Obama Commemorates 9/11 His Way.



“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 https://patriceayme.wordpress.com… 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…


Tags: , ,

5 Responses to “Obama Commemorates 9/11 His Way.”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    I like reading your posts. Keep up the good work. These kind of blogs are the reason I don’t buy newspapers anymore. The political correctness of especially Dutch newspapers is galling.

    About the dissapointment that is Barack Obama. Just compare his speeches etc. to FDR’s inauguration speech. It’s a grosly simple comparassion, and not fit for a historian. Still says a lot though. FDR practically declared war on Wall Street. Obama seems to always seek consensus in the wrong way.

    I won’t be suprised if he finds his balls one day it will be to late and he will overreach and end up worse in a worse position than before.

    Reading your essays make me feel we’re living in the ancien regime again.

    And about Americans being stupid: don’t underestimate the shit Europeans put up with. It borders on the insane.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Anonymous from the Netherlands:
      Yes FDR declared war on Wall Street, and Teddy Roosevelt had done even more before (he broke Rockfeller, at a time when Rockfeller controlled more than 11% of USA GDP).

      Obama will find his balls when it does not matter, like November 3, 2010. He will have accomplished what came out to be his mission: deconsidering the general direction, the set of dimensions, were the only solutions lay.

      I invested myself a lot in the process of electing Obama, and actually know of no one who invested more. I have a personal connection to Obama, actually, and I could not disagree more with the method he used, baiting people by basically uttering what was in my blog(s), and then switching back not just to embrace the establishment, but to put it back in command.

      Not that this was a completely insane tactic. It was a fine balance act. I actually recommanded Biden, Clinton…and Gates (!!!), in their present positions.
      But leaving an old CIA hand as Gates in charge of defense did not mean that the old erroneous policies about Afghanistan that Gates himself directed when he was director of the CIA, ought to be embraced., same as twenty years ago.

      The bottom line is that Obama did not know enough to dare defy the establishment. He thought he could judt tinker, and get it right. But what is needed is to change the US Constitution. Start with the grotesque Senate.

      Before changing, one has to call for the change, and debate. Obamacare cannot work because it is more tinkering with the Titanic, as it sinks. Employer based helath is non sensical. There the strategy made sense, but not the tactics: first people got infuriatdd by the backroom deals with the health plutocrats, second the republicans will deconstruct it in January 2011.

      Speaking of deconstruction, Obama needed to deconstruct what was there before. But the bottom line, again, is that he is not too sure about what is on the teleprompter.

      The strength of Europe is that constitutions are being changed on a rolling basis. The situation with the Roma/Gypsies is the last case in point. Still it’s basically the same system as in the USA, just running better, because of more checks and balances and less corruption. I still maintain the privately managed fractional reserve public money creating system (same in the USA as in the EU) is something that has to be put in competition with a purely public option. China has the later, because, if bank managers stray there, they know bullets with their names on it await their necks.

      Psychologically, Obama has been brainwashed, as a youth to be a goof ball who believes that anger never brought anything. Teddy and FDR did not make that mistake… Being from the plutocracy, they wanted to go beyond, whereas Bill Clinton, and others, just aspire to join it. (Notice i left Hillary off the hook!)


  2. Calling 9/11 « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] have documented this assault many times, for example in “Obama Commemorates 9/11 His Way.” But the USA, as a propaganda machine keeps on whining it was the very definition of innocence, and […]


  3. Mali: USA Ought To Fuel France « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] was an error, an irrelevant sideshow that the USA imposed on itself by (unlawfully, and secretly) messing up that forlorn country in the 1970s. (9/11 was an infortunate blow-back, after the conflict deliberately instigated by the USA, brought […]


  4. USA Attack Against Afghanistan « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] The situation in the Republique du Mali is completely different: it’s a secular state which called the United Nations to intervene, and the UNSC agreed, unanimously. The French Republic is just implementing that resolution. *** Patrice Ayme *** For seeing the war of the USA against Afghanistan in a wider context; https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/obama-commemorates-911-his-way/ […]


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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: