Archive for September, 2010

Derivatives’ Temporal Perversity

September 27, 2010



Abstract: A ridiculously simple trick allows the financial plutocracy to make ever more money, hence gather ever more power.



Is the present public-private financial system one of the largest criminal enterprise ever? It depends how one defines "crime".

Was the Feudal system a crime? Yes; it arose from the Roman republic, and clearly violated it. How? By putting most of the riches, and therefore, powers, in just a few hands. In the USA, in 2009, 25 hedge fund managers made more than a billion dollars of personal profits, each. Less well known is that, in the final analysis, they use public money to do so. The public would not be too happy if it understood that. The following is a contribution towards understanding the sticky plutocratic web the public finds itself ensnared with.

Of course, by the time the Feudal system violated civilization, the res-publica was a distant memory. The plutocracy had captured everything, even minds, and left them only sports to talk about, and a few little things below their nose. To subjugate people, one needs to overwhelm their mental defenses first, and put their minds inside very small boxes.

The modus operandi of the public-private financial system is still not understood. even the Nobel Prize level economist take a wide berth, lest they lose their credibility and profitable aura of respect. This helps to explain why Barack Obama did not do much against it. Neither Obama’s advisers, nor his critics (Stiglitz, Krugman, Johnson) have gone to the core of the problems posed by the private-public financial system, and deconstructed its logic. At the core of private-public finance is a bargain a la Faust, which is now violated by the plutocratic side. But here I will mostly talk about something more technical.



In this essay, we dismantle the fundamental reason why derivatives ought to be (mostly) outlawed, and not just vaguely tweaked (as Obama’s vaunted "financial reform" has it). It is not because slavery is technically possible, that it should be tolerated.

Obama gave a talk to the hyper rich at the home of Richard Richman. The worthy in attendance had paid $30,000, yes more than half the yearly average family income in the USA, to conspire together and hear from their public servant, the president of the USA that:

"Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get — to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) … If you get the financial reform bill passed — then, well, I don’t know about this particular derivatives rule, I’m not sure that I’m satisfied with that."

Obama cannot understand what derivatives are about. Nor do most people. Derivatives constitute a violation of the fundamental Faustian bargain of the state with banks. The reason why they cannot be understood is that derivatives have been designed to maximize wealth for the financial plutocrats, and this depends upon hiding their true nature.

When one searches for an explanation about what derivatives are, one typically hits haughty Partial Differential Equations (PDEs), describing some "options" trading. In other words, one is confronted to a level of complexity common people, including common lawyers such as the USA president, have not studied. Actually complexity of option trading is a bit reminiscent  of the level of complexity of Quantum Mechanics, which uses PDEs to compute probability waves.

99% of the population does not have a clue what a PDE is (a PDE is a way to relate rates of changes in various directions, or dimensions, it’s not witchcraft, but not far from it, because there is no general theory). The trick of hiding greed behind a PDE was so neat that the obsequious servants of plutocracy gave a Nobel Prize for it.

In truth, one can understand the basic mechanism for feeding greed at will through derivatives without much more than high school mathematics. (I already explained that in the past, but in a more cursory fashion.) So we will now review some high school mathematics to show that DERIVATIVE TRADING CAN CREATE MONEY FOR THOSE WHO PRACTICE IT WITHOUT ANY ADDED VALUE WHATSOEVER FOR THE PUBLIC, WHILE INDULGING IN THE CLEAR CRIME OF SUCKING MONEY OUT OF THE REST OF SOCIETY.



Financial derivatives are related to what is commonly called a derivative in analysis. Before understanding derivatives, one has to understand the function they come from. Derivatives, in turn, are themselves functions.

What is a function? Well, in mathematics something that allows to compute numbers, using numbers. At least that is the way Descartes thought of it, and he used algebra to describe said functions, starting "Algebraic Geometry".

Another way to look at the idea of function is to draw a curve "f" on page, with an x axis horizontal, a y axis vertical, and for each vertical line only one intersection (x, "f(x)") with f, where "f(x) is the height of the intersection point thus obtained. The simples f is a line, with f(x) = ax + b. More generally polynomial functions of degree n were contemplated: f(x) = a + bx + cxx + c xxx +… u (x^n). I don’t know how to write xy with this computer, and many mathematicians have opted for the subterfuge: x^y. So x^n is nx’s multiplied together.

In any case the derivative of a function f, df, is the curve obtained from f by looking at its slope, or rate of change, at every single point, creating a new correspondence between numbers and numbers. So if f is constant, in other words flat, the slope is zero, so df is zero. We have excluded above functions with infinite slopes. The slope of a line is constant, and for ax, it’s a. The slope of a(x^n) is: [an(x ^(n-1))].

Thus, in some sense the derivative of a polynomial f of degree n, being a polynomial of degree (n-1) is smaller than f (more exactly |f(x)|> |df(x)|, for x large enough). Also df is of lower degree than f, thus simpler. A lot of mathematics consists into studying the (hopefully) simpler df instead of f. This carries on in higher dimensions, with the study of differential forms and tangent bundles instead of studying directly the objects they came from.

A lot of the equations of physics are about rates of change. For example, the Maxwell equations of the electromagnetic field f reduce to df = 0 and *df = j. Not bad, since in their initial version, those equations covered an entire page, or so. (Here the differentiation operator d is a version of differentiation adapted to higher dimensions, namely the 4 dimensions of space-time, and * is another operator).



Something natural to consider is infinite polynomial. An example is e(x) = 1 + x + x^2/2! +… + x^n/n! +…. This function, e, is called the exponential. As x^n grows in its general term, it gets divided fiercely by factorial n, n! =… (n-1) (n). Exponential is equal to its own derivative: de = e. some mathematicians have called it the most important function in mathematics.

e is related to the trigonometric functions, cosine and sine. clip_image002


The sine and cosine functions graphed on the Cartesian plane.

Both the sine and cosine functions satisfy the differential equation

ddy = y”= -y

That is to say, each is the additive inverse of its own second derivative. So this is true if y = cos(x), say. Now suppose y is different; y(x) = cos (ax). Then dy (x) = -asin(ax), and y”(x) = -a^2 cos(x). Thus the differential equation has changed. It’s now: y” = – a^2 y!

This is all high school mathematics, and does not fly very high. However this is the sort of trivialities that the extremely profitable financial "industry" of derivatives rests on. I am not sorry to make fun of them by exposing what they have been really up to, it’s purely intentional.



Functions found in nature, at the classical scale, tend to have derivatives commensurate with the functions they come from (a non rigorous, but crucial subtlety). For example, sea waves can have steep faces, and can even invert in a tube (something excluded in the simplest functions in calculus, as we held above).

However, the waves’ slopes are, in general pretty tame (not when the waves break, once again, because then they become fierce, very powerful). The third derivatives of waves are actually always very tame: if sea waves are coming 50 meters apart (wavelength 50 meters), the third derivative slowly goes from slight positive to slight negative, every ten seconds, or so, etc…

Now a financial market is also animated by waves. Waves of selling and buying. In a so called "trading" (by opposition to "trending") market, traders can hope to make money by buying and selling at opportune times. In the past such wave were constrained because people were buying and selling, and they need to eat, sleep, and rest. According to real time, or, one should say, animal time. Not so for computers; they go according to clock time, ever faster. (And we have no Quantum computers yet, where time may disappear all together.)

Sea waves of a given height cannot go faster than they do: their heights and speeds are strictly connected by what mathematicians call a bijection: to a particular height, a particular speed, and conversely.

If traders were buying and selling sea waves, there is an upper limit to how much money they could make in a given unit of time.

But modern traders are not just Masters of the Universe, they are Masters of Time. They have created a fake, derived universe, complete with fake, created time.

Traders, using electronics can trade more and more, and thus increase clock time as the computer makers say, and for the good reason that the traders use computers to do so. Hence they can augment the frequency of the waves they trade: up and down, ever faster. In other words instead of looking at cosine(t), where t is universal time, greedy traders look at cosine(gt), where g can be made arbitrarily large, and stands for greed. As g augments, frequencies go ever higher.

This pernicious activity has even a name: HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING. (It has other nefarious effects, because, done carefully, it allows big banks to control the direction of trading, but that is another story!)

Augmenting the frequency of the trading also augments the wave heights of the derivative (now -[g sine(gt))] and the second derivative, now [-g^2cos(t)!)]. So not only can electronic traders trade more and more, and make more and more profits, but they fabricate thus ever greater leverage for themselves!

What is going there? Very simple; instead of having a market normalized by reality, the reality of cosine(t)), with t as real biological time, which has ruled markets since ever, the electronic traders can now trade an arbitrarily large market, arbitrarily large market, by trading the derivatives. (Augmenting the frequency allows to augment the total volume of finance involved, which is now of the order of 20 times world GDP!)

This, of course, sucks money out of reality, and invest it in something which does not exist, except as a figment of imagination.

Thus unemployment is not just a question of having sent the jobs far away overseas, but also of having invested capital in the alternative, derivative universe.

Obama accuse the "professional left" –"you know who you are!", to get in the arcane details of derivative trading. But he is the one who indulge in it, why not understanding the math.

Instead there should be derivative trading only when proven safe and effective. Besides arbitrarily high "High Frequency" trading ought to be unlawful (as it puts ever more arbitrarily high amounts of money in ever fewer hands.)

In general, Obama needed a vision in finance, not tinkering. The vision existed before; F.D. Roosevelt OUTLAWED FINANCIAL SPECULATION BY BANKS. It’s only normal; banks have been given the astounding, very profitable privilege of creating most of the money. With the idea (that’s the Faustian bargain) that they, the banks, in turn, would finance profitable projects in house-management ("eco-nomy").So they were richly paid to do that. Instead they ran away with the money to a derivative universe.

With the derivatives and the like, banks divert their astounding privilege towards "plutonomy" (for wealth management) as the chief economist at City put it.

To ask to go back to FDR’s clear principle is not to ask much. FDR was from a plutocratic family, he was no foaming at the mouth Marxist. Actually Sarkozy, the conservative, right wing president of France echoed president Roosevelt by calling for the separation of banks and financial speculation.

In any case, we have seen that the fundamental mechanism at work with derivatives is a trick to take the money of the people, and leverage it ever more, for ever few.

But Obama, all engorged with himself, instead of being humble, celebrates "THE" " financial reform bill". He knows the title, and seems really impressed by it. It sounds magical: "historical health care reform": done! "Historical financial reform!": done!

But a big title does not make a big idea. To re-form finance, for real, one would need to achieve, at least the cognitive level reached in 1933 by FDR. Instead Obama chose as adviser Summers who believes that endless summers came to plutocracy when it created ever more money for itself, thanks to computers, and the TIME RENORMALIZATION TRICK I exposed above… with seed money provided by the central bank, that is the public. "I don’t make public policy" as Geithner, fifth in line for the throne, intone categorically. No need indeed: policy was made long ago, and nobody in the public noticed.

Creating ever more money for plutocracy is nothing new, and civilization’s greatest pitfall, ever since civilization appeared, and got stalked by the exponential function.

