean one has the best ideas, especially in other fields. It can make one arrogant, stubborn, over-confident in one’s brains.

In the end, the government of the USA intervened erroneous, moving away from fundamental research (both in science and the foundations of technology).

Dr. Chu cancelled all research in fuel cells, while instead diverting money towards… start-ups. He may as well have financed hamburger stands. In particular, Chu decided to finance electric cars. This means, in practice cars made by Elon Musk, an expert on how to get government support.

A French electric car held the world’s speed record, and was first to reach 100km/h. That was in… 1900. So electric cars are not exactly new. Batteries are better than 115 years ago. But still, not good enough.

Battery technology will require a breakthrough: one could not make a bus, or truck, using electric batteries. The battery pack would be too heavy, the range too limited, the time to refuel, too great.

A number of Asian companies, including Toyota, are leasing Fuel Cell Cars. They work by transforming hydrogen into electricity. The city of Berkeley has been using, for years, Fuel Cells buses. They proudly carry the mention that their waste is pristine water.

Elon Musk called Fuel cell cars, “fool” cars. At best, he does not know how to spell. At worst, he knows no physics (and that’s the case). Fuel cells have enormous efficiency. Musk’s “electric” cars, actually run on COAL electricity for 50% (as the whole USA does). I know Musk talks about the sun to recharge his cars, but that’s not the case. The solar case would have to go through hydrogen!

But of course, this is not about physics, but politics. Musk got billions from the Federal Government, from NASA.

So the fools are those who believe the crafty politician, Elon Musk.

OK, electric vehicles have their uses, for short commutes. They are great against local pollution. But let’s not run out of lithium? OK? As it is, the Tesla Model S, which gets a $10,000 subsidy per vehicle, is perfect for Californian plutocrats who want to have priority on the roads, while enjoying the money they get from taxpayers for driving in style.

The main problem with renewable energies, right now, is that there is no way to store it efficiently (aside from dams). Cracking water to make hydrogen would be an obvious way. Liquid Hydrogen has about THREE times the energy of gasoline per mass. As existing fuel cells have twice the efficiency of the hypothetical maximum of a thermal engine (where electric vehicles get their electricity from), one sees that a fuel cell cars, far from being foolish, if the hydrogen were from renewables, would be at least six times more efficient than electric vehicles.

Under Obama, Secretary Chu, in an apparent act of corruption, quit all fundamental research of fuel cells, and diverted money to his friends. But fuel cells allowed Americans to land on the Moon. Now Chu is sitting pretty in Stanford, complete with start-up money, a few miles from Tesla.

Chu in his own words:

http://www.thenewsdaily.org/steven-chu-lives-in-fantasy-world-public-states-the-kickback-scheme-that-got-him-his-stanford-job-as-part-of-his-payoff-was-not-failed/

A Hydrogen Economy is necessary. See:

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/terminal-greenhouse-crisis/

This Chu misadventure shows the superiority of Direct Democracy: had Chu’s policies be widely debated over the Internet, and had Obama got a digest of the conclusions, it is highly unlikely that he (and scientifically ignorant, dubiously enriched very wealthy California Senator Feinstein, etc.) would have decided to go along with Chu’s craziness.

Recently Paul Krugman, still uninformed in that respect, was lauding Chu’s policies in the New York Times, and how much money they made (this is not just false, but it shows further misunderstanding of the role of government… Which is not to compete with for-profit companies).

The truth is that, the fundamental research breakthroughs are not coming up at the rate they would be, if the opposite of what Chu did had been, instead, implemented (that is massive more fundamental research).

It’s not just a question of the advancement of civilization, but of national defense.

Patrice Ayme’


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 351 other followers