Equality Is One Measure Of Civilization. And A Potential Savior.

July 17, 2018

Equality is natural to human beings: our species, and those ancestral to it, evolved in an egalitarian context, that of the very small human group. Thus, inequality is inhuman, in more deep ways than one. For human minds to blossom maximally, equality of opportunity of expression and creativity are required. But there is much more, and much darker. Fortunately, we can do something about it now.

Civilizations are more or less civilized: civilizations are on a gradient. One can compare them, between, and within, polities. Not everybody is beautiful, not everybody is gentle. Same for civilizations. Erdogan’s Turkey is unquestionably more civilized than the Ottoman empire which used to impale contradictors, on an industrial basis. During the siege of Constantinople, a Venetian captain, Antonio Rizzo, who refused an inspection, was impaled (his crewmen were beheaded, or sawn asunder). Later, the Ottoman empire would make printing punishable by death (so did Francois I of France… but that intellectual fascist outrage didn’t stick in France, whereas it lasted centuries under the Ottomans. So some of the best “Oriental” literary works were published in France first… making France more “Oriental” than the Orient, Mr. Edward Said… Said was a guy, revered to this day who said, basically that only “orientals” like himself could talk of “orientalism”… but how does one learn to think, when one can’t even print the books… all too long the, unequal, condition of the “Middle east”)

Civilizations closest to Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, those eminently most human conditions, and principles, are the most civilized, as they enable human minds to flourish maximally.

Such a religion exists: it’s called the Democratic Republic (but not as defined by Marx’s unquestioning, unquestionably evil followers). Equality not just a question of liking, it’s a question of existing.

Some polities put forward different principles (from Latin Principium, origin, source, from primus, first). And some polities followed philosophers: had Aristotle taught the opposite of what he taught, his friends and, or pupils. Antipater, Alexander, Craterus, and all Macedonian generals awed by the preceding leaders, may well have been more democratic. But the self-serving Aristotle was “monarchist” (the power, the rule, of one).

Aristotle was clever, but, not clever enough, or honorable enough not to follow the genealogy of diffidence to democracy established by his masters, Socrates and Plato, he went to the Dark Side.


We are still in Aristotle’s mental world: individuals called leaders are haphazardly selected, or selected for unsavory reasons. For example, far from being a great thinker, Putin was a top officer of the KGB. Our “Western” leaders aren’t much better: no individual human is god, but our leaders have divine powers, and that, per se, guarantees disaster, and would, even if they were gods (follow the horrid adventures of all the gods in sight: even the haughty Christo-Islamist versions of “god” can’t control evil, and their travails, their entire version of the universe, are all about that).

Having ignorant twerps, obnibulated by power, capable of killing hundreds of millions, even billions, around is bad enough. Admiring those crazed critters, worse. So is admiring those who, like John McCain, tried to get the full power, couldn’t, and now hate (not to have been endowed with the power of annihilating, potentially, billions).

Strong man politics are ascendent” said Obama in an excellent discourse at the Mandela 100th year celebration. Right. But Obama himself helped this ascent of strong man politics. Because his politics served it: …”the free press is under attacks”… says Obama, neglecting that the so-called “free press” is actually owned by the wealthiest men, and they all think and feel the same, as shareholders in global plutocracy.

Obama says we have to believe in facts, in reality. Right, so Obama should stop the blah blah about all the world religions been so great, and so right, dear Barry. There is only one right religion, the religion of man: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity…


The cult of politics as we have it, is all despicable. Thermonuclear power has made equality not a luxury, or an advantage, but the one and only key to survival. So follow your political leaders not. Time to relegate them to the dustbins of history, as the slave masters they aspire to be, but even more so, as the death masters they are.

The aspiration to be ruled by death masters is a mental derangement of the highest order, surpassing even the worst tribal regimes ever seen. Cannibalism, impalements? All childish stuff, when now, one guy who didn’t exist a few decades ago can put an end to the strings of civilizations which separate us from nothingness.

Equality is not just a cure, not just a moral principle, not just how to instill creativity, at this point, equality has become survival itself. Animals have a right to live as evolution has meant them to. And, in the case of the genus Homo, that means under a more or less egalitarian regime. However, on the face of it, we have the most unequal regime the animal kingdom ever knew. 

And that’s lethal. That most massive inequality ever, which we are afflicted by, is mass lethal. A civilization killer, a planet wrecker. Yesterday’s technology brought us the mass death potential. But more recent tech brought us the mass democratic possibility, by harnessing the power of the Internet for mass voting, directly, not through “representatives” and “leaders”….

Patrice Ayme


French Republic Wins World Cup, Because It’s A Republic

July 15, 2018

France beat the excellent Croat team 4-2. The Croat captain, Luka Modric, who seems to be a very nice person, and seems never to have seen a ball not to run after, got the reward for best player, the Belgian goalie, Courtois, got the reward for best goalie, and 19-year-old Kylian Mbappé, of unmatched skill and speed, got the cup for best young player. This is a philosophical event. Both for what happened on the fields, and in analyzing (meta-analyzing) what has been said. Ah, also my old adversary Putin was at the finale, next to the very blonde and social Croat president. Macron was further right and jumped up on the table in front of Putin, fists in the air, when the (black as charcoal) Pogba (a very funny guy who talks a mile a minute) made a spectacular goal, two seconds after his first attempted goal rebounded… Putin looked up, impressed, learning something about the furia francese

Some of the usual racists have grumbled that the French team was an African team. In 1998, racists felt it was also a Maghrebin team. Others sneered that the French team is a “legacy of colonialism”. France, a world country/ Since when is that new? There are other world countries: much of Western Europe now (including Brexiting Britain), or the USA. But France, more so.

Imagine someone says:’Oh, I can see from your appearance, your skin color, you know, that you are a legacy of colonialism’. How more racist can one be? Truth: the French are French, not ‘Black French’ like there are ‘Black American’. Some famous French writers or thinkers would be called ‘Black’ in the US, true: truly, an American problem, why don’t the beholders of US racist semantics count the number of blue eyes in the French team (more than eight: from Giroud, Thauvin, Grietzman, etc.). Mbappé, for example, was born in Paris. He is a Parisian, not an African. (Someone who has lived in Africa, for real, is, to some, small, or big, extent, an African. Not the case of Mbappé… but mine!) 

MOSCOW, RUSSIA – JULY 15: Captain and Goalie Hugo Lloris of France lifts the World Cup trophy to celebrate with his teammates after the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final between France and Croatia at Luzhniki Stadium on July 15, 2018 in Moscow, Russia. (Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images) Not a legacy of colonialism, but a legacy of anti-racism.

US citizens deform their ability to see the past of the USA, when they accuse countries such as France of colonialism: where are the French colons today? Nowhere. If one wants to see colonial regimes, regimes spawned by colons, one has to look at Australia, North America. If one looks at France, one sees a loved French soccer team… One does not see a land where the French killed all the Natives to establish their own regime! Want to do philosophy, love wisdom? Starting with the facts will help. Speaking of “colonialism”, where, in the end, something else happened, an entanglement of populations, not a holocaust, is important.

So France is Africa, as I have long said. Nothing wrong with this. Nothing better for a French, a European to get to know Africa, and reciprocally. Indeed, I am African educated. The education of Africa is not restricted to what is taught in school, but what the continent teaches: diversity, difficulty, distraction, even dislocation and disintegration. I felt there the strongest emotions, confronted to total, mystifying desert, mountain jutting in the air, without a blade of grass, forest so thick one can’t see a thing. The elation of observing 10,000 years of human, and planetary evolution, within a few feet, sometimes.

So I am major part African educated. What does “French” means, anyway? France is atop the three routes, the only three easy land routes, between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, and in between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. (Other lands routes go over the Alps, the Tatras, and other high mountains are difficult; mountain ranges were typically occupied by extremely fierce tribes: Hannibal lost half of his army crossing what is now the French Alps.) France was always multiethnic, and the land known as France was massively multiethnic more than a millennium before the Frankish Confederation called itself “Frank” (Free and, or ferocious). Look at the Basque: their language is so old, it’s older than the Celts and Germans.

Pertinent is the persistent lack of performance of the USA in soccer (a world sport, the world sport, watched by more than two billions). The US, in spite of all the money and a giant population didn’t make the cut of the 32 better teams selected for the world cup. The Economist made a computer model which showed that the US is underperforming (while Croatia is way overperforming).

Some say that US underperformance has to do with the fact minorities are poorly treated in the USA; as, in some states, such as the largest of them all, California, minorities are the majority: mistreating minorities, especially when they are the majority, would go a long way to explain the USA’s dismal result in soccer.

Others claim that US football underperforms because so-called American football, baseball and basketball occupy the US obsessively. American football is an armored version of rugby breaking bones, with short bouts of “play” broken up by advertising. Clearly, those A-football players, just the way they look, are full of hormones and other synthetic drugs. Also, the sport is uninteresting to watch, as little “play” occur.

The same roughly holds for the other two. Baseball symbolically involves a bone breaking bat, and weird rules where occasionally an overweight guy runs. Actually, the most overweight the baseball player, the better. A perfect sport for the overweight USA.

Basketball is also an excellent game for those who condone discrimination on the basis of genes. Basketball is biased towards height. If the basket in basketball, went up or down according to the size of the player(s) approaching said basket, the activity would be more just (there are good short soccer players, example Argentina’s Maradona, 1.64 m. or Lionel Messi, 1.7 m or Poland’s Marcin Garuch, just 5 feet tall).

So what gives? The US drug problem shows up in sport, I reckon. The ultimately disastrous many wins of drugged out US cyclists speaks for itself.   

Macron, first French leader to triumph in Moscow… In front of Putin himself (immediately down left off image) France should have won either the World or Euro cups many other times in the past when she barely missed. This presidential, African style dance, is happening in front of the Croat president who came to Moscow in a charter plane, speaks perfect French, and was totally classy in victory, as in defeat!

The Croatian Republic has been a member of the European Union since July i, 2013.

Soccer can be unifying. Worldwide. Once one has seen enough football matches from different national teams, one can get attached to various individuals. This way, what is superficially a nationalistic contest becomes conducive to supranational appreciation.

For example I found some individuals in the Croat and French teams attaching, a few games ago. Rewardingly, they were all in the final… More generally, the beauty of the gesture comes to be overall appreciated for itself.

Soccer players are drug controlled (the French team was, after its win). US American-football players die like flies, from all the abuse.

The French coach was captain when France won the world cup in 1998. Didier Deschamps said he didn’t select the best French players (Benzema was notably shunned) but those who could make a team. When asked if he could put the whole thing in a few words, he replied:”As the French president said it:’Vive la République!” A true republic is a meritocracy, thus it is the power of those with highest merit (which means worth).

So is the French team an “African” team, racist ladies and gentlemen? Well, the French team a world team, for a world cup. On September 3, 1939, the French Republic declared war to Adolf Hitler’s racist regime. Hitler had earlier sterilized thousands of German children of French troops who had German lovers and wives. One result of this declaration of war? Crushing infamy!  A result is this sort of much less racist world we are living in, this sort of French team, multi-ethnic countries, such as France, or California. Another result? A German team where some players too are of the same skin color which revolted pale little degenerates such as Goebbels so much.

Racism, and other ultimate evils can’t be just frowned upon, they have to be, forcefully, eradicated.

Patrice Ayme

WHICH TRAP Are We In? Viciousness!

July 10, 2018

Abstract: The Thucydides and Kindleberger “traps” are brandished by academia to inform world politics. Those “traps” are mass-psychological setups which result in predictable behaviors, massive, catastrophic holocausts. So they are prone to be repeated, their proponents explain. They attribute the Sparta-Athens war to Spartan fear, and the disastrous rise of fascism in the 1930s to unwillingness on the part of the USA to bear the white man burden of assuming the role of global Great Power.

However, a detailed historical analysis from yours truly, show that Thucydides and Kindleberger omitted entire crucial dimensions of the causality of the phenomena they purport to explain. I claim that Thucydides was disingenuous, and Kindleberger, who was deliberately vaguer, was distorted.

In the case of the Peloponnesian war, Thucydides forgets Persia. Persia explains both why the war happened (I explain), and why Sparta won (although the facts are blatant, somehow conventional historians overlook them).

In the case of the rise of fascism, US “unwillingness”  was no accident (“unwillingness” is the exact concept of Kindleberger; today’s analysts subtly deform this into “indifference”, which is not what Kindleberger said, and a telling bias). The US had interest to see Europe self-destroy: hence US plutocrats, US Deep State and US government willingness to make overseas fascisms, their intrinsic allies, be all which they could be (US plutocrats provided all world fascist regimes, including Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, but also even Lenin’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s with support… All, except for imperial Japan!)

Thus, in the end, it was not just “fear” (Thucydides) or “unwillingness” (Kindleberger) which caused these holocausts. Instead it was plain old vicious computation, and manipulation by the malevolent domineering superpower which played a crucial role (Persia 24 centuries ago; the USA in the Twentieth Century). Claiming otherwise is a coverup, and this is why it keeps on being covered up. That Persia did its best, even manipulating Sparta, to destroy Athens will not shock.

However, that the US pulled all the strings it could to incite Germany to engage in World War One and World War Two, will shock and dismay. The famed “American Century” had a price: more than 200 million dead. That the little pseudo-intellectuals who scream after Trump omit this macro aspect of history is revealing.

This analysis puts back fear and unwillingness on the back burners as the main drivers of holocausts. Instead the power (kratia) of plain old evil, hidden and hellish (Pluto) is uncovered to be the main causative agent of holocausts… as it should be.

By the way, the Nazis didn’t engage in their orgy of mass killing because they were afraid or indifferent: the Nazis were just hateful, and enjoyed it! Loving hatred is not the sort of conception civilized persons are supposed to entertain. But they should. Only thus, getting to know humanity a bit better, will civilization advance!

Last point: in the end, my analysis adds dimensions to the Thucydides Trap and the Kindleberger Trap. The concepts can still be used, as two ways for ultimate evil to get its way by carefully misleading academia on what is truly going on!


When an uncouth dictator tries to show himself as smart and cultivated:

Cultivated dictators getting top prizes in humanities is nothing new. It’s not just Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, so he could go on droning to death babies in countries the USA was not at war with. The tradition is much older than that: the tyrant of Syracuse, great friend and hater to Plato, got the top literary prize in Athens. Dionysius I won the prize for tragedy for the Ransom of Hector at the Lenaea at Athens. He was so elated that he threw himself in a debauch which proved fatal…

The “Thucydides Trap,” cited by Chinese Strong Man President Xi Jinping, refers to the warning by the ancient Greek historian that cataclysmic war can erupt if an established power (like the United States) becomes too fearful of a rising power (like China). But there is also a “Kindleberger Trap” which has now surfaced in the political semantics. That one rests, nebulously, upon indifference, unwillingness and free ridership (charming qualities Kindleberger generously attributed to the USA in the 1930s… and which are superficially true… but appearances are often contrived to be deceiving!).

Instead of all these pathetic superficialities, I will roll out my plutocratic trap theory, which covers both at once, by showing them to be cover-ups. And more. I suggest that powers, or potentates, can be animated by maximum viciousness: fear and indifference are just fake news. I will roll out several examples. Sparta was vicious, and hid that below fear (or its friends did). The Kaiser’s German plutocracy was also vicious, and feared to lose its privileges, preferring instead to launch a world war. The US hid, under indifference and unwillingness, the dirty computation that helping fascist and racist Germany just so, in both world wars it launched, and then coming to the rescue of victory, would durably sabotage France and Britain, enabling to replace them (it did). The Dark Side explains the “traps”: each time a deciding elite looking for further advantage, or preservation of its status, doesn’t hesitate to massacre countless multitude: this is also the secret of the strange collapse of the Roman State.

This thesis of mine is not really new: Hulagu Khan hurled it at the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad, accusing him to have betrayed his people through his viciousness, before putting him to death, with between 200,000 and two million of  his subjects. (If the Caliph and his followers had been afraid in a timely manner, this would NOT have happened: they tried to negotiate, but too late, when it was clear Baghdad was going to fall. By then the Mongols and their even larger Christian allied armies were hell-bent to destroy. So this is a case where the exact opposite of Thucydides Trap is true!)


Thucydides forgot Persia in his silly little “explanation”:

First to deal with Thucydides Trap, contemporary version: as China challenges America’s predominance, misunderstandings about actions and intentions could lead them into a deadly trap first identified by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, the savants diagnose, and they move their antennas with appropriate gravitas. As the learned Greek had it: “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”

US historians, prone to deeply misunderstand European history, as they obey agendas of their own ruling classes, have misidentified 16 cases in the past 500 years in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war, they say, and they munch.

Their entire causality is wrong: it’s not just “rising power” which is the origin of war. Actually, Europe has the same overall primary military power for 16 centuries, and a glance at a map shows why, so keep on munching little US historians, and collect your paychecks…


Misinterpreting Kindleberger:

Charles Kindleberger, an architect of the Marshall Plan, professor at MIT, supposedly argued that the disastrous decade of the 1930s occurred because  of the US unwillingness to get involved. This variant of the thesis of “isolationism” has been distorted from something Kindleberger didn’t say, but is now put under his name, by the plotters who drive public opinion.

Those claim Kindleberger’s Trap says that “the US replaced Britain as the largest global power but failed to take on Britain’s role in providing global public goods”. (Notice the biased implicit notions that Britain and the US were the greatest, and Britain was “good”.) The result was the collapse of the global system into depression, genocide, and world war. Then, the inventors of Kindleberger’s trap disingenuously ask, as China’s power grows, will it help provide global public goods too?

According to the usual interpretations, powers, innocently enough find themselves into “traps” which just happen to be. Both “traps” sound good, but they don’t resist examination. Thucydides was delusional and misleading, while Kindleberger, in truth, said the US did it deliberately.

I go much further by saying that both Spartan and US leaderships connived to viciously set up traps for civilization, and covered them up with false motivations, to cover their tracks. They are the ones who build the traps, and they faked fear, or indifference. And that doesn’t resist examination: imagine Spartans being afraid, and US plutocrats being indifferent to riches…


Sparta: So vicious, and incoherent, its natural ally was Persia!

Fundamentally, Sparta was ultimately greedy: the greedy wants money, territory, thus power onto other people. The ultimate power is to own people, and kill them at will, as Sparta did. Athenians did not allow to themselves the freedom to kill an enslaved population for sport, so Athenians were more creative commercially, all the more as, Attica being so dry, Athenian industry had to create added value, to exchange for food (and timber), the great city had to get from very far away.

Thucydides was more than a bit dishonest in his interpretation: there was a first war between Sparta and Athens, arguably caused by the rise of the Athenian empire, resulting fear in Sparta, indeed. However that was followed by a 30 year peace between Sparta and Athens, during which Sparta learned to live with the Delian League.

And then what happened, what changed? Thucydides just evoke the rise of power and the rise of fear. But Athens was encountering lots of problems projecting power. The Athenian attempt to free Egypt from Persia failed catastrophically, over a period of years. Nothing for Sparta to fear, quite the opposite. Athens carried the war increasingly to Persia. Persia was not afraid, but enraged. However, having been destroyed in two formidable land battles and two formidable sea battles, and three times the Athenians were most of the enemy forces, Persia knew better than trying another frontal assault.

Thus, it’s Persian fascist anger which grew against Athens, and it was already astronomical, it grew more than Spartan fear. When Sparta attacked, Sparta was doing Persian work. Far from being afraid, confidently, the Spartan army, unopposed, attacked and invaded Attica, and the Athenians took refuge within their walls. Pericles’ idiotic plan was to wait them out. 

Athens should have won, thought Pericles, but all which could have gone wrong, went wrong. And even what Pericles admitted he didn’t think of: a plague exploded inside the besieged city, Pericles bemoaned he had anticipated everything, but not that. He put the army on ships while the plague went on, and, because of the predictable disastrous consequence, Pericles was put on trial.

Even more unexpected, and why Sparta won, is that Sparta got enormous help from Persia in its second war against Athens starting in 431 BCE. Was suddenly Sparta more motivated by fear from Athens than it was by fear from Persia? (As Thucydides would have us believe?) Neither! Sparta was not afraid. Sparta was being vicious.

Should Sparta have been, indeed motivated by viciousness, puts in a different perspective the absence of Sparta at the battle of Marathon (won mostly by Athenian hoplites, no Spartan was endangered for that movie, to Sparta’s eternal shame!)

So what was going on? Sparta was very advanced in some ways: Spartan women were liberated in more ways than one, more advanced than in the rest of Greece. But Sparta had lethally subjugated another city-state (Messenia). Sparta had three categories of people under its jurisdiction, and most of the population, the Helots, were treated worse than slaves, or even dogs: lethal Helot hunts were organized every year, just to keep them domesticated.   

Athens was the philosophical opposite of Sparta: it was an Open Society (Athenian philosophers and Pericles second wife, from Ionia, invented the concept, Pericles advertised it… and then violated it!)

Athens was more Philosophically Correct (PhC) than Sparta. Ultimately, Sparta got shun by all of Greece, and even Macedonia, and died, isolated, self-imploding (after Thebes liberated Messenia). Athens was actually maximally correct (considering the circumstances: although the Franks outlawed slavery a millennium later, well, it was a millennium later, the Franks had new tech, heavy plows to overturn the rich northern European soils… whereas Athica was very poor, the driest part of Greece… And all ancient trees cut to build a Navy against Persia…)

When Alexander annihilated Thebes, he justified that holocaust by observing that Thebes had allied itself with Persia (in particular at the Battle of Platea, but also 150 years later). Which was true. So it’s not just Sparta which thus sinned with a Persian dalliance.



In Red, Sparta and its dependencies, including enslaved Messenia. Pretty much all the rest is the made of Greek city-states of the Delian League, the de facto Athenian Empire. But that was much less solid an empire than the entire “West” is right now. In particular, Greek city-states were frequently at war, whereas the US had only two wars with Great Britain, and none, ever, with France [Undevicesimus, Deviant Art.]


USA as Sparta, China as Athens? Ridiculous! The US, considering its French ancestry, is Athens, part of the Neo-Athenian empire!

(This is not a flight of fancy: for centuries in the Middle Ages, all scholars knew very well that, in intellectual matters, a “translatio imperii” had been accomplished between Athens and Paris.) Are Chinese schools for the “Communist” elite, that bad that they learn upside down history?

By using Thucydides’ misleading “Trap”, Mr. Xi compared the US to Sparta. Considering Sparta was an extremely vicious, racist and lethal dictatorship, murderously exploiting another state, a weapon of an enormous fascist plutocracy, that’s beyond insulting, it’s misleading, programming the Chinese population with fake news. Encouraging Chinese jingoism.  

China’s Xi should learn correct history, instead of trying to teach fake history: the USA is a double progeny of France, directly and through Britain, the other French child (all a bit incestuous, agreed…). So the US is a child and colony, not an idiosyncratic monster like Sparta. Sparta was already an independent state, when it launched the Trojan war, because its king was already so obnoxious, his wife Helen had to flee, with a much nicer Trojan prince… And that was seven or eight centuries earlier, so Sparta had a long history of causing problems! Sparta was the only Greek city-states which had permanently enslaved another.


The West is the Greco-Roman empire, Germanified, Freed of Slaves by the Franks:

The present West is the Greco-Roman empire, Germanified, Freed of Slaves and “renovated” (as they put it) by the Franks. No such maelstrom of ideas and different philosophical origins is remotely comparable in the history of China… until the Twentieth Century!