Plutocracy does not rule with the mind of the people, which is many, and thus clever, but with the mind of Pluto, which is lonely, and thus vengeful, vicious and dumb. Just one mind does not a civilization make.

Talking to elite plutocrats paying $30,000 per person to hear the president of the USA, close and personal, will not make any of that easier to understand for a president who runs on money like a jumbo jet runs on fuel. It just makes for the world’s most expensive brothel.


Patrice Ayme


Technical note; The preceding will enrage many a derivative trader. So they will say that I understand derivatives not, and the proof is that there are many other types. Well, not really, deep down inside. But when the plutocrat is forced to think deep inside plutocracy, all he meets is his master, Pluto. Hence his rage. (And when did you see a female hedge creature?)

I also suggested in the past to put a speed limit (for example with a tax ; Oxfam now concurs) and to differentiate between commercial operators (such as airlines buying futures contract on jet fuel) and speculators (who would get fewer privileges).


Technical note on how derivatives and, in particular, futures, move underlying market: Krugman could not find a mechanism for that connection, and thus long argued it did not exist. But the preceding can be modified to make it so.

Suppose S is the total amount of money available in a field, say O (like oil). S will tend to go to the “overlying” derivatives market, because there is more leverage there. So instead of investing with, say S, with the underlying commodity O, if S is invested in derivatives, it will be like investing with 10S. On a market, that of the derivative, which is enormously more variable (for the temporal renormalization reason explained above), capable of (say) ten times the swings. Result: investing with the derivatives is just as if one were investing with 100 times the capital S one started with.

Now, of course, there is no more money to support the underlying commodity itself (because all speculators are invested in derivatives, since it is as they were 100 times richer). Hence small fluctuations in selling or buying of the underlying commodity will have a huge effects on O. And of course the buying, or selling, will be dominated by the psychological effect of what the derivatives, esp. the futures are doing. To do the detailed math of all this is just, well, details…


Why The Hyper Rich Hates The Poor

September 22, 2010




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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See more on financiers’ anger in notes.]



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Patrice Ayme


Obama Commemorates 9/11 His Way.

September 17, 2010



“Omission is the most powerful form of lie” – George Orwell. We analyze why Obama celebrated 9/11, by selling lots of advanced weapons to those originating the system of thought that organized it.


Abstract: The Qur’an is an incredibly violent book, so why do American presidents insist that it is peaceful? Those who only want to us to see goodness everywhere, so we better get fleeced, call islamophobic those who try to quote from the Qur’an. Then they evoke the Hebrew bible, as if critics of the Qur’an were in love with that other bloody book, and could not burn it in peace. And as if Hebrew bible law had been seriously imposed anywhere, since the Romans cracked down on the Jewish fanatics, 19 centuries ago.

I extract a few verses from the first few pages of the Qur’an (which are among its most peaceful). People can twist logic anyway they want, but if they want to look half cogent, they should master their own islamophobia, and go read the unexpurgated Qur’an (Islamist agents have been circulating amputated, censored, pacified Qur’ans through creative editing, or then brandish always the same two or three peaceful quotes, omitting hundreds of the lethal threats and grotesque insults).

Some allege that the Qur’an’s context justifies its violence, as if violence ever came without context.

In any case, there is so much violence in the Qur’an, that the violence creates its own context, much as a great fire creates its own firestorm. A weasel lie, found a lot in the New York Times, nowadays, is to pretend that the Qur’an’s murderous violence is directed at polytheists. As if burning Indians was okay. But as soon as the second chapter of the Qur’an, all sorts of other people are insulted and threatened with "fire".

In the Qur’an, Jews are explicitly brandished at heading towards incineration, chapter after chapter, starting with the "Cow" (see below). Then people wonder about a violence situation in Palestine… Inasmuch as Jewish fanatics are insufferable, the Qur’an is clearly also part of the problem.

So how come American presidents insist that "Islam is peace"? Of course, Bush said: "Islam is peace", and then went on to kill at least 100,000 perfectly innocent Muslims, just as the wolf says: "sheep is peace", and then goes down to wolf them down. It reminds me of the Nazis, who were removing the Jews from Germany "for their safety", they said… And most Germans were happy to believe that lie. Of the biggest lies, fascism is made, especially when they are too big for people to see, as Hitler himself wrote down.

Simply by interfering with Iraq, the USA got several million Iraqis and Iranians killed (the USA was on both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, which killed more than a million. Blair, the ex-British PM admitted on TV that this war was the work of the West). But Americans in good standing are not supposed to talk about these things. Just as Germans in good standing knew how to avoid some special subjects (those subjects best handled, by the special commandos, the Zonderkommandos).

Less well known is the fact that the USA attacked Afghanistan more than 31 years ago, as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser admits below. Carter is right to build homes for humanity, as he does on TV, because he destroyed so many, with so much inhumanity, for real, that he better trains, just in case his God exists, and has him doing hard labor in hell for the next billion years.

A deal was made between the Salafists and the government of the USA, long ago, and is reminiscent of the way the USA and its plutocracy used the Nazis. It’s always the same strategy; make to the worst actors an offer that they cannot refuse, then denounce them superficially, while supporting them secretly. Or not so secretly; just as the 9/11 weapons deal Obama made with Saud, the countless deals between the USA and the Nazis were not secret, they were hiding in plain sight.

The trick consists into having a pliant Main Stream Media give a different perspective to the events. A bombing raid on Riyadh would cut off the crucial financial aid to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. American intelligence agencies know this well, but it’s not what they want. Indeed, how could the military-industrial complex of the USA justify itself thereafter, in its present splendor?“During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than information” – Joseph Goebbels.

In Afghanistan, the USA has been at war for more than 31 years, so instructions have been given to Main Stream Media about how to handle the information. Those can be given pleasantly, and discreetly during social functions of the power oligarchy.





"As Americans, we will not and never will be at war with Islam," Obama said at a memorial service for the 184 people killed when a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon. We just give them eternal peace with our Hellfire robots controlled by some CIA operator located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Not content with prophesying the wars of America, Obama is also a religious scholar. Says he:

"It was not a religion that attacked us that September day. It was Al-Qaeda, a sorry band of men, which PERVERTS RELIGION."

A band which "perverts religion"? So now there is just ONE religion? Obama uses his bully pulpit to defend "religion"? The religion? A religion perverted by Al Qaeda? The attackers of 9/11 thought they were doing their religious duty (and this explicitly, see sura 3: verse 169-171 of the Qur’an below), and the adjective "sorry" is sorely misplaced to qualify that band. These were obviously very ferocious men.

But Obama knows better: the hijackers were "perverting "religion". I guess that Obama has got to be an expert on perversion too. Were the Aztecs perverting their religion, as they cut the hearts out from some Spaniards? That is the question.

The Celtic and Punic religions culminated with human sacrifices. The Roman republic did not just denounce the "pervert bands", while celebrating those religions incompatible with civilization.

The Romans  outlawed the offending religions. Oh, yes, Mr. President: because there is more than one religion; please learn. OK, I should not be too mean: Obama played basketball a lot. Recent studies have shown it often causes brain injury (all the shocks)… if you add that to a little "blow" (sic!)…

The American secular republic should do like the Roman republic, and outlaw religious perversion too. Define the perversion first, then outlaw it. That’s what the Roman republic did. Notice that no huge public buildings of Rome was attacked, causing a huge loss of life, by fanatics of the Celtic or Punic religions. However, the Romans saw the danger for civilization, and they outlawed all religions conducting human sacrifices. That is why Western Europe and North Africa stopped doing what the Aztecs were still doing, 15 centuries later.



To prove his point, that whatever he calls "Islam" has nothing to do with it, Obama then commemorated 9/11. His way. In Obama’s book, Saudi Arabia is as good as religion gets, apparently.

9/11 was organized by some prominent Saudis, and perpetrated by 15 Saudis (out of 19 hijackers). The bin Laden family is the most important family in Saudi Arabia, after the house of Saud. To this day, gigantic amounts of money are going from Saudi Arabia to Salafist groups and preachers, worldwide. Those astronomical quantities of oil money pay goons who threaten with their lives secular Muslims, and the religious Muslims who believe that the Qur’an is allegorical (as the clerics of the Islam de France have repeatedly testified).

That Saudi oil money also goes to the warriors fighting NATO all over Africa and the Middle East. Al Qaeda has lots of brand new, shiny equipment. So what does Obama do, on 9/11?

Well, Obama sells for more than 60 billion dollars of advanced, sophisticated military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a SALAFIST regime. The hijackers of 9/11 were Salafists.



What is Salafism? Well it is increasingly the religious fanaticism of 1.5 billion Muslims, as oil money goes towards imposing it ever more, worldwide. The Saudi power rests on out-religionizing its opposition, because the Qur’an requires the believer to obey the leader, as long as he is a Muslim. So the Saudis exert their salafism, and the more they do, the more they have to oppress, so the more Salafist they have to be. At the limit, if Salafism spreads worldwide, the House of Saud would lead the world. On the positive side, Obama cannot bow any deeper.

After the king extended his hand while Obama approached, Obama insists to bend from the waist. Seems he met his master:


I became president because I knew how to bend to the powers that be, and if this amazes you, you should see me bend to Wall Street.


The USA decided in 1954 that its motto was going to be changed into "In God We Trust". And that was of course unconstitutional. Still is.

Apparently we have the result of this propaganda above. Obama was born in 1961, and naturally bends to religious authority, especially from the religion, you know, the one that gets perverted. So we are reduced to seeing the leader in chief bowing deeply to those who were viewed as fanatics in 1300 CE. In Egypt. Well, in "Allah", I don’t trust, and to the Salafists, secular republicans don’t bend. A Roman Consul would certainly not have bent. The Romans knew the power of symbolism.

"Salaf" means "ancestor" in Arabic, and, in the tradition of Sunni Islam, refers to the companions of Muhammad, and the two generations after that. So only the first three generations of Islamists’ ideas are viewed as worthy… And only among those Islamists, those Sunni individuals Sunni Islam adulate, while avoiding carefully those it hates, such as Ali, a companion of the prophet, and his son in law, founder of the other "party" ("Shiah").

Wahhab made into the metaprinciple of his reform movement that every idea added to Islam after the third century of Islam (circa 950 CE) was false and should be eliminated. Anything else is jahiliyya, the term in Islam referring to the barbarism and ignorance prior to the coming of the word of God, the Qur’an.



Al-Wahhab accused most Muslims to be living in jahiliyya, thus of not being true Muslims after all. This is rather grave, because the Qur’an implies, and the Hadith says all over that people who stop being Muslims ought to be executed. [Hadith is a set of gossip about Muhammad that Muslims take religiously; the core of the Hadith is about 100 times bigger than the Qur’an…]

In Morocco in 1834, 17-years old Jewish girl Sol Hachuel was beheaded for alleged "apostasy" from Islam. This is a well known case because the Sultan was directly involved, and condemned her father to pay for her execution under the threat of being flayed to death, and her father was too poor to pay. A rich Spaniard named Rico (!) paid the fee.

In reality Hachuel had never converted to Muhammad’s fantasy in the desert. She was just very beautiful, so some Muslim said she converted. In the Qur’an the word of a believer, depending upon gender, is worth more. Hachuel said: "A Jewess I was born, a Jewess I wish to die." After she was wounded, to help her recant her imagined apostasy, because the Sultan’s son wanted her, she insisted on the scaffold that: "Do not make me linger—behead me at once—for dying as I do, innocent of any crime, the God of Abraham will avenge my death."

Why was Wahhab looking so much for reasons to execute people? Well, that was his ticket to power. His ticket to his relationship with Ibn Saud, the secular ruler from the greedy Arabic family, who invited him over. Saud was looking for reasons to execute his enemies. Learning they were all apostates was helpful.



Back to whom Obama calls religious "perverts". Which religion are we talking about here? It is time for a reality check. Reality comes from reading the Qur’an (a better spelling than "Koran"). That’s the "holy" book of Islam. Some say all "Holy" books are, well, holy. Well, there are some pictorial remnants of Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas religions they ought to consider. My own position on this is that what is truly holy is the good side of human ethology. So pick and chose inside your holy books.

Islam is the adoration of God as defined, first of all, by the Qur’an. Obama talks about Islam, but did he read the Qur’an? Seriously? Well, I read the Qur’an, many times, over many years. And I was brought up, for real, in two Muslim countries (one in the Maghreb, the other in Black Africa).



The Qur’an is only about 400 pages. It is in 114 chapters or "suras". And about 6236 verses (the exact number is controversial). Anybody talking about Islam cogently is required to read the Qur’an. So why not read the Qur’an? OK, let’s try together, by taking a few little bites.

The first sura is just salutations, and laudations. Here are some verses, just from the second Sura, "The Cow", and some verses from a first portion of the third, cut off at a verse that bin Laden quoted to justify his enterprise. Here we go:

“You know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: You Be apes, despised and hated!”– [Qur’an, Sura 2; verse 65]

“A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones.’ [Qur’an sura 2: verse 24]

Disbelievers will be burned with fire.” [Koran, S. 2:39, v. 90]

Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They’d like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell.” [Koran, s. 2: v.96]

“Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire.” [Koran, s. 2:v. 126]

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.) [Qur’an s.2:v. 191-2]

“War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not.” [s. 2: v. 216]

“Those who marry unbelievers will burn in the Fire.” [2:221]

“Disbelievers worship false gods. They will burn forever in the Fire.” 2:257

“Those who practice usury … are rightful owners of the Fire.” 2:275

“Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire.” 3:10

Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire. 3:116

The Fire is prepared for disbelievers. 3:131

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire 3:151

If you die fighting for Allah, you’ll be rewarded in heaven. 3:157

“Is one who followeth the pleasure of Allah as one who hath earned condemnation from Allah, whose habitation is the Fire?

Unbelievers will burn forever in the Fire. 3:162

Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead.” sura 3: v.169-171

(The later verse was quoted by Osama bin Laden in his ‘letter to America’ regarding the 11 September 2001 attacks.)

And so on. Salafists interpret the preceding as orders from God.

Bin Laden has of course quoted many other parts of the Qur’an to justify mass violence and terror, such as the verse of the Sword, in sura 5. I deliberately picked up a little piece at the beginning of the Qur’an, because that beginning does not have the reputation of being violent, to show how incredibly violent the whole thing is. It’s so incredible, in-credible, that people traditionally don’t want to believe any of it, so they don’t look at the evidence. Looking at the evidence is often disparaged as islamophobia.

The preceding set of Quranic verses was sent several times to the New York Times, in their comments, and they published it, finally, only after I pointed out that it was gross islamophobia not to do so.

The SALAFISTS (those "followers of the old ones") make a literal reading of the Koran.

The Wahhabists who rule Saudi Arabia constitute a particular type of Salafist. Salafism was made unlawful in Egypt in the time of its great Kurdish ruler, Saladin. Circa 1300 CE. So the excuses for bowing deeply to Saud, the Wahhabist-In-Chief, as Obama did, as president of a secular republic, the USA, are running thin, or, at least, extratemporaneous.

Further on in the Qur’an, women are treated as half citizens, at best. Actually women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia (only such country in the world), nor vote, nor go about without a male guardian. Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak, a prominent cleric, issued a fatwa (religious opinion) that proponents of ikhtilat (gender mixing) should be killed. That’s the way Islam works: self defined clerics issue “fatwas”. Bin Laden is an example of such a lethal self definition.


"Prominent clerics" issue execution orders, and the faithful who pray five times a day, foam at the mouth at the prospect of exerting their blood lust. Maybe if they had been educated by educated women, they would be less stupid. And less frustrated.

Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki made an edict that Molly Norris is a "prime target" who should reside in "Hellfire" for suggesting a "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day".

Authorities in Pakistan, a Salafist country supported by Washington, outlawed YouTube, Facebook and WIKIPEDIA as they reacted to Norris. The FBI advised Norris to go in a witness protection program, since now dozens of millions of enraged Muslims want to kill her. Like frenzied sharks biting each others, dozens of enthusiastic Muslims have already died about Seattle cartoonist Morris. Is the Qur’an such murderous propaganda that people believing it too much become like sharks? I am just asking, not drawing sketches, especially not sketches of devil inspired lunatics in the desert.

I would suggest some serious crack-down. For example on Pakistan. But the exciting question to ask Obama is:"who are the perverts now?" Is it the same "sorry band", or another "sorry band"? Are there dozens of millions of perverts?

The Qur’an was written long after (20 years) Muhammad’s death, by a bunch of generals under the third Caliph. People from Muhammad’s family (Aisha, Ali) said that the Qur’an was a bunch of lies. Aisha and Ali went to war about it. The Koran creating Caliph himself was stoned to death in an insurrection about, precisely, his fabrication of the Qur’an… having already been stoned on the roof of his house, the Qur’an creating Caliph took refuge in a room, and was assassinated while… reading his Qur’an. He had ordered all and any other, pre-existing versions of the Qur’an, destroyed.

Thus the founding documentation of Islam is mostly a fabrication made well after Muhammad’s death. A reformulation of the whole thing may be in order, around the best composite personality of Muhammad.

A more complete list of extremely violent, disparaging, filled with hatred set of quotes from the Qur’an is at… Extremist Muslim Fundamentalist, Salafist web sites, claim that there are nearly 200 passages in the Qur’an calling for lethal aggression. That justifies what they do, religiously speaking. Notice that I do not claim that, when one’s country is attacked, one should not resist.

"The perpetrators of this evil act" who ordered and carried out the 9/11 attacks "may wish to drive us apart but we will not give in to their hatred and prejudice" the president added.

Well, all right. If there is pre-judice, there should be postjudice. Post-judice. And if we are not going to give in to hatred, well, we can either rise the white flag, and extend our throats to the knife, or we are going to fight.



Ever since 1945, the official policy of the USA has to be to use the Salafists against the European powers (Britain, France, Russia), and against other Muslims. That is why they arm the Saud family to the hilt, and why Israel, a sort of giant Western aircraft carrier planted firmly in the Holy Land, agree to that counter-intuitive move.

A pact was made between the USA president, FDR, and the founder of Saudi Arabia, who had previously conquered his kingdom thanks to the help thousands of extremely extreme Wahhabists organized in an entire army. (They were so dangerous that he then sent the worst of them to attack British Palestine, knowing full well they would be exterminated.) In exchange for oil, the USA would not call them perverts, but give them weapons instead. This is one of the griefs of bin Laden: we are getting manipulated, he said, and, of course, having served the CIA and the American Congress for twenty years, he is in excellent position to know that (the bin Laden family has been around USA circles of power for much longer than that).

The same policy, of the USA supporting the religious extremists, was used in 1953 in Iran. For financing and exciting the Shiites to help them bring down representative democracy, the USA, and its servant, British petroleum, got to keep the oil, and… Well, the USA did not quite keep their word, although president Reagan tried to make amends by making good on the promise by helping ostensibly albeit secretly (!) the Khomeini’s Shiites against Saddam Hussein, who had been incited (and armed!) by the West to attack the Islamist republic of Iran. It’s this delicate Iraq-Iran balance that Bush has disrupted, in his hubris, and now the USA has got to replace Hussein by Barack Hussein, or then, if the later prefers to play golf compulsively, find another cooperative native, with a strong neck…

To conquer Afghanistan, the USA used the same method: think with hubris and no knowledge of history, long enough, and then bring in Wahhabists, many of them from Saudi Arabia, on Saudi money, American weapons and infrastructure (Osama bin Laden is a construction engineer, a family tradition which came in handy in Afghanistan, and on 9/11). The American agents scored when they persuaded bin Laden to attack soft targets, such as schools (hence the little vengeance on 9/11). By the end of the war, bin Laden’s personal army was well over 10,000 (some say above 35,000). It had been trained by the CIA.

The civil war in Afghanistan was a lot about NOT letting girls go to school. That allowed the Salafist spy and killer service from Pakistan, the ISI, to have a religious pretext to intervene in Afghanistan. People like best to do what satisfies their sense of morality.

But this is all America’s baby. The modern USA is apparently anxious to pose as a modern Assyria, going all around to make war.



Interview of Brzezinski in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998:

Question of Nouvel Observateur: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, Obama’s Defense Secretary, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secret until now, is completely different. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: NONSENSE!


What’s truly nonsense, is not to go to war against those who make a literal reading of the Qur’an as the word of "God", whereas it was simply the word of one of the best, most ferocious general who ever was. Salafism was actually invented to destroy the Roman empire, to destroy the West.

But, of course, destroying bits and pieces of the West, the plutocracy of the USA has found highly profitable. It is only now that it is becoming increasingly clearer, at least to American workers, that Washington’s plutocratic approach in not in their interest. It is not just China, the banks, Wall Street, the real estate industry, the drug companies, the HMOs, the insurance companies, the military-industrial complex, the tax heavens, the crooked tax codes, which constitute as many devices the plutocracy plays like a conductor in an orchestra. It’s also Salafism. To this day, a large part of the plutocratic establishment in the USA is no doubt still happy about bin Laden’s work, and the pretext he provides with.

Witness Obama, who dares to justify his giant invasion of Afghanistan by spending half a billion (500 millions) dollars per Al Qaeda member every six months. At this point NATO has more than 150,000 troops on the Afghan theater, and the number of NATO soldiers killed is more than 2,000. What is Obama doing there already, besides going Quail, I mean, Qaeda hunting? Well, he is fighting for the constitution of Afghanistan, which boils down to Salafism.


Here for Washington sponsored Salafism at its best: :


Pool photo by Massoud Hossaini

The Salafist dictator of Kabul, Hamid Karzai, second from left. In this picture, he is protected by highly paid private plutocratic security, the sort of goons not counted in the 150,000 NATO troops, but much more qualified to kill, and much more expensive. The sort of Salafist pawn the USA loves, in the sort of environment the military industrial complex loves, paid by NATO taxpayers, what’s not to like? Of these Salafi salads an empire is made, and it works until it collapses, alleluia!


