Archive for November, 2011


November 22, 2011


Abstract: Europe long suffered from the exactions of the hyper wealthy, various plutocrats such as kings, dukes, princes or sultans, or, more generally, all those who lust after power to the detriment of the rest.

I give examples extracted from (a small part of) what happened in the late Seventeenth Century, just in (part of, mostly) Eastern Europe. And the irony of it all. While showing that the evil organization of (say) the Ottoman empire, or more generally, of wrath wrecked Europe was such, because many profited from it, Satanic style.

Kratia” in Greek means power, rule, sway… Hence demo-kratia, the rule of the People, and Pluto-kratia, the rule of Pluto, and his obsession with underground wealth, underground emotions, the invisible hand.

So stupid many economists are, at least around New York or London, that they laud loudly the “invisible hand”.

In their ignorance and depravity, they wallop so much, that they have no idea that invisibility was viewed by the Greeks, 3,000 years ago, as one of the Lord of Hell’s most terrible attributes.

And sure enough, if Auschwitz had been visible, it would not have happened. Think about that, Lords of Finance, if you can! Sorry, I forgot for an instant, that one sees best with the heart, and you have none!

Now the world suffers from 600 trillions dollars of invisible derivatives, 450 trillions of them weighing on the bond market, agitated by well orchestrated panics, so that the rich who organize them, can get ever richer, from the toils of taxpayers, and the ruin of savers, retirees, the unemployed, the sick. “Shadow Banking” is supposed to be glorious…When actually it should be a cause for incarceration.

In Egypt, the army keeps on going as overlord, with the invisible American hand feeding it, instructing it, organizing it…

In the Nineteenth Century, Nietzsche claimed that men were mostly driven by the “Will to Power” (and that it was healthy).

A century earlier, Sade had insisted that political leaders, in particular, were psychopaths, lusting so much for power, that inflicting pain on others was their main driver. Louis XVI put him in the Bastille (big mistake, as it turned out in July 1789!)

Perfect illustrations of the Marquis de Sade’s theory soon blossomed in abundance, with vengeful plutocrats trying to burn all of Europe, demented revolutionary leaders cutting heads by the thousands, and Napoleon’s childish ambition to spill as much blood as possible; those tyrans and crats all had this in common that they hated Sade. They imprisoned him for decades, and Robespierre’s gang scheduled his execution for having saved thousands of lives from the terror. (The ambition of Robespierre’s gangsters got cut short, with their necks, sparing Sade, just in time!)

Of course, humans are motivated by more than the Dark Side’s Will, Violence, and Power. Be it only because of the Light Side, of love, empathy, curiosity, even poetry, and singing, which make even more of a driver of human behavior. And we have names for them: lover, empath, inquirer, questioner, investigator, poet, singer, etc. Just as we have now names for sadists and brutes. (“Sadist” though is a neologism introduced thanks to Sade’s provocative revelations!)

In all and any case, nobody proposed to name those who, among humans are obsessed with the infliction of their will upon others. No name for the power-hungry, the over-ambitious, those who lust for power, the Genghis Khans, the Alexanders, the Caesars, the Napoleons and Hitlers, Rothschilds, Clintons, and DSKs. This is all the stranger, because a noun naturally offers itself!

Thus I proposed a neologism: CRATS, for those so greedy for power that they forget other human values. (Krugman promptly used it in his blog without proper attribution, after I mentioned it in his blog’s comments; I do not belong to the power circle of those worthy of quotation, as I am not a Very Serious Person.)

“Crat” has also the advantage of fusionning two concepts: c, for conspiracy, or cretin, and “rats” for an all too social animal which seems mostly motivated by food, and inspiring to those who lead us into oblivion.

Crats, like rats, have always existed, and have always tried to devour civilization. That’s what they do. To prevent the devouring of civilization, Neolithic men invented cats (against rats), and taxes (against crats). Modern politicians though, inculcated in their subjects the complete disdain for this lesson.

However there is an example of a spur of civilization which evolved, thanks to crats. Colonial English America thrived from civilizational devolution: if English colonial Americans had taken care of the Indians as French Jesuits did, in Canada, the colonials would not have got as rich, as fast as they did.  

This is an important point that Professor Niall Ferguson miss in his white wash “Civilization” book (November 2011). Ferguson  celebrates the attribution of Indian property to whites in North America, that is, to the European invaders. He finds that most wise. In contrast, Ferguson recognizes that there were plenty of Indians left in South America, and that Spain limited immigration to South and Central America, precisely because of this, the abundance of the natives. And Ferguson deplores that!

Thus naughty boy Niall does not realize, in his Harvard induced murderous superiority haze, that he is showing his hand. His hand is not invisible anymore, he should be more careful. What Ferguson is actually saying, for all to see, is that holocausts are the superior economic model. That was Hitler’s point, entirely. But Hitler did not teach at Harvard, that was his mistake (although some Harvard songs were adapted into famous Nazi songs by some of the individuals who connected the university and the party!)

And of course holocausts are much superior economically for those who survive them, especially if they are the perpetrators, and they thrive.

OK, the perpetrators of the American holocaust are long dead in the case of the English American colony. But the ideology of GREED AS SUPERLATIVE is still very much alive. Killing it, is what the world revolt is all about. So Niall should find sonmething else to celebrate, it would be only prudent.

The USA embraced plutocratic civilizational devolution as a metaprinciple of “progress”, and access to riches. The exact sort of “progress” Krugman embraces: divide the world, divide Europe, and then New York, what he boasts is the “greatest city in the world“, will conquer. He was a child a few miles north, he thrives a few miles south: alleluia!

American intellectuals of the powerful type, such as Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson, perceive a weakness in Europe, and, as good servants of the plutocratic system they suck from, they are on the attack against the European project, telling us that the gods of Anglo-Saxon finance will forever rule, thus hoping we will lay down our mental weapons, and surrender. But, far from it, here is more ammunition to fight what Voltaire used to call “infamy”.

And what is the modern European project? The wise victory of the mind over fate, from knowing more, the very definition of Homo Sapiens. In particular the victory of mind over wealth. The victory of mind over the military, fascist, plutocratic system, as deployed in, say, Egypt. That system which replaced three important European leaders by agents of Goldman Sachs, in two weeks. The victory over the biased accounting the likes of Krugman venerates.

Krugman tells us that accounting his way, is the most worthy thing. Not only he does not know how, and what to count, but, tell me, Krugman, how much is Auschwitz worth? Is it because Americans were doing accounting their way, that they sent to Nazi Germany’s Air Force crucial war supplies in 1939, to enable it to fly, while France and Poland were already in combat against Nazi Germany? Is it why Poland and France fell, and dozens of millions died? Accounting by American plutocrats, for their own benefit?




During the summer of 1683, the Turkish army besieged Vienna. It was allied with the Khan of Crimea and its 40,000 horsemen cavalry. Everyday of the two months assault, the formidable Ottoman war drums beat ominously. The constant rolling was not mean to just destabilize psychologically the Austrian capital. It was conceived to make difficult for the Europeans to localize where exactly the slaves of the sultan were digging their tunnels and covered trenches.

A vast underground battle between 5,000 experienced Ottoman sappers and defending “moles” was punctuated with large explosions when Turkish mines exploded under the successive fortification rings of the European capital. The last and most formidable mine was detected in the last hours of the final battle, as the Turks tried desperately to blow up the main Austrian fort. It was defused by Austrian “moles”, at the last moment. Elite Turkish troops and janissaries had been held back for that moment after the giant bomb exploded. It never came.

The Turks are an interesting example of the importance of ideology. The old Indo-European (not Semitic!) world of Turkic nomadic bands was transformed by the war religion of Islam, about a millennium ago. It allowed them to conquer quickly a vast empire, and they headed west. In a generation or two, they had the Roman empire on the ropes (Byzantium called itself Roman, because that is what it was, although it spoke Greek). The Romans then called the Franks to the rescue (the Franks were all the more willing to settle the problem militarily as recently 10,000 pilgrims to Jerusalem had been massacred, in one swoop).

But it did not work; the ravenous Turkish military established a gigantic empire, which covered Anatolia, the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia, Eastern Europe. By far the most important reason why the European counter-attack did not work is that the Europeans were very divided. (The same situation happened with the Muslims to the south: Frankish knights, allied to the Mongols were an irresistible force, so the Pope and the French king outlawed the Franco-Mongol alliance with the greatest threats, after the fall of Baghdad and Damascus! If not for that, Islam would probably have become an archeological curiosity…)

In 1204, the Frankish army conquered and sacked Constantinople, in a final, savage conclusion to their nine centuries old domineering military role in Rome, deep down inside hostile to Christianity, which they viewed as all too anti-German, anti-progress, and no fun, if not kept in check by secular power.   

The European divisions endured. The Turkish high command was good at exploiting them. Or let’s say that European adventurers found to their advantage to ally themselves with Turkish fascist imperialism. During the final siege of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, not only the Turkish shock troops were made of dozens of thousands of indoctrinated, fanaticized enslaved Christian boys, the Janissaries, but the giant “Turkish” guns were made by Hungarian engineers. Moreover, France was treacherously allied to the Sultan, one reason why the relief army failed to materialized. The ancient hostility between the Franks and the “Orthodox Catholic” church had reached its bitter end (Venice and other terminal allies of Constantinople was a client republic of Charlemagne, not Constantinople).

The Janissaries were an interesting institution, typical of a fascist order: Christian families who sold their boys thus got a social promotion and riches. With Janissaries, the Sultans thus had at their disposals a force which owed them everything: so revolution could not come from the real Muslim population. Indeed the anti-Islamist, pro-European revolution in Turkey followed quickly the elimination of the Janissaries in the 19C.

When the situation got grave enough, the Europeans cooperated enough to get the Turkish off their back. The Europeans came together at the siege of Vienna, with the alliance of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After 12 hours of battle, at 17 hour (5 pm), the Polish king ordered, and led, the largest cavalry charge in history. 20,000 horsemen galloped down a mountain. Simultaneously, the Viennese garrison made a sortie. The Turks were finished.



Prince Eugene of Savoy‘s reconquered Hungary and some of the Balkan lands within the following years. “Prinz Eugen” is also the name of the famous Nazi battle cruiser crammed with advanced technology, which became later a U.S. Navy ship (at least three of its master technologies were thoroughly copied by the Americans). Prince Eugene de Savoy (old French for modern “Savoie”) was born in Paris in 1663. After chasing the Turks off a bit, a peace was concluded (1699). Europeans were free to fight each other. Prinz eugen then fought with Malborough against members of his own family, for example the elector Emanuel of Bavaria.

Tellingly that prince/prinz signed his name: “Eugenio von Savoy”. An Italo-Germano-French signature! At the village of Blindheim (in English: “Blenheim”), Marlborough and Prince Eugen fought against the combined Bavarian and French armies. 240 years later, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, namely the British Prime Minister Churchill (an Anglo-American), sent Bristol Blenheim bombers to sink the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen.

It sounds funny, but, in the great European wars, up to half of the population died. Many wars lasted centuries. Prominent individuals were on both sides of the same war. Do we want more of this European war circus? Well, Wall Street does. Because the more the Europeans are divided, the more the financial pirates of Wall Street reign. The long memory of the Europeans for the exactions of the hyper wealthy is nothing Wall Street wants to hear more of.

Thus it’s useful to change the conversation with distorted history. American intellectuals such as Krugman and Ferguson live off Wall Street (whether they are conscious of it or not). While playing the roles of critiques, they help the pluriharmonic melodious chorus which allow the likes of Obama to claim total confusion, and support the mighty.



Another weekend, and another blast by the servants of American plutocracy against Europe. In the Wall Street Journal, Niall Ferguson, the Scottish born plutophile history professor at Harvard informs us that Ireland, will asked to join the United Kingdom, in a “Reunited Kingdom“. Ferguson boy probably does not know that the latest measure of inflation in Great Britain is 5.9%. That means: near catastrophe (and I love inflation at 4%!). By the way I am reading his book “Civilization”. The usual thing: history started when Great Britain was created. That would be after the Dutch invasion, and the submission of Scotland, after 1700 CE. By then the American English colony was de facto independent, and had invented racially discriminating slavery. Indeed, a unique contribution. by killing lots of Indians and enslaving lots of Africans growing lots of tobaco, English colonists had become the world’s richest tribe.