Indeed, France is the successor state of Rome: Clovis was Roman Consul for life, and his father Childeric was Roman imperator, in the technical sense; moreover, the Lex Salica of the Franks was a document originally written in Latin, by Roman lawyers… Clovis’ army was definitively THE Roman army in Gallia and Germania by the late Fifth Century. And the Franks got the mandate of protecting Gallia and the Germanias, in 400 CE.

The Franks conquered Britain in 1066 CE, freed the slaves. Louis XVI decided to create a Republic in America, going over British objections, ruining France in the process. Thus, the USA, twice the progeny of France, is itself a successor state of Rome, or, more exactly, Athens: Rome didn’t have much of its own brain, all the thinking was done in Athens… and, later, Paris.

The US Congress doesn’t look like the Roman Pantheon was accident, but as a reminder, just like the Washington monument looks like an Egyptian obelisks, because Athens herself send an army to free Egypt from Persian dictatorship, and lots of Greek intellectual capital originated in Egypt (mathematics, writing, etc.)

US law is, mostly, Roman law, refurbished, modernized, after reconditioning in Constantinople (6th Century) and France (300 CE until very recently, as the US has silently adopted many laws which originated in France, well after the French 1789 CE Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations also adopted…


Pars Occidentalis: Nunc E Pluribus Unum  Imperium Romanorum:

(Studied Latin too many years!) Grandiloquent cataclysmic declarations against Trump all over, forget an important aspect, an underrated truth; Europe and her colonies, with the exception of Russia, are pretty much one, at this point: the degree of integration of Europe and her ex-colonies, including the USA, Latin America, Oceania, is something Athens could only dream of, in her own empire.


Sparta; not afraid, but vicious:

So, to come back to Sparta: that vicious state made an alliance with the enemy of liberty, and Greek city-states, Achaemenid Persia, to vanquish Athens’ direct democracy. The result was the Macedonian catastrophe, when the Macedonian dictatorship took control of Greece and Persia. Even then Sparta played a treacherous role: at the crucial battle,  the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BCE) when the armies of Thebes and Athens confronted Philip of Macedonia, Sparta wasn’t present on the side of her (supposedly) fellow Greek cities against the northern plutocratic savages.  Had Sparta been at Chaeronea, the Macedonians would have disappeared from history: Athens would have occupied the north. It didn’t happen because Sparta was driven by hatred (although Sparta had joined Athens in recent decades, the jealousy of Athens was still strong. Notice that fear (Thucydides) is different from jealousy….

Hence the behavior of Sparta has to be interpreted as risking everything to pursue its viciousness, exactly like the Nazis were ready to risk everything to risk their viciousness. It has little to do with power. It has to do with viciousness.

Another proof of Sparta’s lack of fear and plethora of viciousness? Sparta, alone among Greek cities, refused to even send a token force to join Alexander against Persia. Later Alexander had a monument made, thanking all the Greek states… except Sparta!


Athens had to be good:

Athens, for its own geographical reason, and to pursue its existence as a greater virtue, had to expand her power: she was getting her food supply from the Black Sea shores and Cyrenaica. Thus, in particular, had to control the Dardanelles (Troy) and Byzantium, and make it so that Greek trade was operational all over the Mediterranean, all the way to Massalia’s little empire, in spite of Persian, Phoenician, and Carthaginian interference. That, ultimately the elements of civilization created in Marseilles and Athens survived to this day is no coincidence: they were greater virtues.

To trade all around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, bringing in vital supplies, Athens had to seduce with her good character (something she could only understand after her excesses in the second Peloponnesian war…).

But then, what of Charles Kindleberger’s alleged little trap? That the USA just failed to assume its own great power status? It doesn’t hold water, it’s a lie: the USA pretty much dictated the Versailles Treaty as it wanted. France wanted to make sure fascist, lethal, attacking Germany would not rise again; the USA wanted the exact opposite, deep down inside! The US knew very well it was the world’s foremost power in 1918, and a fortiori, the 1930s. Actually US plutocrats used Germany as a colony, as early as 1920, the whole panoply of them, from Henry Ford financing Hitler, to JP Morgan engineering German hyperinflation (which many in France considered was created to avoid repairing the tremendous destruction Germany had visited on France and Belgium; in other words, US plutocrats conspired with the worst germans so that Belgium and france would wallop in German caused misery, even after they won WWI!).


What Kindleberger Really Said:

Kindleberger is an excellent thinker, not a racist pervert like Lord Keynes (who, in spite of his own perversity, got out-perversed by the FDR administration at Bretton Woods, to his own dismay about the dollar as world reserve currency, something Keynes didn’t want)

Kindleberger’s accusation against the USA are delicate, those of a gentleman, not those of the blonde philosophical beast Nietzsche evoked. Kindleberger is no Tyranosopher, however, he is pretty clear, for an element of the oligarchy:

The explanation of this book is that the 1929 depression was so wide, so deep, and so long because the international economic system was rendered unstable by British inability and U.S. UNWILLINGNESS TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR STABILIZING IT by discharging five functions:

(1) maintaining a relatively open market for distress goods;

(2) providing countercyclical, or at least stable, long­ term lending;

(3) policing a relatively stable system of exchange rates;

(4) ensuring the coordination of macroeconomic policies;

(5) acting as a lender of last resort by discounting or otherwise providing liquidity in financial crisis.

  • Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (2nd ed., 1986), Ch. 14 : An Explanation of the 1929 Depression

In other words, Kindleberger’s thought system is a subset of mine: the USA was UNWILLING to stabilize the world socioeconomy. The US, I said, was not this way by accident: as a continent sized country, the only such in the temperate zone, the world’s greatest producer of fossil fuel and food, US power was overwhelming, and everybody knew it.

The USA’s refusal to exert caution, common sense and decency at Versailles (French advice was rejected), and then in the 1920s, the 1930s, and even in 1940 and 1941 was not “isolationism”: US plutocrats were all over Germany, they bottled fed Hitler and his minions.


Pre-World War One, in the Nineteenth Century, there were several Great Powers, not just USA and Britain:

The usual discourse in the top, generally Anglo-Saxon universities, top in the way of plutocracy, that is, not necessarily in the way of Deep Thought (that will be decided in the fullness of time) is blatantly self-serving. The allegation is that the global power was Britain, and then became the USA.

However, in the Nineteenth Century, France and Britain separately, but also jointly attacked China. The joint attack on Russia, the Crimean War, was propelled by France, which had enough of Russian encroachment towards the Mediterranean. France also created Italy, mortally wounding Austro-Hungary… When fascist Germany decided to launch a world war, in 1914, it was out of fear of the irresistible rise of French and Russian power. So said the German leaders. Yes, that looks like a Thucydides trap… The only explanation is that the top Prussian generals read Thucydides too uncritically! So they followed his fake explanatory scheme… not realizing for a moment they were following a US script, and they were the Indians, and the US cavalry would come at the right moment to mop them up.

And in 1914, the country with the strongest land military was Germany (followed by France, which nearly destroyed the German army, 5 weeks after the treacherous German attack on the world…)


Forget Thucydides, the Nuclear Trap is all we have:

There is only one serious trap right now: all out nuclear war. Contrarily to what the naive believe, that could happen swiftly, and by accident. As a French physicist working hard on the nukes told De Gaulle in June 1944: “une bombe, une ville” (one bomb, one city; the French had started the nuclear bomb program in January 1938, and many kept on working when the nuke effort immigrated to America…) Nobody wants it, except for a few lunatics in second-rate countries. But it could happen by accident.


So what are the Great Powers now?

On the face of it, the five Permanent Members of the United Nations, the five of them seriously armed. Contrarily to legend, they are talking to each others, and they have absolutely no interest to make war to each other.

That doesn’t mean there is no risk. Indeed, any states with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, is, in the present state of technology where it’s hard to stop IBM missiles, in a sense, a great power. The cases of India (a great power intrinsically) and Israel (a power nearly extinguished twice, in the Second and Twentieth centuries) are special. But Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, clearly shouldn’t have nukes (especially in light of Libya, South Africa and Ukraine having wisely renounced them). This is not about fairness, but physics: a multibody problem becomes non computational if there are too many bodies: five permanent members talking to each other is one thing, 50 powers armed to the teeth with nukes would just guarantee a holocaust of 90% of humanity (to start with; cannibalism will be next). 


The risk of “Freerideship”

The anti-Trump, anti-Populist, red-hot pro-plutocratic crowd is now using Kindleberger against Trump, accusing him to have destroyed the “Kindleberger world” (!?) they claim we were living in (we were not, the financial madness of the last 25 years, since Goldman Sachs came to power, in the guise of its valet, sex obsessed maniac Bill Clinton, is unparalleled in its rise, ever since Persia gave Sparta all the money it wanted to buy itself a bigger Navy than Athens…)

Here is the real Kindleberger again:

Economic responsibility goes with military strength and an undue share in the costs of peacekeeping. FREE RIDERS are perhaps more noticeable in this area than in the economy, where a number of rules in trade, capital movements, payments and the like have been evolved and accepted as legitimate. FREE RIDERSHIP means that disproportionate costs must be borne by responsible nations, which must on occasion take care of the international or system interest at some expense in falling short of immediate goals. This is a departure from the hard­ nosed school of international relations in political science, represented especially perhaps by Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger, who believe that national interest and the balance of power constitute a stable system. Leadership, moreover, had overtones of the white man’s burden, father knows best, the patronizing attitude of the lady of the manor with her Christmas baskets. The requirement, moreover, is for active, and not merely passive responsibility of the German—Japanese variety. With free riders, and the virtually certain emergency of thrusting newcomers, passivity is a recipe for disarray. The danger for world stability is the weakness of the dollar, the loss of dedication of the United States to the international system’s interest, and the absence of candidates to fill the resultant vacua.”

  • “Economic Responsibility”, The Second Fred Hirsch Memorial Lecture, Warwick University, 6 March 1980, republished in Comparative Political Economy: A Retrospective (2003)

Free riders now? China, which let the likes of France and the US keep a minimum of order in Africa, and reap the benefits. Free riders now? All plutocrats splurging in Africa again, there again exploiting especially France. Free riders? Most European countries which, with the exception of France and Britain, don’t share in the military spending commensurate with the benefits they get from it, and their GDP. Germany especially. In particular, all European countries should support the French military-industrial complex. After all, it’s the French Republic which declared war TO Hitler (belatedly accompanied by Britain). On that one, Trump is very right, and it’s not just a big one, but the biggest one.

I drive German cars (I used to drive Fords. Until my trusted Ford “main power unit” disintegrated on a mountain road, losing all power and catching fire (!). It should have killed the family. Thanks to excellent driving skills, I pulled away from a tremendous drop. After that, I switched to Bavarian cars…) However, if Trump wants to strike German cars with stiff tariffs for strategic reasons, I can only approve.


Plutocrats Are Free Riders, and will go all the way to ultimate treachery:

 Free ridership can be global, and, or, internal, at the same time. An excellent example is the collapse of Rome. The rise of Roman plutocracy was from globalization, and the plutocrats, by the Fourth Century had become so powerful, that,  As civilization faced catastrophe, plutocrats still refused to pay taxes, preferring deals with barbarians!

Instead, really wealthy family had a bishop therein (for divine and state protection: by 390-400 CE, Rome was governed by bishops). The practical result was that, whereas Rome could have had an army of several millions, the plutocrats prefered to make deals with the small, but determined armies of invading savages, rather than to face a revolution from We the People of the Empire. The collapse of Rome was a choice the plutocrats made.   

Now there is no doubt that, often in history, when moral degeneracy, taking pleasure from the Dark Side, is advanced enough, plutocrats have preferred inflicting suffering than saving humanity. This is what the Aztecs did, having captured some of Cortez’s companions, during the battle for Tenochtitlan,  they had the idiotic idea to practice their brand of open heart surgery, with no anesthesia, in full sight and hearing of the rest of Cortez’s tiny army, on top of the highest pyramid. That was no just religion, it was viciousness, and it fed the burning hatred of the Conquistadores…

When the plutocrats (“the Optimates”) took controlled of Rome, Caesar, and the Populares (Populists), and then finally the army, revolted. After Caesar’s assassination, Augustus’ hand was forced by centurions of his own legions. One of them went to the Senate, brandished his sword and said that, if the Senate didn’t give the right answer, his sword would.

What does that have to do with the present situation? The Populus Romanus got enraged against the Optimates (plutocrats). The problems were roughly as the USA and the West experience now: stagnation of incomes, services, quality employment, and healthcare (Caesar drained the malarial swamps). All of this because the rich were getting richer, to the point of confiscating most of economic activity to serve them.

The result was the Roman Revolution which Augustus led. That Revolution was bloodier than the French Revolution of 1789, by orders of magnitude. Millions died, in a civil war (the French Revolution was attacked from the outside, by all the Great European Powers. Internally, it was more terrifying than really mass-murderous).

So the burning question now is: how far down the process of hatred are our global plutocrats? How far down in their control of things? When the Optimates, the Roman plutocrats, hiding under the pretext of Republic, went to total war with the Populares (led by Caesar), they lost to Caesar, were forgiven, did it again, and were destroyed by Augustus (who had little choice in the matter, as the legions, led by their centurions, were enraged). 

The old Optimates got killed, but their spirit lived on, and was communicated to those who profited from their destruction. The bodies die, the spirit lives on…


The Dark Side is dark, because it works only when hidden, this is why the Greeks thought Hades/Pluto could make itself invisible. The truth is simple: in any established order, be they Dionysius I or Xi, Kim or Stalin, or Mussolini, or France, they and their countless servants and valets profit immensely (during the bloody and ultimately tyrannical Roman Revolution, millions initially profited: the army and the entire military-industrial complex sustaining it). This is beyond the phenomenon of classes (which evolve, once things stabilize). All this was fun and games, one has to die of something, some, like Lord Keynes, will observe… but now the stakes are higher: the existence of the spirit itself is on the verge of self-immolation.

Patrice Ayme  

Football Teaches Russia A Lesson

July 8, 2018

Plutocrat Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev looks dejected, while the president of Croatia celebrates.

President Croatia celebrating. Medvedev, a football fan (on the lower right) is experiencing pain.

I call Medvedev a plutocrat, be it only because he has been very powerful, for all too long, doing Putin dirty business. Also it has been alleged in detail, from different sources, that he is personally wealthy. An internationally renown bat researcher claimed he had to flee Russia for stumbling on Medvedev’s properties under construction, which destroyed caves in the Sochi area. A video by anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny purports to show “the vast trove of mansions, villas and vineyards accumulated” by Medvedev. Putin ex-wife, who had no discernable income or inheritance, ever, is also a multi-millionaire, with one property alone…


Friends again, at least for the next few minutes…

Russia has long felt rejected by the West. It has been. In a sense it was always from the east. Actually, the Rus, who founded Russia, where Swedes from eastern Sweden. The oldest human stock was, paradoxically, German: this is highly confusing: Germans used to live in the area more recent Germans considered peopled by Slavs (slaves). So the ancestry of Russia is a mix of Swedes, old Germans, and more recent Mongols (look at the Mongol style eyes of Lenin, Brezhnev, Putin…)

Viking colonization followed the network of mighty rivers of Russia, all the way to the Black Sea. Trade flourished, northern furs against all kinds of goodies from the south, Rome or the Muslim empires. It’s Ukraine which founded Rus, and then expanded east. Republics, such as Novgorod, appeared. Ukraine had seized Crimea from the Tartars, who, themselves had seized it from the Greco-Romans. Vladimir of Ukraine converted to Catholic Orthodoxy, eastern style.

The Russians were able to stop the eastward expansion of the Teutonic Knights. However, not the assault of the Mongols. The Mongols occupied Russia, massacring away. When the Mongols pushed further west, Western Europe united militarily, and the Mongol victories came with a heavy, unsustainable price. Then the Mongols remembered what happened to their ancestors the Huns when they invaded Gallia: they were utterly defeated, and owed their survival to the duplicity of the Roman commander Aetius (who had lived with the Huns prior). The war techniques of the Mongols were not adapted to wet,cold, forested areas. The superb bows would lose their snap, it would be impossible to move fast, etc.

The Mongols reached the Croatian coast and turned back (pretexting the election of the next Khan beckoned).

For many centuries Russia was occupied by savage invaders…

Yet the Golden Horde stayed in command of Russia, using Moscow as a tax collector. Ivan the Terrible would make Russia independent again. In the Russian psyche, a question looms: why didn’t the West call a Crusade to free Russia from the savages? First it was a problem of distance. Anne of Kiev, daughter of the Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev and Novgorod had married the king of France, Henri I in 1051 CE, and acquired a tremendous importance (she spoke 6 languages and found the French court uncouth; the king proudly signed his documents, mentioning Anne approved of them…). She had four children, including the next king Philip I of France. All subsequent French kings were her progeny. She made a scandalous second marriage (the husband, not her, was excommunicated). Anne never went back to Kiev (she was too important in France, but also it would take forever to go across Europe by land: the success of the Greco-Romans was maritime, sea transport being very fast and very cheap, relative to land transport.)


A refined analysis shows that the Cyrillic alphabet itself and the distanciation of Eastern Christianity from the Western one were deliberate: the Bulgarians and Constantinople wanted bad relationships with the Franks, they wanted to get, and keep them, alienated, and it worked!

Those Franks were the Eastern Franks, dominated by the Saxons whom Charlemagne had vanquished… And had become the pillars of the “Renovated Roman Empire”. In a further testimony to human frailty, after the alienation with the Franks was launched, Constantinople reached the apex of its power, around the year 1,000 CE. However, things turned quickly for the worse, and by the end of the Eleventh Century, the Franks had been called to the rescue, launching the First Crusade. Conclusion: alienation for alienation’s sake, should be avoided…

It is high time to bury the hatchet.

Football/Soccer helps, and that’s good.

Croatia beat Russia, barely, during the session of goal kicks. The Russians learned something again: that it is good never to forget: a nation of four millions can beat one of 144 millions (a lesson learned the hard way when Finland won quite a few battles against Russia in 1939-1940; then the USSR suffered five times the casualties of Finland, nearly 400,000…)

Russia found one more reason for paranoia in the 1990s: the US proposed its help, the best possible help, the one from places such as Harvard. But Harvard is, at least in the humanities, including politics and economy, is, at best, a conspiracy: it is there to make things better for the world plutocracy it partakes in. So the advice to Russia was to constitute a plutocracy founded on new stock issues. In my thought system in socioeconomy, Stalin’s rule was also a plutocracy, a plutocracy of the tyrannical type (tyran = unique): one man commanded the USSR and was the ultimate capitalist. The advice of Harvard was to constitute a diversified plutocracy (many plutocrats, not just one). Thus many Harvard professors and their ilk were able to profit (there was never a special prosecutor for that scandal).

The reaction was the ascent and popularity of Putin… And Putin military expansionism, the first such madness in Europe since Adolf Hitler’s pathetic little adventure.

The solution is diversification in very advanced technology… as China is doing. Paradoxically, China can do it better, because it’s more dictatorial… Also China believes it is high-tech for a few millennia. Putin had, long ago, proposed a strange alliance with the European Union, complete with Russian guns to protect Europe. This ignored the fact that the USA is not just a West European colony, but twice the child of France (through Great Britain, and also directly). Instead, Russia should remember it started as a European colony too. One of the reason of the spectacular ascendency of the USA has been enormous injection of financial capital, in the nineteenth century, and human capital, in the last two centuries, straight from Europe.

So Russia, should it want to develop must open to European immigration, technological, human and financial and to open to Europe in general: that could actually alleviate the migrant problem Europe is facing (a mild problem so far; but that could change).

The world cup is an open hand, and Trump, a practical man, is coming with another. Let the occasion be seized… And remember to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, this should be the top priority: an accident could happen so fast… The nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA are oversized. The French Republic, with its 600 (300 only announced, in a slight of hands) thermonuclear “oceanic” warheads has enough to decapitate all the major powers, together. So why do the US and Russia need ten times that?

Russia can, and should make friends with the West: with 70% more land area than the next continental sized countries (Canada, USA, China), and a warming climate, there is a lot to develop… With 1.5 billion Chinese ready to help, otherwise, as Stalin suddenly noticed to his own horror, when he finally understood what Mao was up to…

Patrice Ayme

Is There Hope? Kids Are More Into Delayed Gratification

July 6, 2018

Lord Keynes famously said:”In the long run, we are all dead.” In other words, don’t worry about it. He then help setup a socioeconomic system which quickly brought nearly 200 million dead (WWII plus the likes of Maoism). This is a danger, because acting crazy removes worries about the long run, so there is a “good” motivation to do so (however crazy that may sound). Humanity has to learn to think long term. Kids today are waiting longer than ever in the classic marshmallow test

Researchers who found the effect aren’t sure what’s driving this willingness to delay gratification

The hope is that, exposed to contemplating motivations all over the place, say in movies, children are more into meta-control, because they learned that motivation can go wrong, often driven by impatience. 

The test promises double the reward, if one holds out ten minutes. Over the past 50 years, white, middle-class kids have shown an increasing willingness to delay gratification on the marshmallow test.

The willingness to delay gratification has recently bloomed among U.S. preschoolers from predominantly white, middle-class families, say psychologist Stephanie Carlson of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and her colleagues. Youngsters aged 3 to 5 in the 2000s waited an average of two minutes longer during the marshmallow test than children in the 1960s did, and an average of one minute longer than 1980s kids did, the scientists report June 25 in Developmental Psychology.

Carlson’s team offers several possible explanations, including increases in the ability to think abstractly, pay attention, plan and prioritize that have been linked to preschool attendance and early use of digital information.

From the start, the marshmallow test has examined kids’ willingness to resist an available goody while waiting 10 to 15 minutes to receive double the edible pleasure. In this case, extra treats were doled out if a child waited a full 10 minutes for an experimenter who had left to return. .

The marshmallow test cannot determine a child’s future, but it is a reliable indicator of how well kids can reflect on a challenging situation and come up with strategies to achieve their goal,” “That may portend well for school and social situations.” Carlson said.

In the new study, the team analyzed and compared data from three groups of 3- to 5-year-olds: 165 kids who completed the marshmallow test between 1965 and 1969, 135 who did so between 1985 and 1989, and 540 tested between 2002 and 2012.

The average amount of time kids were willing to wait for a treat increased in each generation — from about five minutes in the ‘60s to six minutes in the ‘80s and seven minutes in the 2000s. That trend was observed among both boys and girls, younger and older preschoolers and kids in different parts of the United States.

It’s not known if the same trend applies to kids from poor and nonwhite families. Some previous evidence suggests children on the lower end of the economic scale often choose an immediate but lesser treat on the marshmallow test, Carlson says. That behavior makes sense if children live in unpredictable settings or don’t trust adults who promise future treat bonuses.

It is striking is that nearly 60 percent of preschoolers tested in the 2000s waited out the entire 10-minute delay period, versus almost 40 percent in the 1980s and about 30 percent in the 1960s. I believe this is due to the fact children are constantly exposed to scenarios in movies they watch (including of course cartoons)… And of course preschool, where they are exposed to adults who can be trusted.

Is humanity starting to think, and emote, long range, and long term? As lifespans expand, long range thinking will be the essence of survival.



Stoicism Is The Philosophy Dictatorship & Plutocracy Welcome

July 5, 2018

Modern “stoicism”, in the end, doesn’t seem significantly different from what modern no nonsense philosophy should be.

Overall, for me, stoicism was a philosophy made to go hand in hand with dictatorships: all stoic philosophers, think of it, operated under dictatorship. Had I been a dictator, like the Macedonians, I would have looked to the stoa mildly… Whereas Antipater and others wanted Demosthenes to die under torture. Were I Domitian, who expressed his hatred of philosophers, and, with his ultra wealthy friends, celebrated how they controlled Rome, I would have looked at Epictetus teaching in a benign fashion: they made us believe virtue was possible in a lethal dictatorship where not toeing the one and only party line meant death.

Domitian tolerated Stoicism. And killed any other creative thinking.

Do we need this now? Do we need to placidly contemplate and hone our own virtues while a few guys in charge prepare thermonuclear war, and civilization is under threat of imminent deconstruction? Or do we need passion, and start first with a feeling of rebellion, and proclaim that enough is enough?

For me the later, passion. And enough with my virtues, or those of other individuals I have come across: they are plenty enough. What we need is a virtuous government for the planet, and that request doesn’t come from humility, but rebellion and bold assertion of myself, and my ilk, as a role model!

The ultimate stoic is Seneca. He taught Nero, by age 11, and thereafter. Seneca covered Nero’s crimes, Seneca excused Nero’s crimes in front of the Senate. Seneca always say obvious things, prettily. Seneca is philosophical comfort food. Seneca is sucking on sweets all day long.

Stoicism is not just the philosophy dictatorship & plutocracy welcome, looking at the chronology and the evidence, one could say they invented it. So does stoicism have a future? Maybe, but then we don’t.

Patrice Ayme

Learn History Correctly, Repeat After Me: French Sun King Louis XIV Was an Abominable Butcher & Catastrophe

July 4, 2018

France is the historical core of civilization (the Frankish conquest of Europe didn’t happen just militarily, but philosophically). What exactly happened in French history and why informs the nature and evolution of civilization, it is way too important to be left to the French. Just a recent small example: This is because of the French obsession with Equality that “All men are created equal…” was added to the US Constitution, as its 14th Amendment, July 9, 1868 (belatedly following “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Constitution of 1789…)

Naturally, it turns out that some received truths in French history are atrocious lies. Many died, many more will, lest one explains what went wrong, one can dissect it now, thus enlightening future guidance through similar situations which will arise, or have already arisen.

Learning history is abominable, when it is fake history, whereas, it is excellent when it is correct history. Who, what, decides what is correct, and what’s not? The debate! It is wise to consider that those who refuse to debate, and whose logic is missing some dimensions keys to the debate are fake.  (I am having a one way debate with the plutocratic universities, so hopefully, they will lose!)

Studying historical texts is called historiography. It is increasingly helped by archeology, and new techniques such as histology, chemistry, genetics, nuclear physics, etc. It is also helped by the infusing of thinking by modern police methods.

Under Philippe IV Le Bel, by 1300 CE, a modern police force had evolved: all the Templar Knights were arrested at the same time (catching them by surprise, preventing armed resistance). The usage of torture was systematic, and gave excellent results in the pliers of dedicated specialists to find out what happened.  

However, statements made under torture couldn’t be used in court, by law. A century later, any torture of the famous warrior Joan of Arc was discussed and rejected, because the judges didn’t want her declarations to be stained by duress. By 1600 CE, torture was rarely used in France: the police methods were much more clever and the statements made were legally admissible.

Now historians going over 25 centuries old texts, using modern police smarts can guess what was really going on. For example at some point in Herodotus, a discourse of Themistocles the Athenian arch-general, famous victor of Salamis, there was what is after careful consideration, clearly a typo: a “your” was replaced by a “our”.  Police methods are used: general suspicion. For example Plutarch wrote extensively about Themistocles, but that is now put under the light of his systematic bias against the great Greek strategist. 

Louis XIV sent Dragons to live with Huguenots. Caption: Who can resist me is very strong; Force primes reason; “New Missionaries Under the Order of Louis The Great. The gun appears as an invincible reason, and the heretic signs his conversion…


Louis XIV was an abominable butcher and dictator. Louis XIV, on the face of it was a (“civil”) war criminal, a human right violator on such a scale he should have got life in prison. This is my overall opinion, although I do roughly agree with many of the compliments one usually offers to that monarch. However one tends to omit important dimensions of Louis XIV’s reign. Once one integrates them, the resulting overall mood is extremely critical.
Louis XIV was imprinted by the Fronde and his arrogant mother: “Monsieur, nous ne sommes pas en République” did she say to the head of the Paris Parliament (“Sir, weren’t in a republic”)

Louis XIV exhibited a first clear case of misbehaving when he cancelled the inquiry in the Affaires des Poisons, when it implicated his de facto second wife (“mistress”). He threw the whole file in the fire.

He also decided not to consult with the People anymore (“Etats Generaux”), and even cancelled consulting with the 17 or so Parliaments. Louis XVI would go back to these, a century later, but, by then, it was too late, after a century of autocracy.

The major disaster of Louis atrocious rule was the “Revocation de l’Edit de Nantes”, an edict of his grandfather making possible the life of Protestants in mostly Catholic France. The Revocation made life impossible for two million Protestants in France (10% of the population, often the most gifted). Most of them left, weakening France, and storing fuel for wars against Louis XIV, that is France. The result was the (world war) of the Spanish Succession, which ravaged Europe. That brought more than 1.2 million killed, a high percentage of the european population, and France lost sizable territory.

The admiration of the all too many French for Louis XIV is just as immoral and demented as the admiration for Napoleon (who stole the revolution for his personal profit), or Joan of Arc (a pawn of the queen of Aragon and the three other kingdoms, who relaunched the “100 years war”, initially a civil war, between the French and the French, which lasted, as a result, nearly five centuries)…

Louis XIV finally got some divine justice visited on him: nearly all his heir died, and he felt culprit of the death of his somewhat transgender brother. He took three weeks to die of gangrene, getting to smell as bad physically as he did spiritually. He accused his bad advisers to have misled him about the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. To his only surviving heir, his 5 year-old great-grandson, Louis XV he said, on his smelly deathbed: “Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects.”

This being said, some of the early wars of Louis XIV’s reign were good wars: the war with Spain had to be finished: Spain, a theocratic fascist state had fought France for two centuries, and was initially on a land grab motivated by extreme greed. France, after helping to give birth to the Netherlands, in an eighty year war, finally defeated the “Spanish Squares”. The specific badness of Spain emanated from the religious fanaticism of Catholicism. Louis XIV would marry the Infante of Spain, settling the confrontation, after Spain’s military defeat.

Louis XIV’s self-diagnosed disastrous reign explains why so many somewhat rabid German generals, for centuries to come had French names: they descended from French Protestant refugees… It also explains why France went from unquestioned first power in Europe into a questionable, much less enlightened entity. Now that process was already launched by Louis XI and Francois Premier. Francois Premier insisted to burn printers (although he stopped short of attacking directly famous surgeon and writer Rabelais..) The case of Louis XI, famous for putting his famous enemies in cages, is even more interesting: Louis XI protected the Huguenots with the French army!

That puts the fanaticism of Louis XIV, two centuries later in an even more brutal light. I repeat: Louis XI, often derided as a cruel king,  actually protected the Protestants (by the way, that was before Luther, who was born in 1483, the same year when Louis XI died… showing that, to the surprise of the Anglo-Saxon-centric view, Protestantism was much older than Luther, and emanated from France. So Louis XIV destroyed a remarkable French invention. He was not just a destroyer, he was anti-French. Yes, I repeat: who is, for some the quintessential incarnation of Frenchitude, Louis XIV, was actually anti-French! His wanton destruction of France was no happenstance, but a system (something he recognized, as accused his “advisers”, at the end of his life)


Louis XIV could be prudent: asked by the king of England to help him out against the rebels, with the French army, the world’s mightiest, he declined (but accepted his family as refugees). However that one backfired as the Dutch new king of England was determined to destroy Louis XIV (always that revocation: the Netherlands was full of Protestants).

And Louis XIV did some good things: He financed a lot of arts, intelligentsia and science (famously financing the Dutch physicist Huyghens, the earliest theoretician of waves…)

But, once again, what matters first is the first order of things: Louis XIV was a disaster for France and Europe.

Louis himself said it, as the disease was devouring him and he rotted away. His doctor asked him if he hurt. Louis replied:”What hurts me even more is to see my people suffering.”

Well, one has to get it right cognitively speaking. Out of brutish ignorance, grows pain.

And for those who, to this day, don’t see Louis’ reign for what he saw it: there is something wrong with your cognitive system. Louis XIV was not just about France. France was central to the Enlightenment, and Louis wore its clothes roudly, claiming to be Enlightened him: that’s implicit in “Sun King”! However, Louis XIV set up the mood for Hitler. Actually Prussia became racist against Jews and Poles AFTER Louis XIV hunted the Huguenots as if they were poorly educated pests. Successful hatred and racism breed and multiply. Those who still tolerate the Self-worshiping Louis XIV are part of the problem. They may say, they will say:’Oh, we didn’t know!” However, then, why do you admire who you don’t know? Because you admire the thought systems which make worshiping strong men glorious? But isn’t that a more general, hence greater evil?

Patrice Ayme

Must A Reserve Currency Explode The Trade Balance? No! Just Look! Also: Avoiding Slavery Is No Socialism!

July 3, 2018

Established economists say that Trump doesn’t understand the nature of the dollar: its status as world reserve currency causes a trade deficit for the USA. Really? It takes one look at one graph, while knowing the USA conspired to make the dollar official world currency in 1944. (And when the French Dominique Strauss Kahn tried otherwise, as head of IMF, he soon fell to a huge sex prosecution, out of which nothing came, except the destruction of his career. That would teach all those who, like DSK, pretend to follow the exact same idea Lord Keynes had in 1944… when Keynes chaired the Bretton Woods conference!) WTF? 

I have a Facebook friend who is a fanatical anti-Trump, she retweets anti-Trump material frequently. 2 days ago she put out 2 posts (retweeting from overseas oversea junk) which were deeply offensive. One extolled a woman cop killer; the young mom he had killed was unarmed; the other compared Trump to Hitler, and emanated from Germany, supporting whom I call Merkler (for her economic war against the Greeks and others… which has killed many).

My friend didn’t know her (French) jailbreaker hero was an unarmed-woman-officer killer (because my friend doesn’t know much about Europe). Neither did my friend, who has socialist pretentions, know Merkel was a fascist exploiter hiding under a “left” immigration policy (importing slaves to better exploit the working class). My friend took down both posts (and my smart comments, unfortunately!). We are still friends. Some of the political hysteria is just misunderstanding. For example, do conventional economists misunderstand what causes the deficit? If we can’t learn to live with (some) intolerance, we aren’t tolerant.

Another friend, an economist objected to my playing dumb in economic matters. I had asserted there was no connection between reserve status and deficit (contrarily to what self-declared “liberal” economists say). To the price of starting a squirmish with dropping a thermonuclear warhead on the opposition, here is the proof:

Those Who Brought You Reagan, Brought You the Trade Deficit. Economists of the Clinton-Obama persuasion say the dollar as reserve caused the deficit. This is obviously false: the dollar has been a reserve currency for about a century, and officially since 1944. However, there was no sizable deficit before Reagan. Reagan was a tool of global plutocrats, so the deficit exploded under him, right away. He was succeeded by G. Bush, who knew all too well where real power was an re-established the balance. But then came the stooges of plutocracy, and they let the deficit fly, as their masters told them to. The idea was to weaken American US unions, workers, and citizenry.

Eugen Roden wrote:

“Even if it is hard to believe, that you Patrice don’t understand how reserve currency will necessarily create deficit, I will do my best to explain to you and to your followers in a very easy way, why [the status of the dollar as] reserve currency necessarily creates deficit in US.

Reserve currency means,  that the currency is saved in other countries, than [the] country of its origin. It can be done by private corporations or public entities,  or even private individuals, who prefer to hold the reserve currency, as media of savings, because of the trust [they have] in it, compared to the local currency.  By doing so, they create demand for the money itself, as if it would be commodity or item of value by itself. And the truth is the reserve currency is an item of value, because of the trust people all over the world put in it. This trust is result of long history of reserve currency origin country’s military dominance,  democratic political system, free competitive market economy and unchallenged right for private property and wealth. China, even with its size of economy, (a bigger economy than that of US, not in nominal but real terms) doesn’t have a reserve currency, because it couldn’t create the trust in its sincerity in most of the above mentioned issues.  Europe succeeded only partly in making the Euro a reserve currency, because of its history of because of the world wars it initiated, and their economic consequences on Europe. Even 70 years of peace was not enough to create enough trust in Europe, to make from its currency a reserve currency comparable to US dollar, which has a history of continuous respect for the values mentioned above, since its declaration of independence.

The need for reserve currency exists,  to create trust in local currencies, based on these reserves. Just as in the past precious metal reserves, like gold or silver, made the currencies trustworthy, today holding of US dollars makes local currencies trustworthy.

But then if there is demand for reserve currency,  not as media of exchange, but as value holding item, its price, or exchange value will be influenced by this demand, without the question if exists enough additional production capacity to satisfy the value of potential demand that reserve currency promises. But then the relative prices in the country of origin of reserve currency,  have to be higher than in countries who accumulate the reserve currency, that has to create surplus in trade with reserve currency origin country, to be capable to accumulate these reserves. Such a surplus can be created only if the local currency value is undervalued compared to the reserve currency. Then the other side of this surplus has to be the deficit of the reserve currency origin country.”


Too Much Reserve Makes You Deficient?

The argument seems partially to be that, to create a store of dollars overseas, one needs to send said dollars there, to start with: a deficit. The graph of the deficit from the Federal Reserve which I put on top shows this is not correct: a continual flow of dollars is not needed to entertain a stash. A stash is a stash, it’s not a current.

OK, so we need X amount of dollars to create an overseas dollars stash. Say that stash is $10 trillion (a large overestimate). That’s 25 years at the present rate of deficit with China alone. And the stash existed before, it started before 1945. And also 4 trillion dollars of the stash is unpaid taxes by US corporations…

Moreover, consider, say, Argentina. It has a dollar stash. However the US has long exported cars to Argentina, so how did the stash develop? Through plutocratic mechanisms involving either tax cheating (laundered Argentine currency) or US plutocrats buying vast tracts of the country (also done in Chili).

In any case, the fact that the US dollar is considered reserve doesn’t mean one needs to have a deficit! And the fact is the US has been reserve since 1944 (after cheating Lord Keynes who didn’t want the $ as reserve, and headed Bretton Woods, but documents were switched!) There was no deficit for decades! And the fact is the massive deficit with China and Germany, or Ireland are recent. And the fact is, Germany has used its bankrupt small banks to self-finance its massive export machine, even within Europe…

And the fact is, the industrial core of the USA in the Middle West, got gutted, although it had a large educated population, and lots of fossil fuel energy. I say it got gutted precisely because it was educated (and thus a risk). Unions used to be hyper powerful in the USA, now they are near nothing…

Trade is good, exporting work, exporting ALL work, is bad… Yes, Merkler, 44% unemployment in Greece thanks to YOUR policies, was a terrible thing. Yes, the Greek government was an accomplice, an accomplice of you and your ilk. But We The People of Greece was innocent.

There are legal incentives to exporting job overseas, because corporate plutocrats told politicians to pass such friendly laws: watch how wealthy the Clintons are. And now the Bamas. Bahamas Bamas: a jungle rhythm. Main offenders in trade should be punished, until they cease and desist:

  • China/Hong Kong exported to the US 3 times as much as it imported from the US.
  • Japan exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Germany exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Ireland “exported” to the US 32 times as much as France, per capita, all of it being tax evasion by US corporations.

Notice that the French Republic should not save Merkler’s skin: whereas Europe didn’t have the muster to correct the exporting and exploiting ways of Merkler’s Germany, Trump does, and Southern Europe (that includes France, which is both northern and southern…) should enjoy the shooting down of the Merkler vulture by Trump, hopefully ending the austerity which has, and is destroying Europe (see Brexit).


Krugman, Smelling Blood In Global Plutocratic Waters, Turning “Socialist”?

Krugman blocked and banned my comments for years, presumably because they were “socialist” (what else? I supported Sanders, Krugman dined with the devils, including Obama and Clinton, and took systematically anti-“socialist” position). But now he is changing. Suddenly, “Radical Democrats Are Pretty Reasonable“, opines Paul.

A “Socialist” newcomer young woman defeated the fourth ranking democrat in Congress in New York.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset primary victory has produced a huge amount of punditry about the supposed radicalization of the Democratic party, how it’s going to hurt the party because her positions won’t sell in the Midwest… But I haven’t seen much about the substance of the policies she advocates, which on economics are mainly Medicare for All and a federal job guarantee.

So here’s what you should know: the policy ideas are definitely bold, and you can make some substantive arguments against them. But they aren’t crazy. By contrast, the ideas of Tea Party Republicans are crazy…

Ocasio-Cortez’s positions: Medicare for all is a deliberately ambiguous phrase, but in practice probably wouldn’t mean pushing everyone into a single-payer system. Instead, it would mean allowing individuals and employers to buy into Medicare – basically a big public option. That’s really not radical at all.”


A hefty minimum wage is not a question of having it more social, it’s a question of avoiding a slave society:

Medicare for all was proposed by yours truly, more than a decade ago: the idea is to open Medicare to all… As long as they pay the cost of insuring themselves. As Medicare is not for profit and is huge (economies of scale), it would be cheaper than ANY private health plan. So Medicare for All would quickly devour for profit healthcare gouging. My friend Obama meekly proposed it to his cabinet, which unanimously rejected it in favor of giving subsidies to healthcare billionaires, their sponsors (“Romneycare aka, Obamacare”).

Employment for all, as presently done in the USA is a good thing… Except if people work for free, in which case that’s called slavery. Thus, to avoid slavery, a hefty minimum wage insuring minimum living standards, in particular the capability of affording a home. In places like Oakland, California, or cities around, with all those jobs, a minimum one bedroom is $3,000 a month. That’s 36K a year. Cities around Oakland are instituting a minimum wage of $15. That boils down to 30K a year, working full-time, 2,000 hours a year: not enough to afford a roof! Thus college professors in San Jose have been observed, sleeping in cars….

$15 an hour is not socialism, it’s not even, a realistic minimum wage in the most booming part of the US. It is just an effort to avoid a slave society.

We are all socialist, just as we are all progressive. Just as we have to be somewhat conservative (to save the planet). The only question is how much. Not whether. 
Patrice Ayme

FAKE THINKING: That FAKE “FRENCH THEORY”, Now Complete With Highly Honored Fascist Spy!

July 1, 2018

Just when you thought things couldn’t get more ridiculous in the highest circles…



The worst problem with fake news is that it leads to erroneous thinking… and erroneous emotions. And then vicious tribalization.

Rousseau famously claimed everywhere he looked, people were in chains. Well, not really in literal chains, it’s worse. Instead people willingly, proudly, and comfortably, wear minds which subjugate them. Minds addicted to the power of fake thinking! The most fundamental form of fakery in establishing erroneous thinking takes real facts, but makes the logic whatever it wants, by selecting said facts carefully (an example is much of the theories about WWI). Now we have way worse.

Yes, there is also fake emoting, as in the “unboxing” of brainless corrupt “YOUtubers”, generally involving parents prostituting their children (should be unlawful).(Yes YOUTube is part of the Google “no-evil” empire.) As mercantilism has invaded all behaviors, the spectrum of mental diversity has shrunk below a shrinkwrap of overwhelming greed.

Fake thinking is devouring the world: see (in the notes below) the tribal attacks against Senator Sanders by pseudo-progressives, or the demand, in France by similar pseudo-progressives to have the “white persons” separate from the alleged victims.

A main mechanism of fake thinking, going back to Herder (18C), claims that it is not reasoning which matters to certify truth, but which tribe you identify with. (Or get forcefully identified with.) This was one of the main underlying principles of Nazism, but it also underlays any totalitarianism: any totalitarian regime embraces minds totally as tribes do, so it’s inherently harnessing all the tribal instincts.

The inclination to be seduced by that sort of incorrect thinking, its entanglement with tribalism, had a huge impact on the Twentieth Century; it is the root of all its ills.


300 hundred pages showing one of the most celebrated French Theory intellectual was just a butcher of a dictatorship. It’s not just politicians like Clinton or Obama (Netflix!) who get paid to express thoughts conducive to the domestication and subjugation of “We The People”. Most prominent intellectuals are in payments situations: they are paid to play. Many of the most officially respected intellectuals of the Twentieth Century were worthless scums, and worse: Consider Heidegger, Brasillach, and an entire herd of German. Julia Kristeva, who has been showered with honors for her thinkerism was an agent of the Bulgaria’s State Security services, the Darjavna Sigournost, the Bulgarian KGB, a criminal organization organizing assassinations of human rights activists on foreign soil, while Kristeva was doing the bed of French intellectuals. A meta analysis of her conceptology shows her to be mad, abject and totalitarian… BTW, she denies being a spy although the evidence is overwhelming, and online, nearly 300 pages of it. Of course, Harvard supports Kristeva the liar. Will the French take away her title of “Commandeur de la Légion d’Horreur”? That’s the honorable thing to do! Otherwise the horror becomes blatant!

(There is a long tradition of intellectuals paid to influence the public, and, or leaders. Plato was exhibit number one, as he entangled himself so deeply with two successive tyrants of Syracuse, the first one ended up selling him as a slave. Aristotle was even worse: he may single-handedly have launched two millennia of monarchy. Socrates was executed for having been the teacher, influencer, lover


FAKE Thinking Made The Germans Criminally Insane In World War One & Two:

Indeed, much of the conventional version of many a history is fake, because ultra significant dimensions have been omitted. Deliberately. By malevolent actors. This enables malevolent actrs to seize, or keep power. And soon the reality that these other crucial factors existed gets forgotten.


The history of World War One and World War Two are full of those. Fake versions of what really happened, alleged histories before, during and after World War One were the main logics which enabled the Nazis to be elected to power.

A particularly spectacular instance occured when a British general talked to Ludendorff, the effective head of the German army, in a cafe in Germany, around a table, after the German defeat. Ludendorff explained to his British colleague why he would have, for sure, won the war, but for the betrayal by German Commies and other saboteurs. The British officer, not believing one word of it, sneered back:”So you would have won, if you had not been stabbed in the back?” Ludendorff, delighted, opined. Ludendorff would soon help found the Nazi Party around a couple of ideas like that. He was the basic founder of Nazism, even before Hitler was sent to spy on it (and named it!).

So Ludendorff turned around an idea which was originally meant to be a scathing critique, and made it in one the sacrosanct Nazi myths: Germany lost WWI only because it had been stabbed in the back by bad actors, including, but not limited to Communists and Jews. So eliminating those would make Germany win, next time. (That was obviously false: the two Battles of the Marne which the French military won in September 1914 and July 1918 are the proximal causes of German defeat. And there is a whole cortege of causes after that, of a purely military nature: had not the US helped Germany in 1914-1917, the German defeat under Franco-German blockade would have been much earlier!)

Most Germans ended up believing that, indeed, they had been stabbed in the back… by other Germans: therein a key element of the so-called Holocaust (actually not everything burned!)


Yesterday’s Lies Still Animating The World:

This is not just history. A similar flawed idea, launched this time by Lord Keynes, a key architect of the present, flawed world order, hated the Versailles Treaty… and especially the Poles. Thus was born the theory that the Versailles Treaty caused the Great Depression (a ridiculous idea, but basically written down inside Keynes’ work) and legitimate German gripes (entirely valid, if one believes, as Keynes did, that Germany should be the owner and sole proprietor of Eastern Europe!

To this day, the lie that the Versailles Treaty, and thus France, caused Nazism is learned, by rote in US schools. The next step is that Americans believe that France collaborated with Hitler (whereas the French empire declared war to the Axis, suffering in the process 2 million dead!).

France should sue about such lies. This is not a far fetched notion: Poland tried to pass a law that Auschwitz shouldn’t be depicted as a “Polish” camp. Global plutocrats, mostly in the US and Israel, just forced the Poles to withdraw their law! Thus proving that such laws, punishing lies, are indeed very dangerous for the established order! (I support laws against holocaust denials, but please notice the plural I use…)


French Theory Accompanied, Chronologically US Plutocratization, No Accident:

Starting in the 1950s, great US plutocratic universities’ “Humanities” departments fell in love with a galaxy of French thinkers.

Some say “deconstruction” is “French Theory” main axis… As if all thinkers thinking creatively didn’t have to deconstruct, ever since there are primates and they create!

So forget that. The main axis of “French Theory” has been the claim that all systems of thought are tribal. Yes, the tribe is what makes the thought.

The French Theory’s main authors were many: Louis Althusser, Jean Baudrillard, Simone de Beauvoir, Hélène Cixous, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Félix Guattari, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Rancière, Monique Wittig et Pierre Bourdieu.

Some US thinkers duplicating French theory were: Judith Butler, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Stanley Fish, Edward Said, Richard Rorty, Fredric Jameson, Avital Ronell, Donna Haraway

De Beauvoir was a Nazi propagandist, Kristeva an agent of criminal mafia of assassins…

Well known nice charming little philosopher Martha Nussbaum from the University of Chicago suggested that the abstruseness is calculated to awe the naive (and as I will repeatedly explain below, not only, there is a much greater plutocratic scheme at work):

“Some precincts of the continental philosophical tradition, though surely not all of them, have an unfortunate tendency to regard the philosopher as a star who fascinates, and frequently by obscurity, rather than as an arguer among equals. When ideas are stated clearly, after all, they may be detached from their author: one can take them away and pursue them on one’s own. When they remain mysterious (indeed, when they are not quite asserted), one remains dependent on the originating authority. The thinker is heeded only for his or her turgid charisma.”

Here is an excerpt from an interview in which Noam Chomsky (something of a famous obscurantist himself, linguistically speaking) excoriates the unreadable Jacques Derrida and misogynistic Jacques Lacan, along with Lacan’s superstar disciple, Slovenian fashionable murky “Marxist” theorist Slavoj Žižek, for covering up intentionally below obscure, inflated, misleading language to make trivial “theories” seem profound. Chomsky  (himself prone to all too easy, inflated claims) calls Lacan a “total charlatan.”And indeed.

The “French Theory” is fascist (any follower of Marx is, by definition a fascist, as Marx advocated “dictatorship”… a concept on the face of it way worse than the original Roman concept of fascism). The “French Theorists” lined up against the, student led, genuine thinking led May 68 uprising. They pretended it was “insufficiently proletarian”. The problem here is that the “Proletariat” notion was the lowest of the low, originally (the concept goes back to Rome, once again). Why should the lowest of the low lead? They are genetically (modern science shows) unable to do so. Indeed Marx was from a very wealthy family, and he got angry when Prussia undercut the family vineyard side business. Hardly a member of the “proletariat”. His colleague, friend and sponsor Engels was outright a plutocratic heir.

Sollers, Kristeva’s lover, chief editor of “Tel Quel” hailed from a family of very wealthy Bordeaux industrialists, pontificated during May 1968: “All revolution can only be Marxist-Leninist!” Lenin, a co-conspirator of the German Kaiser who launched WWI, instituted Marxist terror, extermination camps, assassinate the Czar entire family, and entrusted the giant empire to Stalin, a reconverted seminarist turned gangster…

Then, as the appeal of Soviet degenerated terror faded away, the “French Theorists” embraced Maoist China. Kristeva celebrated traditional upper class Chinese foot binding as “empowering”… just as killing Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich in 1972 was “necessary”. Sollers later wrote an article “Why I was Chinese“. No, he was not “Chinese”, he was pro-dictatorship oppressing China and killing millions of Chinese…


Why did all this “French Theory” happen, and why did it become so popular?

Because it replaced The Enlightenment by Obscurantism. Idiotic theories were born, as from Edward Said, claiming one can’t talk about the “Orient” if one is not from there, otherwise one is an “Orientalist” (notice the analogy with “racist”). Instead I say it as it is: The Levant, and North Africa have been occupied, for 13 centuries by a succession of dictatorships hiding behind a fascist, militaristic religion, the ultimate metaphysical excuse, enforced by lethal threats within the religion.

Who profits from replacing Enlightenment by Obscurantism? Well, those who prosper from the Dark Side, that’s why it is called the Dark Side: its workings, emotions, logics are all obscure, many have to go unsaid. In particular plutocrats, and, more prosaically monopolistic technology exploiters such as Google and its YouTube channel, which prostitute children by the thousands… And instituted the global trade system which is boosting their already enormous powers, quickly!


“FRENCH THEORY” IS FAKE, And We Already Saw that Sort Of Fake “Thinkery” In Athens, 24 Centuries Ago:

“Thinkery” is an excellent concept originated by Aristophanes, a conspiracy of those determined to drag thinking in the mud. I believe that much intellectual activity in France in the Twentieth Century, among the most renown so-called “intellectuals” was fake. It was even worse than the works of “new philosopher” Bernard Henri Levy, a poster boy of the reaction against “French Theory” (and thus little appreciated in academe, but with his even more powerful networks; ultimately they served the same master, global plutocracy!)

“French Theory” was all about self-promotion, self-dealing… just like BHL who got huge subventions for French governments, as part of “France-Afrique”, making him a billionaire. Such was the corruption in French “intellectual” circlesu

The “philosophers” had sometimes the right idea, or two just like broken clocks do. But, mostly they were themselves engaged in a vast conspiracy which pretended that all systems of thought had no more validity than any other conspiracy organized by any other tribes. Pivotal to “French Theory” was something called “structuralism”. An idiotic notion: mental structures are everywhere. Speaking of “Structuralism” is as smart as thinking of “Thinkerism”.

Actually, when Aristophanes made fun of that other self-promoting idiot, Socrates, in “The Clouds” he made Socrates founder of the “Thinkery”….  

  1. What’s the difference between a Mafioso and a structuralist?
  2. The latter makes you an offer that you can’t understand.

The Clouds was a comedy of ideas, but it is also deadly, lethal stuff. Socrates undermined Athens. “French Theory” undermined more than civilization, thinking itself. Aristophanes exposes the idiotic theories of Socrates and his plutocratic accomplices, and observes they are so asmart, they make people believe in the most aburd notions, even about physical reality.

And this is exactly what happened: Aristotle, the philosophical grandson of socrates invented his thoroughly idiotic physics, which ruled until Buridan in Paris, a towering genius, demolished it around 1350 CE, seventeen centuries later (Aristotle had forgotten about friction; Buridan re-established it, and simplified all by discovering what is now called Newton’s First and Second law, in his impetus theory).

Plato considered The Clouds a significant contribution to Socrates’ trial and execution in 399 BCE. Well, indeed, and for very good reasons… One can’t just spend all of one’s time as Socrates did, riling against democracy (and science) teaching viciousness to the youth, when the democracy is close to extinction, to the point they lead a dictatorship against it. It is no coincidence that plutocrats and their schools have loved Socrates and his spiritual descendants, Plato and Aristotle. My logic is more historically informed than is usual among philosophers whose expertise is generally restricted to quoting dead people, not the fact which explain them. Aristotle gave, in his attack against democracy the arch example of self-dealing fake thinking. He should be repudiated:ARISTOTLE DESTROYED DEMOCRACY

Athenian civilization was killed by plutocrats, first Macedonian plutocrats, then Republican Roman plutocrats , then, another six centuries later, by Roman Catholic theo-fascist plutocrats… In the latter case the Athenian “thinkeries” were outright closed, because they displeased Christ (admittedly a susceptible moron).


“French Theory” became a Trojan Horse against civilization, and even thinking in general:

This attack against humanity, thus We The Peoples” of France and the West, in particular, left the field to global, tax free, working class free, law and regulations free plutocrats. That was the use of this apparently arcane and useless exercise, that was why “French Theory” became popular in the top (most plutocratic) universities.

Just as Socrates “Thinkery” undermined Athens, with his absurd theories, the “French Theory” thinkery undermined thinking itself.

How did “French Theory” do that? By barking up wrong trees frantically, “French Theory” prevented mental activity to be directed where it should have been. Thus French Theory hid the real problems. Most “French Theorists” were in love with fascist dictatorships (Kristeva being a perfect example, first a Bulgarian agent, then a Maoist propagandist, like  the ridiculous Sartre and his ilk. That made them rather similar to Aristotle, the lover, or teacher of Macedonian tyrants (Philippe, Alexander, Antipater, etc.)


Shooting De Beauvoir:  

The big mistake of the Versailles Conference of 1919 was not to have shot the top 1,000 leaders of Germany. Those monsters had caused an enormous world war which killed dozens of millions (including the epidemics and other health disasters they caused, like the “Spanish” flu and famines; concentration of armies lead to epidemics, that was well known, even 25 centuries ago). As they escaped punishment, they got ready to do it again, even worse. Hence not executing those 1,000 German traitors against civilization led straight to Nazism. And the head had to be punished. Nietzsche saw that clearly by 1880 CE.

The mood of love of dictatorship was central to “French Theory”. Marx and the Kaiser and Lenin, partook in the same mentality of the love of violence, terror, dictatorship, and “French Theory” extolled it. (The Kaiser used Lenin and his top accomplices to sabotage Russia, in a most striking conspiracy.)

This love for horror and tyranny should be viewed as turning most of the famous, publicity greedy practitioners of “French Theory” into obvious traitors, not just Simone De Beauvoir. De Beauvoir was a high level Nazi propagandist working at Radio Vichy as late as 1944!  Never mind. If you point that out at Harvard, they probably feel you are unworthy to be on a campus, on any university campus.

Simone De Beauvoir could have been shot in 1944, for having worked as a Nazi propagandist at a very high level earlier that year (As a teacher, she shouldn’t have needed the money). That she wasn’t shot, or even judged, tells volume about high level corruption in French intellectual circles! (France executed 40,000 Nazi collaborators, and  thousands did less than De Beauvoir!)

This is not so far fetched: the famous writer Brasillach was condemned to death (for Nazi propaganda). To spare himself penetration by red hot bullets, he sent De Gaulle (then president) a sob story to spare him that pain and indignity. De Gaulle refused: an example had to be made, a bit as one was made in Athens with Socrates in roughly similar circumstances. So Brasillach was executed. Much later, photographs showing he observed the massacre of innocent people by the Nazis, surfaced. In that particular case, De Gaulle acted well, rejecting the sob story appeal Brasillach wrote to him directly.


Today’s Plutocracy Arose directly From French Theory:

The  nefarious work of many other experts of “French Theory” was more destructive: by making fun of thinking itself to the point of annihilating it, they worked against civilization, and for the great empires, those of Stalin and Nixon/McCarthy, and Mao… And now their successors. The mission of these fake intellectuals, whether they realized it, or not, unwittingly or not, the reason why they were so rewarded. was to make fake thinking fashionable.

Fundamentally, the fakery of the obscurantist thinkery known as “French Theory” destroyed the Enlightenment in France, and the USA, hence the world. Preparing thus the mindset for ever greater inequalities, by abrading the very sense of what it meant to think critically.
This is also why so many intellectuals embraced  too much tolerance for Islamism, a terroristic system of thought Voltaire himself had condemned as stridently as he condemned Catholicism, for the same reasons (Voltaire’s critique of Islam is now censored in Europe, something which goes hand in hand with “French Theory”)

Those fake intellectuals succeeded in imposing their fake pursuits as all the truth we could aspire to. So now what is officially viewed as higher philosophy is pretty such a lie that it diverts any efficient critique against the established order.

That one of the most obvious fakers in the world was viewed as a a top, most honored, philosopher for so long, is revealing of the heights fake thinking reached. Yes, Julia Kristeva, was just a Bulgarian spy sent by a terrible dictatorship. She embraced tyrants, worked for them, she is an enemy of thought, her followers are despicable, that pretty much sums it up.


As Corrupt As It Gets:

When the Nazis came to power, young punk, pseudo-philosopher Heidegger, an ex-seminarist (like Stalin) cow splattering proto-Nazi BS, put a Nazi uniform, became chief of his university, and proceeded to fire all Jews and dissidents. What “French Theorists” did was even worse, because they had much more influence.

When the Soviet tanks invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, to crush democracy there, the foremost media of the “French Theory” celebrated that. The criminal idiot Sollers said it was to celebrate “his love for Kristeva” (the Bulgarian agent above, one of Europe, doomed Europe, most honored “intellectuals”, just referred to). One is talking as bad as intellectual corruption can go here. And make no mistake: such “intellectuals” are as, or more rotten than the worst “Big Capitalists”. They can be much worse, because they have more mind binding impact on the people at large. Certainly Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism were intellectual phenomena first: and they were inspired by… Marxism (a fact about Nazism that is little known, although Hitler wrote it explicitly!)

“Oh, I tried the Left Bank. At university I used to go with people who walked around with issues of Tel Quel under their arms. I know all that rubbish. You can’t even read it.”

— Philip Roth, The Counterlife

I did more than ‘try the Left Bank‘. I actually lived and studied there. But I lived and studied the real thing, all the way back, melding in spirit with the ruins of the Roman City still visible there.

The history of Western Civilization had ups and down, when Paris, for centuries, was the West’s largest city and the center of its intellectual life, it was considered an obvious notion known by all, that the “translatio imperii”, the translation of command, of intellectual command, had gone from Athens (not Rome) to Paris. When Athens had confronted, and fought to death Persia, and nearly two centuries later, Macedonia, moving Athens to Italy was considered, or even to move her further west with the help of Massalia (the Etruscans, 9 centuries earlier had moved from the Levant to Tuscany, to grab the iron mines)… Marseilles, which was the Greek city which stayed independent from Rome the longest (succumbing to Julius Caesar)… And which was first to measure the Earth (and very accurately), was ready to help.  

The Macedonian fascists found several treacherous Athenian intellectuals (cum politicians) of tremendous influence such as Aeschines to help them out in their war against Athenian democracy. The Nazis could have been stopped easily, had the US Republic lined up with its parents and creator, France, as it should have. But guess what, US intellectuals, supposing they exist, failed completely that way. And to this day, they fail: they are still making excuses for not having fought the Nazis, dropping the french Republic, the Jews, humanity and German generals, in one fell swoop…


You Want Nice? Then Start Thinking so hard that you get it right! 

Real thinking requires humility and clarity, and, above all, realism. In particular having the courage of calling thugs, thugs, and idiots, idiots. Not polite? Not the point! Not everything is positive: there are no peaks without abysses at their feet!

One can’t have democracy without much more power than potential opponents, as Athens found the hard way, taking 2,300 years to recover (partially). Many good willing progressives don’t understand this. A dependance of Enlightenment, goodness upon the Dark Side is not comfortable! However, the story doesn’t stop here.

Indeed, if democracy, civilization, human existence and thinking can’t survive without the Dark Side, the Dark Side has to be managed well. That is both unavoidable, and at the core of progress, and even viability. The “French Theory”, following the most prominent parts of Marx’s mood, made such an advocacy of evil for evil’s sake, that they durably poisoned progressivism… to the point Islamism came to be viewed as progressist… just as Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascismo, Maoism, Castrism, even Chavism came to be viewed as good and true.

In the end, that served only the forces of plutocracy, and this is why “French Theory” is so popular in the wealthiest, most plutocratic universities, where they teach spectacular lies such that the French Republic caused Nazism by insisting (with the US, truth be told) that countries such as Poland or Czechoslovakia, or Hungary should be free of German hegemony and occupation and racism and exploitation. Or that the US let Nazism happen because it was “isolationist” (when in truth it was actively pro-Nazi and acted AGAINST the German military when the German military basically asked them for authorization to make a coup against the Nazis), or that the USA didn’t nothing against the Holocaust because they didn’t know (French and Polish governments knew, in details and informed the US ), or that, another great lie, that the US government gave half of europe to the butcher Stalin because there was no choice (Patton could have been in Moscow within months, or Berlin in days, had he been given the go-ahead). And so on.

So many lies, and they call it history. So many absurdities, and they call it “French Theory”. It’s no theory, just something to make us all stupid and discouraged, so we can be better exploited.

Patrice Ayme



Note 1 Sanders as anti-progress, because he is for content, not tribe, is itself an example of fake thinking.

Once Bernie Sanders said in a famous statement that it’s not enough for somebody to say, “I’m a Latina, vote for me… What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry. For this Sanders was hated by loud pseudo-feminists and pseudo-transgenders (some people have considered me transgender too, and I am certainly feminist, thus, I feel very relaxed about denouncing the exploiters of these notions, having been called pejoratively everything).

(Attack against Sanders by pseudo-left look divisive, and of course they are. Such people are paid for division… by the powers which profit from division.)


Note 2: Consider World War One inception. What’s the real truth (according to me)?  As I have explained, six men at the top of Germany planned a world war.


Note 3:  The betrayal of progress by all too many French intellectuals is an ongoing process: watch French mathematician and Fields Medal Villani, a self-obsessed villain who spends lots of time being taken in pictures, posing this way and that, playing special, singing the praises of the hyper terrorist Algerian Front National de Liberation, FNL, an Islamizing terrorist mafia holding Algeria in its grip since De Gaulle, himself a double dealing racist, gave the country to them (so they better destroy it? That 47 years of iron grip dictatorship hundreds of thousands of Algerians killed (official reckoning)… and Villani loves it, in the great tradition of “French Theory”, where, the higher the body count, the greater the truth…

Villani is a Macron MP, who, fundamentally, spits on France by insisting that those who helped explode bombs, against innocent french civilians, are, fundamentally hero. Villani’s logic of horror and terror is of greatest help to the Islamists, Said Salah Abdeslam, sole survivor of the assassins who killed and wounded 500 innocent civilians in Paris, November 13, 2015: “Muslims defend themselves against those who attack them. Put aside your anger, and reason for a few moments, you are victims of the errors of your leaders.” (Original French: “les musulmans se défendent contre ceux qui les attaquent. Mettez votre colère de côté et raisonnez quelques instants, vous ne subissez que les erreurs de vos dirigeants.”)

This is exactly vilain Villani’s logic. Villani goes even further, as he wants to honor the terrorists… In Villani’s academic circles, this is well considered, and they pluff themselves with their importance and humanity, not understanding for a second that they serve those who control power, worldwide…


Note 4: When one crushes infamy, politeness shouldn’t be a consideration, indeed! See: “White America’s Age-Old, Misguided Obsession With Civility.”

(By Thomas J. Sugrue, a professor of history and social and cultural analysis and author who correctly holds that “those who say that the civil rights movement prevailed because of civil dialogue misunderstand protest and political change.)


Note 5: Bourdieu and Foucault said to a number of people (including yours truly, or Berkeley’s all too famous Searle) that if they wrote clearly, they would not be taken seriously in France. Why is this? Because of what is the main idea of this essay: the “French Theory” philosophers are esteemed by the global plutocratic establishment (which finances the world’s top universities, in particular the US ones) precisely because they obscure everything, and foster an adulation for obscurity, in contrast to one for Enlightenment. That’s their raison d’etre. (They also have interest to not make too obvious who their dark thinkery profits… Same problem as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle…)

Trade Deficit Madness, From Ancient Rome To Modern Trump Card

June 27, 2018

Warning; Roman Semi Direct Democracy Collapsed Because Of Global Trade:

Trade is a crucial subject: it’s about who has work, thus who has power, and who has an occupation deemed worthy. In the last massive global trade system we had, with 25% of world population, the core, Italy and Greece got emptied, in nearly all ways, by global trade.

This made “We The Peoples” of the core of the empire weak, unmotivated, incompetent, and finally completely impotent in all ways, especially politically: Rome went from a somewhat Direct Democratic Republic to  a military and then dynastic dictatorship.

I explained all this in great details in many essays: the similarities with the present planetary situation are more than alarming. Roman plutocracy exploded, when the wealthiest and their corporations were able to evade Roman laws by going global. Just as US and EU laws are evaded by going global.

Unsustainable. This is not just dinero they are taking, or work, or power, its the very substance of the essence of democracy.

Obama, in particular, put lipstick on that global pig, by passing outrageous, highly visible banking laws which amounted to saying that only plutocrats could span the world: everybody else who pretended to live on both sides of an ocean, was a criminal.  

Unfortunately most people talking about the subject of trade are hyper partisan: they just want their own networks to gain, or conserve power so they can profit from it. It’s true from the right wing globalist exploiters long in power and their servants (Krugman, etc.) and its associated overlords of the Deep State.

There is also the fact that seriously deranged hyper partisanship has become big business…


So Trump imposes tariffs on Europe. Europe retaliates, as threatened, imposing, among other things, tariffs on (extremely polluting) Harley Davidson motorcycles. Harley Davidson CEO Matthew S Levatich says:

Our decision to move some of our operations is 100% based on President Trump’s tariffs. Mr. Trump knows nothing about economics and even less about trade. The man is a moron.

Supposedly left-wing organization like “Occupy Democrats” are so happy:

Complete anti-Trump hysteria by ignorant twerps. The owners of that site are making money hand over fist.

Occupy Democrats” is actually a for profit site. It was founded by twins born in Mexico, one of whom became an investment banker.  They won’t talk money, but they are thriving. BuzzFeed’s Silverman estimates they could be making six figures in advertising revenues every month. The site is dogged by fact-checkers, sued by a competitor, mocked by conservatives. But nevermind, hordes of the tribally hating march in unison, excoriating Trump… for things Obama did, or the US long did.

US has a gigantic trade deficit with… Ireland! Why? Tax evasion! Ireland is one of many tax havens within Europe, encouraged by the EU, so many US corporations use it that way. Per head the deficit of US with Ireland is 32 times what it is with France…

Trade deficit US with EU is $122 billion. With China, $375 billion. EU-China deficit: $176billion. Are those irresisted increases in deficit sustainable? No. What’s the main cause? Evasion by EU & US corporations of tax & work laws in EU and US. Harley claims it has to leave the US because of European tariffs, but it  is going to India, not Europe! Wrong! And an obvious lie: Harley long prepared its move to India.

Now agreed, India, a high tech country with cheap labor should be freed to receive Harley, and Harley to go there. So far, so good. However the trade with India should be balanced. Otherwise it is colonialism, pure and simple. Not just colonialism, bad colonialism.


Why is the situation with China alarming? The ignorant out there, have been properly misinformed by the plutocratic media which loves them to death. Total sales of Chinese products in the USA is above 500 billion dollars. What’s the total sales of products in the USA? 1.5 trillion dollars, triple that. So for the value of three products sold in the US, one third of this value is made in China. And typically this represents high added value. And the reciprocal is just 20%. How long can the working class take this?


The globalists who engineered Obama and his ilk are besides themselves with anxiety at this point: the global trade system is how they are gathering power, same as their predecessors in Rome, 21 centuries ago. Collapse them, collapse the future they had set-up for themselves and their descendants.

Globalism, its tax avoidance, and avoidance of laws and regulations, its exploitation of oversea territories, making deals with local potentates, is how plutocracy is getting ever more powerful. Yes, they demonstrated their power by giving a Nobel Prize to Obama which the whole planet could see he didn’t deserve. So Obama did what they wanted him to do: demonstrate further power by droning babies to death in countries the USA was not even at war with. Yes, they are mighty, but the struggle is not over. We are mighty too, we are mighty still, and enough with their lies!

Patrice Ayme