Patrice Ayme


Note on the USA messing up with Afghanistan for half a century: What Brzezinski does not say is that before the DIRECT intervention of the presidency of the USA, the USA was indirectly involved, through the ISI. The CIA-entangled Pakistani ISI had already been hard at work in Afghanistan, for years.


Note on the Abrahamic religions: Abraham was a child molester and would-be child killer, who decided, at the last moment, after the intervention of some agent not him, to not kill his own son. To this day, Muslims celebrate this. I personally do not see the cause for celebration, but I see quite well the celebration of ultimate violence, extremely unjustified.

To boot, Islam does not have the official buffer Christianism acquired after four different levels of interpretations were grafted on the bible, with a dominance of the allegorical. In other words: it’s not real, just stories to be interpreted secularly. Throughout history, starting apparently with Aischa, the cleverest Muslims have tried to do the same, but the absence of Islam central has prevented to do so, especially since the closest thing to that, the Caliphate in Baghdad, was annihilated, with all its books, by the Mongols.


Note on the Main Stream Media-Plutocracy conspiracy: A recent example is the case of Helen Thomas, the eldest and most famous journalist habilitated to interview the US president. As soon as she deviated form official propaganda about Israel, she was fired and forcefully retired, to encourage the rest of the so called “White House Pool”, to keep on with the party line, the bipartisan party line, and nothing more.

Thomas, the dean of the “White House Press Corps”, had suggested, in a casual conversation with two Jews she met, that the citizens of Israel go back where they come from. In the case of the recently arrived million Jews from the ex-USSR, many a long time Israeli will agree (those recent immigrants do not have the same democratic traditions).

Anyway, this private, extra-employment slip, was obviously unforgivable… Israel at this point survives only from the taxpayers of the USA, and the generous endowment they provide to the entire area…



September 10, 2010



Warning: Although no equations are brandished, this is as advanced as theory goes. Except for the few parts mentioning TOW, most of the essay is about very serious (albeit edgy) physics, and the information therein is generally accepted by those capable of debating it.


Main Idea: The conventional interpretations of Quantum Mechanics render not just determinism, but the very concept of history non applicable. I have a more philosophically acceptable alternative, Totally Objective Wave, TOW.


Abstract: 1) Confronting the semantics of Einstein’s physics and conventional interpretations of Quantum Physics prevents history to be completely causal. Initial conditions are never completely initial. (Nota Bene: This is not a contradiction with Feynman’s “Sum Over Histories”.)

That history, as conventionally interpreted, is not fully causal anymore is standard physics (nowadays), a variation on the famous EPR paradox. It’s a different perspective on the blatant observation that Quantum Mechanics uses (implicitly) absolute time, which pierces through Einstein’s local time, thus lethally wounding the later as an absolute (!) foundation.

2) I consider conventional alternatives, trashing in passing the popular, but philosophically grotesque, multiverse hypothesis, a case of collapsing the baby with the bath. De Broglie’s hypotheses made in 1923, are the essential core of Quantum Theory (including Quantum Field Theory, QFT, and its variants: String Theory, Supersymmetry, etc.). Can’t we do better? That is: can we do better than prince De Broglie, initially a medieval historian?

3) The conventional picture given by the unhealthy mix of conventional Quantum Theory and Relativity is very confusing, as it puts in doubt all the (metaphysical) fundaments of physics: not just the very notion of beginning (even locally), but also space, time, causality, and even the very notion of vacuum.

The desperate, completely ridiculous theory, the multiverse, or Multi World Interpretation, MWI, was constructed to answer some problems posed by Quantum Mechanics by throwing reality and common sense overboard. It’s sheer madness (thus, very fashionable, since it prevents thinking!)

Instead I propose triage among the important concepts: discarding those founded mostly on wishful thinking, doing away with some of Einstein’s (meta)physics while extending the Quantum Hypothesis so as to save causality. My personal theory, Totally Objective Wave, TOW, is evoked as an extension of De Broglie’s hypotheses. If one supposes more (and one is right!), one can do more.

TOW has the advantage of reintroducing intuition to an otherwise very confusing Quantum theoretical landscape, by reorganizing the theory transparently, with a meaningful hierarchy (TOW has drastic consequences for QFT and the structure of the vacuum; for example the vacuum is mostly empty, whereas in QFT, in a feat of remarkable absurdity, it is extravagantly full, all the way down to Planck length, resulting in the most grotesque previsions in physics, ever.)




At least that is what conventional Quantum Mechanics say. It is a direct consequence of the conventional structure of the “vacuum”. I insist on the adjective conventional, because my own vision of the vacuum is completely different (see Note).

That history does not really exist in conventional Quantum Theory is a straightforward consequence of confronting conventional Quantum Mechanics with conventional Special Relativity. What is meant by history of observer A? Well, according to conventional theory of Special Relativity, anything which happened within the past light cone of A.

Indeed, in Special Relativity, there is only local time, and thus all and any communication proceeds at most at the speed of light. Conventional thinkers, led by Einstein, asked themselves: if telecommunications could go faster, what would be the rationale for a speed limit? So why should there be a speed limit? And if there was no speed limit, then instantaneous telecommunications would allow to establish a global time, as found in Newton’s mechanics, demolishing Einstein’s (meta)physics that only local time is possible.

I went over this explicitly, because it is implicit in physics Special Relativity textbooks, but never made explicit, since it is outside of the theory itself, in a meta position relative to it. Thus this metalogic is not useful to teach ardent Special Relativity believers.

Now, for trouble. As the light cone advances according to proper time, it may engulf at some point a particle X which is an entangled part of a pair the other element of which, Y, is still outside the light cone. Since there are no (theoretical) reasons to prevent them, in conventional QFT, space is stuffed with such entangled pairs. Such pairs are ruled by the laws of Quantum Theory. In Quantum Theory, local time, Einstein’s great intuition, entirely fails.

Indeed Quantum Mechanics welcome time only as an evolution operator. There is NO LOCAL time in Quantum Mechanics. This means in practice that, if an entangled pair made of X and Y is created, a measurement on Y will immediately reveal the state of X that corresponds to the state of Y which was revealed. Since X and Y can be a light year away, there seems to be a number of problems related to this, and different ways to solve some of these problems (and other problems) have led to the different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.



When dealing with the state of the distant member of an entangled pair, a major problem is whether the concept “REVEAL” ought to be used, or not. There is indeed another possibility: that the state of the distant member of the pair would be CREATED. That would have made Einstein scream, or at least, depress him deeply. In a way Einstein’s deepest contribution to physics was to impose on all of physics the speed limit discovered in electro-magnetism (by Maxwell and Fresnel).

Physicists who prefer to avoid thinking about these deep problems have long argued as if “REVEAL” was the concept to be used, and then, naturally, they see no problem. Of course, there would be none, if it were what happened. But it is not.



Let X and Y be an entangled photon pair from the Betelgeuse system, 640 light years away. Then a little green man out there, 1280 light year away, torture the photon Y somehow, and the photon X happens in some state in the solar system. So far, so good. Stuff happens: photon shows up.

The real question is whether the nature of the experiment on Y made by the sadistic little green monster has a bearing on the state in which X is. And the answer is yes. It is the famous Aspect experiment. (Alain Aspect got the Wolf Prize for it in 2010.)

The experiment showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen’s reductio ad absurdum of Quantum Mechanics, trying to make fun of it with a “ghostly action at a distance” did in fact appear to be WHAT REALLY HAPPENED when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance.

The polarization of Y was measured in a particular direction. This measurement on Y freezes the polarization of X along that same direction, AT A DISTANCE. A correlation between their wave functions remained, as long as the wave-function of the pair was not disturbed by the measurement of one of the child particles.

(The experiment was carried in the last two years at separation distances of 18 kilometers, while varying the polarizations haphazardly, using quantum processes to do so, thus it really behaves like the proverbial action-at-a-distance.)

This shocking result has no be digested yet. Indeed, in the EPR essay, the main argumentative line was that all along, “elements of reality” have got to have been been carried along, attached to X, and that Quantum Theory was incomplete, due to the absence therein of said elements.

However the Aspect experiment shows that ELEMENTS OF REALITY ARE NOT CARRIED ALONG, THEY ARE SENT AWAY. And, maybe very very far away. The EPR paradox gets resolved in the worst possible way, as far as Einstein would have been concerned.

Of course there is a slight problem about what polarization “direction” means between here, and out there 1280 light years away… this requires the notion of parallel transport, because everybody agrees that gravitation affects local space, and local time, and thus a sense of direction. Parallel transport was developed by Levi Civita in 1917, precisely for use in the Theory of Gravitation, aka General Relativity (in those times when Einstein knew of only two forces).

This brings the question of which kind of space polarization direction information would be carried along according to EPR (I do not know of anybody who asked that question, prior). Indeed the geometry of space-time is intrinsic in the theory of gravitation, but, if we viewed space-time just as a topology, maybe the EPR effects could parallel transport according to another, larger (so to speak) geometry (think of the geometry of S2, the 2-sphere, which is intrinsic, but S2 can also be viewed as embedded in R3, conventional three dimensional space…)



OK, let’s channel past great interpretations, and some, less great. Observing that the concept of history stops making sense is a slight change of perspective from the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox (“EPR”). Whereas the EPR thought experiment uses the conventional language and formulation of Quantum Mechanics, it simply arrives to the exact same picture that TOW gives an intuitive explanation for.

Feynman’s Sum Over Histories is actually an implementation of de Broglie’s hypotheses, formulated in 1923. Feynman pushed the symbolism, way out there, hoping that it somehow makes predictions, and thus makes sense. Although Dirac famously did this with the electron, supposing a space (spinor space) to get the simplest relativistic wave equation for the electron, it is truly de Broglie who started this wild approach (although De Broglie’s hypotheses were simple and luminous, one cannot say the same all the way down the line, as now QFT is encumbered with absurdities, a bit like Medieval theology or Ptolemaic astronomy). Planck had supposed the quantum, but that was to explain a curve (the blackbody spectrum). Planck was explaining experimental reality, he was starting from, not constructing it from theoretical scratch.

Ever since physicists have been trying to hand wave through mathematics formally symbolizing the idea, as Feynman’s hieroglyph lends itself to symbol manipulation (hopefully representing something that makes some sense, it has long been hoped, and experimental particle physics has offered some confirmation that there is something there in some sense valid.) However, as Feynman himself pointed out, methods of discovery from the past do not have to work in the future, because history shows they tend to change… This is to be kept in mind, as QFT has been exploiting the same method since its inception, which was very smart initially, but may be deeply erroneous now.



The notorious “Collapse Of the Wave Packet” is an unobserved, (and unobservable according to itself) crucial part of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

The Many-Worlds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (MWI) do away with the collapse. It also does away with reality. MWI is an interpretation highly popular nowadays, perhaps because of that very reason.

MWI is philosophically absurd, and common physicists are not friendly to philosophy, apparently because it is not stuffed with mathematical entertainment. MWI assumes that the universe splits as many times as there are eigenvectors in a Quantum Process. In other words, there are as many universes as the largest imaginable large cardinal, and then probably infinitely more than that. Thus MWI fans explain existence with ceaseless infinity (I guess it goes with the territory of a vacuum having 10 to the power 120 times the energy of the observed universe! When one is already completely crazy, what does ten thousands times more completely crazy mean?)

MWI lovers argue that their theory is simpler, because there is no collapse of the wave function. Indeed a theory which explains the same with less is sometimes superior. But not always; to explain continental drift with god is not superior to explaining it with plate tectonics.

Is it logically simpler to argue that at every split fraction of the smallest piece of time imaginable more than the more than the largest infinity of universes have been greater, all of them with zero energy? It would be simpler to say Quantum mechanics is as it is, because god made it so. Counting the angels on the head of a pin, or maybe even to celebrate the creep who wanted to cut his son’s throat because what he called god told him to, sounds less absurd.

There are other theories which do without the collapse of the wave packet, but they are also mistaken, and, typically, passéist (I will not go into it here). So it looks as if the wave packet collapse is here to stay. This has become a practical matter in building a quantum computer.



There is something like a dozen interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. I have my own interpretation. Penrose’s interpretation originated with some Italians. That interpretation uses gravity to collapse the wave packets. It is mired in the following difficulties: it should be inertial mass, not gravity that gives rise to the collapse. And that interpretation cannot handle so called configuration space, in which most of Quantum Mechanics unfolds. My interpretation (which is older, although not made public conventionally) circumvents both problems drastically.

My own interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is an extension of De Broglie PILOT WAVE theory. De Broglie suggested the later around 1930, but it fell on deaf ears, because the approach at the time was as said above, and it turned out spectacularly successful, at the time, as it brought the concepts of spin, anti-matter, and many other goodies.

Actually, there are two De Broglie’s models; decades later, he introduced the “Double Solution“. Meanwhile David Bohm (a great American born physicist chased out of the USA because he was a thinker) had tweaked De Broglie first model, introducing the concept of a “Quantum Potential”.

All these models tried to find out what reality was. Meanwhile the QFT theorists keep on plodding through their mathematics that they invented on the fly. Never mind if much did not make any sense; some did. At least in math. Trying to find out what was really going does not seem to have bothered them too much (as they addressed essentially high energies, whereas most of the universe is low energy).

The result could well be that, in its broadest strokes, its largest context, QFT, Quantum Field Theory, is COMPLETELY FALSE. For example, it makes the most erroneous predictions in the entire history of physics, ever since there are primates, and they think. (Hint for the outraged professionals: it has to do with the structure of the vacuum. Even a chimp in her forest understands that what is empty is empty, and infinite does not describe the vacuum well, but apparently QFT physicists do not!)



This hypothesis, that delocalization is the essence of progress, is no lousy joke in plutocratic economy, but serious physics. It is new when explicitly expressed. It is implicit, sort of, in De Broglie initial hypothesis (and certainly more so in his “Double Solution”), and so it is in QFT. Actually delocalization was clear ever since Young’s Double Slit experiment (circa 1800 CE). However, ever since Born, the waves are supposed to be probability waves, and nothing more. The probability wave interpretation does not chase reality, just tells us where and (sort of) when, it shows up.

Pushed to its logical extremity, the delocalization principle means that PROPAGATING PARTICLES ARE NOT LOCALIZED. This is one of my little additions to the three de Broglie hypotheses: an unobserved particle is not a particle. Why? There are no reason to suppose they are, besides excessive respect for long defunct Greek philosophers, with their “atomic” theory.

Greek philosophers knew nothing of waves, which is rather ironical, considering the fact Greece was a thalassocracy. As I just said “particles” behaving as waves when they propagate, it’s only natural to believe that they are waves. When they propagate. It is also known, since Bohr’s, that electron in orbit spread out in phase with themselves, as if they were snakes eating their own tails. thus it looks as if the waves were the rule, and particle effects more like particular impacts.

Since the expression “my interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, could grow to be irritating, especially among the 10,000 living professional geniuses who have no doubt pondered, or disregarded the question, worldwide, I will use the expression TOTALLY OBJECTIVE WAVE (Mechanics): TOW.

Another hypothesis of TOW gives an explicit mechanism for the “collapse of the wave packet“. The delocalized wave packets, non linearly collapse at a finite, but immense speed (TAU), into singular effects known as particles.

The reasons for this hypothesis are multiple. One has to do with what one ought to call the philosophy of non linear differential equations and soliton. A soliton is an indefinitely propagating wave. They are a fact of the physical universe. On the seas, some are called “rogue waves” (not all rogue waves are solitons, but some are).

A soliton is a balance between dispersion, which tends to occur to all waves, and non linear self amplification. The TAU wave, somewhat analogous De Broglie’s “pilot wave”, is not a soliton, far from it: it disperses at TAU. It is also a real matter wave: and this explains the cases when it has a real effect, although in the conventional, Born-Dirac interpretation of quantum Mechanics, there is nothing there. such examples are found in experiments when one can see without photons, or in one photon at a time, two independent lasers interference experiments.

But then the TAU wave is just the leading edge of a whole, the whole being called “the particle”. The particle appears when self amplification overwhelms dispersion, after interfering with another piece of matter field. I will not bother with further details; at this point the theory is somewhat similar to the one of the gravitationally induced collapse, except that collapse can be induced by any encounter with a matter field. Also, as I mentioned before, the finiteness of TAU implies that any field will get tired over the eons… even gravitation 9and this results in the accelerated expansion of the universe apparently observed).

In this global picture, special Relativity is just an approximation related to the fact that TAU, the Quantum Collapse Speed is immensely faster than c, the speed of light. Thus the later seems independent of uniform motion.



Once an entangled pair X-Y has been created, neither X nor Y is in particle state, but, according to TOW, they are both in DELOCALIZED STATES.

According to TOW, if an interaction with another matter field happens to Y serious enough to singularize it (that is become a definite particle in a particular Quantum state according to conventional Quantum Mechanics), X will also singularize in the complementary QM state. This what the Aspect experiment shows: creating a state at Y creates in turn a state at X. And this what Einstein did not expect anymore than Napoleon expected von Blücher at Waterloo.



Something will always happen, or may be supposed to have happened, in the past light cone of the observer which originated outside of said light cone. The notion of history as defined by Special Relativity is not valid, or more exactly, not complete in the classical sense, just fragmentary. Astute observers could point out that this is exactly what is observed, as the decay of a radioactive nuclide is not predictable, although it may be so, if one controlled all entangled pairs (or if there were none, as in a long secluded part of the cosmos; preparing such states is now a flourishing part of very practical physics, and many Nobel prizes were distributed).

In my theory, TOW, non-deterministic events, such as the apparently random decay of a radioactive atom, occur because of events outside of the observable history cone. There is full determinism again. Its origin just hiding out there, may be well all the way outside of the Andromeda galaxy.


Patrice Ayme


Non vacuous note on the vacuum: The indeterminacy relations of Quantum Mechanics originate from particles “as” waves, plus De Broglie’s hypothesis tying up the wave’s frequency and the momentum.

This indeterminacy shows up as an impossibility of observing high energy states which blossom for only a short time. It allows to consider that entangled pairs of particle-antiparticles can occur ephemerally, all over. Those pairs are not directly observable (except when falling in a putative black hole), but they change fields and masses, leading to different numbers in field strength, and the necessity of “renormalizing“.

Conventional QFT specialists assume that this process goes down to Planck length (a number without much signification). But TOW does not agree with this, and would give a natural limit to normalization, beyond which QFT totally breaks down. TOW would thus limit the energy of the vacuum. Another consequence is that TOW predicts the (observed, and otherwise baffling) accelerating expansion of the universe.


Note on NUCLEAR DECAY: Some hold that nuclear decay is dependent upon solar flares (the effect is not clearly demonstrated yet). This would fit TOW perfectly well.

Why would nuclear decay depends upon solar flares? Well decay, as all and any singularizing event, in my picture, depends upon a matter wave A encountering another matter wave, B. Actually there are two types of B; big time B, which is another full bodied matter wave, or little B, b, which is a loose piece torn off from a main matter wave B during matter wave collapse.

This is the second effect that would explain why nuclear decay depends upon solar flares. Solar flares would basically augment the number of torn little pieces of matter waves b, augmenting the probability that a nuclear decay singularization would happen.


Colbert Good, Keynes Not So Smart

September 4, 2010


“It will perhaps not be inappropriate to say a few words about the advantages of trade. I believe everyone will easily agree to this principle, that only the abundance of money in a State makes the difference in its greatness and power.(Jean Baptiste Colbert, circa 1660.)

[Since the monetary system was based on precious metals, what Colbert meant by “abundance of money”, as will be made clear below, was the product of manufacturing and selling, through trade, added value goods.]


Abstract: Obama is well on his way to become one of the most unaccomplished presidents of the USA, ever. This is made worse, because we are at a crucial juncture of history, and the USA is in leadership position. When the car is travelling fast, and the leader is asleep at the wheel, it will not just end in the ditch.

The little smoke and mirrors Obama threw up, will be easily reversed by the republicans, as planned. So, in the end, Obama will turn up as just an extension of Bush, without the smirk… nor the originality. By choosing the same ideological, Goldman Sachs team, that implemented plutocracy under Clinton, Obama asked those who put the car in the ditch, to get it out, not understanding that they were still drunk in their quest to selfish profit.

This story presently unfolding has been seen before; it was Great Depression II, the great depression of the 1930s. It was the stall after the deliberately engineered bubble of the 1920s.

The West got out of it by massive state enforced job programs, started under president Hoover (Hoover dam, Empire State building, etc,) and pursued by FD Roosevelt (Grand Coulee dam, etc.) and Hitler (Autobahn system, copied by Eisenhower in the 1950s, and everybody else since).

Something one tends not to talk about is the gigantic military efforts that the Fiat Money paid for. Most notable was the decision of FDR to build a two oceans, 18 large carriers Navy. Meanwhile, Britain Hitler and Imperial Japan armed themselves using massive deficits to do so.

Millions got employed directly by the government and the massive mobilization of WWII did the rest, followed by the GI Bill in 1945. Europe had massive state organized and financed economic activity, led by the US Marshall plan (Marshall was the US chief of staff during WWII, and Secretary of State of Truman). Europe, traumatized by what had happened also made important institutional changes, oriented towards welfare, such as free health care. Sully’s plan of circa 1600 for a “Very Christian Council of Europewas also implemented.


(Labeling used on aid packages.)

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the primary program of the USA for rebuilding and creating a stronger economic foundation for the countries of Europe (1947–51). Efforts focused on modernizing European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models (themselves learned from French industrialists to implement American production of the 75mm gun, the mainstay of French artillery in WWI).

All this help and investment, in the USA and Europe, was paid by marginal tax rates on income as high as 90% in the USA (under US president Ike).

Right, now, instead, the richest Americans pay the lowest tax rate (15%), and wealth has not been so concentrated in a century (a century ago, great spaces and freedom were another form of wealth, at least in the USA, which have now disappeared).

Starting in 1996, a succession of ever larger bubbles, following part of Keynes’s ideas, has injected more and more money in the economy, money which came neither from savings nor production, but mostly borrowed from aliens, and, increasingly, the Chinese.

Robert Reich (UC Berkeley), who lost to Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs) the debate on the economic strategy to pursue in the Clinton administration, wrote an essay in the New York Times, “How to End The Great Recession”, reflecting the approach that wealth needs to be redistributed. Reich mentioned what I have long observed: the real (inflation adjusted) median income has been going down for thirty years now. This is worse than what happened during Great Depression II. So this is Great Depression III, not just another recession.

I approve of Reich’s anti plutocratic approach, of course. As he says: “The Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity.”… However, this is not the whole story. Redistribution is good, however production is necessary. Keynes, as we will see, is about throwing money to the people, as the Roman emperors invented. That is not about meaningful employment.

Obama’s ineptitude is not all his fault. The economic advice he got, even from his opponents, has been terrible. For example, Krugman, whom I approve a lot of, wanted, like Romer (the ex-chair of economic advisers) a bigger stimulus. And so did I.

But stimulating what? How? To which aim? Most of Obama’s stimulus was wasted on short term alleviation of long term structural defects, exactly the sort of trap one does not want to fall into (French socialists fell into that very trap in the recent past, with the result that the income tax started to fully go to paying the interest on the French national debt).

The USA stimulus ought to have targeted to jump start a big energy infrastructure first, followed by a massively innovative scientific industry, modeled after the military industrial complex (the only thing the USA does really well nowadays, besides plenty of hot air). Instead, the debate in economic theory has been pretty much Keynes (somewhat of a neo-stupid, see below) versus Hayek (a pro-plutocratic neo-fascist who influenced the Chicago school’s meta principle that GREED, AND ONLY GREED, MAKES GOOD).

However, the military-industrial complex of the USA, by now, by far, the most competitive part of its economy, is not run according to Hayek, or Keynes. It is run along the lines defined by Jean Baptiste Colbert. That ought to be a hint, but no main stream American economist has picked it up.

American economists in good standing do not know who Colbert was, perhaps because he thrived when Indians were outnumbering European colonists in North America, and studying history is not as important than learning sports, and to learn to agree with one’s peers, in American schools.

Colbert started his career, and this is overlooked, overlooking the military, at the grand old age of 21. Colbert branched off into economy and finance much later, after helping to send the hyper rich “superintendent of finances”, Fouquet, to jail, for life.

The American economist Paul Kennedy, in a book about The Rise And Fall Of The Great Powers, basically expounded, as his theory, what was pretty much Colbert’s theory and practice (unsurprisingly, Kennedy does not talk about Colbert too much, and got rewarded with a prize for his depth and originality).

Colbert had perfectly understood that Great Power status necessitated a Great Economy. Thus Colbertism could be viewed as the highest form of militarism. Just like the USA is itself the highest form of militarism which ever was. Notice the rapprochement. Not to make fun of it: the position of Europe and the USA is unstable, just as the entire world economy, society and military situations are all simultaneously unstable, and military superiority is what keeps thing together, right now (unfortunately it is courting defeat in Afghanistan).

Colbert was actually following the model implemented, with spectacular success, by Henri IV and his economy and finance minister, Sully, a protestant military engineer, around 1600 CE, with state financed canals, silk factories and free markets.

Why are great powers great powers? Because they have achieved a technological superiority gradient, and have enough numbers to sit on top of it. Numbers are not everything: the Mongols carved the world’s largest empire in a few years, and with 200,000 warriors. “Technology” here is meant in the full etymological sense: any specialized discourse.

If we want to keep a superior lifestyle in the empire of the West, and a stable planet, it is high time to recover such a gradient, which is, basically, an intelligence gradient. Thus it is high time to redistribute the sort of economy which makes the military industrial complex of the USA so superior, namely COLBERTISM MODERNIZED.




No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how right you are, if you do not have power, you do not matter. Except in those rare cases. Those rare cases when history turns the other way, and power goes to others, big time. This is why power needs to be constrained by the state of law, and its principles, exactly what the Roman plutocracy shredded, and what the American plutocracy is shredding, as we watch.

On the biggest historical scale, those cases, invasions, revolutions, when history was turned on its head, have mostly happened when the technological gradient, in the widest sense, disappeared, or even, inverted to the detriment of the most advanced ciilization. This is exactly what is happening now. This is also what happened when Rome was submerged by the Goths.

The defeat of the Romans by the Goths under Valens was an accident waiting to happen. The obsession with Jesus and his coming apocalypse had made Rome even more stupid than four centuries of unrelenting fascism had already accomplished.

Thus emperor Valens did not wait to engage in battle for his legions to be rested, or for his nephew, co-emperor Gratian, to show up with his own legions (he had nearly arrived). Why? Because Valens was arrogant, stupid, and his advisers were anxious for Gratian (and his own advisers!) to get no glory, for the unavoidable victory over the Goths. (The Goths had taken refuge, inside the Roman empire, from the Huns, their high tech composite bows, and their wild terrorizing methods.)

This is how, at Adrianople, the Goths became masters of (most of) the Roman empire (until the Franks bottled them down in Iberia, where Muslims adventurers would smash them by surprise).

But an invasion of the Roman empire would have happened anyway, because the Greco-Roman world had lost technological superiority on the barbarians (because the plutocrats hate thinking, and they controlled everything for 400 years). By technology here I mean not just technological superiority in the material sense, but also in the spiritual sense. The later because the Greco-Roman world had lost democracy: emperors, at that stage, were mostly elected by the army, although a plutocratic dynastic principle was also imposing itself.

Something similar happened in China: the technological gap with the Mongols had disappeared. China, like Rome, was ruled by a similar oligarchy whose relative power depended upon making the people stupid. Whereas, united by Genghis Khan, the power of the Mongols depended upon being as smart as possible. When Mongol intelligence overcame the intelligence of that of all the oligarchies which surrounded them, all the way from Vietnam to Hungary and Poland, they conquered all. (Until they rubbed shoulders with the Franks!)



Nowadays, the world technological gradient has been quickly disappearing, both in the material and spiritual sense. Whereas Europe and its colonies was centuries, if not millennia ahead, even a century ago, most of the world (except Africa!) has been making spectacular progress (at least in appearance).

Meanwhile the increasing rule of the mega rich has discouraged higher thinking in general and higher technology in particular, in the West (the abandonment of the Super Collider in the USA, after its construction was started, was symptomatic of this degeneracy; now just as much is spent in 2 weeks terrorizing Afghans and Iraqis, as the total cost of the Super Collider would have been, and American scientists have to go to CERN, the Centre Europeen de Recherche Nucleaire, in Geneva, under France and Suisse). China and India have been doing well scientifically, with huge efforts. The USA has been doing badly, losing all sorts of technological edges, including in the democratic domain. But not in military matters.

Obama knows all too well that those who do not have power do not matter. Still, at first sight curiously, he behaved as if the republicans had all the power, and he needed their approval to do anything. And also as if Wall Street had all the power (as he proved by reappointing the (Rubin)-Summers-Geithner-(Greenspan)-Bernanke deregulatory, bubble team that gave Wall Street so much power to start with.)

Then, more recently, Obama gave some little signs of rebellion, like the zebra pursued by the lion, kicking back, here and there. Maybe Obama wanted to ingratiate himself to those who voted for him.

If Obama goes big economically, he has to go big with Colbert, not Keynes. This is what China is doing, and also Russia. Both are building massive new infrastructure, including very high speed train networks. Both are using state enterprises, some existing, some recently created, all of them huge. Chinese (state) banks, the largest in the world, functions as banks are supposed to function: not to impoverish the people, but to finance the economy.

Of course, Europe is very aware of the necessity of directing progress from the heights of the state. That was already the central doctrine of the Franks, symbolized with the aftermath of the Vase de Soissons incident. (Look for the “cached page”, since Gregory of Tours’ Histories are huge.) Clovis wanted to make nice with the bishops, so he had decided the state would restitute the vase, and it was a capital crime to get in the way of this nation building.

What the world needs more of is Colbert, rather than Keynes. Let me explain. Keynes believed that one put the people to work by all and any means, by just throwing money at them. That worked in 1945, because the USA dominated the world. But, in 1666 CE France, exhausted by generations of war (100 years of war with Spain, seven religious wars, the Fronde, the 30 year war, etc.), thrift was necessary. Colbert solved the problem was axing the state’s effort towards producing an EFFICIENT, SCIENCE FICTION economy.



Keynes argued that the private sector sometimes leads to inefficiency and therefore advocated an active public sector, including money creation by the central bank and appropriate fiscality. So far, so good. It’s like saying roads are useful to walk on.

This sort of theory is nothing new. The Roman empire already had an enormous public sector in major construction (Roman canals, Roman roads, mines) and weapons manufacturing. Centuries earlier the massive trireme fleet of Athens was a government program voted by the National Assembly, and a public-private effort. It was coincident with the two centuries’ of Athens’ intellectual, civilizational supremacy.

It is so natural to have the state rule the economy that the highly successful Inca state had an enormous infrastructure, also with a road network (the Incas collapsed because of a civil war inducing smallpox, plus the crazy methods of Pizarro, not because of its roads).

Keynes advocated a mixed economy. Good.  But not new: Athens practiced it in 483 BCE. And destroyed Achaemenid Persia that way, saving civilization from the rabid, freedom devouring fascist imperial plutocrats based in Persepolis. Here is what fascism is all about, the reign of the plutocrats, what Athens crushed. As Xerxes himself put it, in a surviving inscription:

   “A great God is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Xerxes king, one king of many, one lord of many.
     I am Xerxes, the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing many kinds (of men), King in this great earth far and wide, son of King Darius, an Achaemenian.
     Proclaims Xerxes the King: By the favor of Ahuramazda I built this Gateway of All Nations. I built many other beautiful things in Persia. I built them and my father built them. All beautiful things we built, we have built by the favor of Ahuramazda.
    Proclaims Xerxes the King: May Ahuramazda protect me from harm, and this land, and whatever was built by me as well as what has been built by my father.”

This is worth remembering: that is what the plutocrats all want, and that is what the high tech democratic enterprise of Athens’ state capitalism blocked, and, ultimately, destroyed.

Too bad the classics have been forgotten, because, fundamentally, philosophically, there is nothing new about Keynes. And those who campaign against Keynes are fundamentally campaigning against Athens, freedom, civilization. They are with Xerxes, and they cling to their god in the same malevolent way. Notice in passing that Ahuramazda was a much more advanced kinder and smarter god than the cunning, jealous and malevolent biblical god of the Hebrews, who started his career by asking a father to kill his son, just because he could (all Muslims celebrate that with happiness every year, and then some are surprised by their propensity to sacrifice sons…)

It is all the more silly, to have forgotten that what Keynes advocated was at the heart of the Greek and Roman success, because the model advocated by Keynes was also highly successful during the later part of the Great Depression II, World War II, and the post war economic expansion, in Western Europe and the USA. Let alone 17C France.

So Keynes said nothing really deep which was really new. So why did it feel new to some? Only because several generations of economists just preceding him had gone very wrong, Keynes sounded refreshing. A key idea was that insufficient buying-power caused the Depression. Keynes believed that by inundating the economy with money, things would grow again. Keynes, naively, thought that buying power could be created whichever way:

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again… the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.

(Chapter 10, Keynes’ General Theory)

“To dig holes in the ground,” paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. (Chapter 16, General Theory)

Even Stalin was not that dumb. The Man Of Steel got millions of slaves to dig holes in the ground, to make canals, which turned out to be very profitable (too bad they died in the process). In any case, no wonder that the neo-fascist economist Hayek could paint Keynes with the broad brush of incompetent collectivism.

In any case, the FDR job plan, the GI Bill, the Marshall plan can all be viewed as forms of modernized Colbertism. People were not digging holes in the ground for no good reason. instead the economic effort was all well thought after, and fostered progress, efficiency, quality, education, science, and investments in new technology.



Jean-Baptiste Colbert served as the French finance minister from 1665 to his death in 1683.He improved an economic situation rendered extremely difficult by several enormous wars, including several civil wars. In 1640, at the age of 21, Colbert was “commissaire ordinaire des guerres” in the war office.

Colbert’s plan was to use all it took to advance technology and innovation to create economic advantage, or improvement. Since the people were not doing it, he would have the state organize it.

To do this, Colbert created venture companies funded by state capital and various legal tricks, such as monopolies (which is what a patent is). For example he created the Manufacture royale de glaces de miroirs in 1665 to supplant the importation of Venetian glass. Said Manufacture then invented drastically new technology. The company still exists, as one of the world’s largest, most advanced corporations. Colbert also founded the royal tapestry of the Gobelins to produce state of the art cloth manufacturing. In 1666 alone, Colbert founded 35 new such venture companies (as they would be called today). Colbert had invented venture capital, and was running the world’s largest venture capital firm (certainly the largest which ever was, in constant monetary units). The idea was to fight unemployment:

“Aside from the advantages that the entry of a greater quantity of cash into the kingdom will produce, it is certain that, thanks to the manufactures, a million people who now languish in idleness will be able to earn a living. An equally considerable number will earn their living by navigation and in the seaports.

The almost infinite increase in the number of [French] ships will multiply to the same degree the greatness and power of the State.

These, in my opinion, are the goals that should be the aim of the King’s efforts and of his goodness and love for his people.”

Colbert protected inventors, invented gifted foreign workers, created the academy of sciences in 1666. He used tariffs to protect nascent industries, and founded a merchant marine (differently from England, which needed a marine, just to survive, France could do without, just as China under the Ming, and it would have had the same result; stagnation).

Colbert found that France had a problem with the Netherlands reminiscent of the problem the EU and the USA are increasingly having with China and company:

“The manufacture of cloths and serges and other textiles of this kind, paper goods, ironware, silks, linens, soaps, and generally all other manufactures were and are almost entirely ruined.

The Dutch have inhibited them all and bring us these same manufactures, drawing from us in exchange the commodities they want for their own consumption and re-export. If these manufactures were well re-established, not only would we have enough for our own needs, so that the Dutch would have to pay us in cash for the commodities they desire, but we would even have enough to send abroad, which would also bring us returns in money-and that, in one word, is the only aim of trade and the sole means of increasing the greatness and power of this State.

As for trade by sea, whether among French ports or with foreign countries, it is certain that, even for the former, since in all French ports together only two hundred to three hundred ships belong to the subjects of the King, the Dutch draw from the kingdom every year, according to an exact accounting that has been made, four million Livres for this carrying trade, which they take away in commodities. Since they absolutely need these commodities, they would be obliged to pay us this money in cash if we had enough ships for our own carrying trade.”

Replace “Dutch” by “Chinese & Global Plutocracy”, and the analogy carries on. The supremacy of the Netherlands, from the French point of view, was like unpaid debt, as France carried most of the trouble of waging war against the giant Spanish empire.

Nowadays it is pretty obvious that a worldwide carbon tax ought to be used, as it would act as a protection for the nascent sustainable industries and energy sources. Too bad for those who pollute too much, such as China (poisoning the Arctic with mercury from its coal, among other things).

As Paul Kennedy puts it, in a partial picture of what was going on: “Jean Baptiste Colbert, French Naval Secretary of State and Finance Minister… duplicated Britain’s industrial development efforts. France purchased the latest technology, encouraged skilled workers, protected the home markets, eliminated internal tariffs, and constructed canals and roads. France developed flourishing industries, a profitable shipping industry, and a powerful navy.”

Colbert believed in labor, quality, and being on the technological edge. He is often classified as a mercantilist, but this is not correct, as mercantilism believed in the accumulation of precious metals primarily. Colbert valued instead SUPERIOR PRODUCTION, through innovation, and harnessed the state to produce the superior production. We are very far from Keynes, and his holes to nowhere. However, Colbertism is very close to what the Pentagon has been doing all those years (at least since before WWII; the US Army was small, hence weak, but the quality of its armaments was superior, as the Japanese found soon enough.)

Colbert issued more than 150 executive orders to regulate the guilds. An example: to improve the quality of cloth, if a merchant’s cloth was found unsatisfactory on three separate occasions, he would be tied to a post with the cloth attached to him.



Even under Reagan the bad bankers of the Saving and Loans collapse, and of the junk bond and LBO scandals got arrested, dragged to court, punished. But nowadays, for the mega rich, it’s all carrot, no stick. when asked, officials lamely claim that “everybody did it, so it cannot be viewed as crime.” by comparison, Wall Street in the widest sense has 120,000 employees, the USA, 310 millions, and, after the Second World War, the French republic prosecuted 200,000 Nazi collaborators.

Punishing the bad actors is what needs to be done now with bankers, or many American executives, who have turned into executors of the American economy. Many CEOs leading many a car company, or even now Boeing have abandoned quality of their products for the shallowness of greed … And they should be dragged in front of Congress to explain themselves, and their vision of the USA first, and civilization, next. In a similar example of greed over patriotic sense, Hewlett Packard is also closing its research center in Cupertino, which probably means that HP intends to outsource know-how overseas. A similar desertion, should it occur in France would be viewed as unacceptable.

The USA is quickly turning into a nation of hyper wealthy share holders and money manipulators overlording the increasingly destitute commons. This happened before. It is exactly what happened to Italy under the Roman empire. (Real trouble started in the Third Century, when barely Roman generals were elected emperors by the all too barbarian “Roman” army.)

The state needs to rejuvenate and reorganize the effort in maintaining the scientific and technological edge. In particular public universities ought to be free, and all children who are doing particularly well at school ought to be supported by (federal) state fellowships (the French republic had such a program, and that is what probably allowed France to ultimately defeat German based fascism in the period 1870-1945, since Germany was twice the size, and the strongest military on earth, by far).

The USA already knows how to maintain, and even increase the scientific and technology edge. In defense. The Defense Department runs DARPA. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been periodically called ARPA, some of the ideas above are not new, even in the recent USA. This is one of the reason of the success of the military industrial complex in the USA: nothing succeeds as success.


As Colbert would be the first to point out, this military spending has got out of hand. Instead of getting all its money from… China, and Chinese slaves, with the help of global plutocrats, the USA (and the EU!) should work at replenishing their manufacturing, and recovering its technological edge. It’s not just a question of keeping comfortable lives, and employment, more fundamentally, it is a question of keeping the world militarily stable.

Time to go back to the future. Having the central bank drop money from helicopters” has not worked. Showering the plutocrats with money has not worked either. Nor has stimulating the moribund. The jobs are still disappearing, especially the superior value jobs.

What is needed now is digging deep into the understanding of the world, and to adjust the economy accordingly, the way Colbert advocated, not digging for digging’s sake, deep for fool’s gold, as Keynes advocated.

Deducting research costs in technology and science from taxes is a good way to start.


Patrice Ayme


Notes: 0) Some with a superficial knowledge of history may point out that Louis XIV’s France got into so many wars that the situation did not really improve. True. But, inasmuch as I dislike Louis XIV, many of these wars and strife were not really of his own making (except for the Revocation of the Edict Of Nantes, which was a disaster for France, and that Louis came to attribute to “bad advice”; Sully and Henri IV, Colbert’s predecessors in many ways, were Hugenot (protestants)).

1) Some of Colbert’s orders: “To revive all the regulations in the kingdom for the re-establishment of manufactures.

To examine all import and export duties, and exempt raw materials and [domestic] manufacture….

Annually to spend a considerable sum for the re-establishment of manufactures and for the good of trade, according to resolutions that will be taken in Council.

Similarly for navigation, to pay rewards to all those persons who buy or build new ships or who undertake long-distance voyages.”

2) If France Was So Much At The Edge Of Smarts, HOW COME ENGLAND & NETHERLANDS DID BETTER?

Well, this is an extremely complicated subject, because it involves a close comparison between (at the time) giant France, Germany, Italy, and the small Netherlands and Britain. Basically, France had done the heavy lift against Spanish-Habsburg fascism, ending in fascism’s destruction. At great cost.

England and France were fundamentally different, because one is an island, and the other firmly planted at the crossroads of Europe (and even Africa!). England and France were fundamentally the same polity (at least from 1066 until 1415, or more), and they competed French lords to French lords, for centuries. Smaller and less endowed England had naturally to opt for more innovation, and many came from the Greco-Roman world through southern France (that England tended to control).

Just before Colbert’s rise to chief of finance and economy, France has successfully concluded a war with Spain which lasted roughly a century. Finally the French army destroyed in battle the precedingly undefeated Spanish infantry and its “squares”. England never had to fight a single battle with Spanish infantry (the Great Armada’s destruction was more of a great miracle, than a great feat of arms!)

Several of the English problems, such as the rule of unscrupulous plutocrats, and overpopulation of the destitute, were mixed, and turned to advantage by settling mighty colonies. The disadvantage of losing the war with the Dutch republic was also turned to advantage because Dutch finance and democracy had become the most advanced from fighting the Hapsburg (and the rescuing French), and it got successfully grafted. More plutocrats, such as the Rothschild, provided enormous financial leverage, by inventing the privately managed fractional reserve system, and financing war against France that way (more Rothschilds came to finance the other side too).



Ever since Colbert, the French state has been partial to public-private innovation. EADS, Airbus, Arianespace, Areva, Alstom, are more of the same. The first cars, under king Louis XV, were such a military program, paid by the state (to make steam propelled tanks). Same with the first planes (the state was paying a company headed by Ader, inventor of the “avion” in name and flying fact). This approach was copied by Germany, and even nowadays Britain’s Cameron has embarked on state of the art Colbertism (singing the praises of Airbus being part of it).

The French republic under the revolution, and the dictator Napoleon resurrected Colbert’s innovative and protective system. For example schools of excellence, such as Polytechnique, were was created, and immediately churned out new explosives that allowed the French rabble to defeat the superb, invading Prussian army at Valmy (1792 CE).

This accelerated the industrialization of Europe. The large trading bloc, initially created by the armies of the French revolution, about as big as the present Eurozone, would have led to the end of Britain’s dominance of world trade. Britain, the European monarchies, and the Church (fearful of a revolution) entered into a “Holy Alliance”, renewed several times, which activated the fascist reflex in French society, leading to Napoleon’s highjacking of the revolutionary force, until his final defeat at Waterloo.


The markets of Europe were deliberately fragmented and industry throughout the continent collapsed as a result in 1815 CE. This collapse, with attending unequal trading systems imposed, even upon the fledgling United States, alerted the later to the necessity of protecting its industries and markets. It also made, as anticipated, the glorious ascent of Britain. Germany, especially, and France, not as much, would use forceful Colbertism to catch up with Britain later. Even so did the USA (to this day, amazingly, when a film crew from an alien land comes to shoot a movie in the USA, it has to employ as many Americans, who just hang around; no other countries has such an eulogy to Colbertism gone mad; when an American crew comes to shoot a movie in France, it does not have to employ the French!)

As Paul Kennedy puts it: “One cannot miss the similarity between the industrial collapse on the Continent [in 1815 CE]and its dependency upon Britain after the French defeat and the 1991-to-1999 collapse of the Russian economy and its dependency on the West.” What Kennedy does not say is that the same happened in 1945, on an even larger scale, as the USA took control of the West and its dependencies.

At its peak Britain was manufacturing 54% of the finished products in world trade. To Gandhi’s future great rage, Indian cotton was sent to Britain to be manufactured there into cloth. As the economist Jevons put it in 1865: The world was Britain’s “countryside,” a huge plantation system feeding its empire:

“The plains of North America and Russia are our corn fields; Chicago and Odessa our granaries; Canada and the Baltic our timber forests; Australia contains our sheep farms, and in Argentina and on the Western prairies of North America are our herds of oxen; Peru sends her silver, and the gold of South Africa and Australia flows to London; the Hindus and the Chinese grow our tea for us, and our coffee, sugar and spice plantations are all in the Indies. Spain and France are our vineyards and the Mediterranean our fruit garden; and our cotton grounds, which for long have occupied the Southern United States, are being extended everywhere in the warm regions of the earth.”

As Paul Kennedy puts it: “To funnel this wealth to the mother countries, exclusive trading companies—East India Company (English, Dutch, and French), Africa Company, Hudson Bay Company, et al., were established.

Forcing the natives to work for nothing while providing their own subsistence created enormous profits.” Something similar is set-up nowadays, except that the wealth, and know-how is flowing the other way, streaming out of the West.


Neofascist, neoconservative metaprinciple: “There is no economy but greed, and greed is its prophet.” Unfortunately for us all, greed does not make a man good.


Research Tax Credit, USA, 2005: 6 billion dollars. Less than three days of the military spending of the USA in the Middle East. Obviously insufficient.


Aphorisms 08/2010: Babysitting Instructive?

September 1, 2010



BORING AS A MACHINE: Oopss… I forgot to watch Obama making his Oval Office address on the Iraq war. I guess my subconscious agrees with my loud discourses on those who know what to say, because they are  reading it on their teleprompter. Instead I got distracted, mesmerized, listening to my baby continuous babbling as she watched pretty islands and world maps on the History Channel… Obviously a more genuine discourse, more prone to reconcile us to the honor of the human spirit.


WHAT THE TELEPROMPTER WILL NOT SAY: The last day of August, Obama read from his teleprompter solemnly. About the end of the Iraq war. Supposedly. End of the war, start of the occupation. The USA are keeping many enormous bases. What for? Official line being to keep the peace.

Under the French fourth republic, the Israeli defense ministry had an office inside the French defense ministry. Israeli nuclear weapons were developed, and tested, in common with the French. Don’t forget the French republic was Hitler’s deadly enemy, and did not rest until it persuaded Britain to join in attacking Hitler. Some talk a lot about conquering desert savages sitting on top the oil, whereas France had the will, and guts, to do something radical about Nazism, and its allies, Stalin and various American plutocrats. It was not straightforward, right.

In May 1967, the Israeli chief of staff visited France. Within weeks Israel attacked the Arab air forces (Nasser, Egypt’s dictator, having received false reports from the USSR, had been blockading Israel, and massing his army for attack; he was pre-empted by Israel, who destroyed enemy air forces, achieving air supremacy over Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, within the morning of June 5, 1967.)

De Gaulle, the French president, a prima donna peeved for some reason, and anxious to pose as the friend of the Arabs (which was his safe racist position, especially considering all that oil), decided to boycott Israel. That was a problem, because all major Israeli weapons were French. (Ways around were found, and Nixon was all too happy to help, soon after, and replace France in her own garden.)

Official visible French Israeli relations were not too good in the next 43 years. A summit in irritation was reached in Lebanon, when the French army, mandated by the UN, threatened to fire sophisticated Mistral missiles at the Israeli air force, if the Israelis persisted with aggressive overflights. The French Mistral is significantly faster than its American anti-aircraft equivalent. The Israelis decided to fly somewhere else, such as Turkey.

So what happened last week? Well, the Israeli chief of staff visited France, spending several days in various French army bases.

Think Iran. Think American bases in Iraq, a good jumping point. Think the French nuclear umbrella generously extended to the UAE. The French opened there their first new foreign basis in more than 40 years (40 years again!)

In other words: an attack on Iran is being prepared, or, at least, discussed. All what is missing, is a casus belli. The Iranian fanatics, anxious to buttress their dictatorship with some foreign aggression, are trying ever more to suggest some: an Iranian state journal just declared the French president’s wife a "prostitute", who should be executed.


KEEP THE RICH UNTAXED, OR ELSE… Latest noise from USA politics: all his hyper rich sponsors have turned against Obama, or so they want us to believe, because they suspect he wants them to pay more than the lowest tax rate in the USA, which they enjoy now. Actually the richest 400 taxpayers pay an average rate of 17% on their average 340 million dollars income (source: Geithner).


GENETIC VARIATION FROM SEX: I was reading in some scientific publication that why sex evolved is still a mystery. Whereas few things are clearer: sex allows to try all sorts of genetic combinations, as long as it is operating in conjunction with high infidelity. If one of these combinations is more successful at surviving, it will have a longer life, and, or, more sex, hence, in any case more descendants. Thus the trait will tend to perpetuate itself. This is a small variation of so called "Darwinian selection".

Whereas cloning would not allow the superior trait to appear to start with.



Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [Lincoln, Gettysburg address.]

Government of the people, by the plutocracy, for the plutocracy, shall perish with the earth. And who has been controlling the Congress since 2006, and the presidency since January 2008? Well the alleged, self proclaimed demos-crats, those who claim to rule in the name of the people.

Geithner pointed out that the richest 400 in the USA had an income of 340 million each, last year, and paid an average tax of only 17%. After 4 years of control of the senate and the Congress, plus two years of presidency by the alleged, self proclaimed "democrats", this is pretty telling.

DEMOCRATS, OR DEMONCRATS? That is the question. Who is better? The enemy facing you with a lance, or the friend stabbing you in the back?


WHERE EVIL COMES FROM: Sometimes, it is not enough to do our best, it is necessary to be evil.

This is a slight modification of a statement of Churchill. This also something that men have known since ever, and ever. And in particular the leaders of civilizations. It is also part of what motivated Obama to go into Afghanistan, thinking he was very smart, as usual.



Gandhi meant well, in his context, the context he had in his head. But his context was bad, as seen by hundreds of million, from outside his head. Being dressed literally and figuratively in Hindu garb caused the rift with the Muslims. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslims, used exactly that argument, and it is correct. Jinnah had not engaged in civil disobedience, as Gandhi had… Until 1946.

Later, war of Pakistan (Muslim majority) with Kashmir (which had an Hindu Maharaja) started. Perhaps to prove he was still Holier-Than-Thou all, and that he was not an anti-Muslim simpleton, Gandhi insisted that Pakistan ought to be paid its financial part of the partition.

Gandhi went on a hunger strike to insure that, making a lot of people very angry against him. He was accused to not have done enough to prevent the partition of India and Pakistan. Gandhi’s assassin had plenty of time to justify himself during his trial, India being a democracy. The assassin explained very carefully that he acted against "Gandhi’s perpetual weakness" vis a vis Pakistan. After a first assassination attempt, from the same crowd, Gandhi himself admitted that the extremely highly connected assassins may have been right. Gandhi was despaired: his non violence had not worked. At deepest level. The philosophical level.

In biblical mythology, Satan was a fallen angel, but an angel nevertheless. Sometimes it is better to look evil in the eye.

Why? Because Gandhi was too much stuck inside his religious-nationalist Hindu box. It’s highly ironical since, as I said Gandhi meant so well; sustainability, ecology, caring for the small and poor, rejecting economic exploitation, dependency, and violence under all its forms.

Anyway, ten million people died, and it’s far from over. The same sort of forces being still at work.


WE CASH, THEREFORE WE CARE: President Obama informed us that "What I’m doing now with Malia and Sasha is they’re getting an allowance," Obama told ABC’s "Good Morning America.

"They’re starting to get old enough where they may be able earn some money babysitting. They’ve got their own saving accounts." Great, I happen to have an eleven month old of my own, and no baby sitter meeting my, and those of my spouse, exacting standards. It’s wonderful to do one’s own babysitting, but it takes a lot of time, teaching baby to not hit the delete button.

Babysitting is an American rite. It teaches (girls) that human interaction can be profitable in a sense that the IRS understands. Other countries are more careful with this. Why?

Other countries are typically modern versions of old civilizations. The USA, alone in the world in that regard, claims to not being attached to old civilization (hence the importance of the Bible, for the average American: it’s the only anchor they heard about). In any case, in other countries, it is understood that one has to be careful when teaching children what the ultimate motivator is.

Babysitting is a good idea, in some ways: it teaches altruism, empathy, the human condition. But babysitting-to-earn-money instills a supplementary metaprinciple: getting money is more important than any of the preceding. Look at the preceding statement of Obama. Its key concepts are: allowance… earning… money… accounts. All of this is enabled by babysitting.

IN THE USA, BABY SITTING IS VIEWED AS THE WORLD’S OLDEST PROFESSION. Trust Obama to teach the true values. Those dear to his dear "friend" the well named Jamie Demon (or something like that).

It is understood in older civilizations that money should not be taught to children as the ultimate motivator. Why? Because money, ultimately is power onto people, and it is important to teach tomorrow’s people that there are other ways to interact with other people. Many of these other ways are known to marmoset monkeys, and marmoset monkey societies could not work without. How can the USA function without mental capabilities necessary to keep marmoset society together?

It is going to be interesting to see what happens when a civilization which has been imprinted to unlearn what marmosets know is confronted to what money can’t buy.


Patrice Ayme.


Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever


Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever


Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Political Reactionary

Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction

Of Particular Significance

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome

Power Exponentiation By A Few Destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization. Are We Next?

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

%d bloggers like this: