Blood: Appetite Comes With Eating.

HORMONAL DELIQUESCENCE WIPES OUT CIVILIZATIONS.

Dark Site Exposes Why & How Obama & Merkel Are Going To The Dark Side. When Practice Makes Perfect, Growing The Satanic Mind.

***

 There used to be many civilizations. Some died, so that others could thrive. Today we have just one civilization. If it dies, it will have no replacement.

 The terrorizing, theocratic Roman empire crumbled: fascist makes stupid, stupidity kills. As the social order that had made Rome possible collapsed, its technological economy imploded too. The shock was terrible; most people died, often from starvation, and the unrest that a drastically reduced economy brought.

However, imperial Rome was replaced by the philosophical renaissance of the Franks in the north-west, and the Golden Age of Islam, over two-thirds of its territory. When the Han, or the Ming collapsed in China, they were replaced by the stronger civilizations of the Yuan and Manchu.

 Then, of course, the mighty civilizations of the Americas have now been fully replaced by much more successful successors.

 Transitions, though, can be extremely bloody. 95% of the original population of Mexico may have been annihilated in the process of creating the root of modern Mexico. The reasons for this massacre have been studied ever since queen Isabella outlawed the enslavement of Indians, and her grandson Charles outlawed further conquista (on the ground that conquista had caused a holocaust, whatever the exact reasons).

 The same cause as in Rome was at work, to some extent; these were technological societies. The Spaniards deliberately destroyed the highly technical lake gardening of the Aztecs, the core of their population, hence their power. The Inca empire, a highly efficient control and command communist system, was also dismantled by the Spaniards, for the same reason.

 Another well known cause of the holocaust was biological.

 The arrival in Peru of the Spanish Conquistador Pizarro and his 200 companions was preceded by smallpox (1532 CE).

 The Inca emperor got it, was disfigured, suffered, and then died from it. A civil war between his conflicted sons followed, while various epidemics kept ravaging the empire.

 American peoples’ genetics had absolutely no memory of smallpox, and was intrinsically all too weak to deal with Eurasian epidemics. Eurasia was a much bigger petri dish than the Americas, it was endowed with a much greater variety of microbes living in symbiosis with Eurasians (to this were added Euro-African diseases, such as malaria).

 So it felt as if the gods had deserted the Incas, while the awe of the conquistadores spread ominously.

 It is said that many were victims were sacrificed to the angry gods (some archeologists claim, say in Tucume).

 One thing is sure, Pizarro’s men, in probably the fiercest, craziest feat of military history, went on a blood frenzy at the battle of Cajamarca, killing and capturing perhaps more than 10,000 elite Inca troops, in one shock assault that baffles the imagination.

 Before the battle, the 200 hard core conquistadores could see in the night the thousands of campfires of the Inca imperial army, at least 80,000 strong. Those 200 Spaniards were probably the world’s most highly trained killers. Still, many, learning of their capitan’s maniacal plan, “wetted themselves in their terror“. However, the next day, on command, the Spaniards turned into frantic killing machines. Pizarro was even wounded as he saved the Inca’s life from one of his crazed-out armored subordinate. (Atahualpa was more useful alive, as he was still the official Inca.)

 In some quarters it is fashionable to either excuse, or excoriate murderers because of their upbringing, or atavism (their ancestors having supposedly endowed them with the wrong genetics).

 However the most sophisticated evidence is that most evil arise from situations, not from individuals. The worst culpability comes from those who created the situation, not from whom the French call “second couteaux” (second knives, secondary assassins, a sort of pietaille, foot soldiers).

 For example high level executives on Wall $treet and in American industry who collaborated with Hitler on a gigantic scale, of their own free will, were in a completely different, much higher criminal class than even the worst, most criminal French collaborators. The former were giants, the later irrelevant rats, in the greater scheme of things (although thousands were rightfully executed, be it only to write a warning in history. Executing hard core criminals, at that level of criminality, is certainly no crime. And I never read of one case where the innocent family of a French collaborator was killed with him…) 

 Interestingly, some of the most notorious actors of Vichy France had been authentic heroes in WWI. They were condemned and executed. They typically died, shouting:”Vive la France!” Many thought they were out to heroically mitigate a terrible situation. Sometimes, maybe they did. The director of IBM France was viewed as the worst collaborator, in charge of finding where all the hundreds of thousands of Jews in France were hiding.

 He never quite discovered where the Jews were. He was diligent, instead, establishing a draft list of all young French males, to reconstitute a full French army, starting with North Africa in 1943. When the Nazis found out it was too late. They tortured him to death.

 Some of the top Americans plutocrats who worked with Hitler were crucial enticers and enablers. Without them, Hitler would simply not have been, at least not to the letha level he got to. They deserve their title of admirers of Pluto in full.

 Henry Ford was awarded by Hitler in person the Grand Cross of the German Eagle on his 75th birthday, 30 July 1938. Ford had given extravagant amounts of financing to Hitler, starting in 1920. It is probably him who taught Hitler antijudaism (Hitler had Jewish comrades in WWI).

 Charles Lindbergh was awarded the Order of the German Eagle with Star 19 Oct 1938. James Mooney, General Motor’s chief executive for overseas operations, was awarded Order of the German Eagle 1st Class. Thomas John Watson, founder of IBM, was granted the 2nd class badge and star in June 1937 at the International Chamber of Commerce Conference in Berlin. Watson managed the Nazis’ computing operations all the way through until their surrender in May 1945. All his 35 factories in Germany were left operational, thanks to very careful targeting of German cathedrals rather than American factories in Germany.

 The worst of the worst, the Bushes, Brown Brothers, Harriman and many others, knew that one of Pluto’s greatest assets is invisibility; they stayed in the shadows as much as possible as did giants such as Standard Oil, Texaco, General electric, DuPont, Rockefeller Chase, JP Morgan, Warburg Manhattan bank, etc. When the decision of making Hitler Kanzler was taken, January 4, 1933, the Dulles brothers were there. (Considering how useful that decision was for the USA, they fully deserve to be honored to this day with their own airport! As I wrote this, 50,000 Orthodox Jews made themselves very small, and scurried deep into the closest holes they could find…)

 Those leaders who are after real goodness ought to avoid encouraging or inciting evil situations, instead of insisting on witch hunts.

 One can presently observe Obama and Merkel going over the Dark Side, day after day, doing so because of situations they created themselves. Characteristically they have found entire families of innocent witches to hunt down in Greece, Spain, Yemen, or Pakistan. A way to reassure themselves about their own goodness, while pursuing much larger evils. OK, I concede that it is better to be starved by Angela, than bombed by Barack.

 The evil is not just in the details of the circumstances, it is in the hormonal universes they can suddenly inflate.

  Cosmological Inflation probably does not work (I claimed, and will claim again in a coming essay). But psycho-hormonal inflation surely does happen, especially as far as evil is concerned. Perseverance is diabolical, said the Romans. But it is not just about the inertia of the task started. It is about the inertia of hormonal states, especially when they have created, as an infernal feedback, the demand for even of the brain structures that create them.

 One saw something like that, an inflation of evil, with the First Crusade, when the would-be crusaders, although they were on the attack, massacred countless Jews in the “Roman” empire (aka Francia, Germania, etc.; ). The Crusaders were just warming up. To become destroyers of Muslims, they had to grow their Dark Side. Killing European Jews, who had lived there longer than Christianism existed, was a form of hormonal foreplay. It was not foreplay for sexual games. It was foreplay for homicidal games. something much more important, evolutionary speaking.

 Human beings, the mindsets of human beings, rest on hormonal states. Nietzsche used to say that men thought with their stomach. Nietzsche was probably inspired by Napoleon’s “an army marches on its stomach“. In truth brains work within neurohormonal states.

  Everybody has seen movies of sharks progressively entering a blood frenzy. Humans are the same, just worse, because, unlike sharks, they make up stories.

  Blood calls for blood. Watch Obama drawing his ever longer assassination lists, deliberately sacrificing entire families of innocents (New York Times, May 29, 2012). What for? To be re-elected? To make the USA the only country in history where the ruler deliberately killed innocent families, in cold blood, in countries far away, for all to see, as if assassination were the highest possible value, the one projected from the bully pulpit?

 Even Hitler did not cross that Rubicon of abject horror (although Hitler was a piece of trash of very high order, he was careful to never leave traceable orders; in a court of justice, he could have been only convicted of crimes against mankind: wars of aggression, etc. He could not have been convicted of direct assassination orders… OK, except, however, for the notorious “Commissar Order“, the one ordering the execution of all Soviet Commissars).  

 Speaking of the Nazis, they reached such a high state of murderous insanity that they kept on fighting, even when it was clear they had lost the war. Why? Because the Nazis were in a mass hormonal state of homicidal fury. At the end of their reign of horror, when it was too difficult to find Jews, Untermenschen, or Allied troops to kill, they would readily kill the Germans themselves.

 Massacre call for massacre hormones, and the appropriate brain structures to produce them. Those juice up best after warming up to the situation. It is known that, when the brain becomes good at something, it grows the organs that support this activity. Thus, to some extent, the activity makes the brain. Watch Obama in his White House, drawing his assassination lists. Is your family on it? Why not? How quaint Nixon was, with his “enemy list“.

 Male canaries grow a song brain, just to sing. Exercising rats grow neuronal networks as needed. Taxi cab drivers in London grows their hippocampus, to learn the map of every single street in London. Is Obama growing a murder brain?

 The Mayas, were victims of a super drought, and they lost ecological control completely. Mayan hydraulics had worked for several millennia. Massive overpopulation (ten millions?) played a role in the loss of control. Soon Maya engineers were reduced to use very inferior wood for necessary construction, including for the gigantic canal and dam system.

 Then an abominable civil war was started, incidentally, by a secondary queen. The balance between the two leading city-states was disrupted. Fire and sword finished what the drought had started. It took nearly three centuries for consuming the entire Maya civilization. When the Spaniards landed, five centuries later, it was a ruin of its former self.

 The Maya civilization was a highly technological, hydraulic dependent society. Such societies are highly brittle. If the technology that supports them is struck down, the population immediately starves, and said immediate starvation prevents the re-establishment of the technology that made it possible. An example is Rome. When the German Vandals invaded Africa, they cut off the wheat supply of Rome, and the city shrunk, not to recover until recent decades.   

 Just as blood calls blood, war calls war. That’s why there are periods of peace, and periods of war. When an hormonal state of war has arisen among the masses, it’s hard to stop.

 Obama, as he deliberately targets innocent families for assassination, on the other side of the Earth, just because they happened to be there, should also learn this: horror calls upon much more horror. Once one has taught one’s enemy that horror does not have to stop anywhere, one did not just give them ideas, one has lost the high moral ground, essential to win wars.

 Bin Laden, by attacking civilian objectives in the USA did exactly what the CIA had taught him to do. It fit reasonably well the Qur’an interpreted all too literally. But bin Laden had practiced in Afghanistan, under American guidance. Thus 9/11 was a feedback loop.

By making the targeting of innocent families for assassination the call of the highest officer in the land, Obama is taking a civilizational risk, that no civilization took before. I really don’t know of any major leader, in the last 3,000 years, keen to be viewed as a responsible assassin of families, or responsible for assassinating families, as a matter of state. It is actually a direct violation of the State of Law doctrine, well known of the ancient Romans.

 True, many leaders did just that, assassinating innocent families. Charles Taylor, ex-president of Liberia, 64 year old, just got 50 years at la Hague, for such crimes. But Taylor did what criminal leaders like him did in the past; he tried his best, to hide his crimes. Whereas the Committee Of The 100 Murderous Ones operates in such full view in Washington DC, that even the New York Times finally detected its existence (I have spoken of it for a very long time, while the NYT ignored it…)

 In an instance of comparison, emperor Tiberius, who succeeded Augustus as “Princeps” (“First Man”… in the senate!) is widely viewed as bloody, and tyrannical. However, an examination of the historical record shows otherwise.  In the whole twenty three years of Tiberius’ reign, no more than fifty-two persons were accused of treason. Almost half escaped conviction. Others were extremely culprit, some even having killed one, and possibly both, of the emperor’s sons, who were themselves the two most major Roman politicians (that was discovered 8 years after the second poisoning!) Four innocent people who were condemned fell victims to the excessive zeal of the Senate, not to the Emperor’s alleged tyranny. We don’t know of ONE assassination ordered by Tiberius. Not one. Whereas the New York Times speaks about “lists” of assassination by Obama. A Death Panel of the murderous 100 sits at the White House. “1984” feels quaint. 

 Nevertheless, thanks to Tacitus’s propaganda, Tiber’s, and Rome’s reputation, have been forever marred.

 Too bad. Faced with a gigantic debt crisis in the entire Roman empire, Tiberius did exactly what I say should be done now. An enormous, generalized default was followed by a gigantic government stimulus and re-financing program. It was so successful, that even Tacitus has to admit it!

 Merkel, as she destroys Europe by refusing the only solutions available, while letting accomplices accuse scapegoats, and stuffing the culprits (banks) with free money, is herself letting an intolerable situation grow ever more insufferable, the sort of situations that lead to war. In that sense she is like these Maya leaders who, around 600 CE refused the only solutions available. Just as Obama, she chose plutocracy as her friend. Blacker than  Obama himself, she adds coal to her hellish recipe.

 In the 1300s, Europe enjoyed a huge population, and faced an ecological disaster. Forests had been devastated, but society depended completely on wood, for construction and energy. Leaders took dramatic ecological measures. Wars and plagues were not avoided, and Europe lost half of its population in a few years (around 1350 CE). On the positive side, the forests grew again.

 At some point nasty situations will always careen out of control. That is why nasty situations have to be defused, as soon as they are detected. (Something Merkel is deliberately not doing as she claims, disingenuously, that only thus, by creating an insufferable situation, will other countries reform; she forgets to mention that most of the so called “aid” is a subsidy for the plutocratic system, where it circles right back. In other words, she is a liar.)

 The real Satans are those who could have done something about it, but refused to, be it only because nobody called them out for the trash they became.

 At this point, we observe a moral collapse of leadership in all too many places. It’s no coincidence: miscreants encourage each other, be it only by playing real dumb. It is easier to be a criminal than a honest person, especially when plutocracy dangles its fruits of evil, for the taking. 

 Civil war in the Inca empire, the exactions of the Aztecs on surrounding nations, Rome ethical collapse in guise of Christianity, Bagdhad’s, the Hans, and other empires’ degeneracy before the Mongols showed up, all played crucial roles in their collapse. So it was for the Mayas’ implosion. 

 A civilization can be destroyed by a cataclysm (Crete) or a hateful enemy (Carthage). However, most of the time, civilizations fail morally first. Just watch the news, and worry.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: L ‘appétit vient en mangeant (Rabelais in Gargantua, 1534 CE). Captured by Shakespeare in 1600 CE as “Appetite comes with eating!“

Where, What Is Europe?

YES, AZERBAIJAN BELONGS.

***

The Eurovision song contest was held in Azerbaijan. Some have wondered if that country should be viewed as in Europe. Tectonic arguments have been raised: the Caucasus is a plate boundary, Azerbaijan to the other side, relative to Russia.

However the main boundary with the Arabian plate is more than 1,000 kilometers to the south, in the Arabico-Persian gulf… in between, there are a lot of fragmentary miniplates (and another two or three major mountain ranges). So, if one excludes Azerbaijan tectonically, so should one exclude Italy, or Spain, by the same logical token.

So forget tectonics.

Is Azerbaijan in Europe?

What is Europe? Is it the Indo-European civilizational petri dish? Yes, it is.

Is Armenia in Europe?

Well, Armenia was the first state which adopted Christianity as its state religion. For most of antiquity, Armenia was a gigantic state occupying vast swathes of present day Turkey and Azerbaijan (which did not exist yet). Armenia was long allied, or part, of the Roman empire. Ultimately, it was victimized by the invading Turks. Armenia has a territorial conflict with Azerbaijan.

Is Georgia in Europe?

It is a Christian state. It was for thousands of years in the Greco-Roman world. It was a rampart against Islam. A Georgian army helped the Mongols seize and destroy Baghdad, capital of the Islamist Caliphate (OK, there was also a Frankish army in attendance, and because it was a major butchery, and cultural devastation, one tends to overlook these not so neglectable details of history…)

Is Phoenicia in Europe?

That’s where our alphabet comes from.

Is Sumer in Europe?

That’s where the effort of making an alphabet, in association with Egypt, came from. And also the bi-cameral, representative democracy system we use. And Alexander conquered the area, and descendant regimes forever did, except when overruled by Rome.

Is Turkey in Europe?

Well, where the Turks originated, far to the North-East, that’s where the Indo-European languages originated.

Is Egypt in Europe?

Well, much Greek mathematics is actually Egyptian mathematics. For more than a millennia, a full millennia before Greek civilization rose, Crete and Egypt maintained a symbiosis. Crete originated the thalassocracy principle, with democracy and gender equality.  

Are Hungary, Finland, and the Basque in Europe?

They don’t speak an Indo-European language.

Is Iran in Europe?

Well, water in French is “eau” (pronounced “o”). In Iranian, it is “ob”.

The Azerbaijani language is a Turkic language, part of the Altaic family. These languages originated in the exact center of Eurasia, and are spoken there, and in a huge part of extreme north and east Siberia. Some could say, ha ha ha, here is the proof that Turkey does not belong to Europe. However, most of the present Turkish population descended from old, obviously European, Greek and Armenian, not to say Kurdish, ancestry: the Turkish army was at most 300,000 when it invaded the region, a millennium ago.

Moreover, that Turkish army thrived from scavenging elements of the old Greco-Romano-European civilization. It is European engineers and troops which conquered Turkey for the Turks. Constantinople’s walls crumbled under the world’s biggest guns, made by Hungarian engineers, for the Sultan.  

Is Islam something European?

Well, Islam is an obvious modification of Judeo-Christianism, which all too many view as central to European culture. The Franks themselves viewed Islam as a form of Christianism (the Franks called the Muslims Sarasins; Sarah-sins = sons of Sarah… As described in the bible).

The Franks preferred to call themselves “Europeans”, in the non Christian sense… Islam blossomed throughout two thirds of the Greco-Roman empire, and most of the population took centuries to convert. During that time, the Golden Age of Islam, Islam got Europeanized (Caliphs were in the systematic habit of marrying Greco-Roman princesses).

Is Iraq in Europe?

Well, it’s not just that Roman emperors spent quite a bit of time there, more than four centuries after Alexander’s (mostly) Macedonian army conquered the whole area. Genetic studies have shown than both the vegetable and grains found in Italy, and also the people came from the Fertile Crscent, and more specifically the area of modern Iraq.

Where does Europe stop?

Well, Marseilles was a Greek colony, from Phocaea, back in what the Romans called “Asia” (now Anatolia). Marseilles founded an empire, which lasted more than six centuries. Caesar put an end to it (because it had supported his rival). Still the Greek influence perdured, all the way through the 1789 revolution, to this day. The USA, Russia, and Australia are European colonies. So is all of South America.

Europe is an idea. The idea that cultural diversity is wealth. Even imperial Rome had understood that one, and used it to become a universal state (universal is “catholic” in Greek). That idea originated probably in the Cretan and Egyptian symbiosis, and blossomed under the great age of Greece, a millennium later.

Athens’ historical mistake, in the times of the Delian League, was to not respect more carefully the fundamental idea of Europe. An idea to munch nowadays, when the Greeks are treated like dogs, while bankers are treated like lords.

***

Patrice Ayme

Banking Demons.

MONEY CREATION BY THUGS = CIVILIZATIONAL COLLAPSE.

***

 People of more than zero influence are waking up to the fact that they have to admit that there is something  wrong with the banking system as it is. A delicate task: something has to be revealed, but not so much that the pyramid upon which the wealthy rest, would crumble.

 Paul Krugman, long extremely partial to private banks, wrote an editorial in the New York Times on the subject of how outrageous banking, as presently practiced, is. Krugman could have written this years ago. But he did not. Instead he waited until the plutocratic party went one outrage too far.

 In Dimon’s Déjà Vu Debacle, Krugman focuses on the fact that the state insures the banksters. Of course the state does much more: it reassures the banksters, thus encouraging them in their crimes. But not just that. The state gives trillions to banks so that they can play with each other. Krugman will not tell you that. For years he has been pushing stridently for Quantitative Easing, giving trillions to banks, no strings attached.

 Same idea as Reaganism, or Sarkozism: give to the rich, so that the rich will give to you.

 The bank JP Morgan Chase lost 3 billion, or maybe 5, or 100 billion. No problem, says Romney: it’s not their money, it’s theirs! If it’s not to some banks, that money, it’s to some other guys. Guys like me, guys, say romney, and he beams with pride.

 In truth, though, that money is neither to the banks, nor to those other guys. That money is yours. Private banks are in charge of creating public money, in guise of private credit.

 Some will say: this is how capitalism works. No, that’s how a particular form of fractional reserve based financial parasitism works. Proof: the Nineteenth and Twentieth century revolutionaries (Marx, etc.) did not talk about it. Instead they mostly talked about the abuse of workers by great capital. (Now there are not even workers to abuse…) At most Marx complained a bit about the monopoly of banks. The scam existed already at the time, but it was discrete.

 Romney lauded the plutocratic doctrine in relation with JP Morgan’s loss. Milder partisan of the established order, such as many in the democratic party, feel that Romney is going too far. More importantly, he wants to take their place. So, to their regret, they have to mention a bit of what’s wrong with banks.

 Romney said that JP Morgan’s loss was excellent, because it benefited somebody else, namely an evil plutocrat laughing all the way to his private jet. Romney conveniently forgot to mention that, ultimately, it’s the taxpayer who foot the banks’ bill (as Krugman finally points out, when, as I already said, he could have done it years ago). Romney is pedagogical.

 Extolling the theft of taxpayer money by hedge funds may look like a blunder on Romney’s part, but of course it’s not. Romney and his operators are clever, they know what they are doing. What they are doing is to prepare the minds to finding this sort of reflections part of the natural order of things. Instead of a blunder on Romney’s part, it’s an attempt to have all Americans become friendly to the notion of rising, shining, and boasting in the glory of that evil plutocracy is best to bring a better world.

 In other words, Romney is not just running for himself, but also, deliberately, on the behalf of plutocracy. It looks clumsy, but it’s crafty, and manipulative at the emotional, “subconscious” level.

 I immediately sent (a version) of the following comment, which put the problem in a wider context, to the New York Times (a context readers of this site will be familiar with). It should have appeared among the very first comments, thus influencing thousand of readers, and endangering the established order. Instead something happened, and it was published in # 195 position (!) Typical treatment given to my comments, when they are too clever by half.

 “It is of foremost importance for the plutocratic order that the following is not understood by the masses. What Romney and the class he campaigns for do not want the simple minds of the People to comprehend, is that BANKS ARE ACTUALLY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

 OK, if a number of individuals put money together, and then lent it, that, and only that, would be a true private bank. Instead what is happening is that banks, especially very large banks, lend much more capital than they truly possess. They can do that, thanks to the full complicity of the government, which, then, in turn, become their accomplice and creature.

 Such is the nature of the Fractional Reserve Banking System. Banks, using leverage, something only possible with the backing of the state, create all the credit, and therefore, most of the money. Money creation, a basic public function, has been farmed out to private individuals.

 Just as tax collecting was farmed out to “general farmers” under (some of) France’s Ancient Regime, and (some of) the Roman empire. However, in France and Rome, money creation stayed an exclusive activity of the state.

 So let me rephrase it: instead of calling banks private, one should realize that any bank using leverage is a public institution. It’s a fact, not an opinion. It’s a crucial fact. That is why, on his first day in office, president Roosevelt could, and did, close all banks in the USA.

 Insisting that banks are private is like insisting that public money making is private, a monopoly the state give to unsupervised, unelected individuals.

 That public character of leveraged banks makes all bankers, including Mr. Dimon, head of JP Morgan, and loudly admired by Obama, into public servants. As they lend to their friends (in finance, or their collaborators in their class (hedge fund managers who use leverage, as they all do), that makes those bankers and the banking they do, fundamentally corrupt.

 When banking executives pay themselves immense amount of money, they do so with public money. The head of the unit of JP Morgan which was playing with derivatives, Ina Drew, a blue eyed blonde, earned more than 31 million dollar in 2010-2011 alone. (She has now been fired to the regret of Dimon, who did not want to fire his “sister“… Said the New York Times.)

 This nature of banking, the exploitation of the public sphere, by a few self selected private individuals, has grave implications on Quantitative Easing and the like. The USA’s central bank gave (or lent at such low rates, it was like giving) trillions of dollars to the very banks and managements which caused the 2008 financial crisis (example: Goldman Sachs). It was quite a bit like paying off the mobsters who just burned your house. Payments are ongoing, and explain why the likes of Dimon fill Obama’s mind with awe.

 In Europe, the central bank lends at 1% to banks which then lend that exact same money to the states at 6% or 7% (Spain, Italy) or well above 50% (Greece). In other words, the public finances the plutocrats rather than the real economy.

 Merkel then barks, and push to cut off funding for public transportation in Greece, so common people cannot go to work anymore, but can, instead, be accused of laziness (feeder trains from suburbia into Athens have been often stopped, and the tracks overgrown with weeds. Meanwhile Merkel sells Porsches to her friendly plutocrats in Greece). Why does she do all that? Because she is protecting the leveraged banks by shifting blame to the common Greeks.

 (Not that the Greeks were blameless: tax avoidance was a tradition in Greece, something that forced the country to live on credit more than could be sustained.)

 The fundamental nature of the present crisis is the rise of plutocracy, naturally accompanied, as it always is, by the crushing of democracy (see all students having to pay colossal tuitions, so that only the children of the hyper rich can study, just like in the middle Ages; and if you protest, the Quebec government will come to arrest you, so please, approve!)

 The present “fixes” only make the situation worse. (As was demonstrated, say in Greece!) Those “fixes”  consist into shuffling ever more money to banks which then lend that money to their friends, or then to states at usurious rates, while augmenting stratospherically the public debt to said banks. This only augments the power of banks, hence of the financial plutocracy, and thus the crisis.

 Is it deliberate? Probably. I have mentioned it on Krugman’s blog for years, but Krugman, who is very intelligent does as if he did not notice. Why? because if he did, he knows he would sitting in the hot, ejection seat. So he bids his time while munching on caviar, and sipping champagne.

 The only way out is a general default, as advocated in:

 https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/to-save-the-world-please-default/

 Radical, sure. We have to grab the problem by its roots. Otherwise, we face collapse of civil society, while drowning and boiling.

 Accompanied by a stiff regulation of banking, along the lines of president Roosevelt in 1933. Instead the Roosevelt laws were dismantled under president Clinton, a greedy critter, well rewarded since.

  A few little men of modest extraction, get absolute power, and they want to keep some thereafter. That echo of power is provided by the Lords of Finance. As long as they took the right decisions. Singing hypocritically with U2 lead singer, the so called Bono (not his real name, just a bon mot to make him sound good, bon, bono, bueno, etc.) will help.

  Bono, like Bill Gates, sings about the misery in Africa, while raking the billions in one of Goldman Sachs’ latest conspiracy (he was on the Facebook IPO, and made nearly two billion). Warren Buffet has served the public buffet of forbidden evil foods, and they splurge. Those all too visible plutocrats also make the same lethal mistake as the tiger in Kipling’s Jungle Book… Hopefully their public splurging may attract attention from the destituted commons.  They don’t know that the Lord of the Underground, Pluto, makes itself invisible, for very good reasons. They are blinded by the very goodness they perceive in themselves, after inverting all values.

***

Patrice Ayme

Merkler?

IS THE GERMAN CHANCELLOR BECOMING CRAZY AGAIN?

Abstract: Thereafter some inconvenient background for the G8 at Camp David. Hating the Greeks under the pretext of austerity? Who does that Merkler take herself for?

Hitler started his career in 1920 as a pawn of the antijewish plutocrat Henry Ford, and Dr H. Schacht, himself a pawn of JP Morgan. By turning the Peoples of Europe into the serfs of banksters, and of some the world’s richest, and most evil men, Merkel is pursuing a similar project. Thus she is morphing into Hitler, Time magazine Man of the Year of 1938.

Some will scream: “Merkel into Merkler? Not so, are you crazy? Merkel does not hate Jews!” Well, maybe she does not hate Jews, but she sure does act as if she hated the Greeks. To death, literally. And soon, all other Europeans, with the same machine she is killing Greeks with.

Hitler was viewed by most, until 1938, as a saint and a genius. Did not he bring the Volkswagen? VW is doing very well, indeed, and maybe all too well (it now owns Porsche, which founded it, at Hitler’s urging, and some localities in Greece buy more of the most expensive Porsche… Than anywhere else in the world… An indication, among many, that Greece corruption is partly tied in to some Teutonic manipulations).

The evidence is that Germany profitted most from the present European Monetary Union. So why does it now want those who profitted less to commit socio-economic suicide, after living on their knees?

Things changed with Hitler in 1939, when France’s call to arms against Hitler bore fruit. In any case, the mechanism is exactly the same as in the 1930s: a plutocratic machine of some of the world’s richest men is devouring all in the way, and the German Chancellor finds righteous reason to enforce that disgusting repast.

(Speaking of righteous, Germany did not pay reparations to Greece after WWII commensurate with the devastation and occupation it visited on that country: a few dozen millions, when the reality is more like a trillion.)

***

HITLER LOOKED INNOCUOUS TO MOST BEFORE FRANCE ATTACKED:

Hitler advertized himself as a man of peace. Was not he following the analysis and implied prescriptions of Keynes in “The Economic Consequences Of Peace“? Keynes decried the Versailles Treaty. Keynes had observed in 1919 that France insisted to make Eastern Europe independent of Germany. Thus French obstinacy (re)created the nations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc… This, observed Keynes, was a threat to the great German Reich, and thus to peace. Hitler, comforted by creatures such as H. Schacht, head of the German Central Bank, but, more fundamentally, a pawn of JP Morgan, knew that American industrialists and bankers would support him.

Hitler, the man of peace, the man who was screaming about peace, was also strongly supported by the Pope Pie XII, and by Gandhi (who tried his best to block the vote to allow India to join Britain and France against Hitler). Most Germans supported Hitler, because they felt it was righteous to recover huge territories to the east that Germany used to possess, or control. When they understood that France would have none of it, and had stiffened the spines of Britain, and then Poland, instead of killing Hitler, as was their moral duty, the Germans persevered in their diabolical error, a hopeless war, fought all the way inside German cities in 1945.

***

THE EXISTING EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION IS A PLUTOCRATIC DEVICE:

So now what? We have an insane system for the European Monetary Union. The problem is not the fact that there is a single currency as all too many American partisans (Krugman, etc.) persisted to claim all too long (in all justice, Krugman has become more subtle recently… some of the time).

The pain of the People is the pleasure of plutocrats. The flaw of the EMU is that sovereign states are supposed to borrow from private bankers. The states are like pigeons, begging for crumbs from Dimon and other daemons… The existing EMU is an institution of plutocracy (rule of wealth) to finance… democracy (which is what Europe is supposed to be!)

The private banks get money at 1% from the ECB, and lend it back at enormous rates to the sovereign states… Which have no choice, but to borrow more as the old debt rolls out.

So the banksters right now charge according to their good pleasure; 1.42% for Germany (ten year), 1.72% for France, and above 5% or 6% for Spain and Italy.
… And up to above 100% for Greece. That is why the Greek debt skyrocketed! Because of the conspiracy of the world’s richest men… Literally. As I said in the preceding essay, the (apparently criminal) Buffet rigged the game, holding and owning all positions of all the main actors. Buffet, of course, is best friend with his admirer Obama and his collaborator and accomplice Bill Gates (whose Foundation feeds Monsanto, etc.) The vultures are not so many, they all know each other.

***

MERKEL IS, AT BEST, MAD:

So who does the leader of Germany accuse for the exploding interest rates? The Greek People today, and tomorrow, obviously, everybody else. Did she learn anything from the Nazis’ gory death?

Did Hitler realize how universally despised and hated a character he had turned into? When did the Germans realize they had elected a monster? When did they realize they had launched abominable policies? 1945?

When Angela Merkel became Chancellor, she extended the policies of her socialist predecessor, Schroeder. Zehr gut. Then she instituted Kurzarbeit, a distinctly socialist policy, infused with central planning and state intervention. She boosted state spending by 10% (an enormous stimulus). With the inner devaluation of lowering charges on companies, and an increased Added Value Tax, she was able to confer an advantage to Germany from the 2008 financial crisis. Zehr gut again.

Having thus injected the German economy with steroids, selling a lot of goods and projects to the European periphery, which could not afford them, was part of the German superiority trick, and the largest private banks in Europe were some of the agents which made it so. Those should be punished. Instead, they are rewarded by the ECB.

Massive bank bankruptcies threatened. The sovereign states stepped in, and are now themselves threatened with bankruptcies. At that point the not so good Kanzler comes finally forward to say “Nein!”. It would be funny, if it were theater.

Now here comes Merkler’s finance minister, from the depth of his wheelchair. “If Greece does not respect her engagements, she will have to get out of the Eurozone!” What a tyrannical clown! Let me remind the minister that he should not talk as if he were in Hitler’s government. He cannot order Greece around.  That was the sort of thing Hitler used to do. Aber Kanzler Hitler is kaput. Precisely because he barked out illigitimate orders.

Just as the Greek state is deprived of the ability to borrow money from a central bank, Germany is deprived of any legal or constitutional means to order Greece around.

Merkel’s finance minister has the reputation of being very pro-European. He should learn the notion that it’s not because a country is big, that a country is right. If that’s as much of a European as the Merkel government can have, a pity it’s not out yet, to join Sarkozy in the Walhalla of the pro-plutocracy party.

***

CORRUPTION: NOT JUST FROM THE SICILIAN MAFIA:

In a secluded neighborhood I know very well on the French Riviera, villas used to be worth hundreds of thousands of euros. Now a villa is being built, for 40 million euros. By a Belgian banker. He had the construction company and landscaping come from Belgium. Recently the largest Franco-Belgian bank, Dexia went bankrupt, and France and Belgium paid billions to keep its remnants afloat. As presidential candidate Romney just pointed out about JP Morgan losing billions in derivatives recently: it’s all very good, because it’s someone else’s gain.

In other words, French and Belgian taxpayers lost billions, and the money apparently allow Belgian financiers to drive up real estate prices in the plushest areas.

Thus, all over the world.

***

MERKLER, HERE YOU COME:

Does Merkel know she may turn into Merkler? After losing in Germany, even in Germany, nine elections in a row, she does not seem to get the message from the People. She obviously does not want to. Errare Humanum Est, Perseverare Diabolicum.

The Kanzlerin is busy, instead, pushing her own message. Balance budgets, submit to the iron rule of the plutocratically corrupted EMU. Never mind that, when Germany was in economic difficulty a few years back, it was the first to violate the European Monetary Union deficit rules!

Never mind that budgets cannot be balanced, as the largest item are now interest payments, and those are fixed by the thugs who build 40 million dollars villas from taxpayer money.

What is that iron rule of the EMU? That banks ought to rule. Austerity insures that the rule of the PRIVATE banks is sustainable. It’s all about banks.

What does that mean “the rule of the PRIVATE banks”? It means the rule of wealth, plutocracy. To make plutocracy sustainable is what Hitler failed to do. Time for an encore?

The Peoples of Europe are increasingly guessing that there is something wrong in this picture. They incline towards a fundamental rethink. But that does not mean that it will happen. Indeed, few of the leaders are exposing the fundaments. The American left is operating hand in hand with American plutocracy, pushing the vision of destroying Europe, supposedly to fix it.

A democracy is a state, and a state, especially a state of law, is, first of all, a state of force. No force, no law. By not replying in kind with those who want to destroy her, Europe has become accomplice in her own destruction.

Merkel could say, at this point:”I told you so. I apply force on Greece, and that is the law.” Right, Merkel, you are doing that, and an Iron Chancellor, wings dripping with molten iron, just passed by. You just forgot you have no democratic mandate to do so. Actually the mandate you are trying to enforce is distinctly plutocratic.

***

STATES ARE ABOUT POWER, HENCE CONTROL THEIR CURRENCY:

What’s a state? It’s, first of all, a military fact. An army controls an area. The army defines the state. Or then states with large military power collide, and small fragmentary states are in between (small states without armies are either in the middle of nowhere, or collaborate with larger states, such as the numerous states which helped Hitler: Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland-Belgium (prior to May 10, 1940), etc.).

Money is a device to transmit power from its ruler to rest of the house the state inhabits. Money is not necessary to transmit power, bullets can do fine. Just ask Stalin. However, money is the easiest, and most efficient way to use stick and carrot throughout society, because it appeals to the full panoply of fear and greed.

Stalin was mostly interested to decimate his own country, so that the haggard, terrorized survivors would obey with more enthusiasm to him than the Nazis did to Hitler… Decimation was a method well known of the Roman generals.

In particular, money can empower the free market. Whereas an army is necessary to define a state, the free market is a luxury, a dispensable tool of the state.

The European Union was led by French socialists who, during the 1980s, were anxious to show that they were appreciative of bankers and Germans. They established a European Monetary Union in which  money was controlled by private bankers. That pleased to no end the City of London and Wall $treet (let alone the sponsors of the late French president Pompidou).

This is of course all wrong. The democratic chain of implication: People > State > Money was broken, because, in the EU, Money > State. This was also the implication under Hitler. This is the implication Merkler finds natural.

Simple people do not have to be punished because giant banks invested with their friends, and all the money was lost… to their friends. (OK, not really lost, as Rommney unwittingly pointed out, just transferred from the People, to his friends.)

***

WHAT TO DO?

One has to change the way the EMU works, right away. Sovereign states ought to have access to money to make their economies functional, as needed.

Sovereign states cannot beg plutocrats for crumbs, as if they were pigeons, as they do with the present EMU. Indeed, that very act of begging contradicts the notion of sovereignty. Germany should be warned that it is, once again, standing in the way of peace and prosperity in Europe. And that this time one will not wait 20 years to strike back.

Germany could of course say:”Oh, well, if you take it like that, we Germans will deal with Putin, who has been very friendly to us.” Once again, that’s nothing new. Friendship and business with Russia’s old demons was the route taken by Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Germany had a discrete, but deep alliance, including a military alliance with Stalin,  until 1939, when it became loud, clear, and abominably efficient.

Let me remind the crazy Kanzlerin that the old ways did not work too well: ten percent of Germany got killed, and much German territory is forever gone. Time for a bit more imagination, and artistic creativity.

History threatens to repeat itself. Time to interrupt it. Rudely. I hope that essay was rude enough. But, if not, I can do better.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

The Axis occupation of Greece killed between 5% and 12% of the population (as Americans and British instituted a civil war against Greece after 1945, the records have been hard to keep).

The Greek National Council for Reparations from Germany reports the following casualties during the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II. Military dead: 35,077 including, 13,327 killed in the Greco-Italian War of 1940–41; 1,100 with the Greek Forces in the Mid East and 20,650 partisan deaths. Civilian Deaths: 771,845 including: 56,225 executed by Axis forces; 105,000 dead in German concentration camps (including Jews); 7,120 deaths due to bombing, 3,500 merchant marine dead, and 600,000 war related famine deaths. Greek Jews assassinated, with their property stolen, totaled 69,500.

FORCE IS A HUMANISM

FORCEFULLY CONTEXTUALIZING MAN.

Force Is Strong, It Beats Weakness Anytime.

***

 Abstract: Homo Sapiens, fundamentally, is all about force. And thus, so is humanism. So is wisdom.

 The name of the species is “Homo Sapiens Sapiens”. In English: “Man Wise Wise”. And in which sense is Man Wise Wise  wise about? Wise in the usage of force.

 And how did all this wisdom arise? Through genetic mutations that force facilitated, and implemented. The force of the most domineering species, those even lions feared, the human species. Force protected our fragile, growing brains. And the usage of force has become much more extensive since man has become super brainy. Brains are all about mustering, and mastering, forces.

 So how come conventional humanism ignores this powerful evidence? Simply because conventional humanism tends to be the humanism masters prefer their slaves to have. Even Nietzsche’s ‘Amor Fati’ is so affected. So is Existentialism. Real man does not just exist out there. 

 A human being in full creates worlds, using force, inside out.

***

 FORCE ME UP:

 It’s not even sad, and certainly true that man is about force. Molded by forces, creating new ones. It should be forcefully celebrated. Celebrations are often about force: contemplate fireworks. Those who disagree with this evidence live in denial. OK, living in denial can be best: so does the resigned sheep, when eaten by the wolf. Force is good, when well directed. Just ask bacteria. And good does not happen without force. Such is the theme of this essay: NO FORCE, NO LIFE, NO INTELLIGENCE, NO MORALITY.

 Force.

 A word conventional humanism has been avoiding as if it had the plague. Thus the ostrich’s head is deep in the sand, and its juicy rump, up in the air, ready for clawing by lions. “Why can’t wolves eat grass, as we do?” bleat the sheep. Some questions, like the moon, have no moral answer.

 Here you have an animal (man) driving the entire biosphere to extinction. And some ecologists observing this deplore the usage of force? But it is force that destroys the biosphere, force applied by man, and only other forces applied by man can stop those destroying forces.

 An American acquaintance reading a tweet about force as an essential part of humanism, denounced me as “too far off”, adding he was “off”, “unfriending” me right away. That brutality was fully coherent with yesterday’s humanism’s hysteria on the subject of force. 

 That got me to think: why does conventional humanism hate force so much? Why does it want to be weak so much? How can one hate force so much, in a world, a civilization, that rests on force, so much?

 My irascible (ex)correspondent confused “force” and “abuse”. Those who have studied physics know that force (or, even better, potential) is fundamental to (all of) physics. What is fundamental to physics is fundamental to man.

 Anything can be abused. Anything.

 Those who forcefully deny force as an overwhelming concept, are, at best, hypocrites. And, at worst, severely retarded. How come so much common philosophy got so retarded, then, that so much of the folks also are, and does this explain the civilizational crisis we are experiencing?

***

 LOGIC IS STRONG, BUT CONTEXT, STRONGER; Context Overwhelms Deduction Forcefully:

 The irascible clown was prisoner of a deeper flaw than faulty logic: simplistic semantics, too meager a context to support reality. In his context, force is abuse, a manifestation of evil. However, in its physical sense and more frequent occurrence, force is just what brings change. In particular what turns oppressive infamy into delicious salami.

 This, neglecting the importance of context, was Socrates’ main strategic character flaw. Socrates set-up for himself little logical games he then won (easily, as he had rigged the context). But, as Alexander showed when he cut the Gordian Knot, logic is nothing if one uses force, and more of a context often gives greater force.

 Nietzsche too neglected context when he embraced fate. The Franks he alluded to, calling them “noble” were not just free of other men, they were free of fate as much as they could get the better of it, in a good fight they always welcomed. They welcomed hatred and resentment as calls to violent, forceful action. That, in turn was directed towards many hostile forces, including intolerable Christianism and invasive Islamism.

***

 LIFE IS FORCE. INTELLIGENCE EVEN MORE SO:

 At first sight, life is an orderly organization, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy, that is, disorder, keeps on increasing. So life contradicts the Second Law, on the face of it. That law can be contradicted only by the application of force. That is the first obvious way in which force enters what defines us. Even an urchin’s symmetry is the expression of force.

 That leads to a number of philosophico-physical questions: what is force? Where does the organizing force that defines life come from? Those questions are very deep, and involve the deepest philosophy of mathematics too; we will eschew them here (however, see the note).

 What is force? A deviation from routine, an inflection of inertia, a change of geodesics. Short of changing the trajectory of the planet itself, certainly extinguishing the biosphere qualifies as a considerable change of trajectory. A considerable usage of force.

***

 FORCE, ESPECIALLY THE FORCE OF TRUTH, ALLOWED MAN TO BE:

 What is intelligence? Using force to one’s advantage. Picture a bacteria going up stream towards a food source the smell of which it detected. It is using the force of its propelling system to its (future) advantage. If the bacteria had no possibility of using force, it could not deflect its existence closer to its (future) subsistence.

 Chimps were never far from trees. Not so with the ancestors of man, thanks to their usage of force. The very principle of man was to evolve into an all conquering ape who uses so much force, the lions themselves contend in vain. Thus the apeman could settle the savannah park, and also the rest of the planet. And force was not just about protection, but energy procurement. Eating energy and protein rich meat allowed more time and energy for thinking (and first of all, about projecting more force, such as about how best to hunt, make war, and grab lots of females)

 Of course, there is no civilization without force: civilization means cities, and one needs force to build houses, let alone operate a city, and keep it alive, by forcefully bringing goods and water to it, while evacuating waste. The Greco-Roman empire existed because of long distance trade, rendered possible by 10,000 ships, all using force. Force could be used passively: see aqueducts and other hydraulics.

 What is intelligence? Doing the right thing. “Doing”: how does one do anything without force? No doing, nor even ding, without force.

***

 WHY ARE SO MANY MENTAL SYSTEMS ADVERSE TO FORCE? ALTHOUGH CIVILIZATION RESTS ON FORCE?

 Naturally civilization has to be civil, and so the usage of illegal force within society has to be discouraged. Oppressive mental systems hide behind that to implement their oppression of the full, but innocent nature of man.

 The cruel masters, the plutocrats, fear that force will be used against them. So they instill the People with the fear of force. Not only the fear that this terrible thing could be used against the innocent, but also the fear of wielding it against abuse. 

 That is why Christianity was a slave religion: so that there would be masters, who reigned with their minds, rather than tiring themselves beating up their subjects as much as they otherwise would have to. The occasional execution helped: the last person assassinated by the church for heresy was in the Nineteenth Century. This violence of Christianity by mental means unfolded until the Twentieth Century: the papacy, namely Pie XII, was an active collaborator of Nazism, the religion of the Master Race, and was so effective that nobody think of it to this day.

 Although Nietzsche posed as the re-evaluator of all values, and an adversary of “slave religion”, Nietzsche was all about having the force to accept the force of one’s fate. That alleviated subjects from extraneous baggage such as resentment, he opined. But what is wrong about resentment? If I resent Obama and Krugman for having set-up too small of a real stimulus to the economy of the USA, there is nothing wrong with me. It reminds me there is something wrong with them.

 Nietzsche, following a lot of top thinkers of the enlightenment, spent a lot of time heaping scorn on Christianity. However, he was the son of a pastor, and his belief in fate is immediately recognizable as the old Christian quandary of the problem of Grace and the Christo-Muslim attitude symbolized by the slogan “Inch Allah!”

 And what of many of the French intellectuals of the mid Twentieth Century, those who embraced decolonization, Mao, after embracing Vichy and Stalin? Well, they embraced all these mighty forces, because they were weak. Weakness was their religion. They produced an obscure philosophy, Existentialism, whose shadowy existence denied context. It had no more impact on infamy and plutocracy than Heidegger putting on his Nazi uniform had on civilization. Heidegger, too, was weak, and thus their hero.

 Nietzsche was clear, strong in his elocution, and said many good little truths. However Nietzsche embraced the oldest message of the leaders of empire: learn to love your fate. Many French philosophers (Sartre, Foucault, etc.) were neither clear nor strong enough to embrace anything, but themselves, and the sycophants who licked their bottoms clean.

 As Sartre puts it in his ‘Existentialism is a Humanism‘: “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” That is silly. Man does not just exist, and “surge”. Humans are molded by forces, including some mental ones from caregivers. There is a debate of forces at work, and that debate is called man.

***

 WHEN MAN IS SO STRONG AS TO BE A MAKER:

 Nietzsche could not escape his own fate. Nobody can. For this travel that we cannot escape, Nietzsche enjoins to carry as little baggage as possible. No resentment. So be it. But so what?

 Nietzsche was just scratching the surface of the nature of man, when he proclaimed again the religion of accepting one’s fate, a religion very well known, indeed, as it is the one the masters prefer, ever since plutocracy appeared, and it has ruled. Nietzsche’s message was without any originality.

 Verily, Nietzsche and the slave religions missed the big picture completely. Man is strong. Although man has to embrace fate, man is also a creator of worlds, and a maker of fate itself. For those who doubt that, have a look at the tortured planet. Fate is elaborated there, poisoned river, after polluted sea, extinguished species, after mercury sprinkled Arctic, melting icecap, after dying plankton, and burned out forest.

 For those who doubt that, have a look at the grander work of man.

***

 WHEN FORCE IS USED TOO LATE:

 During their reign, the Nazis assassinated one million and a half Jewish children. With the best of intentions, of course.

 The Nazis killed even more innocent children, and people, than that. However, by 1935, it was clear, considering the Nuremberg racial hatred laws, that the Nazis had they set the framework for such a holocaust.

 Yet, they were not opposed, and the United Kingdom and the USA (among other vermin, such as Sweden) kept on collaborating with the would be mass murderers, transferring ever more power to them. (Even thoroughly hostile the French republic, led by a Jew, sent her athletes to Berlin in 1936.)

 Why? Lack of force. Lack of desire to use force. Lack of relish for the usage of force. Force was not used. Neither intellectual force, nor physical force. Force was nowhere to be seen. Yet, what greater delight than to crush a terrible infamy such as Nazism? If that pleasure does not exist enough, it ought to be taught.

 When finally France and Britain decided to use force, September 1, 1939, it was all too late, and the alliance between Hitler, Stalin and American plutocrats had become nearly unstoppable. 70 million dead were what it took. OK, better late than never. Millions of assassinated children were part of the price paid for having not enough intellectual and moral force in a timely manner.

 Now one can see something similar with the spectrum of Merkler rising. Fortunately, she is in the process of being stopped in her tracks by the force of the (mostly French) electorate. The others have been there, and seen that, this time they have the force.

***

 WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO REALIZE FORCE IS THE ESSENCE OF INTELLIGENCE? THUS MAN?

 Because only force allows to do what is necessary.

 Just look at the austerity programs implemented around the West, from Greece to the USA. Austerity is characterized by a renunciation of force. It’s something monks do (thanks to others, in the background, who are working and fighting for them).

 When Obama came to power, instead of being forceful like the wheelchair bound Roosevelt, who closed all the banks, and enforced a giant WPA, Obama put in place a tiny real stimulus program (not any larger than that of Sarkozy in France). OK, Obama played basketball a lot, so he felt very active. The activity of the spinal cord, not that of the higher mental functions FDR displayed.

 Merkel has been much more devious. Whereas she embarked on heavy stimulus inside Germany (10% GDP!) plus massive Kurtzarbeit and other socialist, central planning tricks, all of which bore excellent fruit, she has been pushing deliriously on murderous austerity on the rest of Europe, earning herself full Nazi garb in caricature, and theperfidic nickname of ‘Merkler‘ from yours truly. (That theme will be developped in the next essay.) 

 Europe is equipped with the most plutocracy friendly banking system in the world. Unbelievable, but true. All the screaming from wall Street about Europe being a ‘welfare state” masks that fact. And all banking systems in existence are plutocracy friendly, as the Chinese Prime Minister admitted recently about big Chinese banks (adding that was intolerable). To break that institutional state of affairs, force has to be used. Mental force, physical force (white nights of debates among politicians, economists, and philosophers, studying of the situation by the common citizenry, demonstrations…)

 Similarly, to build a world sustainable economy, massive force has to be used.

 The root of the financial-economic-social-civilizational crisis is that plutocracy has envenomed democracy with torpor and a paralysis of the mind. As the People got persuaded that force was anathema, the forces of evil were left unopposed. So, out of the lofty, thoroughly idiotic perspective that humanism had nothing to with force was born, naturally enough, a humanism without force. And now a civilization without force, something that does not grow anymore, but implodes onto itself.

 Time for some vigor. Voltaire’s recommendation to crush infamy requires some force. Let’s gather it. It starts with observation, analysis, resolve. It’s not as bad as when our ancestors had to face real lions.

 Context is made of bits and pieces of semantics, and all connect to the emotional. To be a human in full, it’s important to feel good about force. Otherwise one will end up without dignity, as the dinner of hyenas, or banksters. A weak, degenerated version of humanism is bringing us, and our biosphere, to an ominous doom. Time for some glory.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

 Note on life’s vital principle. How come life grow within an ever more chaotic world? How does life overwhelms the second law of Thermodynamics? This is related to a thought experiment called Maxwell’s Daemon. The Daemon separates gas molecules, fabricating a cold compartment in a tank. Maxwell did not present a mechanism to do this. Nor does life.

 My hunch though is that a so far unrevealed force, tied to low energy Quantum Mechanics, the collapse force, is what presides to the rise of this order. Big particle accelerators cannot study that force. (But research towards the Quantum Computer will.)

*

Note on: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/humanism-is-force-no-fly-over-libya/

The present essay offers an abstract framework for the older one, which urged to intervene in Libya to throw out the bloody dictatorship.

Sage Of Obama

WEALTH AS WISDOM?

So Say The President Of The USA.

***

Main Ideas: Obama declared his love, respect, admiration for one of the main authors of the civilizational crisis we are encountering, a plutocrat, Warren Buffet. A case study that absolute power corrupts minds absolutely. Will the French socialists be able to stop the rot?

***

Abstract: Plutocracy is defined meekly as having to do with the rule of wealth.

When the Greeks and Romans talked about “Ploutokratia“, they meant much more than just wealth ruling, but the rule by the invisible (Hades) god of the underworld (brother to Zeus = Deus). Shadow Banking, that is, invisible banking, Hades banking, here we come!

The rule of Pluto is therefore the rule of evil, not just the rule of wealth.

The fundamental civilizational crisis we are confronting is rooted in plutocracy. Plutocracy has not just grabbed all the capital, all the power. It has captured the minds, making them corrupt, stupid, and degenerate.

Obama’s love statement in “Time” (April 2012) about an ultra wealthy tycoon he calls the “Sage Of Omaha” is a case in point. Here is the president of the USA telling us that from great wealth flows great wisdom.

Never mind that five minutes of Internet search show that Buffet, in truth, owns the rating agencies, and Goldman Sachs, and use them to rat on countries, entangle them in elaborate conspiracies and corruptocracies and force them to pay enormous interest rates as they go bankrupt, and millions starve, while thousands kill themselves, out of despair.

This Buffet, according to the president of the USA, is the epitome of what is now meant by morality: a winning formula for the integrity of empire.

Nowadays, it’s clear that Obama’s sycophants have been turned, by Obama’s own acts, into Buffet’s sycophants. A fact, not an opinion. So it was that in the 1930s. Then, some called themselves “nationalists” and “socialists”, and many on the left, supported them. Just because of the way they called themselves (and the lie was deliberate, as Hitler explained in excruciating details). Another fact, not an opinion.

It’s high time for Europeans to see the actions of people such as Buffet for what they are: acts of war. We have seen that circus already in the 1930s: great wealth pushing its little pawns (Mussolini, Hitler, etc.)… and reaping massive profits later. It would be better if Americans saw it too.

***

***

WHAT TO ADMIRE AND RESPECT, BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA:

Times Magazine came up with a special issue on the 100 most influential people in the world. Most of them are Americans, sell stuff, and are very rich. Among them, Warren Buffet. The president of the USA came out of presidential reserve to write an ode to him. Here it is:

“Warren Buffett

Businessman

By Barack Obama

Wednesday, Apr. 18, 012

In the spring of 1942, an 11-year-old boy from Omaha made his first big investment, putting nearly his entire fortune — about $120 — into three shares of Cities Service Preferred. By June, the stock had dropped sharply, devastating his holdings.

But it’s fair to say that things got a little better for Warren Buffett after that. His shares recovered, he sold them for a small profit, and he has spent the seven decades since in a relentless search for value. Warren has seen countless financial fads come and go. Through them all, he’s sought companies with real promise and invested with integrity.

Clearly, it’s a winning formula. Today Warren is not just one of the world’s richest men but also one of the most admired and respected. He has devoted the vast majority of his wealth to those around the world who are suffering, or sick, or in need of help. And he uses his stature as a leader to press others of great means to do the same.

The Sage of Omaha has handed down plenty of lessons over the years. Today, at 81, he reminds us that life is not just about the value you seek. It’s about the values you stand for.

Obama is the President of the United States.”

[I underlined sections of Obama’s declaration that I deconstruct below]

***

DECONSTRUCTING GARBAGE:

A few Europeans of center-right persuasion commented on the preceding passage:”One can feel a sick admiration for wealth“, “Hallucinating“, “Wow, that one is pretty corrupt“… One wonders what Americans would, ought, to think of it. Generally the analysis on the left, Krugman style, is:”Romney is the devil, therefore Obama has got to be god, or, at least, good.”

I will deconstruct some of the points made by Obama above:

1) “it’s fair to say that things got a little better”. Those sort of hypocritical formulations are loved in the USA. Why hypocritical? Well, Buffet made more than 50 billion dollars. So to say “fair to say things got a little bit better“, is well below (hypo) a correct critique. It’s neither fair, nor remotely approximate to truth. If that is what Obama calls “fair“, one cringes to imagine what Obama calls “unfair”. It’s rather idiotic to be that much below a fair critique, or, then, it depicts the expectation that one expects to talk to idiots.

A formulation such as this is a lie. In truth, things got ENORMOUSLY better for Buffet. Such an hypocrisy is viewed as basic intellectual politeness in the USA: it teaches to make lying honorable.

One could apply such hypocrisy to the Holocaust of the Indians:”It’s fair to say things got a little out of hand for the natives.”

*

2) “relentless search for value”: What is “value” in Obama’s mind? Is it what other call financial wealth?

Buffet owns the major credit agencies (supposedly in competition with each other, especially now that they have the same owner). Then he also owns government bonds those agencies rate. Relentless indeed. When the scene of the crime is set, and the poison served, what are the knights standing outside supposed to do? Wait for mayhem? Show me how Buffet did not make profits from the debasement of entire countries. Why? Because he stands accused in the court of history. Why somebody like that is not in jail shows that the law is of little value.

3) “invested with integrity”: Surely, somebody who rigs the sovereign borrowing markets worldwide, driving governments to cut basic services, to the point millions are driven to destitution and thousands suicide themselves, is not honest. So Obama either makes a deliberate effort to misconstrue reality, or alludes to “integrity” in its two other meanings. As the dictionary has it:

b) “integrity”: the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

c) a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship’s hull.

So is Buffet a crucial ingredient in the integrity of the American ship of state, a keeper of empire?

*

4) Clearly, it’s a winning formula. “Winning” and “formula” take a new meaning. It’s not science, it’s not lofty, it’s all about making lots of dough.

*

5) one of the most admired and respected [men in the world]. If what I say above is true, and it’s public knowledge, then the people who admire and respect Buffet, are accomplices into turning the world into a buffet at which they splurge. Hitler was all too long one of the most admired and respected men in the world. Actually he made the cover of Time as “Man of Year“.

Now, OK, great godfathers in the Mafia, were admired and respected. Therein their strength. The admiration and respect Germans had for Hitler, allowed the Nazis to instill discipline in Germany with just 7,000  Gestapo officers (by contrast, a fifth as large East Germany, obviously less admired and respected, had 160,000 Stasi officers in charge of disciplining the masses). Hitlerland was all about admiration and respect for Hitler: respect and admiration made Hitlerland possible.   

*

6) {Warren Buffet] has devoted the vast majority of his wealth to those around the world who are suffering, or sick, or in need of help.

That’s an outright lie. As I said above, Buffet, as we speak, starve millions.

Buffet though said he would give a lot of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, an instrument of domination for for-profit companies such as Monsanto. Just like the wife of Gates is big in the Gates Foundation, one can expect the descendants of Buffet to be big too. Maybe they can employ some Obamas too. Hey, it’s all tax free, but the power and prerogative, let alone the luxury, are real.

And the integrity of empire is thus invested with maximum hypocrisy, and a winning formula.

*

7) “The Sage of Omaha”: With a  sage like that, who needs Satan?

*

8) life is not just about the value you seek. It’s about the values you stand for.

As explained earlier in Obama’s ode to Buffet, in Obama’s mind, “value” means wealth. The other values Buffet stands for are conspiracy, hypocrisy, and infamy.

It’s not just about owning the largest private jet service in the world with his friend Gates (see Foundation, above). It’s not just about owning rating agencies and selling short or going long to increase one’s value. it’s not just about owning Goldman Sachs. What is more infamous than piling up power, so as to have the president of the USA eating in one’s hand, like a vulgar pigeon, for the entire world to see? The lack of decency is deliberate: once the American People has been debased enough, it will accept even more trampling by wealth and power.

***

FRENCH COUNTER-ATTACK?

Voltaire ordered to “Crush Infamy!” (“Ecrasez l’infame!“). Crushing infamy is not a choice, nor a fad. It’s a matter of basic cleaning of civilization when pollutants like Buffet, and their brainless sycophants pile up. Otherwise the arteries of civilization will clog, and it will have a heart attack.

Before crushing infamy, we have to point at what it is. The cult of Buffet is, in my opinion, a thoroughly despicable mastermind of the humiliation and submission of civilization. Let it be despised.

Hopefully, let the French socialists will understand that when they talk to their American interlocutors, there are just talking to servants who want first and foremost to fill up their pockets by brown nosing their masters.

As president elect Hollande, said, month ago:”I will reveal who is my opponent, my true adversary. He has no name, no face; he belongs to no party; he will never declare his candidacy. He will not be elected, yet he governs. My enemy is the world of finance. Before our eyes, in the past 20 years, finance has taken over the economy, society, and even our lives. It is now possible, in a split second, to move astronomical amounts of money, threatening the very fabric of states.

“What was once merely an influence has become an empire. And, far from being diminished, it has been strengthened further by the crisis spawned on Sep. 15, 2008. Confronted by the force of finance, the pious promises of regulation, the incantations of ‘never again’ have come to nothing… Everything has been downgraded.

[Those ideas will be familiar to my readers!]

Everything has been degraded, including the presidency of the USA, now little more than a Public Relation firm for the very owner of many companies whose conspiracy is roiling the world into a Greater Depression.

People like Mr. Buffet, as his ancestors of the 1920s and 1930s  are driving the world towards dictatorship and terror. They, and their practices, were not viewed for what they were. The road to war.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

Note on wealth as hell: The idea is generally attributed to Jesus, but it was borrowed from the Greeks, who had it in writing six centuries earlier. Pluto replaced Hades in the Greek and Latin world. Ploutos, “πλούτος“, means “wealth”, but there are other Greek words for it. (Satan, from the Greek Satanas, just meant adversarial.)

At the time, a succession of Draconian, anti-plutocratic revolutions roiled Sparta, and then Athens. Draco led one of them. The Classical Greek age followed.

Sarko In Sarcophagi!

ONE PLUTOPHILE DOWN? MORE TO GO!

***

Abstract: Hysteria against French socialism by plutophiles is exposed. The last, and by far most important section of the essay, shows that an economy rests on three superposed turtles. But the mightiest one, the only fundamental one, is the state. A state without a free market is a choice, a free market without a state is no choice. A free market has laws, and that means a state. Therein the error of Europe.  

***

HOLLANDE: FROM HOLLAND, THE ECONOMIST, FROM PINOCHET:

The French presidential election’s last stage is a confrontation between the plutophile Sarkozy and Mr. Hollande, for eleven years the head of the Socialist party, MP, mayor, and president of a region (the equivalent of an American state). The magazine The Economist got hysterical about the prospect of Hollande leading France, calling him “rather dangerous“. (The “rather” being added to sound British, somewhat detached, above the fray, a cover-up for hysteria.)

Verily, The Economist, like Milton Friedman, used to love Pinochet. That was not “rather criminal”, but definitively criminal. I have never dug up their utterances in Hitler’s times, but I am sure unsurprising surprises lay thereabout.

A lot of the British upper class, up to 1936, was pro-Hitler. After signing a shameful military-economic treaty with the Nazis in 1935, and, after seeing Hitler and Mussolini attack the Spanish republic, propelled by Texas oil, equipped by American plutocrats, Britain operated a U-turn (rather than having to operate U-boats later). If The Economist supported the business side then, it would have supported Mr. Hitler.

Many were afraid, including yours truly, that Mr. Hollande would be rather boring, but, apparently he can defend himself. I hope he bites Obama next week, or, at least signify to him haughtily that he was just elected on a clear mandate: get out of Afghanistan’s Islamist state.

One of Hollande’s dangerous suggestions is to foster the European Investment Bank (a PUBLIC bank, twice the size of the World Bank). The EIB can leverage itself enormously, to build infrastructure (and may have much more impact, that way, than, say, Citigroup, which 7 times the assets.)

Verily, what could be more dangerous than to make normal banking plutocrats irrelevant?

A London banker confided to me that bankers don’t lend to normal people and companies anymore. No need. Profits are with non society directed activities (as provided by Quantitative Easing and hedge funds). I asked him: why then banks should not be nationalized? He told me that, indeed, nationalization is what should be done, if one wanted to return to a normal economy.

Meanwhile The Economist claims that: “The Socialist who is likely to be the next French president would be bad for his country and Europe.” And why is that? The Economist presents a jumble of facts disconnected from sense:

“FRANCE IS half of the Franco-German motor that drives the European Union. It has been the swing country in the euro crisis, poised between a prudent north and spendthrift south, and between creditors and debtors. And it is big. If France were the next euro-zone country to get into trouble, the single currency’s very survival would be in doubt.”

And a jumble disconnected from plausible emotions. Imagining the anti-European plutophiles at The Economist waking up in the middle of the night screaming about the Euro, would not happen because they worry about its survival, but because they worry that the euro has swallowed the pound. As it will, someday.

I personally want France to DEFAULT on her debt. Actually I want all states to default, because the present financial system  is a gangrene, and like all good gangrenes, it has to be amputated.

(The financial transaction tax Hollande wants to implement would go a long way towards destroying much of the financial gangrene.) See:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/to-save-the-world-please-default/

However, I am fanatically pro-European, and I think deeper in socio-economic matters than The Economist. In truth the busy propagandists at The Economist know very well that the banking crisis has nothing to do with the principle of a single currency, but everything to do with the fact it was conceived as a SLAVE TO PLUTOCRACY.

Accusing the principle of a single currency, the euro, is a classical case of blaming the victim. But the economists at The Economist won’t say: their salaries depend upon not saying that.

In general, Western democracy is under attack from the fact the Western socio-economy has been made slave to plutocracy… Just as happened when the Roman republic got in trouble. Rome failed because the socialist policies proposed by the Gracchi were not adopted. The plutocrats killed the Gracchi and their supporters. Thousands of them.

Mr. Hollande is a chance to start the arduous task of extirpating the plutocratic gangrene. OK, Obama talked change too. But Obama’s change was about “change you can believe”. Indeed: none. Hollande proposes:”Le changement, c’est maintenant.” (“Change Now”.)  Hollande has 60 specific proposals, and several of the early ones are definitively anti-plutocratic.

Whereas Obama became quickly an extremely rich man, even before he wrote his first book, a typical “golden boy” story (or should I say black boy?), Hollande, seven years Obama’s senior, is no millionaire. Hollande has what he earned from salary, and not from fabulous book advances, American pre-payment style… The mark of huge money, very young, from nowhere, that’s the mark of Pluto. It’s all over those around Sarkozy (like his immensely rich and New York influential brother; I wonder if it has anything to do with a Sofitel hotel in New York…)

Hollande was a student at top rated ENA (where one enters only through a competitive examination, not through “legacy“, that means plutocracy, as one does at Harvard, this parody of an academic institution).

The Economist: “one thing seems certain: a French president [Hollande] so hostile to change would undermine Europe’s willingness to pursue the painful reforms it must eventually embrace for the euro to survive. That makes him a rather dangerous man.”

What seems certain to the crocodile, does not have to be so, for higher forms. The sort of euro that The Economist wants to survive, the plutocrats’euro, is the sort democrats ought to discontinue.

***

HOLLANDE CHANGE, SARKOZY, PLUTOCRACY:

Contrarily to what The Economist asserts, vague familiarity with the candidates’ programs shows that it is Sarkozy who wants to change nothing. And that it is Hollande, who proposes change. So the entire analysis of The Economist is built on a false premise. And why Sarko, a weak mind, belongs to his sarcophagi.

To this, a reader from Brazil, Felipe Coelho replied to Tyranosopher May 5th:

“Yes, Sarko did not change anything, breaking his electoral promises of leading France out of the State Capitalism model and releasing the energies of her society. Almost certainly Hollande can do a better job, even tiny steps will be better than nothing.

The problem is that both French Right and French Left love State Capitalism, for distinct reasons. In Brazil we have the same sort of consensus, selling Petrobras (the largest oil company) or Banco do Brazil (the largest bank), selling railways, ports or airports, ending the gigantic bureaucracy, all this is unthinkable. Instead of Louis XIV and Napoleon one has here the heritage of the State monopolies of the House of Avis XV century kings. The consequence for Brazil is the same, our growth during the last decade was ridiculous, equal to the average of Latin America. Brazil is the eternal country of the future. Cardoso made slight changes in that consensus and sold some mining, telephonic and electrical companies, but Lula did not dare/wish doing anything like that. Perhaps Hollande will, forced by circumstances, be more akin to Cardoso than to Lula. Let’s hope!”

My answer: Brazilian growth has actually been excellent. After going up by 50% in 15 years before 2006, it seems to be averaging 5% a year since. The first problem with Louis XIV and Napoleon, is that they were tyrants. (True they used French economic power, until they ruined it, but that’s besides the point.)  

Brazil has been mimicking not brainless, let’s throw money at the rabble, Keynesianism, but deliberate, let government intervene in free market, Colbertism. (China does the same.) See:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/colbert-good-keynes-not-so-smart/

More recently, Merkel practiced a sophisticated form of Colbertism. See:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/welfare-state-fares-well/

***

AN ECONOMY RESTS ON STATE, & FORCE; MONEY IS A LUXURY:

I do not believe that Sarkozy loves state capitalism. And the love of France for state capitalism is much exaggerated as an exclusively French passion. For example the French Post office is privatized, not so the American one.

In the USA many giant “private” companies are little more than wards of the state. Northrop is an example: it was able to sell subsonic bombers at two billion dollars apiece. Yes, two billions. Yes, subsonic: easy to catch. OK, they call those bombers “stealth“: a marketing ploy. All combat aircraft are “stealth“. The truth is that the Northrop B2 was a subsidy program.

Same for the Raptor, F22, at 200 million dollars apiece: it was never engaged in combat. Not once in ten years. It can’t take the rain, or something. One was shot down by an old French Mirage, in mock combat. More humiliating than that, hard to do, and a question: how come the tremendous waste of taxpayer money? Is not the same done again with the F35? On an even larger scale?

Many of the private companies trying to make money out of space access, are heavily subsidized.

The entire “private” healthcare industry is ward of the state. At least half of its business is with the state (most with Medicare).

Sarkozy’s failure was trickle down economy. Be nice to the rich, the rich shall reward you well, say the naive, and they twitch.

Now Sarkozy insists that it was a “lie” and a “calumny” to say that it’s all what his policy amounted to. Not satisfied with the previous invectives, he called Hollande a “little calumniator” for suggesting as much.

The way I look at it:

1) the “free” market, private capitalism, is a playground set, regulated, protected by the state. It furthers economic activity by exciting the profit motive (having more than the other guy).

If the hormonal situation is such that having more is dwarfed by other motives, the free market is irrelevant. This is what happens in case of very serious, invasive, war. Brazil, to my knowledge, just as the USA, has never known such a war.

France, per her location at the crossroads of three major trade routes, in the middle of Western Europe, has known many such invasions. Even before the Huns, monstrously crushed in 451 CE. The invasions have modified the national character. When French children learn French history, they learn that, the state is not just the lender, but the savior of last resort.

2) State capitalism insures the safety of the state. It was always strong in France, following the greatest Roman tradition. The argument can easily be made that, because of a plutocratically induced collapse of the tax base, Rome got invaded so badly that the economy imploded. The Roman state collapsed first, and was unable to defend the People. Plutocracy is not just infamous, it is lethal: if it does not kill you outright, it will make sure to die with you.

The USA has also an enormous state capitalism. The weapon-making part of the American military-industrial complex is nominally private, but it’s the equivalent of Roman weapon manufacturing. Practically, the crucial state industry.

The free market is a luxury. State capitalism, the real thing.

3) There is even a higher, ultimate system. Economy is managing a house. Bottom line, an economy has nothing to do with money. Money, too, is a luxury.

Barter and mandates can do it all. Some of the greatest civilizations worked that way. Sparta showed the way. It refused to use a currency beyond iron. That idealistic society then helped Athens re-establish democracy (510 BCE).

Barter and mandates is how Athens built a fleet capable of resisting Persia, how the Roman republic rose, how Diocletian re-established the Roman empire. Barter and mandates is how the Inca empire functioned, it’s how president FDR stabilized the economy of the USA in the 1930s, and how the war effort, after 1941, re-established it.

Those who believe in money first could have looked at FDR’s budget in December 1941, and say that the USA could not afford one more aircraft carrier. Instead, the USA’s command economy built dozens of such carriers, and thousands of other ships, let alone more than 400,000 aircraft.

Right now the problem is that the state has been captured by banksters, and their servants. The solution is not to get out of that nightmare, with better dreams. It is to wake up, and use force to roll back that plutocratic tsunami. Starting with destroying its ideology is how it will be done. Hollande’s 75% taxation above one million euro income is a good start to strike terror in those who believe too much in the Golden Calf.

Right now the problem is not too much state, it’s not enough democratic state.

***

Patrice Ayme

Slaying A Few Austerity Myths.

BRITANNIA WAS LATIN & WESTERN. JERUSALEM WAS NOT.

When Austerity Is Too Great Even Reason Shrinks:

Abstract: Austerity can go way too far. Austerity in finance, austerity in military matters, austerity in logic, or in one’s emotional system (“Puritanism“), can be a disaster. For individuals, or civilizations.

 Austerity is why Britannia collapsed, 16 centuries ago. Austerity in logic is why one prefers to cover that fact up, by denying the evidence: English is a  Latin language. Not a Germanic one. The latter “fact” is sheer propaganda.

 A similar situation one tries to cover-up was the take-over of the Greco-Roman world by the Jewish religion, and its criminally sectarian aspects. Making us believe Jerusalem was a “pillar” of our civilization is a form of austerity of evidence.

 Whereas the wealth of evidence is that Christianism was the cross on which civilization got nailed, and that there is nothing loving about brandishing a cross, let alone threatening to kill a child.

***

***

WHEN MENTAL AUSTERITY ALLOWS MYTHS TO DOMINATE:

 May First. A celebration, a remembrance in honor of workers killed in a conspiracy in Chicago. (Modern Americans will tell you there are no conspiracies in the USA. They have been trained to say this.)

A conspiracy involving the police, judges, industrialists. A conspiracy long forgotten in the USA, but not in the rest of the world. Someday, maybe the Americans will realize how they were led where no dignity deliberately goes… And that they stayed there, because that was the lazy thing to do. The austerity of little minds, in full evidence.

 Visiting Rome was enlightening. I am writing essays on the subject. The first one breaks new philosophical ground. It has proven difficult to write. A kind critique told me to rewrite it before publishing it, and I have been obeying ever since she grated her teeth in a persuasive way.

 In the meantime, let me handle a few tidbits. They are apparently unrelated, but the misfortune of righteous empires unites them.

 They are erroneous ideas, one should actually say, erroneous moods. Grown from austere, all too austere, minds.

 One of these lies has to do with the myth that there is something as a purely Anglo-Saxon economic model. Verily that model is half Dutch. Great Britain is a Dutch plutocratic fabrication.

 Twelve (12) centuries before, Britannia, left by Rome to its own instruments, collapsed in all ways, as it fell victim to Anglo-Saxon invasions. That was a real holocaust that killed most of the population. England was created by a French counter-strike, much later.

 Another myth is that the West has three pillars: Rome, Greece and… Jerusalem. Please don’t laugh. What does that forsaken small city in the middle of nowhere have to do with great civilizations? Verily, the West has more pillars than that: Sumer, Egypt, Crete, Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, and Germania (not to say Francia!). All these places created ideas we use to this day. But Jerusalem is not of them. A pitfall is not a pillar. A primitive mother of a prehistoric child could not be sure that a turtle did not support the world. But she sure would have told you that a guy called Joshua did not invent love. How come so many people are not that smart? Do they have an agenda?

***

WHY A PLUTOCRATIC INVASION IS CALLED  “GLORIOUS”:

 I have long subscribed to several British media. And it riles me up when I read disinformation emanating from London, that speaks of Britain as if it were on the other side of the Earth. Many English media deplore the unthinkable “Eurozone crisis“, decrying anemic growth, and huge deficits.

 Meanwhile Great Britain enjoys negative growth (it’s in a recession), and has at least twice the deficits. It is intriguing that English media fail to notice that the conditions on planet Britain are strangely similar to those on the rest of the same continental plate, 30 kilometers away.

 But the credit rating agencies, owned by Obama’s guru, Mr. Buffet, give a triple A to Britain, presumably because Britain is their friend, just like Buffet is friend to Obama. And that no doubt would come in handy, should Obama go the way of the crazed Sarkozy rushing to hell in his Sarkophage. Friends take care of friends, that’s what friends are for. Each Obama needs a buffet to splurge, like a Sarko, his sarcophagi.

 What are these misinformators trying to do? Hide the total failure of the “trickle down“/plutocratic model, by insisting instead that the Eurozone is disaster. (OK, right, the Eurozone is a disaster, and it needs to grow out of it, as Mr. Hollande, to be elected France’s next president in 5 days, insists).

 This is part of a general mood that the world’s largest continent is isolated, while Britain and the plutocratic model thrive.

 In truth, Britain thrived, because a highly leverage financial system entangled with the Royal Navy and the Bank Of England was imposed by the Dutch, three centuries ago. Nothing very glorious about being successfully invaded. So to prevent examination of this sordid affair, the term “Glorious Revolution” is used to depict the invasion and usurpation.

 Ironically, the aim of the successfully invading Dutch republic was to use the British bulldog to attack France (France was the Netherlands’ creator, it is another case of ingrate child). But that cost a huge amount of money and effort on part of the Dutch, and by 1712 CE, a quarter of a century later, the Netherlands was a shadow of its former self, and stays so, to this day. Britain, though, profitted.

***

ROMAN  BRITANNIA FELL, & SO DID EUROPE TO THE NAZIS, BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY:

 Britain was a part of the Roman empire that was cut-off, without a battle, as part of an austerity program! I hope the word “austerity” sounds familiar. That is what is evoked much nowadays. Nowadays that the banks have spent all the public money in the world on themselves and their friends, especially the ones in white houses.

 This observation is nothing really new: for decades in the last century, or so, the defense of the West has been pretty much reduced to France, Britain and the USA. Some will say it does not matter anyway. Wrong. Remember Auschwitz?

 Europe fell to the Nazi invasion in 1940 in part because massive austerity throughout the democracies had left the entire West with just 110 French divisions to face 153 fanaticized Nazi divisions.

 The USA and Britain had basically no armed forces, because they were practicing austerity. The Netherlands and Belgium were even more stingy on defense, as they believed that France would protect them from much admired Germany… And it was most profitable to contradict neither the German, nor American, anti-French drives.

 The “Occidental Part” of the Roman empire fell without a grand battle.

 Whereas in the Orient the Roman army suffered catastrophic defeats at Adrianopolis (Eastern Thrace, presently, European Turkey) against the Goths (378 CE) and against the Arabs at Yarmouk in Syria (636 CE).

 The defeat against the Goths allowed them to roam the Western empire, until the Franks and the Romans bottled them in Spain. The defeat against the Arabs allowed the latter to quickly seize two-thirds of the Roman empire, before they were mauled by the Franks (721 CE to 748 CE). The Franks did not practice austerity: they nationalized the church, and rose the largest army since republican Rome, complete with professional soldiers.

*** 

ENGLISH IS A LATIN LANGUAGE, OR, MORE EXACTLY, A TYPE OF FRENCH:

 The old Britons, like other old Celts, learned to read and write… From the Romans. Mostly. This explains why the Roman civilization was accepted so well, and so durably (it lives on in these lands, to this day).

 Indeed, the Romans taught much of higher civilization to common Celts, such as how to read and write, and why law was better than gods. The Celtic religion had forbidden that dangerous knowledge to the People. That was a deliberate trick of Celtic oligarchies, as the Celtic civilization was very advanced in other important ways, for example in metallurgy, or ocean going ships.

 One reason for calling English a Germanic language is pure propaganda. Many common Brits talked, read and wrote Latin for at least four centuries, no Jutes, Angles and Saxons involved. Those savages did not read or write.

 The smashing of the Oriental Roman army by the Goths in 378 CE had far reaching consequences. The legions of Britannia were soon withdrawn, to save money. Fascist Catholic terror was cranked up by a new emperor (a Spanish general), throughout the empire, in the hope of stopping the Goths.

 Learning that Britannia was defenseless, the Angles and Saxons crossed the North Sea in ever greater numbers. Civilization collapsed in Britannia, war blossomed. Most people died. Finally, in the mid-Sixth Century, many Romans from Britannia fled to Gallia (Gaul) giving its name to Armorica (now known as Bretagne). 

 In fact 70% of English words are of French (a third), Roman (a third) and Greek origin. The same words of Greek and Roman origin are also found in French (French is degenerated Latin, where much of the efficient Latin grammar was replaced by little prepositions, German style; meanwhile the Franks latinized the Germanic language’s grammar).

 Hence the common content of French and English is roughly 70%. (In truth much more than that, because French and English have many words of common Germanic, Celtic, Arab, Indo-European, Semitic origin, for example algebra, algorithm, amen, etc.)  

 This is a second reason not to call English a Germanic language. English is Anglo-Norman, one of the three languages of the French middle ages… It’s not because the language of the Parisians, the Langue d’oïl , came to dominate, Langue d’Oc, and Anglo-French, through the most brutal means, that we should pursue the oppression.

 This point of view refutes the Franco-French bigotry of viewing English as the enemy. The correct point of view is to use English for what it is, a French language, to foster one of the oldest and most complex civilizations.

 Another myth, another lie, is that, somehow Jerusalem brought something positive to the West. If so, what? Believing in something that never was? How come historical records don’t mention Jesus, how come his bible is full of horrors?

***

 JERUSALEM BROUGHT NOUGHT: 
Some say “monotheism” is a pillar of the West. But a close inspection shows that most religions had a principal god. Moreover, Christianism and Islam use several super natural entities that god is unable to submit (Satan and the Djins in the case of Allah… Besides the Moon, and entities in the Satanic Verses).

 Monotheism was invented in India and Egypt, well before Jews appeared on the scene. Vishnu, is the supreme god with many Indian avatars (26?). For example Krishna. 1,000 years before some Jews wrote some book in Baghdad.
Before Indian and Egyptians, there was Cybelle and the cult of the Great Mother. For 10,000 years. The Christians have (re)produced “Mary” from this fundamental religion. A religion which is, altogether, more natural, than the “jealous” god of the Bible (that god is “jealous” is revealed in the second commandment).
 
 “Deus” by the way has the same root as “Zeus”. By the time Jews wrote the Bible, the Greeks considered there was one main god, a version of the 15 centuries old Ahura Mazda.
 
  I do not see what Judaism brought to the antique civilization that was sorely missing. The biblical Jews claimed they stole the land of their enemies the Canaanites (that is the inventors of the Western alphabet, the Phoenicians). However, archeological and textual evidence shows that early Jews were actually Canaanites. So they are liars.

 When one examines the situation in 70 CE, during the great war of Judea, it is clear that the Greco-Roman civilization is completely formed, universalist, tolerant. OK, it’s also a bit fascist, but not as much as the fiercest of the Jewish leaders, such as Simon (who is also completely crazed besides; he was later whipped to death in Rome).

 The enormous population of Jews in Alexandria, next door to Jerusalem, thought the sectarians in Jerusalem were crazy to have treacherously assassinated 600 legionnaires. They did not take part in the revolt… which killed one million, many of them Jews at the hands of other Jews. During the siege of Jerusalem, to make fun of Jewish superstition, Roman artillery bombarded the city with thousands of ripe pig heads…

 Josephus, the most competent and supreme Jewish general, came to the conclusion that the Jewish revolt he had himself led, was not wise. He retired in Rome, where he wrote his extensive memoirs, which provide ample indirect evidence that Jesus existed only in Saint Paul’s head (as the latter admitted).

 The contribution of the Jews to the antique civilization, was, roughly, nought. Okay. the followers of one of their sects, Christianity, have acted as if said sect had discovered, invented and promoted love, first to do so, ever. And there are some naïve, or cruel enough, to believe them. When, obviously, altruism is the essence of civilization. Civilizations had existed for millennia before Jews were invented. (Yes people are invented: Romans, Gauls, Celts and Germans are example.)

 But the doctrine of the “Chosen People”, chosen by jealous (and murderous) god, no less, central to Jewish tribal theism, has caused a havoc. See Fourth and Fifth Century Christianity, busy exterminating, in the best Bible style, everybody, as if everybody were a Canaanite. See Auschwitz. The coup of the apprentice sorcerer? What is Nazism, but for the cult of the Chosen People? “Gott mit Uns”, said the SS, fundamentally.
 
 The Christians say Christianity discovered love and altruism, but it is not the Christians who outlawed slavery.

 Instead it is the “Merovingian” Franks (Imperium Francorum) in the year 660 CE under the “regency” of (English born) queen Bathilde who outlawed slavery. Christian bishops were from the richest families, and they were very appreciative of their armies of slaves.

 Meanwhile, the Christians had burned books, libraries, philosophers, free thinkers, “people who had made a choice” (“heretics“), academies, science, etc. … All this made directly the bed of Islam, another religion that celebrates the myth of Abraham, the guy who ties up his son to cut his throat to please his boss!

 OK, Abraham was right say those for whom exploitation is the highest value. Indeed bible god then gave Abraham the land of the Canaanites. So the fact that Abraham was willing to kill his child was highly profitable to Abraham. And for those who believe profits should overlord it all, have there, all the god they want.
 
 I categorically refute the myth of the would be slaughterer of a child as foundational for our civilization.

 OK, that perverse foundational myth obviously explains why so many priests imitate Abraham, and engage in child abuse. But is this the civilization we want? A civilization where daddy ties up the child, threatens him with death, so that he can satisfy his boss’ strange desire. Is that a civilization we can afford?

 Oh, some say they did not look at it this way. Sure. Willful blindness is most profitable. Mental retardation is the ultimate soporific. Austerity of thinking, indeed. No emotions involved.

***

Patrice Ayme