But Ferguson does not tell you what I just said. Instead he tells you it’s all about British genius, just like when Newton discovered the Law of Universal Attraction. That is the Anglo-Saxon propaganda at its best. Actually Newton himself, more honest than Ferguson (who, as an historian should check history before proclaiming it!), asserted that  Bullialdus, a French priest and lawyer, found it first. Giovanni Alfonso Borelli suggested first the balance between centrifugal force and gravitational attraction. But you see, Bullialdus is French, thus he does not count, because he is not endowed by Anglo-Saxon genius. Even worse for Borelli: he was the son of a Spanish soldier and a Napolitan woman, races which according to Ferguson, do not have the Anglo-Saxon genius so obvious at Goldman Sachs.



That may be also why Ferguson has the history of the Anglo-Saxons starting so recently: before that the so called Anglo-Saxons were actually French lords, so that’s best forgotten. Edward III “Long Shanks”, conqueror of Scotland, initiator of the half a millennium long “100 years war” was French on both sides, and the grandson of the formidable  Philippe Le Bel.

Of course the only reason why the tiny Netherlands became so powerful was that, in a 150 years long war or so, Spain was defeated by France, and lost the low countries (which was only justice, as the Franks came from said Low Countries! And for centuries, France, England and the Netherlands had formed a triangle of commerce). Of course Spain owned the Netherlands, because Charles of Bourgogne did so, as part of his middle of the Imperium Francorum inheritance, and he had been elected king of Spain.

Charles V spoke perfectly five languages, but his birth language was French, as was that of his great enemy Francois Premier, born a few “lieux” away.

Thus in the end, much of the terrible wars between 1300 CE and 1815 CE were all about French fighting French.  It is normal: France was the largest single piece of the Imperium Francorum, and the later had not been formally dissolved. Instead it went on, at some point as more than 1,000 pieces…

This would go on: after the fascist, or, as he put it himself, “poorly advised” Louis XIV, kicked out millions of Protestants from France, many fled to Switzerland (where they started watch making), some to the Netherlands, or South Africa (where they made wine). many also were welcomed with open arms by Frederick the Great of Prussia (this explains why so many Nazi generals had French names).

In 1945, most French and Germans had come to the conclusion that, whatever was next, it would include definitive peace between France and Germany. The seventy five years of war between France and Germany (1870-1945) had shown that they had more to gain being together, than fighting against each other.

Those who knew history real well knew that the Franco-German wars had started with growing apart.

A lot of this had been propelled by the arrogance of Parisians. In 358 CE, shortly after the name of Lutetia had been changed for Paris (name of the local tribe, the Parisii), the Parisians and the crack Franco-Gallo-Roman troops elected by acclamation Caesar Julianus as Augustus. Julianus demurred for a while, but then accepted the nomination. He had no choice.

The emperor Constantius II, anxious to separate the Caesar from the empire’s best troops, had decided they would be moved to Mesopotamia. Instead, the Parisians rebelled. Julianus took control of the entire empire, and proceeded to de-Christianize the Roman empire (Julianus’ view of Christianism was even worse than that of Nietzsche, 14 centuries later, and fit well wit those of the Franks). Julianus was hit by a lance in Mesopotamia, the Franks took power directly, a century later. Frankish troops would be allied to the Mongols to seize Baghdad, and Damascus, a millennium later.

Forever after electing Julianus, Paris acquired a dangerous attitude. No wonder Carlus Magnus made his capital in Aachen. Throughout the Middle Ages, Paris was by far the largest city in Europe. By the Eleventh Century, Abelard had gone beyond Aristotle, and Paris had a university, by the Twelfth Century, Paris invented the so called “Gothic style“, then actually known as Opus Francigenum.

Actually one of the Franks present at the inauguration of the first Gothic cathedral, with typical Parisian spite, called it “Gothic” as that was the ultimate insult for a Frank (the Goths had been exterminated 450 years earlier, in a combined Franco-Roman-Muslim effort).



One has made a big deal of the reunification of Germany. But that is small potatoes relative to the reunification which is really needed, that of West and East Francia. That is, Francia and Germania (to use roman rather than Frankish terminology).

The six year long Second World War (1939-1945), the last bout of fighting between France and Germany, coming at the end of 75 years of hostilities, demonstrated to all French and Germans that a thorough rethink of the situation was needed. Obsolete nationalism had become clearly counter-productive for all to see. The Nazis, supreme irony, had demonstrated this to themselves, at their entire dismayed dissatisfaction.

During WWII, Hitler himself, to his rage, had to collaborate with French industrialists. He whined to his cabinet that, once Germany won the war, it would be in the grasp of French civilian industry. But Speer told him that was there was no choice. Hitler’s top, most fanatical generals, once brought to France to occupy and terrorize, generally turned around, and worked against their evil master. Marshall Rommel, a fanatic, mass murdering Nazi in 1940, was pretty much the exact opposite four years later, after getting command in France.

Thus Hitler put in command of Paris the SS “butcher of Sevastopol”, who had, during the siege of Sevastopol, exterminated Jews (as he admitted in a secret recording made by the British August 29, 1945).

Hitler’s order from 23 August 1944: “The city must not fall into the enemy’s hand except lying in complete debris.” Hitler phoned Von Cholztizt in a rage, screaming, “Brennt Paris?” (“Is Paris burning?”) [An account confirmed by Col. General Jodl, Hitler’s chief of staff, who added that Hitler asked the question many times, and wanted independent confirmation.]

Instead Von Choltitz and the 17,000 German soldiers under his command surrendered to French general Philippe Leclerc de Hautecloque, commanding the Second Armored French division, which had rushed to Paris through successive Nazi defense rings, and to the Resistance leader Henri Rol-Tanguy at the Gare Montparnasse on 25 August 1944. The Germans had suffered 3,200 dead in combat with the resistance in Paris’ streets, and resistance leaders persuaded Von Choltitz of the uselessness, and immorality, of pursuing the fight, and burning the capital to a crisp as he had been ordered to do.

In 1948, after careful thinking, Robert Schuman proposed that “Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe.” French and German political leaders united the energetic and steel production of France and Germany. This actually extended work made in the same spirit in the early 1930s (which would have prevented WWII, had it come to fruition).

In 1951, the Treaty of Paris extended the European Steel and Coal Community to the Benelux and Italy.

Why the extension?

Well, France and Germany together united form a superpower which cannot be beaten, so it has to be joined. Superpower? France and German GDP, together, is four times that of Russia (and Franco-German GDP does not rest on the viscous prop oil and gas, as Russia’s does, but, instead on genuine human genius!) For other European countries it is not as if Franco-Germania were sitting on the other side of a vast ocean: if you are a European country, Franco-Germania is next door. Overall, Western Europe is the size of the North East of the USA. Just ask the Swiss how much they have to obey when France and Germany bare their fangs.

Moreover, the other powers, say Italy or the Benelux, were clearly lose parts of France, or Germany. Often of both. In other words, those other countries were created mostly to weaken one, or the other (For example, modern Italy had been pretty much created by the idealistic Napoleon III, who had a long history of conspiring with Italian independentists, as he was truly a Swiss… Piedmont, as its name, and its Savoy cross indicates, has more to do with France, than with Rome…)

So now here we are. American intellectuals are very well paid to demolish the European Union, and to distract from plutocratic Wall Street. Meanwhile in Egypt, the army is firing on protesters, using American weapons and cartridges. The government of the USA gives billions a year to the Egyptian military. The crackdown in Egypt was subsequent to the shooting, and killing by University of California police in Berkeley of a student at the business school, while Occupy Wall Street protests were going on outside.

Why does not Krugman attack that? Instead he deplores that accounting does not reign and that European countries are not fighting each other through competitive devaluations:




Paul Krugman, the Europhobe, is in great shape, his masters in what he calls the “greatest city in the world” will reward him well. In “Boring Cruel Euro Romantics” (Nov 20, 2011) he pontificates imprudently that:

I like technocrats — technocrats are friends of mine. And we need technical expertise to deal with our economic woes.

But our discourse is being badly distorted by ideologues and wishful thinkers — boring, cruel romantics — pretending to be technocrats. And it’s time to puncture their pretensions.

I guess among “ideologues and wishful thinkers are philosophers, like yours truly, who believe in the victory of the mind and enlightenment over the viciousness of Pluto. Indeed, who does Krugman want to “puncture“?

“these people — the people who bullied Europe into adopting a common currency… — aren’t technocrats. They are, instead, deeply impractical romantics.

They are, to be sure, a peculiarly boring breed of romantic, speaking in turgid prose rather than poetry. And the things they demand on behalf of their romantic visions are often cruel, involving huge sacrifices from ordinary workers and families. But the fact remains that those visions are driven by dreams about the way things should be rather than by a cool assessment of the way things really are.

And to save the world economy we must topple these dangerous romantics from their pedestals.

Let’s start with the creation of the euro. If you think that this was a project driven by careful calculation of costs and benefits, you have been misinformed.

The truth is that Europe’s march toward a common currency was, from the beginning, a dubious project on any objective economic analysis. The continent’s economies were too disparate to function smoothly with one-size-fits-all monetary policy…”

Just like the Nazis used to claim that the Jews were cruel, Krugman claims “impractical romantics“, those who want European unification, are both boring and cruel. Well, it can only mean that they do not use expert torturers. In the Middle Ages, torturing was the most appreciated spectacle. nothing boring about it. Maybe we could torture some boring American academics with our contempt, to start with.



Bravo, Krugman, Bravo! Listening to Krugman you have the impression the euro, as a currency, is a disaster. It needs to be “saved”. The Economist”, and the rest of the financial propaganda systematically claim that the euro needs to be saved. So how come it’s 40% overvalued over the dollar?

Krugman is called an economist, but apparently, he cannot distinguish between a currency and banks. He apparently wants them to be the same. Does that mean American economists are even more incompetent than the realm they built, or is it actually a Freudian slip?

Verily, the so called euro crisis has nothing to do with the euro, or with romance. Whatever the admirers of New York and its financial system say. Europe was born in war. Dozens of millions have died in an holocaust, and the survivors drew some important conclusions which can only have escaped the American society, which ate on both sides of the manger.

The USA, in the entire war lost about 415,000 people, nearly all of them soldiers. French controlled territories lost about two millions, only a third of it, soldiers (don’t expect to find this statistics in USA propaganda). True, for a while (1942-1944), after the defeat of 1940, the million man French army fighting was out of Africa (several of my relatives were in it).

Other European countries had much greater losses. Poland lost six million. Germany lost ten million (OK, they started it, as they chose to be led by Nazi marionettes, with plutocrats pulling the strings). The USSR lost not far from thirty million (OK, they did not have to be led by a Georgian gangster).

To avoid conflicts, it’s important to know who is really pulling the strings.

There is a crisis in Europe, but it’s not a euro crisis. The German ratio of national debt/GDP is 83%. The British and especially Spanish one are lower. France has a ratio of 87%. The USA thrones with a national debt/GDP ratio of 104%.

OK, that’s not all: one has to look at personal debt, etc. It’s bad in Spain. One also has to look at the instantaneous current account deficit: it is nearly as good in Italy as it is Germany, but it is really bad in the UK and the USA (around 12%).



The crisis has everything to do with the privatization of public money, as I explained many times before. It was in the air of the times, the era of privatization of everything: Your Money Or Your Life!

Thanks to Milton Friedman and another 13 American “Nobel” prizes, most of them from Chicago (a place of dubious fumes such as mafia, Daley, Obama, and “French” IMF director Lagarde). The doctrine of Milton and his ilk, is the simplest and the oldest of the enemies of civilization: Greed Is All You Need.

Currency is the essence of the state, short of military force. Privatizing currency, made the oligarchy on top ever more powerful, because it made, at the outset, that oligarchy into the state itself. that made it into an instant plutocracy.
Plutocracies can be most resilient. Look at Egypt: since the late forties, when it set up a coup, the Egyptian military has reigned. Cynics in Europe suspect the dictator Mubarak (ex-general commanding the Air Force, like Pinochet in Chili), is still in power. What is sure is that his right hand man, another general, is in power, plotting with the Islamists (who he uses as a justification for his iron rule).

We have seen plutocracy before: it ended up with highway men all over the ex-Roman empire, asking for your money, or your life. And behind high walls, sat the great lords, with their private armies.

So a conspiracy of crats, plutocracy, brought the Late Roman empire where it finished, and us where we are. Crats just want power, nothing else matters to them. They select other crats.

Obama, in his memoirs, say that what is important, in life, is navigation. The grand Vizier would have said the same. Thus the rule of law was very weak in the Ottoman empire. The Grand Vizier travelled with his personal fortune. He had it on board when the Ottoman fleet was tremendously crushed at the battle of Lepanto.  
All and any financial transaction ought to be revealed, regulated, and taxed. Those who cheat should go to jail and have their property confiscated, as pertains gangsters of the highest and most dreadful order.
That European banks, and Shadow banks are in the world financial spider sucking on blood, there is no doubt. That they behaved as if they were our overlords, no doubt either. However the three buffoons nominated recently, Draghi, head of the european Central Bank, super Mario (-nette), parachuted head of Italy, and whatever his name in Greece, were all Goldman Sachs officer, one of the major the spider nests.
So the present austerity is not about saving the euro at all. The euro is strong, all too strong. No, it’s all about paying rent to the banks, until all freedom is gone, except that of the ultra rich, it’s all about a new feudal order.
I will not answer the ill informed anti-European rant about European states being so disparate that they cannot have a common currency. France and Germany decided to become united in 1948. Together, they are at least half the economic power of the USA. Other states on their doorsteps can hardly ignore them. a truck driver, on one shift can cross half a dozen countries, and so on and so forth. I do understand though, that those who think, as Paul does that New York is the “greatest city in the world”, probably thing that, by necessity, Wall Street is the greatest street in the world.
France and Germany want to put an end to the domination of Wall Street. The euro will survive, big banks too big to fail, and big enough to flail us all, should be killed, and the American university-plutocratic complex will be exposed for what it is.



In 1944, the Americans intended to treat France, exactly just as if France were Nazi Germany. The AMGOT administration for France had been planned by the American Chief of Staff, Marshall. A fake French currency had been printed. Hundreds of American collaborators had been trained to take over the French administration. France was to be occupied. Indefinitely. By the Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories.

The American hegemony failed, because the trained, combat experienced French army was actually much bigger than the American army… in 1944 (it’s always the same American divisions which did all the fighting, whereas the French had completely replaced their experience and ferocious African army, by a new one). At most the Americans had 65 divisions in Europe. In any case the relationship between the French government and Washington was execrable. The French played the pivotal role in the failure of the Nazi offensive in the Ardennes: the panicked American command ordered the evacuation of Alsace (as Hitler thought would happen). But the French refused. That allowed Patton (who also believed that Washington was full of traitors) to throw his Third Army, the best tank army of the USA, north (as his right flank was covered by the French, who had surrendered just two and a half centimeters to the enraged Nazis).

In any case, AMGOT explains clearly why the USA, as a government, refused to help France and Britain in 1940, after hurting them in 1939 (and for several years before that). As far as all too many in Washington were concerned, France was an enemy, and Nazism a tool against that enemy.

A war gets engaged first by propagandists. Europeans have to understand Washington will keep on supporting the banks. So maybe they should stop collaborating.

Why not let the too-big-to-fail banks fail? Is it not what austerity ought to mean? (By failing I mean, while protecting small savers’ deposits, of course!) Then banks, helped by ferocious re-regulating, could stay small enough to help the People, rather than help themselves.

Massive default of the culprits, punishment and recovery of stolen hundreds of billions is a pre-condition to a new, and better financial order. Austerity ought to start at the top. Reintroduce Eisenhower’s 90% upper margin tax rate!

And please resist Krugman’s Europhobic ranting… Just as the Nazis, in a tradition going all the way back to the proto-Nazi philosopher Herder, Krugman exaggerates the “disparity” of the different European nations. Why does not Krugman tell us too that the Jews were too different? Why does not he tell us that Jews and Muslims, or Protestants, for that matter, were too disparate to function smoothly with one-size-fits-all monetary policy? Because he would sound too much like a proto-Nazi?

The Nazis, to a great extent, were manipulated by their American corporate sponsors. They also had German sponsors, but Wall Street overlorded over them (for example, Wall Street created IG Farben, among others; of course Wikipedia will not tell you that; I suspect that paid cleansers take out, or displace, a lot of the serious evidence in the Internet about the connection between Wall Street and Nazism; some pieces are left here and there).

What were the American plutocratic sponsors of Nazism about? Always more power to themselves, getting others to make their dirty work. Yes, some of the most important ones, like the Warburgs, were Jews. American culture, after grabbing an entire continent for itself, could only want to grab others.

As far as the other side of the culture which brought Auschwitz, one does not have to go very far. The ex astronomer Kant was, with Frederick the Great and Herder part of an infernal trio. Kant defined the Enlightenment, just as Krugman defines Europe. In his essay. “What Is Enlightenment?” Kant eructs that:

“Only one who is himself enlightened…and has a numerous and well-disciplined army to assure public peace, can say:’ Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey’ A republic could not dare say such a thing… A lower degree of civil freedom, on the contrary, provides the mind with room for each man to extend himself to his full capacity.”

Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering parroted this sort of thought many times during their reign.

Kant was a very good astronomer, but, as a proto-Nazi philosopher, he was superlative. As a historian he was a zero, because he obviously did not know the history of the Roman republic, a place where steely obedience triumphed, and where fascism was harnessed for the better, and for justice, in the interest of the many. Republican fascism: “All for one, one for all” became the symbol of the Roman, and latter the French republic.

But fascism as defended by Kant, was just in the service of his master, “one who is himself enlightened…and has a numerous and well-disciplined army”.

The rule of the one: the Greeks called that tyranny; that is what the word means. So Kant was also an etymological zero, or extremely dishonest, as he chose to forget what tyranny was. Kant’s call, just as that of Krugman, is that of division. All and any country at each other’s throats, in the hope that his own, with a “numerous and well-disciplined army” will win.

After all both Kant and Krugman lived of what they praise. Indeed economic war of countries against countries through devaluation is the essence of Krugman’s message. One may wonder how much of Krugman’s so called New Trade Theory” is little more than a fig leaf over the vast worldwide conspiracy, plutocracy its name, which strangles civilization, and the biosphere itself, a galaxy of conniving crats around the globe, immune to reason but for more obsessive power to themselves.

Krugman may still learn. A few of the basics above he learned in the last 12 months. Ferguson is a more complex case. He is less short sighted than Krugman, but neither his mind nor his eyes, nor memory, go far enough. Kant will not learn anymore, and he had nothing major to say which was good. It remains to kill him in other people’s minds.

Kant has much to do with what became the “German problem”. As Eichmann testified in Jerusalem.

What was the “German problem”? It was the Prussian hallucination that Frederick the Great approach to civilization could triumph. It was very similar to the English American colonial approach. In truth, it was an even more dreadful devolution than the American one, because not only it was out to spoil the Indians, but it mistook Europeans for Indians. As so many influential Germans brandish the most selfish and idiotically short sighted reasons for not supporting the rest of Europe Germany profited so much from, one can only conclude that some more philosophical work needs to be done.

Qaddafi used to call the freedom fighters who wanted him out of power,”rats”. But he spent his last moments of freedom in a sewer. Thus that crat was caught as a rat. More generally, one suspects that human institutions, which are all power structures, to be full of crafty crats in the most powerful positions. Thus the outraged/indignes/Occupy Wall Street are right to insist on absolute democracy. Crats there always will be. Mitigating them is of the essence for the survival of civilization.

Civilization is hard work. But first, civilization is superior mental work. Nothing that sheer brutality can buy. Greed is not enough to animate a civilization.

Civilization, and, more generally, the human spirit, has always incarnated  the triumph of ever more sophisticated minds over the “objective economic analysis” of rats, crats, and other crocs.

Si Vis Civilisationem, Cave Kratos.


Patrice Ayme

Rich Now Ruling By Taxing Poor

November 16, 2011


Abstract: The financial crisis spreading in Europe is not intrinsic to Europe, the European Union, or the euro. The crisis has to do with sponsoring the wealthiest.

For purely mathematical reasons, the properties of the exponential function, the wealthiest always had to be taxed more. This has been known for 12,000 years, but forgotten thanks to Milton Friedman and associated gnomes.

For the last thirty years, instead of taxing the rich more, treacherous politicians have forced their countries to do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Politicians forced nations to borrow from the wealthiest, enriching the latter with the interest paid to them.

In other words, the taxing of the rich, which is necessary for a sustainable society, has been insolently perverted into the taxing of the poor.

And this, ever more, because the wealthiest fix the interest rates. Don’t expect the obsequious servants of plutocracy known as politicians to admit this. This inverted perversion is not just unjust, but insufferable. However, here we are. Thus the situation in the EU and USA is similar to that of 1789 France: odious debt.

The masses may rise in revolt, as they ought. But they better direct their rage well, and that means getting informed by reading this essay rather than the misleading, self serving disinformation oozing from the likes of the “Financial Times”, “Economist”, “Wall Street Journal”, “New York Times” (I am subscriber to all). Here we focus on the truth, therein our profit. And the truth is a value ordered function.


Why is there a crisis in Europe?

It is not just in Europe. Nations have borrowed money on the market, but the rates, controlled by plutocracy, have gone up. All countries are infected. A few days ago, the Netherlands, Austria or Finland viewed themselves immune, but now they are threatened, like France. And the turn of Germany, Britain and the USA is around the corner. Headline inflation in Britain is now 5.9%. Bond Vigilantes are not going to ignore this very long.


Does the euro have anything to do with the financial crisis as Obama, and others, have suggested?

Obama is trying, rather pathetically, to divert blame from the failed Bush-Obama economic strategy of enriching the richest of the rich, throwing money at banks, and telling plutocrats they belong.

In reality, it’s rather the other way around: American economic weakness put the PIIGS (Portugal Ireland Italy Greece Spain) economy in great difficulty, as those countries depend upon tourism more than a country such as the USA, which is still the world’s greatest economic and industrial power. 

When Obama panics about Europe he makes, unwittingly, the implicit argument that hysterical financial derivatives drive the economy of the USA. Indeed whereas quotes on the financial markets have gone nuts, the European real economy is not going belly up yet. It will, but not yet.

The latest GDP growth Spring to Summer 2011 in Germany and France are respectively .5% and .4%, or about a +2% annualized GDP growth, measured instantaneously, for the 150 million citizens duo (not adding the Benelux, as the Netherlands are faltering). By European standards, this is respectable growth. Volkswagen has never sold as many cars (it’s somewhere around 6 million), and is on its way to become the world’s largest carmaker (quality sells).

So Obama’s claim that the USA is doing poorly because of Europe is premature. The only explanation is that Obama admits that the financial operators are the ones deciding upon the state of the economy of the USA. As the financiers are worried about Europe, they decide that the USA ought to be unhappy too.

Let me repeat this slowly:

In truth the euro has nothing to do with this European debt crisis, which was caused by banks making imprudent loans, and by highly leveraged conniving speculators playing the violin of sovereign debt.

Why is the financial crisis getting worse by the day?

Nations are rolling over their debt constantly. Using new debt to pay old interest. So the debt is consistently recomputed at variable interest rates.

The arrangement has been highly profitable to the plutocracy, allowing it, among other things, to organize a worldwide real estate bubble which peaked in London, the place where the worst financial manipulations endured.

Paying debt with augmenting interest was the main mechanism which caused the subprime disaster with the ARMs (Adjustable rate Mortgages). The worst ARMs are now unlawful in the USA. But not so with nations. However the ARMs used against nations right now are the artifacts of obvious conspiracies, and they ought to be made unlawful by the same legal reasoning which outlawed ARMs in the USA, instead of bending over backwards to please the loan sharks (as is done with present “rescue” packages).


Is that why the Greek debt is supposed to go from 120% of GDP to 192% during the next 12 months?

Yes. Fully austerity on, the debt explodes! It was 120% of Greek GDP 3 months ago, now it’s 143%! Only plutocrats and their obsequious servants find that this is OK. Interest charged to Greece have skyrocketed, thus so did the Greek debt. Same with Italy too. Italy has no primary deficit and most of the Italian debt is rolled from decades ago. Italy has to roll 350 billion of debt in the next year.

Wait, I am confused! Why would nations borrow money? Can’t they just raise taxes?

Of course, they can. And they long have. But, in the last thirty years, nations decreased taxes on the wealthy. While putting the plebs to sleep with welfare programs. The loss of the income from taxing the rich was compensated by borrowing money on the market of money. The main actors of the money markets are the wealthy.

Thus, instead of taxing the wealthy, nations are now borrowing from the wealthy, and enriching them with interest. It is a double win-win for the wealthy. Moreover, for mathematical stability, the taxation on the rich has to be so large that wealth cannot increase exponentially. Thus cancelling taxes on the rich as Bush and Obama did had two dreadful effects:

1) it made the rich exponentially richer, thus powerful and capable to sawy people through propaganda. Thus what I say here is not said by Krugman, or the Main Stream Media, and thus not by parrot bloggers.

2) It forced states to borrow much more. Hence Obama borrowed 12% of the GDP of the USA last year. The interest 0n that debt goes straight to the wealthiest. It’s the same throughout the West. One third of the total French national debt is due to decreasing the tax on the rich in the last ten years. 


Market of money? Money market? Is money for sale on a market? Why would you buy money with money?

Individual and organizations find themselves sometimes with money that they cannot spend. So they lend it if one can interest them in doing so. Except if motivated by love or charity, that means they want more money back than they lent to start with. 


Why can’t they be loving and charitable?

This is what the old Jewish religion and its outgrowth, the Muslim Sharia, seek to impose. Actually the Christians, when they had more clout than now had also forbidden to lend against monetary interest. But the interdiction applied only within each religion, so they came to depend upon each other, love and hate each other, as indispensable partners in crime.

Why should not the Sharia be imposed? No more borrowing, no more problem!

It is a question of economic efficiency: if actor A has plenty of money, but no use for it, whereas actor B has a need for it, and society too, then why not allow A to lend to B? If one does so, one transfers the power to employ people from A to B. A has no work, but B does, and now it can pay those it employs with the money it borrowed. So two things happen:

1) More people get employed.

2) More things get done.

This is why lending money against interest is superior. And one of the reasons why the West took off economically, while the regions dominated by the Islamist superstition stayed economically stagnant.

By the way, this is indicative of an important effect that those who evalue civilizations generally neglect. The reason why Catholics could lend to Catholics in Middle Age Italy or France is that influential Catholic leaders such as the king of France (the biggest fish around), or the leaders of the Italian republics did not give a hoot about fundamentalist Christian doctrine.

So, during the Middle Ages, Christianism was not the leading ideology of Europe anymore. It was just a facade. The political-fascist prominence of the Inquisition later masked that fact to simplistic historians. Throwing superstition in the heap of history was necesseray to Europe’s ascendency. (Cynics will point out that early Franks were not very Christian, either… Christian philosophers is more like it.) 

Have states always borrowed on the money markets?

No. This is a recent phenomenon. Although Italian republics in the Middle Ages borrowed from bankers to pay their armies, there were not really money markets at the time, with many potential lenders. At some point Florence defaulted. Later, Francois I and Charles V, both born in northern France, fought each other in an enormous war financed by Italian and German bankers respectively.

Why are European states borrowing on the money market?

Two reasons. 1) after a long socialist lull after the Great Depression and WWII, plutocracy counterattacked electing Thatcher and Reagan, and making the gnomic Milton Friedman the guru of the new age. The Nobel prize in economics was then given to another 13 economists of the same persuasion.

Also the message was sent by the entire academic and propaganda machine in the Anglo-Saxon world that the Anglo-Saxon, so called liberal, highly leveraged, economic model was optimal. As I explained, the argument is worthless: it is as if arguing that a criminal who stole a lot of people by killing them, and has not been caught yet, has been a remarkable success.

Enthralled leaders, worldwide, decided that as long as money could be made from an activity, it was good, and if not, that activity was bad, and it should go away. That was excellent for those that corruption tempted. So Clinton, Major and Blair made personally giant amounts of money after their plutocratic serving tenures, but could persuade themselves that it was good because it was profit motivated, the absolute good. So corruption became an absolute good. All over.

A consequence: American education and health care are getting ever more expensive and worse, except in particular cases were profits can still be made, such as in publicly financed private universities.

Please do not be sarcastic, it hinders your message.

I am not sarcastic, but ferociously veracious. Great private universities in the USA are not just privately financed, but also publicly financed. However, mostly indirectly so. Same for the banks, Same for the military-industrial complex. Same for the drug and HMO industry. Same for the largest corporations. Same for the hyper wealthy. Socialism for the wealthy, taxes for the rest.

What was the persuasion of Friedman and his cohorts?

That greed is all you need. Friedman and his aliases and allies believed that, given enough greed, even a bloody dictatorship like that of Pinochet in Chili, could do no wrong. Friedman went to Chili, and preached that message at the catholic University. In truth those buffoons were just agents, paid and promoted by the plutocracy, the hyper wealthy owners of the USA, who had to suffer through the GI Bill and Johnson’s “Great Society”.

Why do you use an offensive term such as “buffoons” to discredit a pillar of society such as Mr. Milton Friedman?

I met Friedman. I will reserve my full opinion of him for a more opinioned piece. Let’s just say that his personal experience led him to believe that pain was man’s best friend. Having made greed the main, if not the sole economic motivation, has been a disaster. It pushed away other, more valuable motivations, and, because it was an all together unreasonable opinion which was made into the ultimate reason, it made all of society more irrational.


What was the other reason that pushed European states to adopt financing on the money market?

French socialists have a lot to do with it. After rejecting the Anglo-Saxon model in 1980, they were forced to embrace it again, and did so with great vengeance. Under Prime Minister Pierre Bérégovoy, a simple soul, the discovery was made that France, with her AAA rating, could borrow very cheaply from the money markets. It was a easier way to find funds than by raising taxes. The reasoning was extended all over the European Union during the Stage Two of the European Monetary Union before the creation of the euro on January 1, 1999.

Bérégovoy committed suicide, or was suicided, shortly after (in connection with various financial scandals: allegations against him, and the Triangle Affair).

So there were two surrender of sovereignty by European states, one to the European Central Bank, the ECB, and one to money markets?

Yes, and they are generally conflated by the ignorant or the biased. Paul Krugman affects to believe that the surrender of sovereignty was to Germany. But that is simply not the case. There was a surrender of short term interest to the ECB, and one of long term interest to the actors of the private debt markets.

Actors in the debt markets such as the late Lehman Brothers. Lehman Brothers was a “Designated Market Maker” of the market of USA government debt.

In other words, Europe decided to borrow freely from the coolest, wealthiest gangsters in the world. Although Lehman failed, because of gross mismanagement, if not organized crime, dragging the debt markets with it, its three highest officers, including its CEO, Fuld, walked away with 5 billion dollars between themselves. According to Friedman and those who, like Obama, read the Financial Times too much, and too exclusively, that was just cool. However their actions arguably led to the loss of thousands of billions of dollars and euros to the public. And now an economy where the main missions of the states are not sustained.

So what is the problem exactly?

To maximize the money they have at their disposal, nations have learned to borrow, with impunity, as much as the hyper wealthy was willing to lend them. In particular, nations borrow money to pay the interest of the previous debt. One minute of the most basic differential equation analysis shows that the process is exponential.

Indeed the debt augments proportionally to the interest on the debt. Hence the debt is a function whose derivative is a fraction X of itself, the exact definition of the exponential.

What about inflation?

Right, Inflation has to be taken into account. If the interest on the debt is less than inflation, the fraction X is negative, so the debt decreases exponentially. However, the Fed and the ECB have been targeting 2% inflation. Thus the interest rate X on German debt interest payment on the ten year obligations, today at 1.81% is just in balance. But France is another story: X has reached nearly 4%. And Spain and Italy are above 6%. Greece is around 30%. That means that Greek debt will more than double in 30 months. Thus knocking off half of Greek sovereign debt now will bring just as much sovereign debt in 30 months. Cut half the heads of the plutocratic hydra, and they grow back within years, or maybe months.

Why is that not happening in the USA?

Well, it happened in the past. The bad actors behind that were called the “Bond Vigilantes”. Paul Krugman sang on all rooftops that they were invisible, inexistent, a figment of the past. He sang that way, although some interest rates in Greece had already reached 100%. It is baffling.

So what about the USA? Well, it has not happened yet. And there is a very good reason for that: the speculators are pouncing on the smaller and weaker countries first. An avalanche can start small, and grow enormous.

Who are the speculators?

Banks, hedge funds, etc. They use quasi infinite leverage. Corzine’s hedge fund just collapsed by doing something wrong while manipulating European debt. He had for 100 billion of investment, nominally, backed up by only one billion of capital.

Why should not that be legal?

For two reasons: 1) it allows to manipulate markets of genuine investors investing genuine money. Corzine did not have 100 billions. He just claimed he had. As it made him an enormous property owner, his buying and selling could move markets in direction he, or his accomplices, found profitable. One such technique is “Painting The Market” (a generalization of painting the tape). Although a few of these techniques are unlawful in the stock market, most are not, because regulators, who are supposed to have no teeth, plead ignorance.

2) there is no difference between being rich, and claiming to be rich and being believed by the Most Serious People.

If I claimed I had 100 billions, and people, companies, countries, did as if I did, I would be instantaneously rich, especially if dealing with another 10,000 gangsters claiming the same. One can actually do some pretty telling math. Plutocrats claim to have 600 trillion dollars in derivatives. Say each of them claims to have 100 billion that he truly does not have. So, with 6,000 such gangsters, you cover the derivative market. About two third of it consist in derivatives related to the bond market (CDSs, Credit Default Swaps).

Thus, a conspiracy of gangsters are allowed to roam the planet, and are treated as if they had 12 times the entire planet’s wealth among themselves. A consequence: they called themselves the “markets”, and they are believed, and they can do whatever they want. If they say something, it goes. The end result: a band of greedy conspirators has hijacked civilization.

OK, so what do you propose?

I propose changes at several levels. First at the European level, European institutions ought to be erected immediately to endow the European Union with the same powers as the USA in monetary and fiscal matters. Some of these powers ought to become effective in a matter of weeks. For example to make the ECB the lender of last resort, and give the ECB an explicit mandate to buy as many bonds as needed to keep sovereign yields below 6%, as it has done a bit, but not enough.

Hysterical Euroskeptics claim that plotters want a European “superstate” 

As it is, we have a world superstate already: it’s the world plutocracy. A few deciders in New York and London, the two main pirates’ dens, believe things are for the best, as their cities live pretty well from it. So it is that part of Somalia lives pretty well from the pirates’ trade. But that impression cannot be shared by the rest of the planet, including those who, in developing countries, enjoy subjugation to the sub-dictators of the plutocracy.

What Euro haters are saying is that they want to stay with the present plutocratic superstate.

The fact remains that you suggest Europeans change once more the European constitution.

Yes, and that means changing their own too, as usual. It has been done many times in the last sixty-three years, as far as France and Germany are concerned, so it will be more of the same. There are provisions in the last European constitution to make some tweaks immediately, and actually it is part of what the ECB has been doing with its modest bond buying.

Philosophically, is not the rise of a European superpower worrisome? It worries some Brits.

Nationalist fanatics of the existing superpowers on the wane cannot be pleased by the rise of Europe. This means people entangled with the USA superpower, and the faltering Russia. That means poodles of the established New York-London financial order, such as Krugman and Summers (collaborators of reagan), or anybody having anything to do with the City of London.

Paul Krugman was just saying that New York was the greatest city in the world. That gave an inkling of his true heart: New York, right or wrong. Thus, Wall Street, right or wrong. Because New York would be just a shadow of its former self without wall street and its worldwide manipulations. I mean, it’s not the Silicon Valley. Of course, new York makes Krugman rich and influential. But that explains why he hates the euro so much (OK, now Krugman claims he wants to save it, and in a parallel development, Larry Summers is all out for an enormous stimulus!)

Said Brits worried by the rise of European superpower are often vested in the activities of Londonistan. London has tremendously profited from financial profiteering. The old British canard has been that Britain would not tolerate the rise in Europe of a power as great as the British empire. As I explained in The Anglo-Saxon Economic Model, that worked well for centuries, but the British empire is now the European Union, not the Commonwealth.

Super powers such as China, India, and Brazil, are much more sympathetic to Europe, because they are wary of the USA.


How do you propose to give the ECB the same powers as a normal central bank?

There is no reason why things could not be explained clearly, and referenda be conducted within weeks in France and Germany. alternatively, France could proceed speedily, as the representative French system, with its National Assembly, Senate, Presidency and Constitutional Court, should be able to pass something within weeks.


Why should France and Germany take all the decisions?

Because nobody else does, and because they foot most of the bill. In the end, it ought not to matter to the French and Germans what others are whining about when their economic destiny is at stake. The USA certainly does not take into account others’ whining in deciding its own internal economic policy. Nor does Russia, China, India, Brazil, or, for that matter, Argentina. Argentina defaulted, a decade or so ago, and its economy is doing great.

Is not default an injustice?

Being unjust to an injustice is not unjust. The exponential nature of the debt incurred, say by european countries, at the mercy of what highly leveraged speculators, such as Mr. Corzine, ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, ex-governor of New Jersey, that is, Krugman, makes it the definition of Odious Debt.

If we do not stop the debt speculators now, we will have a feudal order within ten years.

Are you not happy that the Franco-German accord on Greece provided a default of 50% as you insisted ought to be done?

Yes and no. If French and German taxpayers are going to reimburse the banks for said default without nationalizing them and acquiring control, one will have transferred an intolerable burden on the Greeks into an intolerable burden on French and German taxpayers, and their economies (as austerity will cause a recession).

What else do you propose?

A worldwide limit on leverage, and that means limit on the Fractional Reserve System. A worldwide Financial Transaction Tax on all transactions. The outlawing of most derivatives. Outlawing of Credit Default Swaps. Right now the Swap market uses 100 times leverage, allowing speculators to sink countries. Next, they will be capable of volatilizing planets, like in Star Wars, and our politicians would say it’s OK, they read it in the Financial Times first (as Obama crows). It’s may be wiser to put an end to their evil empire now.

Outlawing of any trade and organizations threatening nations’ economies. Differential treatments on derivatives between commercial operators (provided with insurance) and speculators (providing liquidity). The outlawing of all banks too big to fail, using anti-monopoly and security laws (Britain evoked anti-terrorist law against Iceland, for financial terrorism, so there is a precedent!)

Last and not least, criminal prosecutions of one the greatest criminal organization ever, the present worldwide plutocracy. Not to forget forced regurgitations of ill acquired gains. And president Einsenhower tax of 90% on the great fortunes. 


What do you think about the synchronized worldwide crackdown on the Outraged, Indignes, Occupy Wall Street movement?

Well, ever since the worldwide crackdown on Wikileaks finances, we know that the plutocracy will do whatever it takes. Just contemplate Auschwitz. Plutocracy brought that too, and did whatever it took to conduct its business for its best. Many who are powerful nowadays descend from those who financed, organized, instigated or collaborated with individuals or organizations which facilitated, or constituted various aspects of fascism. American soldiers fighting on the beaches in Normandy, would not have believed that they were shooting at forces that American plutocrats made possible.

So why do people accuse the euro and the European Union so much?

There are a lot of euro haters out there, and a lot of individuals, and governments looking for scapegoats. The rise of Europe steals power from others, such as Wall Street plutocracy. When Krugman howls against the euro, he howls for Wall Street, which, however indirectly, feeds him and his nationalist fiber. without Wall Street, new York would not amount to much (who would pay the 35,000 police force?) Krugman was telling on his blog recently how New York was the “world’s greatest city“. Making Wall Street, I guess, the world’s greatest street. Is an economist in love with Wall Street still an economist? Are those whose ‘breath is taken‘ by New York still fully human?

Where does the obsession with Europe come from?

The negative obsession comes from the plutocracy, and it is, to a great extent, 17 centuries old. The Franks were antagonistic to the system of the Late Roman empire, which was anti-democratic, fascist, plutocratic and theocratic. Their rule was much less of all the preceding, to the point that the Franks refused to create a durable European superstate (on the ground of equality). Half a millennium later, Muslim jihad, and various invasions from Mongols and Vikings, forced the creation of a military caste, the Frankish aristocracy, though.

“Europe” is an attempt to reconstitute the ancient Imperium Francorum, when France and Germany were the same polity. Various attempts in the past were too muscular, or poorly thought out. Whereas Francia and the Holly Roman Empire  (Imperium Romanum Sacrum) were rarely in conflict in the middle Ages, complicated conflicts have become quasi permanent since the Sixteenth Century. It is time to put an end to them.

Interestingly the conflict with Francia started with Parisian haughtiness, nothing deeper than that. So West Francia and East Francia grew estranged, as the centuries flowed by. After Louis XIV, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Bismarck, Napoleon III, Prussian fascism and Hitler, the French and German people have realized that they were victims of an horrendous crime in July 1914 (when French and German socialists scrambled to organize a general strike rather than let the fascists unleash war; unfortunately they failed).

So the European project is perfect according to you?

No. The present crisis shows clearly that the federalization of Europe has to be cranked up a lot. Needed federal structures need to be erected. The European Central Bank needs to become a central bank with full prerogatives, same as those of the US Fed. European statistic and fiscality have to be improved considerably.

The lesson of the growing enmity between Western and Eastern Franks, 1,000 years ago, is that indifference is not an option, and that acting locally without thinking globally is not an option either. “Imperium” is not a dirty word. Quite the opposite. The Romans were right on that. And, originally, the Franks, for centuries, viewed themselves as another, improved, phase of Rome. And they were right.


Can you give a more philosophical perspective?

In democracy, people rule. in plutocracy wealth, and accompanying characteristics of Pluto, rule. The money creation system cannot be left to Pluto, but ought to be the prerogative of the People. Indeed, money represents power, and power rules. If all the money and power if left to the wealthiest, there is no more democracy, de facto. Hence the banking system has to become anti-plutocratic.

That means, first that invisibility, one of the Dark Lord’s characteristics, ought to be taken from Pluto. Hence all financial transactions ought to be declared, and Shadow Banking ought to be outlawed.

All of banking ought to be remade under transparent democratic watch.

Instead what we see is Goldman Sachs partners ruling the world, more than ever. And not just the White House. The new head of the ECB and the new Italian PM were, or are (!) Goldman Sachs principals (so called “associates”). Goldman Sachs systematically recruits people at the heart of power (central bankers, EU commissioners. The new head of the ECB was in charge at Goldman Sachs of selling to Southern Europe a “product” to dissimulate debt to Eurostat.)

What is going to happen?

It depends how well informed and thoroughly angry People get, in a timely manner.

Plutocracy is the most frequent and most important cause of civilizational collapse. It generally prevents to solve lethal ecological problems (see the Mayas). This is happening today. For example the craze for fracking and extremely deep sub-oceanic oil is a distraction, as the greatest ecological catastrophe in 65 million years unfolds. “As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the “lock-in” of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals,” warns Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency Chief Economist. By 2020, every currency unit economized by not investing in clean energy, will cost 4.5 times more to society in ecological damage.

The plutocrats love war, because war is Pluto’s celebration by all, united in mayhem. Not developing an energy and ecology plan will certainly bring war (fracked water, or a fracked quake, may get you first). 

In 1914, the plutocrats were hiding behind the (plotting Prussian) fascists, and they were not stopped. Nor were they stopped in the 1920s and 1930s. France and Britain had to unleash a terrible war in September 1939 against Hitler (and Stalin, and American plutocracy!) This time, we stand forewarned, and it’s going to get worse.

The naïve Pinker, a psychologist at the propaganda outfit Harvard, just wrote a book, the “Better Angels Of Our Nature” (he lifted the sentence from Lincoln’s Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861). Pinker argues that we are better, and smarter than ever. However, Pinker is the victim of an illusion. What is going on out there is an unsustainable bubble. Including an unsustainable bubble of population (population augmented by 5 billion in less than a century!) In other words, we are on the verge of an incomparable crash. The sort of crash the Dark Side of Homo is made for. Pigs rule, slaughter comes, biosphere gets re-established.


Patrice Ayme


The Fiscal-Military Anglo-Saxon Model

November 11, 2011



Abstract: The meat of the so called Anglo-Saxon liberalism was actually a leveraged war machine that entangled finance and military. Forget misleading plutocratic propaganda. The invisible hand was more about war than it was about commerce. When Napoleon assimilated Britain  to a nation of shopkeepers, he did not know what he was talking about, as he found out soon enough.

The Anglo-Saxon “liberal” model, is, first of all, a war machine of the few against the many. It worked, against France, from the eighteenth century, until the twentieth century, as I show, by evoking major historical facts which are generally superbly ignored.

Happenstance does not a logic make. Especially when the happenstance is military (England was lucky to defeat France), and the logic economical (there were other European economic models; that plutocratic leveraging defeated France at that particular moment of military history proves nothing in matters economic: if Louis XIV’s mighty army had invaded England, as Louis was begged to do, by the king of England, himself, none of this would have happened!)

The plutocrats’ greatest enemy is the socializing European Union. The EU is also turning into the plutocrats’ greatest source of profit, as they dismantle it. It is time for the Europeans to understand that they were naïve and self contradictory to build peaceful altruistic Europe as a servant of an economic model which rested on war and exploitation.



What has the Anglo-Saxon economic model been successful at? How did it arise?

It’s a long story. It goes all the way back to when Julius Caesar and his generals were astounded by the immense Celtic, ocean going fleets which opposed them as they conquered “Long Haired Gaul” (“Gallia Comida”). These were the three quarters of present day France which were not part (yet!) of the Roman republic. The Romans invented technology to topple the tall Celtic ships, and won that war. Nevertheless, Ireland and Scotland escaped the Roman grasp… in a very long war.

Having the ability to navigate throughout and off the British archipelago stayed a must, though. Who dominated the seas, dominated the isles. The sea was how to invade, and how one got invaded. The Vikings demonstrated this, by eradicating many places, including much of Ireland.

It was nicer to make war on the continent than in the isles, if one were an islander. Thus, the nearly five centuries long “100 year war” was fought on said continent. By 1600, Elizabeth I had been seduced by the West Country Men, immensely nasty plutocrats who, after conquering Ireland, turned to North America.

Full leveraged, all-market, all plutocratic “Anglo-Saxon” finance is four centuries old (for the Plutocratic aspect) and three centuries old (for the leveraging aspect). It was devised not as a “free market“, because no market was ever free from the state. West Country Men used to line up their lawns with skulls, this is what they meant by “market“: abject terror. Neither was it “liberal”, because there is nothing very “liberal” at conquering half of the planet in 100 years.

In truth the Anglo-Saxon economic model’s military aspect was no accident. It was designed as a fiscal-military system. As I will explain, Europe, which has neither fiscal, nor military aspects, copied that system, apparently not knowing what it was for.

Elizabeth’s successor, King James I, closely tied to his co-investors, the West Country Men,  hated the “vile custome of tobacco, personally, and wrote scathingly about it. Although, all well considered, he lowered the tax rate on it, so as to maximize the tax revenue that tobacco brought. Tobacco made the American colony profitable. We all have to negotiate with evil, it seems, when profits loom.



Ireland, North America, made the difference of Britain with, say, Japan. Japan tried the West Country Men trick, and shogun Hideyoshi invaded Korea with enormous armies comprising 200,000 Samurais. However, Korea, especially backed up by Ming China, was no push over. The Korean Navy was able to isolate and starve the Japanese into ignominious retreat, although the Korean population suffered enormous losses.

There was 8,000 years of civilizational progress between American Indians and East Asians. So the two tremendously expensive Japanese invasions failed. Japan stayed bottled up in Japan.

The “virtuous” inferno of building a blue sea Navy to serve transoceanic plutocracy never developed in Asia, because Asia was all too developed everywhere and invading neighbors was unprofitable.

It would take three more centuries of breakneck techno-military “progress” for Europe to be able to dominate Asia by sheer force, easily and profitably (and that lasted only a few days with Japan in the 19C, when the American “Black Ships” showed up in Tokyo’s harbor).

Japan tried the West Country trick again in the late 19C, with Korea again, and Formosa. First it worked grandiosely. By the 20C Japan extended the method to Russia, then China, and French Indochina. It all ended in the terrible defeat of 1945, when the very spirit of Japan got so crushed that its population is now collapsing (like that of fellow fascist countries, Germany and Italy, but worse, as Japanese racism and isolationism are greater, thus offering no compensation through immigration; funny how the worms of defeated psychology multiply in time).

To serve the plutocrats, a strong Navy was a must, and the Bank of England was created to serve it: its profits were used to finance the Royal Navy. Thus a tight seal was created between the military and finance. That, in turn, allowed to use tremendous leverage in finance. Because there is nothing like an invasion to demolish markets.

The markets were secure, because of the Navy was there to repeal invasions, and the state of emergencies that the threat of such would bring, say in France (the plutocrats had conspired to double the Dutch invasion of England of 1688, with a coup, so that is the exception that reinforces the rule). Also, because the Bank of England, the lender of last resort, was, actually, the Navy, in a sense, top plutocrats had nothing much to fear. And it was clear who was giving the orders; admirals could be hanged, pour encourager les autres, as Voltaire noticed.



When leverage succeeds, it succeeds like nothing else. After being injected the Dutch mania for leverage, the Anglo-Saxon liberal system became operative in Great Britain in the Eighteenth century. Plutocratic propagandists have hypnotized much into believing that it is economically superior. Militarily, certainly superior. As it turned out.

Military superiority makes an empire economically superior, if the military superiority is translated into ownership. The Anglo-Saxons, circa 1900 CE, and its extension, the American empire, circa 1950, owned, or controlled, more than half the planet, insuring wealth, in a way which has nothing to do with intrinsic economic superiority.

Within 150 years, a giant Anglo-American empire came to cover the planet. North America, Australia, among others, became Neo-Europes of the Anglo persuasion. At some point South Asia and other parts belonged to the British empire. The USA defeated Spain in the Philippines, and replaced it, to a great extent in Latin America, And so on.

Those empires were actually military empires, carefully financed. Careful financing is how Britain had, generally, a better, bigger Navy than bigger, better France. So the Anglo-Saxon financial system was actually a fiscal-military system. (Fiscal comes from Franco-Latin for “treasury”.)

That British system blossomed as a weapon against France, and then the world, both of them, much bigger, to start with. Hence the necessity of using leverage.

Ironically enough, it was rather curious that French socialists would adopt the Dutch-British financial-military system to found Europe in peace, union and prosperity. Even more curious, maybe out of abysmal ignorance, the makers of Europe adopted only part of the Anglo-saxon model. They forgot both one of its head, the fiscal part (the present European Union and Eurozone do not have a treasury, just a central bank). They also forgot its other head, the military one. What was left, it seems increasingly, was a spastic, decerebrated corpse.

So let’s recap a bit.

In the mid Eighteenth Century, Europe’s greatest power was France. France had more people than Russia, and three times the population of Britain. It was the most solid economic block in Europe, and the most developed in the world, with roads and canals all over.

(Unfortunately for French demographics, in a village called Condom, an artisan discovered a better realization of a new device; Condom denies it, although it is located on the river “Baise” (“kiss”, as an euphemism); what is sure is that the French population stopped towering because of contraception, and Napoleon’s devastation; all the growth came from immigration.)

Mighty Spain had been defeated by France, after 150 years of war. That 150 year war gave birth to the Netherlands, during the Eighty Years War of Independence of the Netherlands. Each time Spain had to repress its unruly province, it found itself at war with next door France. The Netherlands, ancestral homeland  of the Franks, was too big to fail, as far as France was concerned.

And, of course, the Dutch came to understand that they were too big to fail, as far as France was concerned, and developed great taste for speculation and leverage. Thus the Low Countries, and independent part of France (the ex “Germania Inferior” of the Romans) learned to take great risks.

This may have created a moral hazard; the Dutch may have believed they could get away with anything, as long as they used massive leverage. Since big daddy France was always coming to their rescue, and they attributed that to their genius.

Finally France crushed the Spanish Squares, the elite Iberian army formations, starting with the battle of Rocroi.

Then the Dutch William Of Orange, unable to become king in his republican homeland, made an arrangement with bankers to put together a 20 miles long fleet and a highly professional army, and, after two Dutch-English sea wars, invaded England (November 1688 CE).

The main reason of state for the invasion was to prevent further alliance between England and France. After grabbing power, the Dutch proceeded to make a coalition, including England, to attack France. The Dutch bankers who had financed the army came with it. By 1700, the top two powers in the world were the Netherlands and France. That’s how the present British monarchy arose: Francophobic Dutch poodles. (Dutch politics had long been divided between a very Francophile faction, as, fundamentally, the Netherlands were a piece of Francia, and, of course, a faction opposed to that; the Anglo-French “100 year war” started there.)

The general coalition led to a succession of wars to prevent French hegemony. However, by 1714, the war of the Spanish succession, although it expelled France from the Netherlands, Bavaria, and Italy, ended curiously. As the late Spanish monarch had wished it, Spain, and her gigantic world empire, was ruled by a Bourbon. France was ruled by Bourbon too: Louis XIV. Philippe de France, grandson of Louis XIV, and second in succession for the French throne, became Felipe V, king of Spain.

In North America, French territory, from Louisiana, through Colorado, Canada to Quebec, a Franco-Indian alliance, completely surrounded the 13 white English colonies, and blocked their invasion of Indian lands.

The Anglo-Saxon, Bible inspired model of negotiations with the Indians was for government to offer money for their scalps.

In the second half of the eighteenth century something strange happened. Britain defeated France and Spain. It was a bit as if nowadays France defeated the USA and China, in a few decades. How were France and Spain thoroughly defeated by smallish England, within a few years? (Trafalgar in 1805, where the combined French and Spanish were sunk and Waterloo in 1815, were the final nails in the coffin of Franco-Spanish supremacy).

Great Britain was able to defeat France through financial engineering, extensive leveraging, a private-public devotion of the state to war.

The Seven Year War, a world war, was fought from India to the Canada. It is known in the USA as the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763). It was started by an officer in the British army, who doubled as a land speculator, George Washington.

Britain spent (the equivalent of) trillions to pay for her superlative Royal Navy, and for paying countries such as Prussia to attack France from behind. This was all financed by leveraged bankers who thought they would inherit the world, if they financed massively the upstart British. And they did.

By the time of the so called Napoleonic wars, the house of Rothschild financed both sides, a familial system that was duplicated by many other plutocratic families, many of them Jewish (gentiles did not care where the money came from, and the position of wealthy Jews, both in and out of the system, made them natural conspirators; from these incontrovertible facts the extravagant racist ranting of Adolf Hitler, his predecessors, and friendly non Jewish plutocrats originated, according to the false and misleading equation: Plutocracy = Judaism)… the same familial system of covering both sides was followed by Nazi supporters (example: the Thyssen family).

As Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, pointed out: “A financial system… constantly improved can change a government’s position. From being originally poor it can make a government so rich that it can throw its grain into the scales of the balance between the great European powers.”

He should have known: he was financed by Britain, and by various exactions against Poles and Jews. Following Frederick upside down, one may deduce that a financial system, constantly worsening, can change a government’s position, from being originally rich to so poor that it become a grain of sand in history. This is where we are at.

In the Seven Year war, France lost Canada, part of West Indies, (rich sugar exporters), India…

The vengeful French counter-strike against Britain was thoroughly counter-productive: France, under the incoherent leadership of Louis XVI, created what would become for France an all too often fair weather friend, the somewhat ingrate USA.

Moreover something strange happened: France was ruined by EXACTLY THE SAME FINANCIAL MECHANISM which is ruining country after country nowadays. France had to roll her long term debt with short term borrowing. The War of Independence of America had cost (the equivalent of) trillions. If France had spent as much during the Seven Year War, she would have kept Canada.

By 1789, half of the French budget was going to paying interest on the national debt. In other words, what threatens to happen now to many powers, including the USA, happened then to the world’s greatest power.

Louis XVI ought to have refused to pay the plutocrats one more cent. Instead he wobbled, as usual, and convoked the General Estates, in the hope that the latter could somehow persuade the hyper wealthy to pay more taxes. The hyper wealthy had blocked for years attempts at fiscal reform by enlightened ministers of Louis XVI such as Necker (Adam Smith’s professor) or Turgot… They did it again, but the Third Estate had long lost patience, and now that it was all together in Paris, it could raise hell.

The Third Estate renamed itself the “Commons” (“Commune”) and proclaimed itself a Constituent Assembly (with the aim of writing an advanced constitution and defaulting on the debt). The incorrigible Sade, a victim of Lettre de Cachet, a resident in an apartment at the Bastille, screamed from his window that people were being murdered at his jail. Sade was believed by the rabble. It was a lie, but the Bastille was taken, and occupied by the outraged People. Louis XVI ordered the army to crack down. La Fayette, of American fame, prestigious head of the army, and a strong enemy of slavery, refused to fire on the People.

Three years later, Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and their fellow plutocrats invaded France, which reacted by proclaiming herself a republic, one man, one vote. The British invasion was repelled in Toulon, Provence, by a brilliant plan from an artillery captain, Napoleon. The Prussian were repelled by new, state of the art guns and explosives at Valmy, invented for the occasion (these innovative gunnery would help Napoleon’s victories).  

Great Britain became a global hegemony in the 19C, with France playing second fiddle.

Thus an important paradigm was created, even among the victims and opponents of the leveraged financial system that Britain profited from: the rule of leveraged plutocracy and its fractional reserve system had brought economic supremacy. They forgot the important detail that this happened through the rule of empire imposed by maximum force, and the most vicious morality imaginable, that of the “Devil” (Pluto) unrestrained.

Tellingly, early American presidents knew how the sausage was made: after all German troops paid by Britain had fought against the Colonists. And after all, those colonists who opposed independence were the richest ones. American revolutionaries proposed to establish the “Order of the Leech” for them, or to honor them with titles such as “Their Rapaciousness”. The American rebellion is called a Revolution, because it was fundamentally anti-plutocratic.

The first American presidents were highly hostile to central banking and other plutocratic conspiracies of Rothschildian inspiration. To destroy central banking was viewed by Jackson, on his deathbed, as his greatest achievement, (although he had doubled USA controlled territory under his presidency).

This mighty aura of the invisible hand of financial leverage had infused the superficially learned minds of a core component of mostly French socialists. When they pushed for the European integration, they integrated in their model the very same system which had made Great Britain so powerful, thinking they would get powerful, like those savages who get strong by eating the brains of their enemies. Instead, they got kuru.

Indeed, so doing, though, they made the same mistake as the Islamists did in the Ninth and Tenth centuries. Islam had been conceived as a war machine against the Roman empire (Muhammad himself said). It was highly successful that way. But an ideology of conquest is not an ideology of peaceful progress.

Many times in history an ideology of conquest was unable to switch to a sustainable state. The Mongols presented with an obvious example, and not just in China, but all over. As the Yuan, they were able to hold onto China for just a century (1271 to 1368 CE).

Islam was a perfect war ideology tuned to defeat the Greco-Romans, and time was of the essence,  Muhammad explained. In a few decades, Islam conquered most of Greco-Roman territory (before being stopped on the sea by Constantinople advanced technology, and on land, by excellent Frankish steel).

Once installed, Islam turned to increasing fascism and theocracy (the Qur’an and the “Sharia”, were invented twenty years, and a full century, respectively, after Muhammad’s death; it’s probable that Muhammad would not have been amused).

As centuries passed, the countries Islam had subjugated, converted increasingly to the Muslim faith, and senseless Sharia. Left to its own instruments, Islamist civilization stagnated ever more (this happened in several distinct, unrelated places, demonstrating the limitation of overwhelming theocracy).

In total contrast, the Franks who took power in Gaul around 480 CE, were able to marry an ideology of conquest with one of bon vivant (the good life). In the end, they proved the successful nemesis of military Islam.

Similarly the great Anglo Saxon financial machine was conceived, under Dutch influence, as a war machine against France (ironically, as France saved repeatedly the Netherlands from Spanish occupation, as I said, creating a massive moral hazard, which adversely affected France in the 18 C).

The French socialist builders of Europe, which is extended France, used, to build Europe, the so called free market. It is a free market, because it is free for plutocrats. On the free market, the European states were also supposed to shop for money, as if states had become housewives. Now they are desperate housewives.

A system which had been built for war, against, well, not just the world, but, first of all, France, was adopted enthusiastically by somewhat demented, and certainly deluded… French socialists, probably self congratulating about their own openmindedness of borrowing tenets of “capitalism”.

And those forward looking Europeans did on the ruins of Europe, destroyed, well, by fascist regimes financed and organized by Wall Street in the 1920s and 1930s. (I include in the concept of “Wall Street” corporations such as Texaco, and Standard Oil, IBM, Ford, GM, etc.; I conflate finance, the CEO class, and corporations)

In other words, from lack of historical knowledge, or outright corruption, the builders of Europe established their house for the hens to be guarded by the foxes.

Why? Because, naturally, the states leveraged themselves as much as they could. That came to mean that they would borrow more to pay interest on the preceding debt. This could be survivable only if that debt shrank, relatively speaking. That can happen with high growth and high inflation, as the debt would become small relative to (nominal) GDP.

But the European Central Bank got the mandate of little (2%) inflation. And high growth became impossible as the population aged. All the more since the initial debt was used for current spending, by the… states (which acted like crazed  consumers with many credit cards, using the latest to pay the oldest, a Ponzi scheme onto themselves).

Debt is a good strategy if, and only if, the capital it brings allows to indulge in some activity that brings in much more revenue than the interest on the debt one has to service. Spending debt on welfare is not so, except if the money is spent on potentially revenue enhancing research, and, or on revenue enhancing education (of the young).

The small croc is eaten by the big one. This is where we are at. A naïve attempt at beating them by joining them, and only ruin to show for it!



It is traditional among Anglo-Saxon historians and economists to celebrate the Anglo-Saxon economic model. They do not realize that they are congratulating themselves about a piece of military history rather than a piece of economics.

What came to be identified (unfairly) as the Anglo-Saxon financial system has been much admired, because it has been so successful. This is said, again and again, and taken for granted.

So successful that model was considered to be that French socialists, such as Delors, and other forward looking Europeans, adopted it for the whole of Europe. The “free market” could do no wrong. And they made the free market the enabler of the European currency union. Namely they decided that European countries would purchase money on the free market… of money.

That was, of course, a total surrender of sovereignty. Indeed, the number one prerogative of the state, since times immemorial, has been to strike coinage. That had the distinct advantage to make the adoption of their European integration project more savory to wealthy supporters and banks.

And indeed, the later can celebrate: not only they have the Greeks on their knees, but now even the French and the German taxpayers.



Paul Krugman, who hates the idea of European Union in general, and the euro in particular, now is trying to extract himself out of his own contradictions in Original Sin And The Euro Crisis by claiming that:

“how can I reconcile my scorn for warnings about bond vigilantes with what is happening to Italy?… developing countries were especially vulnerable to financial crises because they borrowed in foreign currency…. The key point is that by joining the euro, Italy took a bite of the apple — it converted its advanced-country status, as a nation issuing debt in its own currency, into original sin, with debts in someone else’s currency (Europe’s in principle, Germany’s in practice). That is the root of its new vulnerability.”

Well, this is silly. The only reason why German GDP is larger than French GDP is that the German population is larger (a bit more than 80 million, against France’s 66 millions). But, at this point, the German population is sort of shrinking, whereas France has the highest birthrate in Europe, enough to grow, even without a legal immigration of 200,000 a year. Relatively soon France ought to be larger than Germany. Now if one adds the population of Italy (60 million), and Spain (40 million), one clearly sees that Germany is no giant of the euro zone.

There is a problem with the price of bonds, true. But who controls this? Well, not Germany. The “bond vigilantes” Krugman claims to scorn, most of them capitalists operating from their Anglo-Saxon dens, in other words the leveraged plutocrats, control the price of bonds.

So Krugman’s latest blast against the euro is another devious viewpoint. Krugman is paid for his nationalistic, plutocratic serving stance. This is how he started his career, as an extreme leftist serving Marxist president Reagan, hand in hand with democrat Summers, as twenty year old geniuses who brought us the economy and finance we have now (Marxist by today’s standards, of course).

The worse part is that Krugman has achieved the status of Very Serious Person. He goes to europe and injects his venom. Last he talked in Mainz, next to Frankfurt. In Frankfurt sits the European Central Bank, the ECB, which refuses to use Quantitative Easing (which means that it leaves that monopoly to the American central bank, the Fed, and leaves total freedom for derivatives armed speculators manipulating bond prices). Who heads the ECB? Or, more exactly, what?

Not too hard a question. Of course. A ex senior partner at Goldman Sachs, Draghi,  now heads the ECB. Draghi: what a drag, what a lousy joke. Draghi will drag Europe under Goldman Sachs.

In truth, those who hate always find a reason to hate. All the more when they have interest to do so. In all this, we are very far from the anti-plutocratic roots of the French and American revolutions of 1789 (when the constitutions were written).

The Dark Side is how humanity has moderated its own worse demographic and ecological excesses, as it evolved, over millions of years.

Except, nowadays, with high technology, everything has changed. We need new wisdom, not to go back to an economic model equipping the few with immense wrath, and whose greatest gift has been the extermination of entire continents’ populations.

Europe was supposed to introduce new wisdom after the disaster of fascism unleashed in the period which one hoped had ended in 1945.

Instead, Europe embraced the very ideology and financial system that caused the terrible wars between 1754 and 1815 CE. And caused the repeat of roughly the same, between the 1860s (when the  wealthy landowner, the plutocrat Bismarck, guide of Prussia, went on a rampage, starting with Denmark) and 1945 CE. Stupid.

A leveraged fund, MF Global, founded by an ex governor of New Jersey, Corzine, who used to head Goldman Sachs (strange that name is all over, from Greece to the white house) just failed. Its leverage was 100. Its real assets were 1/100 of what it theoretically “managed”. With leverage like that, the debts of countries such as Greece or Italy are easily manipulated. Don’t expect Krugman to focus on that anytime soon, he is supposed to divert attention towards other things.

Leveraged finance, pushed to its extreme, leads to leveraged war. Time for a re-think.


Patrice Ayme

Intellectual Fascism

November 5, 2011


 Abstract: The Open Mind, has driven the evolution of topmost civilizations. As Pericles said in his Funeral Oration:”Our city is open to the world… We are the school of Hellas…” Pericles talked of Athens as an open school, and society. But he emphasized that its strength came from making Athenian minds as open, and richer, minds: “our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters.”

 Rousseau pointed out that, everywhere one looked, man was in chains. OK, it may be less true now, but we are going back there. Fast. And the real question is: why do the subjugated people love it?

 How come? Minds are brainwashed, and imprinted in simplified forms where core human wants, like curiosity, are reduced to pathetic forms, such as fascination for celebrities. (That is why the kings of France wore extravagant, hyper expensive clothing, for more than a millennium; not just because they could, but because that gave the rabble something to dream of!)

 The general drive for simplifying minds is a deliberate strategy, well engaged in the Roman empire by the year 300CE (so pre-Christian; Christianity was an afterthought). I call it Intellectual Fascism.

 Intellectual Fascism is a neglected concept. It is the opposite of the Open Mind. The Open Mind is the core of progressive civilization, whereas Intellectual Fascism is the ultimate strategy of repressive plutocracy. 

 Intellectual fascism is a form of fascism specific to human beings. It is the higher, more subtle, form of political fascism, itself an expression of group fighting as one, a trick many social species have evolved. Even wasps do it, when they swarm and attack. Intellectual fascism gathers the People tight around a few ideas, again with a combative aim.

  Superstitious religions are a typical example of Intellectual Fascism. God(s) have answer to everything, and the answer is always the same: God(s) Great, the shameful incantation of the subjugated. More generally, Intellectual Fascism views individual reason, the capacity of individuals to think for themselves, as the enemy, and always looks for some reason to subjugate it.

 In modern times, the idiocy of submitting ancient ‘gods‘ has become much less popular, because our civilization requires more brains. Thus a new startegy to subjugate reason had to be found, by the enemies of free minds, those who Pluto fascinates.

 Thus intellectual fascists have come to pretend that democracy is the ultimate reason for reason. In its most hypocritical version, intellectual fascism pretends that all ideas, or even reason itself, ought to emanate from the People (which, of course, has leaders, so it is truly these leaders who determine what reason is). Whereas the truth is that it is the other way around

 Verily, reason is the ultimate reason for reason. Reason is how what is veiled becomes defined in its full glory. Reason is the unveiler of truth. Democracy, well done, is just a mean to better reason.

 Reason emerges from truth. The best civilizations know this evidence, and act accordingly.



Before WWII, the young philosopher Paul Nizan, a friend of Sartre, published “Les Chiens de Garde” (“The Watchdogs“). He argued that many famous intellectuals and philosophers just enforced the established order. An example was Bergson, a Nobel Prize winner.

Initially a communist, Nizan broke up with Stalinism, especially when he loudly condemned the alliance between Stalin and Hitler. He was thereafter reviled by the French Communist Party. That explains why he is not well known.

Nizan was killed in combat on May 23, 1940, at Dunkirk (the heroic delaying battle by the French army which gave enough days for the one and only entire British army to escape Hitler’s army).

A lot of the present world economic crisis has to do with the intellectual analysis of the situation not being up to snuff. The watchdogs have barked up the wrong trees, as they are supposed to. Often deliberately so. Ex PM Blair of Britain goes around, heaping spite on “Occupy Wall Street” and the outraged. Nobel Krugman told us that Greece would be better, off, ruined by abandoning its currency, and switching to monkey money (OK, recently Krugman changed his tune, it seems, but much damage has been done).

Main Stream Media (and that includes websites set up by the plutocracy such as the “Huffington Post”, or by the CIA and the like, such as the “Daily Kos”) reinforce points of view typical of pure intellectual fascism. Here is a spectacular example, straight out of the New York Times.

More than once in the NYT, Michael Lynch, professor of philosophy (University of Connecticut, Northern Institute of Philosophy, University of Aberdeen), author of the forthcoming “In Praise of Reason,” “True to Life” (2004) and “Truth as One and Many” (2009), was allowed to claim authoritatively, as a “philosopher“, in various editorials that:

our faith in reason, as it were — is not blind. It is an expression of our commitment to democracy itself.”

Sounds good, but it is full of lethal venom. Watch the subliminal message. Because we are committed, we reason? To think we need to be crazy? Next Professor Lynch will probably claim that reason was invented by “liberal democracy” aka Wall Street. After all, Fukuyama (RAND, Stanford) did that before him, and was revered for it.

Seriously, the operative core of the doctrine of Hitler and company was exactly this principle. Hitler made clear statements to that effect, up to a small modification: “our faith in reason, as it were — is not blind. It is an expression of our commitment to National Socialism itself.”

One has to know, to appreciate the parallel fully, that the top Nazis argued, half jokingly, that Nazism was a “total democracy“.

Nazism was all about the rule of the mob, when civilians broke the law massively: see the Kristallnacht. This sort of tradition, to make the social contract the primary causative agent of the human mind, and of what is right, or wrong, goes back to Locke, Kant, Rousseau, and Herder. In the case of the latter three, it clearly led to murderous, racist fascism, straight as the arrow flies. Even an idiot such as Eichmann pointed that out, waiting calmly for his rope in Jerusalem.

Eichmann argued that he did not hate Jews. He was just doing his job, and did it well, as the (German) People had asked him to. He paid the Jewish girl who taught him Yiddish. His best friend was a Jew, he tried his best to save him from Auschwitz, even asking Himmler to intervene.

Eichmann claimed that he did what Germans had been told was the good: follow common interest and the will of the (German) people to determine what reason was. That is the core of Kant’s doctrine, Eichmann pointed out. And was not Kant an absolute good?

In the modern USA the argument was duplicated by Rawls, for justice (so Lynch borrows from Rawls who borrows from the usual suspects).

Rawls has a theory of “Justice As Fairness“. That is not supposed to mean explicitly that only people with a fair complexion gets justice. But maybe that is the subliminal message. Indeed, it might as well, because it rests, basically on mob justice (as in Kant, Rousseau and Herder).

Indeed that is what a critical inspection of Rawl’s “two principles of Justice-as-Fairness” reveal. The second principle admits social inequalities, and justify them by social justice (JF, pages 42-43). What Rawls forget is that everybody, even Hitler, agreed with “his” principles. So they are far from just, and his contrived argumentation leaves him in the neighborhood of the Reichstag, 1930s version.

The time honored characteristic of justice, instead is justice as balancing the facts to find the truth out of reason alone (and not from appearances).

The devil is within what is true, or not. Cognition primes even volition. This is what happens to those who make incantations about “If God wants it, Insha Allah, Deo Volente”. They have been imprinted upon subjecting what they want to what they know.

There is nochoice. Any human being has to do this. That is why Cognition Primes Volition.



Believing that the social contract is the end-all, be-all, is more than a mistake to those who trust in reason. But, of course, the primacy of the mob has been the main argument of intellectual fascism: reason ought to be submitted to the madness of crowds (themselves manipulated by their own fascist leader(s)).

The submission of reason to collective passion is a denial of the essence of man, which is wisdom. And that comes  from the independent mind. To subject reason to the rule, or approval of the mob, or to the rule of the people, is not reasonable in the fullness of civilization. Because civilization, and human progress, rest on truth, not feel-good-as-a-mob.

Verily, I think, because I independent.



A snow leopard reasonably thinking does not ‘commit to democracy’. She tries to do the right thing, such as habituating the prey to little noises from the particular direction where she is crouching, by pushing little stones, just so.

The antelopes she is hunting then come to believe that some melting or crumbling process of non animal origin is creating the sound, in that particular direction, and pays no more attention to little noises from there. Thus, when the leopard will sneak and dash, she may gain the two seconds which will allow her to kill. The leopard gets to eat, and survive. Thanks to her theory of other creatures’ minds.

For the leopard, and not just the leopard, truth is in the kill. The leopard has faith in reason. No democratic process is involved. Only truth.

Pseudo philosophers do not teach people how to think better, but how to think worse. They are paid for that, and that is why Main Stream Media (NYT, WSJ, Murdoch, Huffington, etc) advertize them, loud and clear. That is also why the truth about the economic crisis is not brought to the fore.

Verily, among the characteristic of Pluto is invisibility. A confused mind cannot see well, because one sees mostly through the mind. A deliberately confused mind is a marvellous thing to ride. Ask any potentate.



Indeed, there is such a thing as truth. Simply because there is something as the universe. The one and only. Not everything is relative, or false. Newtonian mechanics is still true, same as ever was, in its domain of application. Same for ancient Ptolemaic optics, or Archimedes principle, or Pythagoras theorem. All true, just as on day one. In their context (or “universe” to use semantics from logics). If one throws a two kilogram stone on some opponent’s head, it is still most injurious, a million years later. That is what it is, it is the truth. 

Truth, ultimately, is just what is. Nothing could be clearer. If it is, it’s true, if it is not, it’s not true.

OK, Martin Heidegger could not have understood that one, that ground for evidence, because all he wanted, deep down inside, was Nazism to be of the essence, but he could not say it, so he went around in circles, looking for the “ground”. Truths provide with grounds. Nazism, though, was, fundamentally a masochistic denial of reality, thus truth. So Heidegger could not find any ground that he could boast about.

To get to unobvious truth, reason(s) may have to be found. Truth rarely stand naked in all its glory on a denuded plain.

Faith in well known reasons reinforces reason, that faith is necessary to make reason all it can be.

Well established science in general, and mathematics, in particular, are reservoirs of well known reasons.

Mathematics consist in two pieces:

1) axioms, which depict some reasons we believe are crucial, or just interesting to believe in.

2) theorems, which are unobvious truths derived from axioms, which are unveiled through complex reasons.

The derivation of theorems itself uses other axioms, such as the Principle of Induction, which we have faith in (I gave a strong reason to believe the PI actually fails in my essay Largest Number, a modest full upside down of all of mathematics and logics that I apologize profusely for).

To believe in the Principle of Induction is an act of faith (all the more now that I gave a reason not to believe in it!), which, itself had been proven true by countless usage. What do we mean by this? Theorems proven by using the Principle of Induction have led to observable phenomena (such as jet engines purring) which were true and true according to predictions.

Did I just contradict myself? No. For all practical purposes we know nowadays, infinity exists. So the PI is true within its present context.

Democracy is most useful, because it allows debate, and debate helps in finding the truth, by putting many minds in parallel. So democracy creates reasons mechanically.



In the case of the ephemerally proposed Greek referendum, the reasons given for the decision to conduct a referendum on the exact nature of a rescue plan were clearly abysmal: people cannot judge upon such arcane financial technicalities. The Greek people was at 60% against the rescue plan. And that only for a bad reason: European inspectors are cracking down on amazing tax cheating in Greece.

Problem: in spite of the fact I want revolution now, I must admit, one must admit, that there is no immediate alternative to the rescue plan. It has the immense advantage to implement what I advocated for a long time, the immediate cancellation of 50% of the Greek debt, by the plutocrats themselves.

Moreover, if France and Germany don’t give oodles of money to Greece, right away, it will default uncontrollably, causing instantaneously a drop of per capita wealth in Greece of 50% and soon enough, 70%, with no way out. Instead France and Germany are trying to keep on going with the present orderly default (the Greek state has differed payments of some bills since 2010). The Greeks know that France and Germany will not make huge sacrifices for no good reason whatsoever.

Thus Merkel and Sarkozy correctly ordered instead that the referendum be on a non technical, but deeper question: do you Greeks want to be in the Euro zone or not? 

The answer to that one was known too: the Greeks are, by and large, very favorable to the euro. It has made them rich in more ways than one, be it only through subsidies. So not only they were then asked about whether something they liked should keep on happening, but also whether they would like not to drown.

So this was a case where a democratic consultation was not going to help.

Have all the truths been revealed in connection with the debt situation? Clearly not. And that, the People should try to start thinking about it.

How come the Greek debt, which is something like 120% of GDP, is supposed to explode to 200% of GDP, after a full year of a strict austerity program? It does not compute. Nobody explains that one. What kind of Dark Twist enables that sinister trick?

That is exactly what the watchdogs don’t want to talk about. So they will distract you with other things. I will dissect that fascinating riddle, crux of the problem, in another complex essay.

Let’s just say that both the problem, and its solution, are not localized to a few countries, such as Greece. They are global.

As far as the watchdogs of the established (plutocratic) order are concerned, the G20 at Cannes, distracted by the Greek crisis, was a great success: nothing was done about a Financial Transaction Tax. Britain, hypocritically, keeps on opposing it (they already have one, called the “Stamp Tax”, but on stocks only, not on the much more crucial derivatives; stocks are for vulgar investors, derivatives are for full blown plutocrats).

The USA is of course against a FTT as transacting the world into oblivion has become the last, and greatest, expression of American plutocratic power.  

Let’s also say that transacting away is how countries are brought to their knees by the world’s richest men.



The U.S. department of energy just announced that CO2 emissions, worldwide, jumped up by 6% between 2009 and 2010. The emission due to coal burning jumped by 8%. more than half the increase is due to China and the USA (the same plutocratic mega organization: maximize coal burning, maximize profits for the richest of the rich).

This is an important failure of reason: we are puffing away towards a disaster which will make WWII seem like an anecdote. And it’s not just the reigning leaders who are at fault.

Ecologists puffing away obsessively against nuclear energy are also at fault: they make the bed of coal, and the results are blatant (I am not defending present reactors, which are dangerous, and ought to be phased out; but coal burning is not just dangerous, but guaranteed to be lethal on the largest scale). Nuclear, with its energetic intensity 100,000 more than anything else, is the only alternative to coal.

Let’s vituperate against fracking too: the USA is getting dangerously dependent upon fracking for natural gas. Let’s frack! Greedy bullies scream. Who needs water, when one can breathe gas and drink oil?

A well is not fracked once, but many times. Dozens of times. One can suspect that the process will lead to migration of the strong and nasty chemical agents fracking uses, over a few hundred meters in a few decades, polluting the water table. All the more since the concrete lining the wells will decay. The long term effects on the water table don’t look good, with a pretty high probability. If it turns out that there is a problem, it will be energetically disastrous. 

That is why France outlawed the technique (although the country has large reserves of shell gas). More modern, less dangerous techniques may be available in the future.

In the false debates about energy, one can see the failure of informed reason versus the reason of the mob. The mob does not like the word “nuclear” because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

Better to breathe mercury vapor from coal plants, and eat mercury laden fish, because it gnaws at the brain, source of all our troubles.



Another question, related to the meaning of reason, is whether animals are machines programmed by genes. This selfish gene theory was suggested by Hamilton. It is erroneous, or, let’s say, deeply misleading.

Living organisms are programmed by genes, true. But even much more so by the environment. And the more sophisticated organisms are, the more programmed by the environment they are. This is made obvious by the fact that sophisticated species have often fewer genes than grossly inferior, mindless species. Genes are just subtle keys which allow to unlock a development which, in turn, gets programmed interactively by the environment. This, I claim, will be true even at the level of the ten million insect species (and indeed hints that wasps have emotions have come to the experimental fore recently; emotions partly come from the environment).

The environment is not digital, as genes are. Instead, like Quantum physics, the environment is continuously differentiable, and completely adaptive. No wonder: the environment itself is an outgrow of Quantum physics. To describe either, our full mathematical and logical panoply, from C* algebras, to quantum logic, while larger than any human can muster, is not enough.

There is no physics but the Quantum, and Muhammad is not its prophet. By this I mean that truth is not determined by social agreement, whatever Rawls, Lynch, Herder, and billions of Judeo-Christo-Islamists think.

Reason is a capability that evolved to allow organisms to make models of the environment. It is intimately related to minds which can create baby universes. Those models answer questions not just about what is, but also about what could-be, IF. Thus the organism can judge which universes are available, and which one, among them all, it prefers, and select for it.

Notice that the multiverse thus exists. But it’s all in our heads. And we are the ones determining which, among these possibilities, is going to be the universe, looking forward.

If we tried to do this with fully determined classical minds, it would be impossible. But we do it with Quantum minds, which escape local determinism, through non locality. That’s how reason gets entangled with freedom.


Patrice Ayme