Duchesse of Hypocrisy.


Hypocrisy the crew of spaceship Earth has to learn to do without.  Today, to relax the atmosphere, we evoke much Western hypocrisy attending to plutocracy, and how it thrives that way, drinking from an arriviste’s nipples (see picture at the end of this essay).

British press shows naked women routinely (page 3 of the SUN). But not Kate Middleton, the naked Princess. A French magazine was condemned for uncontrolled pictures of the exhibitionist Kate. Could the interdiction of representing Kate be related to the incapacity of observing much that is moronic, and exploitative throughout the West, commodities markets, banks, Qur’an, plutocracy, and the world order in general?

Tartuffe Kate: Hide This Breast That I Would Not Know How to See

[Picture taken a few hours after Muhammad Middleton sued for pictures of herself in too simple an apparel. Did they ask the brown woman about whether she agreed?]

Hypocrite: pretending that what is there, is not there, and what is not there, is there. Middleton, thereafter to be addressed in this essay as the Duchess of Hypocrisy.

Kate Middleton is from old English money, with hidden finances, even worse than the “sneering plutocrat” Romney (who claims to be a self made man, but is not). Kate owns a 1.5 million dollar apartment in Chelsea. A gift from her parents. She and her two siblings went to an elite private school where the tuition is at least $ 40,000 a year, per child. That’s more than three times the median British family income for the three children, per year, just for “education”.

The disinformation (aka propaganda) has it that her parents are self made millionaires. Actually the family fortune goes back more than 250 years, she is old plutocracy (an ancestor had a fortune of more than 50 million dollar). Middleton is also a media expert, like the rest of her family (she and her sis were nicknamed the “wisteria sisters“, an allusion to their social climbing ability, similar to that of this vine).

Notice the complicity of the British press: it’s all one solid establishment. Everybody respects the Duchess. She is a symbol of plutocracy. Accept the Kate, as an object a reverence, a sacred cow, a prophetess of what’s done, and what’s not done, you accept the rule of the few. Said establishment put the heat on another arriviste, Tony Blair, the PM, and persuaded him to attack Iraq (Murdoch, an Australian billionaire, did). Blair has been well rewarded since.

This apparently side issue, the cover-up of Kate’s mammaries, and related issues, denudes something worrisome: the naked urge of British media to please its masters and manipulate the public’s mind, by setting up the context of the debate. The plot has been unveiled in a particularly silly case: whatever the plutocrats say to hide, will be hidden. (One remembers the astounding insults the same British tabloid press directed to the French when those held that Hussein in Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction.)

10% of British GDP comes from the financial piracy complex. One can imagine how the British mind is expertly manipulated, so that the Brits can goose step behind ‘their‘ banks.

As I was putting forward these considerations on Facebook, a British citizen who worked in France and lives in Germany reacted the old fashion way:

Reaction of Chris Snuggs: “The publishing of these photos was disgusting. Women shown in “The Sun” agree to it and well paid for it. It doesn’t matter WHO is the victim. Would you like YOUR chest (flat or not) sprayed all over the world? Would you like photos of YOUR children playing naked around their paddling pool? This action is, I repeat, disgusting and shows the utter greed and tastelessness of so many people.”

To which I replied: I have a house on the Cote d’Azur. Everybody in the plush parts there can see professional photographers scurrying about, carrying enormous cameras with zoom lenses more than a meter long, and a foot across… One wonders how they carry them, it’s quite remarkable. Plutocrats showing off on yachts and mansions know well they are taken in pictures, and they play that game for whatever it’s worth. If they really do not want pictures to be taken, it’s easy to do: all plutocratic properties are in extremely exclusive areas, protected by high walls, security guarded private roads…  

As France (hypocritically) makes a business attending to the world’s plutocracy, no wonder a tribunal in working class Nanterre found out for the Duchess of Hypocrisy. The French have the world’s most severe privacy laws, short of North Korea, and know how to protect the mighty. Bongo, not a monkey in Africa, but the president of Gabon, had hundreds of millions of property stashed in full view of Nanterre. Finally the French authorities noticed, after a few decades, of being told so, that the immense wealth of Bongo did not seem coherent with his civil servant salary. Just an example that it’s not just the Duchess of Hypocrisy that cannot see what she does not know how to see.

In Switzerland, the daughter of the Uzbek president is involved in laundering money from women and children trafficking, some say (such as the previous city prosecutor in Geneva). But no worries: that other princess has diplomatic immunity as ambassador to the United Nations.



But back to the plutocratic exhibitionist, one of many in the British Royal family. So, it it’s so disgusting, why did Kate strip, exhibiting herself on a yacht (see below), knowing full well she would be taken in a zoom lens? Why did she show off? because she knew a French tribunal would come to her rescue (they always do, all British celebrities know this).

Kate was trying to pose as if she were interesting, a victim. What else? Kate is not innocent, she playing the media like an expert: look at me, I am all harassed, hounded by the plebs! We are supposed to cry for her.

She is trying to show she can make a buck, like the rest of them, royal types, in the most outrageous way. After all, Prince Charles, the future king, got, for years, a personal subsidy of several million euros, a year, from the European Union… For his enormous farm. They say it’s because he is ecological. I say it’s extortion money. In exchange for his benign silence about the EU, the Prince rakes up the cash.

The debate on Facebook kept going:

Nathan Daniel Curry: “Oh when oh when will they get rid of the monarchy?! Peleeease!”

Chris Snuggs: “There are two aspects to this. A) The Monarchy is a feudal anachronism and an insult to all plebs (among whom I am proud to include myself) from whom the land was stolen by a succession of fascist lords and monarchs,

B) The present Royal Family did not CHOOSE to be born royal and most of them – in particular the Queen – are doing their best to fulfill with devotion and dignity what they see as their “duty”. The Monarchy is indeed silly. If it did not exist and you proposed setting up a Head of State by selecting a single family emerging from vicious fighting upon which to bestow immense wealth (your wealth) and power then they’d lock you up as a lunatic. However, it is a historical accident. As such – and given the nature of Man – it could be said to be the least worst of numerous other methods of selecting Heads of State, many of whom become extremely nasty dictators.

I personally desire the end of the Monarchy, but not until the Queen has died. And there has to be some sort of mechanism to prevent – for example – Blair or Brown or any other cretinous ex-politician from becoming President.”

This shows, on the part of the honorable British gentleman, a lack of understanding of what a head of state does. As the head, the head of state should take decisions, be a decider (to talk like George W. bin Bush). The argument that royalty was bestowed on the Royals, that they did not chose it, applies to all and any royalty in all places where royalty has been hereditary. For example the dictator of Syria, Bachar el Assad inherited his job, after his brother died in an accident, so, well, it was a historical accident. Does that excuse his presence and behavior? Same in North Korea, or Uzbekistan.

Nathan Daniel Curry, answering Mr. Snuggs: “No no no – get rid of them now. They are a pointless dinosaur. It won’t happen because of the intense jingoism of the British people. But anything is better than a constitutional monarchy. Please be gone!

This is from a comment I made about the Saudi Regime: It’s very difficult to introduce democratic principles into nations that are dominated by fiefdoms. So it’s very difficult for civilization to develop without those changes. And greed and oil and caring less often go together. Sadly. It could be repeated – with slight edits – for the Brits…”

I share Nathan’s opinion. European monarchies ought to be cancelled right away. Monarchies are the most outrageous symbol of plutocracy. Accepting them is to accept to be dominated by corruption and entrenched elites, and finding honor in it, while the rabble get their spinal cords conditioned to wave flags and be happy about having lords.

The heads of states of republican Rome, the Consuls, were elected just for a year. Two of them had to share the job and rotate the ultimate responsibility every month. When (very rarely) Rome elected a dictator (who had full power during a national emergency, overriding all other institutions of the republic, exactly as what would happen after the USA, or France had been hit by a nuclear strike), the dictator was often elected for only 6 months.

European monarchies ought to be cancelled. Precisely because they symbolize, and practice plutocracy. Accepting them is to accept to be dominated by corruption.

John Michael Gartland joins in: “Corruption and rampant nudity. They just can’t keep their clothing on.”

That’s an allusion to Prince Harry, playing around and swimming naked in Las Vegas. Hey, what are huge VIP suites for? Who is paying for that VIP suite already? British taxpayers? Or European taxpayers? Both? As Harry will inherit from his “dad”, I guess both. Now Harris is back to what plutocracy does best, harrying, and shooting at, the natives from a big armored helicopter (natives in Afghanistan, but that’s just a detail; the idea is to shoot the destitute, while using the resource of the state commandeered by plutocracy; he should paint little natives on the side of his chopper, each time he kills one). The implicit idea to burrow in the subconscious; we are the plutocrats, and we can shoot you. It’s not just a message for Afghans and other Muslims, but for us all, the plebs.

Not only have the emperors no clothes, but they are happy to flaunt the fact they can go around naked, and be complimented on their beautiful clothes. Literally, and figuratively.



Kate Middleton is the “Duchess of Cambridge“. This is entirely appropriate for an hypocrite. Cambridge University is where the Puritans who colonized America came from. They were so intolerant, so hypocritical, they left England for the Netherlands. Then discovered their children wanted to leave them, and go Dutch. So they migrated again, this time en masse to the USA, where they became instantaneously much richer than any European, by commandeering the resources of a virgin continent.

Yes, the forests, in much of Western Europe had not recovered from the Romans, let alone the Middle Ages.

It helped to massacre the pre-existing natives. The first two natives the “Pilgrims” met, spoke fluent English (they had lived in England!) In a major historical mistake from the Native American point of view, they taught the Pilgrims how to survive from the land, just when the Pilgrims were starving.  

Once in “New England”, the Puritans read the Bible to find in the mass homicidal Jewish God the inspiration they needed to kill all the natives.

It was all very hypocritical: finding in a religion supposedly about love, the precedents to justify holocausts. But that is both the central flaw of Christianity, and why the Latter Days Roman emperors imposed Christianity on the empire, as it allowed them to justify their bloody plutocratic rule.

Sometimes the Puritans sneaked in, and burned entire Indian fortified villages, in the midst of winter, with everybody inside: see the aptly named “Mystic Massacre“.

But that was not enough, to eradicate all Indians, so the Puritans soon invented a new method, not found in the Bible: scalps in exchange for money from American authorities. “Along with pious thoughts, I receive 165 pounds 3-3 . . . my part of scalp money,” reads the 1757 diary of a clergyman, the Rev. Thomas Smith of Falmouth, Maine, one of many men of Allah and his prophet Jesus, who supplied provisions and ammunition to a scalping party made up of his parishioners.

OK, these disparate considerations on hypocrisy would not be complete without a bout of Islamist hypocrisy, and hypocrisy about Islamist hypocrisy. But a separate essay maybe best.

Hypocrisy, is, as I explained implicitly, is driven by the global plutocracy.

Hypocrisy destroyed Rome. When Rome mistreated Carthage, it systematically used a mix of (faked) high mindedness, entangled with the basest motives.

That was highly lucrative. Quickly, thanks to its mighty army, amply rewarded, the Roman Republic turned into the world’s greatest kleptocracy, assisted by frequent holocausts. The hypocrisy allowed the Roman elite to feel morally justified.

The Republican Roman army had been, for centuries, a self defense army. It became a tool of plutocrats (as the Gracchi said, at the time). Under the Principate, by the Severian dynasty, 350 years after assassinating Carthage, the Roman army had become a plutocracy of its own, in conflict with the (even richer) Senatorial plutocracy based in Rome.

It was the logical conclusion of a mental process that the Gracchi were unable to stop.



We are at such a junction in history nowadays. Global plutocracy is imposing a mood of exploitation that knows no bounds: the Romney-Ryan proposals, to tax the hyper rich even less, can be viewed in this light.

The impudence is always growing:

So, in France, Taittinger (the champagne) just announced he had become Belgian. As a plutocrat, he will pay no taxes in Belgium. There was immediately a demonstration of 10,000 Belgian commoners, with their minuscule incomes, wondering why they are assassinated by taxes whereas super rich French plutocrats pay no taxes.

The upper management of corporations have organized the planet as a giant tax shelter. Take the case of Apple, while idiots are camping on the ground in Manhattan, three days before the release of a phone variant by Apple (‘the iphone 5’).

Apple makes most of its profits through a patent system of sort. 70% of Apple’s profits made in the USA transit through Ireland. Ireland, a very poor country a generation ago, taxes at not even one third what the USA charges (only 10%, a fraction of what France or Germany tax). This system is used by Apple and other corporations such as Google and Microsoft.

Most of the profits of apple in countries such as France, or Great Britain transit through Luxembourg. (Why are we waiting to send the Wehrmacht, there and in Belgium?)

Once the profits have been not taxed there, in Luxembourg, they are sent to the British Virgin islands, where 116 billion dollars of Apple profits were last seen landing. So it’s no wonder there is an Apple religion: each time one of the believer does an itune transaction, it connect to the British Virgin Island.

Once the plutocrats have reduced people to starvation, they come around, offer them crumbs, and have the same media who do not show them naked for what they are, dress them with the compliment “philanthropist”.

Meanwhile the plutocratic New York mayor, a financial billionaire, gloats that he commands the World’s seventh largest army (whose main function nowadays is to arrest Wall Street protesters)  

Hypocrisy is a mental property that allows plutocracy to grow, by under (hypo) criticizing it. Kate Middleton, dancing in Tuvalu sexily the next day, after learning the decision of the French tribunal of plutocratic servants, has something to celebrate: she did her class good. She belongs, she earned her keep.



Bob Dylan says the stigma of slavery ruined America’s soul. He doubts the country can get rid of the shame because it was “founded on the backs of slaves.”

Dylan, the veteran musician tells Rolling Stone that in America “people (are) at each other’s throats just because they are of a different color… it will hold any nation back.” He also says blacks know that some whites “didn’t want to give up slavery.”

The deeper point is: can the USA get rid of the mood of exploitation that brought forward slavery, among other things?  (See Mystic massacre, scalps, Pequots, above). Or, more generally, can the West avoid the evolution that brought dictatorial, bloody, small minded imperial Rome?

Or the somewhat similar process that brought the feudal order in full oligarchic regime by the year 1100 CE? (When the first Crusade was launched.)

As it is the mood of exploitation of the many by the few, of the biosphere by the jet set, has spread.

So back to the Duchess, today’s example of how the People gets softly conditionned to the impudent oppression of its Lords. The titles of “Duc, Duchesse” (French), from the Latin “Dux“, that comes from ducere, to lead. The concept is more than 26 centuries old. So Kate Middleton is a leader, we are told. Are we supposed to kneel? And what does she leads towards? Hypocrisy supreme. Taxpayer financed. Here she is on a big yacht in France, no doubt taxpayer paid: 

Don’t Look At My Nipples, It’s Against The Law

Buckingham Palace has called photos’ of the woman above a “grotesque” invasion of privacy. And yet, if prince Harry puts bullets inside Afghan children, that’s heroic. Do the morons in the palace know what “grotesque” mean?


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , ,

3 Responses to “Duchesse of Hypocrisy.”

  1. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, I just don’t get it, what is your interest in the Royal family, I have a principle, never listen or read, what have to say sportsman, singers and royals. I took the actresses and actors, out of the list, because from time to time they have things to say. After all the royals need all these scandals, hypocrisy, show of and all the others, otherwise they would fell into anonymity.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Eugen: I have no interest in the Royals per se, but I have interest in the hypocrisy attending them. The British Royal family, for example, is supported by people like me. In some cases I paid up to 75% tax in Europe, and then I see Charles the future king, getting (some of) that money (although I am not British, I am European, tax wise, sometimes, and we all pay tax for Charles).

      This has been known for years, just like multinational corporations avoiding taxation through shemes often involving loans and fund transfers. By coincidence, a bipartisan report on the subject just came out in the USA, saying just this. The senior VP for taxes at Helwett Packard (world’s largest computer maker) explained to the senate that scheme was OK with the IRS.

      I also explained that the courts are on it, and cooperate with the general hypocrisy. True, the laws are plutocrat friendly. Kate Middleton exposed herself deliberately (in my opinion), in a chateau, and on a yacht, so that she too could sue, and show the rest of the royal family and plutocracy that she, too, could make a buck through a devious scheme, and that she, too, incarnated the stand of bona fide plutocrats above the commoners.

      Another example I have mentioned since ever, is the systematic presentation, in USA media, of plutocrats, who typically pay little, or no tax, as “philanthropists”. Some say it’s an anecdote. But not so. The Jobs family. for example, not only paid no taxes for decades, but also has access to the highest reaches of USA politics,namely buddy buddy with the president and company. A fortiori true with banksters. Those plutocrats precisely want to just show their PR side, and naive commoners to ignore the rest.

      For example Chris Snuggs, who I quoted, is enraged by the salaries of Eurocrats, but does not mind the much larger sums involved in plutocratic corruption and the attending influence trafficking.This is rendered possible by the general hypocrisy of the media, which mold public opinion, as wished by its masters.


  2. Google Slave Master? « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] now: many manipulators have seized command, when they create nothing fundamental. They are like the Duchess of Cambridge, the Duchesse of Hypocrisy, going around, busy making their celebrity and parasitism fundamental, […]


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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: