Crazy Lie Technique

The Economist, the celebrated British tabloid, teaches economy thus: it siphons its European profits behind a mangy door of a second floor apartment in a poor part of Luxembourg. Would it be economical to pay taxes in the countries where The Economist is sold? Tax havens is where the good life is at, and The Economist just contrived a list to prove that.

Major profiteers and corporations do the same all over the world: they hide profits in tax havens they enabled through subtle conspiracies and deep propaganda. Why is the insanity allowed to go on? Not just because of corrupted politicians. Also because plutocratic agents made common people too confused to realize they are robbed blind. Instilling insanity is the plutocrats’ first barrier against common sense and decency.

Propaganda fabricates the spines of the sheeple (sheep-people). Here is a spectacular example. The “Economist Intelligence Unit crunched hard numbers” to answer this: “Which country will be the best for a baby born in 2013?” Here is its somewhat deranged answer:

Better Serving Emirs, Without Health Care?
Intelligent To Make Us Crazy & Stupid?

First of all notice that, among the first 15 countries, none is a major military power. In other words, these 15 countries depend upon the military superpowers for their protection. That is nothing to encourage, lest one wants to repeat World War II.

We saw what this kind of parasitism brought in 1939-1940: the pro-Hitlerian antics of Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands caused the loss of France, enabling 50 million Europeans to die subsequently; as a telling aside, Dutch Jews were killed nearly to the last person. 

Observe that sexist Muslim Fundamentalist regimes, with their subjugation of women, score high in The Economist’s esteem. This sadomasochism theme, unsaid, runs deep.

Among other amusements, Cyprus is one of the better places to live, according to The Economist Intelligence. Cyprus is an island cut in two, a few years ago, when Turkey attacked militarily by sea and in the air, invading it with its army, twice (well named operations Attila). Cyprus survives, without a peace treaty, the butt of Turkish hostility. Another full war, with more atrocities, is entirely possible as Turkey increasingly veers towards Islamism. But, according to the mental retards at The Economist Intelligence, Cyprus ranks higher than Japan, France and Britain, none of which is under foreign occupation. Maybe The Economist Intelligence finds lethal atrocities of the massive type one of the better spices in life?

So? What else? Why to live in a place that could be wracked by war again, just off Syria, with so many who have lost their property and can never again where they were born? Cyprus is a tax haven. Tax avoidance, the meat of life, according to Economist Intelligence!

According to The Economist Intelligence, Singapore is deemed safe, while the acceleration of sea level rise is 60% higher than the most pessimistic official forecasts (countries such as the Belgium or the Netherlands are spending already much to fight the advancing sea). For those unawares, Singapore, a tax haven, is barely built above high tide.

The Economist self glorifies, as it pontificates that “the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a sister company of The Economist, has this time turned deadly serious. It earnestly attempts to measure which country will provide the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead.”

So the other times, The Economist admits that it was not “deadly serious“? It was just seriously deadly, as when it  supported Pinochet? I sent the following to The Economist, and they published it:

The Economist’s biases comes in many guises. The Economist now tells us that tiny Israel, hated on all sides, surrounded by a ghetto like wall, and with the high likelihood to be plunged into five or six horrendous wars, nuclear or not, with impacts all over its minuscule vegetated territory, scores higher for a “healthy, safe and prosperous life” than all major West European countries?

Does The Economist know how to spell C R A Z Y?

And Switzerland, a small enclave stuck between France, Germany and Italy, does particularly well? As if it were on another planet? Whereas, in truth, Swiss schemes are highly dependent upon whether the EU and the USA are going to let them happen, looking forward. 

And Ireland, which lives partly from being an outrageous tax heaven (like Switzerland with its Vereins) will keep on being a tax heaven, thus staying rich, while keeping on getting subsidies from its poorer, but ten to fifteen times larger European neighbors?

And Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are much safer than Italy? The Chinese plutocrats will not go silly in the next 50 years? The Chinese leaders will not abide by the deep desires of their underground Lord? Just in case The Economist does not know, let it be reminded that the People Republic of China reserves itself the right to recover Taiwan, anytime, by force, and that, should there be problems within the PRC, it will be only natural to distract the sheeple with a good foreign war.

“Crunching numbers” is good, thinking, better.

This incident offers a troubling two dimensional space: along one dimension, The Economist is really stupid, along the other, The Economist is launched into a multi-dimensional propaganda operation, no holds barred. Notice that in The Economist’s classification, tax heavens score high. Notice also that the large countries, which are taking increasing measures against tax cheats, are scoring low. An argument The Economist uses, even against the USA, is that they owe large debts.

What The Economist “forgets” to say is that the large countries, which defend the West, owe large debts, because they pay rent to tax cheats (including, but not limited to tax cheating plutocrats, tax cheating countries such as those glorified by The Economist, and tax cheating corporations, such as the one that owns The Economist).

In passing, The Economist mentions that the Netherlands, a sneaky tax haven, is the only Eurozone country worth living in. Just in case Luxembourg does not work anymore, the Netherlands, which is 30 times larger, should be able to shelter The Economist from big bad Franco-Germano-British taxes. (Netherlands population: 17 million, UK + FRA + DEU = 210 million.)

The Economist’s analysis of the best places in which to be born started with another piece of classical propaganda. That great plutocratic philosopher, Warren Buffet, one of the world’s richest and deepest men (Buffet splurged with various manipulations that turned Greece into a colossal profits him and his associates) was quoted extensively as opining that he was who he was, that splendor of a vulture, because he was born in the right country, as the right time.

The Economist Intelligent Unit is intelligent enough to pose as exemplary the USA in general, and its plutocracy in the 1930s, and in the 2010s, while talking about the good life.

Hitler famously explained in “Mein Kampf” how Big Lies work: “little people use little lies all the time, they do not expect big ones…“By using Big Lies, Hitler succeeded to persuade the Volk of things that were not true, as he pursued what he viewed as higher aims, that he knew the Volk would disagree with, such as preparing for a world war in 1945 or the extermination of the Jews.

If most Germans had learned about either of these secret aims of Hitler, they would have been horrified and would have viewed Hitler as insanely dangerous… So, knowing this, he lied, big time.

However, as time went by, Hitler became a mental investment most Germans believed in, and the more they invested in him, the more they believed. (A phenomenon well known in the stock markets, as all too many people tend to fall in love with their investments… however bad those turn out to be.) In the end complete collective insanity took over, as the book Soldaten, relating secret recordings of German POWs, shows (Soldaten is also in English with same title).

Now we have something new, that even Hitler did not think about: the Crazy Lie. The Crazy Lie technique makes people accepting of modes of apprehending reality that prevent them to think seriously.

The Crazy Lie Technique is, first, emotional. The Economist used to support Pinochet’s dictatorship for its economic prowess (paid in part with around 5,000 killed and 31,947 officially tortured). Some will say: that was then. Indeed. The USA helped or led, and paid terrorists right wingers to make a coup in a democracy that never had any coup (the USA was furious about losing control of Chilean copper).

Chili was, is, a European foundation. What happened to it was horrible, but The Economist applauded, just as Milton Friedman applauded. Many in the Pinochet junta were on CIA pay roll, while heating up their electrical pincers.

By posing the United Arab Emirates as what we need to emulate, The Economist is actually sinking even lower than it did under Pinochet. The UAE has no European foundation. The UAE is a sordid medieval pluto-theocracy. Some emir, son of his father, is chosen by his medieval tyrannical peers to be the chief, just as was the case in Transylvania 8 centuries ago.

Differently from Middle Age France, though, more than 80% of the UAE’s inhabitants are NOT citizens. They are basically salaried slaves. Health spending proportionally to UAE GDP is only 2.8%, the 181th rank in the world (there are only 193 nations in the UN; as Emirati citizens get health care, that means that non Emirati, the slaves, get none). The UAE enjoys four billionaires with worth around ten billion dollars. Out of a million Emirati (among 4.5 million foreign slaves, servants & mercenaries).

The UAE is Sunni Muslim, and it faces hated Shiah Iran just across the sea of the Arabic, I mean, Persian Gulf. The UAE is basically a Western Plutocratic outpost, not exactly what the Iranian theocrats fancy. Fortunately for the thousands of Persian rockets at the ready, the hundreds of huge towers of the UAE (culminating up to half a mile high in Dubai!) offer themselves as ready targets.

To warn Iran off, the French were requested by the UAE to open a sea-air base, with half a brigade of the French Foreign Legion in residence. Thus the Camp de la Paix came to be.

War with Iran is more likely than not. Although crumbling towers and fireworks among great explosions promises a good show, by assimilating this to the good life, the Economist Intelligence Unit apparently advocates massive lethal sadomasochism as the dominant pursuit of our desires.

Not all is dark in the UAE; it is a place that strives very hard, from pretty bad initial conditions (aside from having the world’s 7th highest oil reserves). But here what I target is the cult that Anglo-Saxon plutocratic media such as The Economist, and the Financial Times enjoy.

Both of the much admired tabloids ferry their revenue through Luxembourg for tax avoidance, which, on that scale, surely is satanic.

So why convey the insane idea that the United Arab Emirates provides with a healthier (2.8% of GDP on health, remember) and safer (obvious target for Iranian nukes) life? Just out of love for plutocrats? Not, not just that. What is taught here is insanity itself.

What is taught is an erosion of intelligence. The Economist Intelligence Unit is out to destroy intelligence.

Teaching people that “crunching numbers” leads to the mathematical conclusion that the UAE provides with much nicer prospects than Japan, France, Britain, Italy or Spain, is so crazy that the notion can only be accepted by suspending one’s critical and intellectual capabilities.

And this suspension of rationality and criticism is what The Economist teaches.

So we are supposed to join the plutocratic cult that Singapore is a much better place to be born than the USA. Or that the United Arab Emirates, a rabidly sexist medieval pluto-theocracy where most inhabitants are foreign slaves, just a handful of minutes away for the thousands of missiles of the hated Iranians, is obviously much safer and healthier than… the French Republic (of course!)

After I wrote most of this essay Lord Justice Brian Leveson, mandated by PM Cameron, came up with his report on the UK press. Leveson writes: “Most responsible corporate entities would be appalled that employees were or could be involved in the commission of crime in order to further their business. Not so at the News Of The World” (the now-shuttered tabloid that was owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, owner of the WSJ, Fox news, New York Post, etc., and powerful enough to be a part instigator of the war in Iraq, hence Murdoch’s nickname: Murderoch).

“Lord Justice” observes that the press “did not fullfill its role of guardian of the nation“. (Hey, The Economist spits on the nation!) The ‘Right Honourable Lord Justice’ recommends that the press  should create its own regulator, backed by legislation to make sure it meets certain standards of independence and effectiveness.

What we contemplate in The Economist is a further problem. What to do when crazy lies are created, just to erode reason? The problem is not restricted to the plutocratic cult, but other cults, as the Islamist one.

Egypt’s Muslim Fundamentalist parliament is rushing to pass Islamist legislation, making the Sharia into law. Never mind that Egypt thrived without Islam, a military-industrial superstition, for 4,000 years. Egypt was 100% Christian, for centuries. The word “Copt” itself is the Arabization of the word for Egyptian in Greek. In other words, to use some humor, the Muslims stole Egypt from the Egyptians, and are still at it, because, well, truth is secondary.  There are up to 20 million Copts in Egypt (Islamists will tell you that’s a lie).

Plutocracy and superstition reign best upon decerebrated chickens. So the chicken they decerebrate. Nowadays, though, the tsunami threatening civilization is not a few meters high, but kilometers high. Even the plutocrats and other exploiters will be destroyed by it, with most of the biosphere.

What we need is legislating for more truth. I proposed to make TRUTH as a new branch of government. After all, experiments show that equity, thus justice, is fundamental to primates. But what is equity without truth? What is a primate without truth? TRUTH & REASON ARE ESSENTIAL TO HUMAN RIGHTS.

What is essential ought to be legislated, thus civilization is enabled.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: Last, but not least, morality, at the scale of nations, makes happy (at variable scales of time). And safe. Thus morality is a crucial component for tomorrow’s health and happiness (although what ‘morrow’ means will vary considerably: Germany was punished on the scale of generations, Sweden never was, the USA already self punished, in part, with the Secession War, but more works need to be done).

Notice that I excluded not just the medievalists countries, or those waiting for heavy military action, but also the tax cheats from the list: Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Singapore, Hong Kong (also disqualified as owned by a dictatorship). Others have also to disqualified on even worse moral grounds.

I do not contest that Australia and Canada are good countries to be born. If one’s aim is wealth and comfort, in the next few years. However the ecological policies of these countries are so greedy as to endanger the planet’s ecology. They contribute massively to fossil fuel burning. One wants to keep in mind that the unfolding catastrophe of heat trapping gases pollution will be terminated by a massive world war, not just flooding, droughts, hurricanes, mass extinctions, rising heat, and collapse of oxygen production.

Being born in countries where one’s moral system will be tweaked towards tolerance for mass criminality is not, regrettably a criterion that The Economist put as an input. But it is neither willing, nor able, to do so.

Beat Beast Eats Middle East?

“The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could yet be an unlikely foundation for peace” (pontificates idiotically The Economist’s “Old battles, new Middle East“). More prosaically, anti-missile systems were tested.  Iron Dome intercepted 425+ Gaza missiles.

There cannot be peace in the Middle East, as long as Islam is the dominant system of mood. Islam started as an anti-Jewish machine: Muhammad turned against his hosts, who had inspired him, and massacred an entire tribe in mostly Jewish Yathrib (thereafter to be called Medina, the second most sacred city in Islam).

Faithfully following Roman and Roman Catholic genocidal fascism, Islam put its foot on Jerusalem’s bloodied face, insulting it as the third most sacred city in Islam:

Dome Of The Rock Mosque Squats Obnoxiously On Jewish Temple Mont

In 1217 CE, Spanish Rabbi Judah al-Harizi found the sight of the Muslim fortifications on the Jewish Temple Mount profoundly disturbing. “What torment to see our holy courts converted into an alien temple!”

Jerusalem had been the capital of various Jewish states for about 2,000 years. 2,000 years prior to the invention of Islam.

Islam has no less than two mosques on top of the most sacred place of Judaism. Those mosques were built (late 8th C), 13 (yes, thirteen) centuries after the destruction of the first Jewish temple by the Babylonians. It’s worse than rising mosques on top of a razed Notre Dame, while calling Paris the fourth most sacred city in Islam.

Muhammad is supposed to have taken flight from there, the Jewish Temple mount, in an apparent imitation of the thoroughly undocumented Christ (many turkeys fly from the same spot). The vampire gorged on blood takes flight from the neck of its victim.

Islam was also an anti-Western war machine, and, as long as it functions as a dominant mode of thinking of Middle Earth, and the West has not been defeated, there will be war. We have plenty of (sacred) statements in the Hadith about attacking the West deliberately. Bukhari is the second most authoritative source in Islam after the Qur’an:

“He heard the Prophet saying, ‘Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.’ The Prophet then said, ‘The first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s City will be forgiven their sins.'” [Bukhari:V4B52N175]

So much for Islam being a religion of peace. Muslims sieged Constantinople three times: 674-678 CE, 717-718 CE, and 1453 CE.

On August 28, 846 CE an Arab army invaded Rome by surprise, and took over the Vatican. Yes, the Muslims succeeded where Hannibal had failed. One never talks about it, prefering to call attention to Hannibal and the Crusades, always (an obvious bias in context building!). This attack on Rome was no joke: the Frankish army holding north-west Rome and the Vatican was killed to the last man. The Muslims in and around Rome were repelled after hard fighting over several months, by Frankish relief armies.

Arab invasions rolled over Europe for 1,000 years, coming not far from Paris more than once, sieging Vienna, twice, occupying Saint Tropez, much of Provence, Switzerland, Greece, much of Italy, for decades, sometimes centuries… Exerting their obnoxious oppression all along (non Muslims were strongly discriminated against, in many ways, and had to submit, lest they would be summarily executed; marks on clothing akin to the Nazis’ yellow star had to be worn by the non Muslims; Muslim warriors could grab maidens and decide that was a “battlefield marriage” [institutionalized rape] but non Muslims men could not marry a Muslim, something true to this day, etc.). 

“The Prophet said, ‘Khosrau will be ruined. There won’t be a Persian King after him. Caesar will be ruined. There will be no Caesar after him. You will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.’ He proclaimed, ‘War is deceit.’“ [Bukhari:V4B52N267] 

“Umar [the Second Caliph] sent Muslims to great countries to fight pagans. He said, ‘I intend to invade Persia and Rome.’ So, he ordered us to go to [the Persian King] Khosrau. When we reached the enemy, Khosrau’s representative came out with 40,000 warriors, saying, ‘Talk to me! Who are you?’ Mughira replied, ‘We are Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.'” [Bukhari:V4B53N386] 

It’s all about the luxurious life: be a martyr, and luxury is yours, you greedy murderous ones! It’s not me parodying Islam saying this. It’s the most sacred texts of Islam defining Islam thus. Notice the quotes are long, their contexts clear. But we have to be careful: nowadays, just describing the Prophet, as he is described in the Qur’an and the Hadith, is viewed as a grave insult against the prophet, even if all and any Muslim scholars know these very things are the basics of the Islamist faith. In other words, Islamist “scholars” view Islam as an insult against islam, as long as it is described by non Muslims.

For all the pillow talk about peace in the Middle East, Islam is the pachyderm from hell breathing over the bed in the room above the whispering lovers. The Middle East has not yet been separated from its local, plutocratic friendly, superstition, Islam. Islam, as it is, truly, not as it is hoped to be by pseudo-progressives who have made a business model from mouthing wishful thinking, as a form of soft intellectual fascism.

Let’s all read the Qur’an, line by line. It’s only 80,000 words, everybody, even pseudo-progressives, with their tiny brains, could do it. Maybe too busy self caressing pseudo-progressives are?

What do we see in the Qur’an? A repetitive litany of lethal or abusive orders (from God, no less!) many victimizing people who are accused of misinterpreting God, such as the Jews, Christians, ill defined “unbelievers”, etc.

Apparently unsatisfied with murderously intolerant fanaticism, the Qur’an is clearly not friendly to democracy. Allah wants the faithful to obey whoever detains power: “O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Sura 4; verse 59).”

Thus the Qur’an makes fascism part of worship. No wonder all leaders in Islamist countries become dictators (even Erdogan in Turkey is trying his best).

Thus Islam or democracy and peace? That is the question in the Middle East, still stuck in theocracy, 13 centuries and going strong.

***

WHEN EUROPE WAS UNDER THE SPELL OF WOULD BE CHILD ASSASSIN ABRAHAM, IT WAS NOT PRETTY EITHER: 

Superstition going crazy is not confined to the Middle East. Europe has know two phases of murderous insane superstitionism. The first religious madness put an end to Romanitas, an ill fated, all too restrictive society that could survive only by ever augmenting its fascism, while fragmenting into mini tyrannies from local plutocrats.

Diseased Romanitas was replaced by the more advanced Frankish philosophy which included in the power structure of society Jews, Pagans, women, all sorts of Germans, Romans, and even the ex-slaves.

The ugly oppression of the Abrahamic religion went into an eclipse that lasted six centuries. (Nothing symbolized it better than the nationalization of the church by Charles Martel around 730 CE!)

However, the Crusades allowed Abraham to rise its ugly snout again. The cult of a child molester does the plutocratic mood wonders. One Crusade, in France, killed one million. One million French. Or more. For five or six centuries plutocrats, hiding behind Abraham’s throat cutting ways, were at each others’ throats.

The Europe was torn by terrible religious wars over a century centered on 1600 CE. France had no less than eight religious wars at the end of the 16th Century.

Some of these wars caused the death of more than 30% of the population. Before weapons of mass destruction. Finally central governments won the struggle, and took over, re-birthing (re-naissance) the Roman style command and control.

The religious murderous madness was stopped when religion got defanged, and rigorously separated from the state, while the Republic became the ruling religion. Not yet the case in the Middle East… Except for Israel (paradoxically).

***

CLASH OF A SUPERSTITION WITH CIVILIZATION:

Make no mistake: between Israel and the Arabs, at this point, it is still a religious war. No peace is possible as long as temple based terrorism lurks above.

The Economist, in an orgasm of naivety, urges Obama to do something about Israel and Palestine. But what to do against superstition and fanaticism? It’s a philosopher’s task. The best one can expect from Obama is Machiavellism. And we are getting some.

Obama is right to not squander his time splitting superstitious hair in a finer way than the fanatical participants already do. Obama got involved, sure. Obama very wisely decided that the USA would finance most of the Iron Dome (in exchange for a technology transfer!). It was wise. Iron Dome, and the coming David Sling will do more to calm down fascism, than soothing words of debasing appeasement.

Once democracy, the people, rules, there will be peace. But the people has existed for a million years, and the Republic is its basic religion, its basic atavism. No objective observer can say it is compatible with burning people for all the litany of reasons found in the Qur’an.

Seven centuries ago, in Egypt, interpreting the Qur’an literally was punished with imprisonment. Time to reboot that, if peace is really what one is after.

***

QUR’AN BAD, BIBLE WORSE: SO?

The Economist published my comment above. The anonymous L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Tyranosopher Nov 23rd, came up with a number of interesting quotes of the Bible. Said he: “Although I am not religious (as an agnostic), the Koran is very mild compared to the Bible.”

Right, L6QjhvJGVk, but the Bible does not have more than a billion fanatical followers, today. Literal Bible reading is mostly a problem confined to places in Russia, the USA and Israel. One can spit all day long on the Bible, and burn it with gusto. All that will happen is that one will not be taken seriously. But in Muslim lands, it’s quite the opposite, one is taken all too seriously. Doing symbolic violence to the Qur’an hate book may get you executed. Once somebody was condemned to death, in a Muslim country, for having said something unbecoming about Jesus (!), a prophet of Islam.

Even in countries such as France, supposedly philosophically enlightened, there is a dangerous confusion between criticizing a religion, and racial hatred (are the somewhat Christianophobic, such as me, hating the Christian race?). This legal confusion has had very practical, very disastrous consequences. It enabled the growth of Muslim Fundamentalism of the lethal type, because criticizing the Qur’an, arguably a hate book if there ever has been one, has been equated to racism. Thus Quranic violence was made into something sacred.

It is a bit of a paradox that it is honorable to kill bin Laden, but not to trash his ideas! In contrast, I believe that the best way to kill inferior ideas is with superior ideas.

L6QjhvJGVk Bible and Jewish quotes are reproduced in the comments (however, within them L6QjhvJGVk exhibits plain anti-Judaism, Nazi style, as he evokes a word Hitler used, “genetic” in derogatory relation to the Jews, showing an emotional anti-Jew slant).

***

Left and Right. in reply to L6QjhvJGVk Nov 23rd, 09:23 observed:

“There is no comparison [between following the Bible and being submitted to the Qur’an]. The Bible is advisory and there are no penalties to deny or question it. Islam requires a total belief in the whole of the Koran as directly written by Allah. To question it or to deny it is apostasy the penalty for which is death. This can tend to remove the chance to discuss things rationally. The poor performance, educationally, socially and economically of Muslims is, I believe hindered by the absolving of personal responsibility with the need to suffix every statement with Inshallah, if God wills it, in my experience he seldom does. My Muslin dentist tells me the world in 6000 years old, as stated in the Koran – well this could explain the dearth of Nobel Scientific awards to Muslims. Oh for the enlightenment!”

I agree 100% with Left and Right. Except that the Roman emperors, even before Theodosius, imposed Catholic terror (loosely based on the New Testament).  

The reason for constant Muslim civil wars of the worst type is precisely that to question the other believer’s interpretation of the Qur’an or to deny it is apostasy, as far as the other believer is concerned, the penalty for which is death. Hence the total intolerance of Muslim: just draw a guy with a turban, call it Muhammad, see what happens. You may not have time to put it below foot. Thus the Dome of the Rock’s location is a well understood insult.

***

Attendant Lord in reply to L6QjhvJGVk Nov 23rd:

“You overlook that the portions of these religious books that reflect values from another time are dead as a doornail in Judaism and in Israel, a modern state with modern values, and alive and well under Islamist states, whose leadership believes that it should all be kept alive, just as it was written.”

***

Thank you L6QjhvJGVk, for rolling out barbarity from the Bible, there are never enough rivers of obnoxious data flowing to nourish the humanistic, progressive ocean!

The Abrahamic religion has to be crushed always. A state came up with the following law: “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.” Those who disagree are to be sent to jail 12 months. That’s the law since before 2006, when the Supreme Court of that state refused to consider its constitutionality. So it is in Kentucky, USA.

If the Abrahamists, with their psycho god, are not crushed there, they will grow under the sign of the beast, and eat civilization up, as they did in the East. As when Bush brandished Qur’an and Bible to bring the true faith to Iraq (in his self described “crusade“).

Islamism is just a variant, an heresy of Judaism, somewhat desertified, somewhat Christianized, somewhat modernized. So if the Bible is really bad, it’s only natural that the Qur’an would be so too. Since the latter mostly apes the former.

(The holly Qur’an can be innovative, though: Apparently Muhammad conceived of stem cells, demonstrating how wise he was! Qur’an Surah 4, Verse 56: “Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment again. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”)

As a self declared follower of the Abrahamic religion, the Prophet venerated the Bible, and his beef with the Jews was that they did not follow the Bible rigorously enough.

That the Bible was grotesquely dangerous, and immoral, interpreted literally has been known since the birth of Christianity.

Wrote Augustine: Title of Book III, Chapter 5 of his famous City of God”. “It Is A Wretched Slavery Which Takes The Figurative Expressions of Scripture in A Literal Sense.”

In spite of this, Augustine was the first theoretician of the dispersal of the Jews out of Israel, thus causing their departure, followed by their subsequent return…

Of course Augustine (around 400 CE) was following emperor Hadrian’s decrees against the Jews, like the dog follows his master. After the second Jewish revolt, in 132 CE, the Romans defeated the Jewish army in 135 CE.

Thereupon, Jerusalem, the capital of he Jews, was turned into a Greco-Roman city called Aelia Capitolina. A temple of Jupiter was built on top of the Jewish Temple, razed by the Romans.

Thus the idea of putting the enormous Dome of the Rock in place of the Temple is a Roman fascist idea that has become sacred to Muslims! In other words, of Rome, Muslims worship the worst. Another troubling fact, is that the Temple Mount is also considered to be Mount Zion. does that mean that, by worshipping the Dome of the Rock (roughly the oldest mosque), Muslims are Zionists? In some sense?

Emperor Hadrian forbid to the Jews to live in Jerusalem. Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina. United Nations, version 135 CE.

However, these atrocious facts over which the otherwise much esteemed Hadrian presided, got to be known, and taken for what they were, in the fullness of time: genocide.
By 1948 CE, the United Nations, a sort of modernized Rome (before the Roman Republic became an outright imperium), decided to undo the horror visited by Hadrian, and more or less enforced ever since.

Actually the UN followed a Roman precedent. Emperor Julian, philosopher and critique of the monstrosity of the rule of Catholicism, had ordered the RECONSTRUCTION of the Jewish Temple in 360 CE (earthquakes, and Christian fanaticism, including the assassination of Julian, prevented the work to proceed!)

So here we are. In the last seven years, the Palestinians have fired nearly 7,000 rockets at Israel, killing 51 Israelis, and losing nearly 3,200 of their own. “Israel is gaining time… cutting the grass“, as Israelis put it. The time Israel did not have in 132-135 CE.

History never dies. Only armies do.

Why don’t Muslims eat pigs?  The first order explanation, like for most things Muslim is that, so it was in the Bible, and Muslims follow the Bible, when in doubt. More sophisticated was Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher under the Caliphate, physician to Saladin in the Twelfth Century. He understood the dietary laws chiefly as keeping the body healthy. The meat of the forbidden animals, birds, and fish was indigestible, according to Maimonides. However this does not apply to pork, he observed. But pigs are more dirty than human latrines, so had to be avoided, he obviated.

A beauty of Islam is that it has no centralized authority as far as what it truly says. As the Qur’an is very small, it has been supplemented by all sorts of books and gossip, the Sunnah and Hadith being the most prominent. Muslims tend to kill each other, because they differ about the authors of Hadith who are viewed as reputable. Or by how seriously they take this and that gossip (= “reputable authority“, a frequently used notion in Islam scholarship).

On top of that, local traditions have their own little stories. Once I asked a knowledgeable woman in Africa, a Muslim religious authority, why Muslims did not eat pigs.

She told me a story I have never come across again. She told me that once Muhammad and his army, in a forest, got very thirsty. Then they saw a pig. They followed it until it reached water. Thereafter, a grateful Muhammad ordered his followers to give pigs a chance.

The surrealism of it all left me speechless. So some black Africans hold that Muslims follow the one who followed the pig? It’s unlikely that blindly following the One who followed the pig will give peace a chance, because he gave pigs a chance. The fascist instinct, that is, following The One, in this case a long dead analphabet raider, blindly, is exactly the opposite of peace, pigs or no pigs. 

Yesterday’s god, like yesterday’s history, is senile, incoherent, repetitive, and dangerous. Time to break the cycle. Otherwise, there is an Iron Dome to show you.
***

Patrice Ayme

Bash France On WWII, Hades Rules

LESSONS FROM WORLD WAR II LOOKING FORWARD: [Nov 18, 2012.]

Questions: Why persistently misrepresenting what happened in World War Two? Especially in the initial roles played by France and the USA? What are the vital lessons looking forward? Answers in the conclusion.

***

FRENCH BASHING; A COMPANION TO NAZISM:

Some internet sickos claim that, if one use notions pertaining to Nazism, one has lost the argument. They are often found to hate Jews.

Rotterdam Burning, 14 May 1940. When Nazis Threatened Same For Utrecht, Netherlands Surrendered.

To help the Netherlands and Belgium, the big hearted French and British armies left their prepared positions, and moved north, enabling the Nazis to cut them from behind. Hitler cynically had hoped to play that bleeding heart attitude like a violin, dashing through the unbuilt Belgian portion of the Maginot Line (unbuilt, thanks to the USA’s perfidious influence).

Those who hate to mention obvious notions are generally dependent upon them, either materially, or psychologically.

Circles worshipping financial kleptocracy, and white racism, naturally hate France: this started in 1934 when the French leaders visited Washington (!). France, a creditor, wanted austerity in economic & political matters, in full opposition with the USA, which favored Hitler’s line: stimulus, no matter what.

In the case of Hitler stimulus meant stealing from the Jews to redistribute to his supporters, while re-arming crazily in all ways; in the case of the USA, or the UK, stimulus meant not getting ready to fight a world war on the side of France, by keeping military spending low, favoring consumption. Ironically the inversion of that proposition during WWII led to an economic boom in the USA… and a debt crisis in the UK (as the USA used usury against a desperate Britain to lend her, for example, 100 old destroyers).

The first hysterical French bashers were the Nazis. Besides the painful fact that half sized France had defeated the Second German Reich in 1914-1918, they had a more recent point. Indeed, France had started the world war (in the sense that a world war was the only way to stop Nazism). Nowadays French haters have turned this around. They pretend that the French Republic was full of collaborationist cheese eating surrender monkeys. Confronted to the fact that it was the French Republic that launched the world war against Nazism, French haters do not have enough humor to claim that it was just to better surrender.

Instead they prefer to focus on the French self flagellations about the 75,000 Jews who were deported by the Nazis and died. (Never mind that most of them were Central European refugees who the USA had refused to accept, and never mind that the armed French police who effected the initial arrests had to be armed, allowing it, 2 years later to fight the Nazis with weapons!)

Never mind that the French empire lost nearly FOUR (4) million dead in the 1914-1945 World War: such enormous losses are assuredly not understandable to most contemporaries.

By comparison, the USA suffered 186,000 dead on the European theater in WWII (while the USA had 3,3 times the population of France); and 117,000 dead in WWI, for a grand total of 303,000 dead. The same numbers for Canada are: 45,000 dead (WWII), and 65,000 dead (WWI), for a total of 110,000 dead. However Canada had 8% of the population of the USA, and declared war to Nazi Germany on September 10, 1939, seven days after France and the UK did (and two years three months and one day before Hitler declared war to the USA, the most celebrated heroic gesture of Uncle Sam, hiding below its bed!).

As I always say, all the USA had to do, at that point in time, in 1939, to win the war, against Hitler, should it have wished to win it, was to declare it. The German generals would have joined, and done most of the work, by getting rid of the Nazis. (Hitler was not as powerful as usually depicted; although he knew the head of the army, Beck had led a plot to get rid of all the Nazis, on the ground that they endangered Germany, it’s only in 1944, 5 years later, after Beck did it again, and again, and again and again, that Hitler could have him suicided!)

The French Republic ultimately won the war in the deepest way imaginable, turning the German state in a genuine sister republic and democracy of France.

Think about what would have happened if France had followed the British line of 1935, and let Hitler free to do whatever he wanted in the East: the few surviving Slavs would be enslaved, all the Jews, Gypsies, etc., exterminated, and the Grosse Reich all the way to Japan!

French haters generally hate to mention Hitler, and some of them (say Buchanan, famous writer in the USA, and a past presidential candidate), to this day, make no mystery that they hate France, because France attacked their cherub, Hitler.

In a way making Germany in a republic and a democracy was a reunification of the Germans, as the Franks were total Germans, and the secret of France, and, actually, the West, was the philosophical unification of the Greco-Roman ways with the Celto-Germanic ways.

(Ironically, in some respects, Germany is now more democratic than France!)

***

WAR ON TERROR WILL NOT END, AS LONG AS THE USA IS TERRIFYING ENOUGH.

I wrote this partially in jest. Partially so, because much of the trouble of the Middle East has to do with a religion that has instituted, and promoted, militarized plutocracies, that is, the rule of a few devils, complete with abject submission to the lowest instincts. That the USA instrumentalized this Islamism perfidiously is its own problem.

However, this joke of mine failed, as usual, to amuse my friend Chris Snuggs, a Europeanized Brit, who has long resided in France and Germany. Complained he:

“The USA liberated the whole of Europe, most of Asia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and helped with Libya, which would not have happened without Sarkozy, for which I forgive him all his other nerdish irritations. Just compare North and South Korea if you want to see the real heroism of the US soldier. Incidentally, while US marines were dying to liberate France the French elite was collaborating with the Germans to send Jews to Auschwitz. I think, therefore, that this endless slagging off of the USA is very silly.

The invasion of Afghanistan was provoked by the murder of 3,000 innocent people of over 60 nationalities in NY. The utterly insane depravity of fundamentalism Islam is the root problem, not the USA, many faults though it may have.”

Answer: Chris, I agree with some of what you say, but disagree strongly with some too, especially with the naive end. You should study my writings more, should you desire to stick to the truth. The USA aggressed Afghanistan in the mid 1970s, through the CIA, on its own, and a secret order of full attack was given by Carter on July 3, 1979. Within months bin Laden was recruited in Turkey, because of his plutocratic connections with Saudi plutocracy, and his naive Islamist beliefs, prone to manipulation. Later bin Laden led an enormous Muslim Fundamentalist army (mostly made of Arabs, but also Chechens, etc.).

Did I forget the slight detail the USA was de facto allied to Hitler in 1936-1939? Let’s talk first about first things first.

To call the “milice“, a criminal organization the ‘French elite‘, shows oneself to be a fascist. My family took huge risks and made huge sacrifices to save more than a dozen Jews during the Nazi Occupation.

Food was rationed, throughout France. So it was very difficult for a family of 4 to find food for 16. Besides, running away from the German speaking, Gestapo. The Gestapo was full of Germans, not full of French. De facto, the Gestapo ruled France.

Barbie, head of the Gestapo in Lyon killed, it was determined, through torture, around 5,000 people. One of his tricks was to set a dying resistance fighter on one of his armchair in his office. He did that to Jean Moulin, in particular (an artist and French prefect who was nominated head of the resistance in France by the Free French government). 

BTW, my family, having been denounced, was warned by an informer, inside the Gestapo (!), and ran from it in a forest. There they stumbled into an American GIs’ patrol. This explains my mother’s devotion to the USA (which has become more nuanced under the withering fire of my fact propelled critique).

Many of the French who lived through WWII were thus, intensely devoted to their American liberators. And, no doubt, the GIs deserved the devotion. The effect was augmented by the fact that the million man French army converging from Normandy and Provence was fully equipped by the USA, so the French populace often took for Americans what were in truth French troops. Most of the major French cities were mostly delivered by French army units, which tended to be much more experienced than the Americans, more relaxed, and much quicker on the hoof.

And yet, a careful examination of what happened in World War Two, needs to go beyond the 11 million citizens of the USA who were drafted in WWII. A careful examination of how a criminal such as Hitler came to kill 50 million Europeans points directly to Washington and the plutocracy of the USA. If not for the American plutocrats, first of all, Hitler would have had no fuel to allow his armies to go anywhere (and Hitler would have had no planes flying, his Luftwaffe grounded in 1939, as I am always keen to point out).

Not that the USA is sole to blame: without Swedish high grade iron, Hitler would have had no tanks. And the French Army, in cooperation with Britain, was poised to cut Sweden in two on May 10 1940, just when Hitler applied that method to the motherland at Sedan.

Of all these things it is good to reminisce, as war, and an anti-democratic ideology extends throughout the Middle East. The bottom line is that the USA had betrayed its parents, France and Britain.

Democracy was divided in 1939. On one hand, there was France leading Britain and many courageous countries of the Commonwealth into the ultimate war against Nazism (they were belatedly joined by… Norway in 1940). And then there was a whole panoply of pseudo neutrals, led by the USA, most of them collaborating with Nazism.

The defeat of France in 1940 was caused in great part by a positive interference of the actions of many of these pseudo neutrals (under USA influence, Belgium refused to extend the Maginot Line, allowing the Panzer Army to pass; Holland played victim and led stupidly the French High Command to come to its rescue with the seven armored division quick deployment mobile reserve, the absence of which then allowed the ten Panzer divisions to sickle behind).

Fortunately, Obama has this lesson at heart (just as G W Bush, grandson of perhaps Hitler’s most interesting collaborators, was just the opposite, and came into the crosshair of the French elite!)

***

PLUTOCRACY IS WAR, & THUS TO BIGGER WARS LEAD:

The Chinese deputies met. Together, their worth is 83 billion dollars. The richest, a woman, is worth 6 billion dollars. Real estate. The next one is worth about three billion. Plutocracy is doing well, nowadays.

How did the great war of 1914-1945 start? When (German) plutocracy imagined its tremendously rising trajectory would face a worrisome future (the German Socialists did not see why they could not get all the advantages their French colleagues enjoyed, and thus live in a republic with less plutocracy). To make matters worse, other plutocrats, in Britain and the USA, tried (and succeeded for the later), to leverage the situation to their personal advantage (especially after 1919).

It goes without saying that the same psychological mechanism will apply to the Chinese kleptocrats when the Chinese people gets angry from the way it is been exploited. Just as the German plutocracy tried to save itself with the distraction of a war, so will the Chinese plutocracy.

What would hold it back? Just the certainty that the democracies will go to war, and stop, only when they have achieved victory, no matter what.

Some, of course, will agree that it is not what the French Republic did in 1940. But some of the leaders who grabbed power in 1940 obviously felt France was fighting the world basically alone in June 1940, and it was better to cease-fire, while the other two democracies, Britain and the USA were getting their act together. (Surely, Nazi collaborationist regimes such as Sweden or Switzerland, did not qualify as genuine democracies.)

In the end, French armies started to fight again the Nazis, even before the USA did, and to more effect (Bir Hakeim, probably World War Two’s most crucial battle with the prior Battle of Moscow).

Wars are not over. The argument can easily be made that we are one great world war away from world peace. Yes, that argument has been made before.

Hundreds of rockets are fired again on Israel. The sophisticated “Iron Dome” anti-missile system intercepts and destroy more than 90% of those heading towards protected cities. It is impressive to see rockets flying in a volley being exploded one after the other, up in the air, by Iron Dome.

On the ground, Islamist Fundamentalists from all over Muslim Medievalistan [neologism] have been pressing Hamas for more action. The Egyptian Prime minister visited Gaza, so did another minister from Tunisia. Turkey’s Erdogan visited Turkey’s old subject, Egypt, and expressed support for its other old subject, Gaza.

Israeli PM Netanyahu said that the terrorists were targeting Israeli children, while taking refuge next to Palestinian children. He declared, as he had to, that the Israeli government would do “whatever is necessary“. To stop the rain of rockets. This evocation of the Dark Side can only mean an escalation.

Indeed Iron Dome fired hundreds of its interception missiles (officially very cheap, at only $50,000 a piece, an interestingly mythological number). The anti-Israel fighters have thousands of rockets (although the Israeli Air Force is trying to take out launch sites and storage facilities.) I doubt Iron Dome has thousands of missiles, and the AM batteries are not covering all of Israel. (Let alone that Hezbollah to the north has more than 10,000 rockets.)

Meanwhile more than 100 people a day are killed a day in anti-Syrian airstrikes by the Syrian Air Force. Turkey followed France, and recognized the Président de la coalition nationale syrienne, M.Moaz Al-Khatib as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people (“pour nous le seul représentant légitime du peuple syrien”), as Hollande put it in the Élysée Palace.

The Élysée Palace was closed in June 1940. So much for having a French State after that (there was no National Assembly, nor Senate, nor most of the institutions of the state after this; demonstrating, by the way, how idiotic were Chirac’s excuses in the name of the French State: how can one present excuses in the name of what did not exist?).

The French president had been against a cease-fire in June 1940, but was overwhelmed by a coup from a few men (“soldats de rencontre“), while the Nazi panzers were reaching Bordeaux. The Élysée reopened in 1946 for Vincent Auriol, President of the provisional government, then first President of the Fourth Republic from 1947 to 1954.

Those who claim that “France” had a legitimate government in Paris after June 21 1940 know nothing. Why do they think it’s called Vichy?

***

Chris Snuggs replied in turn to my observations:

“Most countries are made up of millions of people. Of course, one is led into generalisation, and I have no wish to denigrate your family. I was in a German doctor’s surgery a couple of years ago and read a moving homage to Jean Moulin of the Resistance. However, the point is, France’s political elite – the establishment, which is after all what counts in politics – was at that time fascist, and Europe had to be liberated by the Yanks. Yes, it was a long time ago and Yes, their industrial-military plutocracy today has a lot to answer for, but if it is right for Germany to still feel some guilt about WWII (which they do, irrational through it is) then the USA can still get credit for the multiple countries it has liberated, even many decades ago. There is an eternal struggle between morality and greed, and in sucking up to nasty family kleptocracies in the Middle East, the USA has gone too far – as is Cameron in trying to flog stuff out there, but when it comes to the crunch and you are threatened by a dictator and fascism, the US will eventually try to bail you out – or has done so in the past, but many must be sick of the eternal slagging off by Europeans. “Go to hell.” might be my reaction were I American. “You only want us when you need liberating.”

Politics is not black and white. Sometimes you have to support a lesser evil. Maybe the kleptocracies of Saudi, Kuwait and Bahrain are better than the outright fascist lunacy of the Iranian regime. Maybe. After all, in WWII our sailors died taking convoys to help save the USSR, which actually murdered tens of millions more than Hitler.

As for the election in the USA, let’s see how Obama deals with the fiscal cliff. Let’s see if he increases the number off drones killing many more innocent families in Pakistan (as he has so far) or whether he will supply weapons to the Syrian rebels to overcome yet another fascist, family despot. All I know is, were I a desperate revolutionary fighting a despot family kleptocrat I wouldn’t put much faith in Obama, and his claiming credit for killing BL was nauseating bollocks. The man is a pontificating academic patrician who has never run a business and most likely couldn’t. His only real asset is slick talk from an autocue.”

Answer: Totally ignoring that the British and French military intervened in Bosnia, under a UN mandate, well before they succeeded to drag the USA in, is apparently fashionable among Washington sycophants… Yet, without France and Britain firing back first, the USA would have never showed up.

 To elevate the Vichy collaborationist group into the French political elite – the establishment is a logical mistake. I have gone over this many times. Several of the leaders (including Petain) were among the fiercest fighters in WWI. Several of them got condemned to death (and some were executed) after France re-established a legitimate political authority (led by De Gaulle) in august 1944.

In truth the FRENCH political elite – the establishment execrated Hitler, but had been stuck since 1934 from engaging in all out war against Hitler, due to the collaboration, and entanglement of much (not all) of the British, American and German elite with the Nazis. This is the part of the Second World War that is extremely pertinent to this day, and widely, even wildly, ignored.

The collaboration with Hitler went as far as a treaty between the United Kingdom and Hitler, in 1935, that violated the Versailles Treaty, officially. So how could the French political elite – the establishment then attack Hitler for violating the Versailles Treaty? Such was Blum’s quandary. Blum, as a Socialist and a Jew, part of the French political elite – the establishment, could not be suspected of being a collaborator.

I also know for a fact that the son of another French Prime Minster, Daladier, was wanted very badly by the Gestapo (as my family hid and sheltered him, the only non Jew for whom my family did this).

In 1939, after the Spanish Republic fell, the French republic finally persuaded the UK to go to war against Hitler. A trap was set in the French-Polish defense treaty, where an appendix signaled that the UK would join France in providing Poland with needed assistance. (The Washington political elite – the establishment gave Poland to Stalin at Yalta in 1945.)

When the French Republic and the UK declared war to Hitler, the USA reacted with sanctions against them, passed by the US Congress, signed by the president, FDR. Meanwhile the USA sent 500 tons of lead tetraethyl, a crucial anti-knock compound, to Hitler, so that his aviation could stay in the air.

If not the French and British would have had instant air supremacy over the Nazis, a situation only achieved in June 1944…And not earlier, because of the TREACHEROUS AMERICAN HELP TO HITLER.

***

COMMON MYTH: FRANCE AND BRITAIN DID NOT FIGHT IN 1940:

The Battle of France in 1940 was a very serious event: it was the fiercest battle of the western front in WWII. Nearly 200,000 soldiers died. Officially 50,000 Nazis, most of them elite fighters and officers, died. And probably more.

In pitched massive tank battles of May-June 1940, the Brits and the French won.  

It is estimated the French lost 1,274 aircraft destroyed during the campaign, the British suffered losses of 959 (477 fighters). The battle for France cost the Luftwaffe 28% of its front line strength, some 1,428 aircraft destroyed. A further 488 were damaged, making a total of 36% of the Luftwaffe strength negatively affected.

So how come the Nazis won? Simply by cutting the superior French and British from behind. And that was the result of Hitler’s crazy gamble, to put his entire tank army on a single road in the mountains, knowing full well, as he did, that he did not have a chance otherwise.

Morality: do not underestimate desperate men with too high an opinion of themselves.

***

COMMON MYTH: THE USA SAVED THE DAY ON D DAY.

The holocaust of 50 million Europeans (including up to 6 million Jews) happened because the USA did not rush to the help of France and Britain as it was its duty in 1939 and 1940.

When the US General Infantry landed in Normandy on June 6 1944, they were not exactly alone. Actually there were more Brits, Canadians, and other Commonwealth troops, Poles and French, than there were Americans. Besides Canadian soldiers had landed in France in 1940, and 1942 already. Verily, the Americans had been brilliant from their absence in the first three years of the war, and finally got involved only because the fascist Japanese and Germans attacked them.

As the USA never had more than 64 divisions on the Western Front, American combat troops stayed a minority in 1944-45 (although USA supplies and equipment were dominant).

***

COULD FRANCE & THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH HAVE WON WITHOUT THE USA?

The role of Stalin was, first of all, self interested. He helped Hitler considerably. The last giant freight train from the USSR crossed into the Reich while the Nazis attacked the other way. Hitler’s forces suffered heavy losses in the Fall of 1941, on their way to Moscow, where they were crushed by Christmas, after reaching the end of a metro line (literally and figuratively).

That was the first severe Nazi defeat, with a huge loss of equipment, men, and opportunity. Long live the Russians? Not so fast. The Nazi offensive against the USSR was delayed 6 weeks, because the Greeks had defeated Mussolini’s fascismo. Those six weeks, plus the ensuing enormous Nazi losses in Crete prevented the Nazis to seize Moscow, and break the USSR in two.

Fascinating subject, that deserves its own essay. In one sentence, though, yes, the French and the British could have won without the USA. After all, the USA had nothing to do with Bir Hakeim, Al Alamein, and the defeat of the Afrika Korps. Or the defeat at Moscow (although USA supplies helped by the time of Stalingrad). However the outcome would have been assuredly very different, and much slower unfolding. No “American Century” though.   

***

Conclusion: FRANCE WAS CIVILIZATIONALLY & MILITARILY CORRECT TO DECLARE WAR AGAINST HITLER IN 1939. THE USA WAS EXTREMELY WRONG TO HAVE SUPPORTED HITLER IN 1939, thus undercutting not just democracy and its parents, but also the numerous sane elements of the German military.

France was momentarily defeated in 1940, due to a combination of unlikely factors. (Hitler ran out of luck within weeks of the fall of France, though.)

Why Germany acted the way it did in 1914-1939, has a lot to do with why the USA supported Hitler in 1939: a persistent mental super storm, where the Dark Side was allowed to guide the reigning plutocrats.

The same sort of factors are still ruling in many parts of the world today: Russia, China, the Middle Earth. That they would coalesce as the “Axis” did in 1935-1938 is a gathering possibility, with offensive intervention by the leading democracies the only safeguard (the safeguard that failed in 1939, as the USA went Dark).

The World War that tore apart Europe in 1914-1945 was not just a form of collective madness, tribalism, militarism, imperialism as last stage of capitalism or a logical extension of the sort of exploitative racism Europeans had demonstrated worldwide.

The plutocratic phenomenon was the main cause of WWI and its aggravation into WWII, Yet, plutocracy has been the cause less studied, as the notion does not enjoy the prominence that it should have.

Keeping accusing the French to be surrender monkeys is a lie to mask the atrocious role that the plutocracy of the USA played in WWII, all the way from taking sanctions against France and Britain in 1939, until Yalta, and actively collaborating with Stalin to let him crush half of Europe in 1945.

This attitude serves the interests of the plutocracy of the USA, by focusing attention away from reality towards an American Dream that exists mostly in the mind of the beholders. This is why anti-French racism is a crucial link in the chain of resoning supporting the established order in the USA, as I showed in a number of essays on the origins of Anti-French sentiment. 

Oligarchies in the UK and the USA long used Hitler as a tool. Britain abruptly switched from collaborating with Hitler to collaborating with France in 1938-1939. The USA, though pursued an ambiguous policy, not just with Hitler, but also with Stalin. The bottom line being that, playing hyperpower, the USA displaced and replaced the European powers thoroughly, by leveraging World War Two.

In case the French and the British did not get the message it was repeated loud and clear in 1956, when Eisenhower, who had collaborated with Stalin in April 1945 (over Patton’s objections), collaborated again with his butcher, Nikita Khrushchev, to impose his will at Suez… and in Hungary.  

Now that the effects of fascism in Europe have faded away, the intellectual, judicial and economic power of the European has grown. And so it has been in the rest of the world. The USA’s 200 million white very developed people have found themselves less and less capable of imposing their will by force and conspiracy on the entire planet. Thus the realization by the USA that an alliance with the European Union would not just be more profitable, but necessary.   

The French Republic’s point of view that Nazism was a cause worth fighting against, proved, in the fullness of time, most progressive.

This is to avoid this message, that the French were right in 1939, the USA were extremely wrong, that the Wall Street types and their sycophants keep repeating that “France” did something wrong in WWII. Yes, right, from their point of view, and the source of their indignation is not what they claim.

After all, among many other things, if the USA has a brown president, it’s because institutional racism was demolished in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. That certainly would not have happened if the racist vision of the world of the Nazis had triumphed in the 1940s. And Nazism would have won if no country had declared war to it. And definitively, it’s France that opposed Nazism (with the UK, with not much of an army, in tow). So France showed the way. Obama 2008 was made possible by France, 1939.

That not only enrages those still nostalgic for racism (think Tea Party), It also enrages American liberals, since after all, they did not amount to much.

Once again, if the USA had declared war to Hitler, instead of flying to his rescue in 1939, German generals (led by Beck) would have killed Hitler and the top Nazis, and that would have been it: no American Century. Oops.

As a USA born citizen told me recently in Paris: “World War Two was a win-win for the American elite”.

And thus a paradox: if Hitler was so good to the USA, should not a patriotic American have followed its Congress and President in 1939, and support Hitler? The question is not quaint: as the USA is poised to become the world’s greatest oil producer within a few year (again!), it does look as if, again, the Dark Side is on the side of the USA. Should not thus patriotic citizens of the USA support it?

Such is the quandary: American progressive have to be regressive, it seems, for the USA to progress better.

Thus this past instructs the present. Rome and Athens started to lose the day they resigned themselves to fixed borders militarily, and intellectually. Naturally they then turned to the Dark Side.

Neither the West, nor actually the planet and its biosphere can afford the same mistake again. Thus democracy has to remember that progress is its best friend. That does not mean that the legions ought to march all the time (as they did when Republican Rome was rising). Sometimes one can be crafty and multipronged (as happened with Burma, aka Myanmar, where the local military plutocracy was seduced by the West into resisting the Chinese temptation).

Putin, Chinese plutocrats, and Muslim pluto-theocrats may look picturesque, but do not underestimate the temptation they feel, and the ability they have, to coalesce. A chain of viciousness goes from enraged, or all too innocent, Muslim Fascists, to Hamas, Hezbollah through Syria, to Iran, Pakistan, China, with the moronic Putin lurking, and messing things up. If that chain is successful for the elites that profit from it, it will extend, and may even exponentiate, causing a world war.

Time for a philosophical Iron Dome.

***

Patrice Ayme

Obama As Lesser Devil

LET’S BE ZEHR KLAR: I DID NOT VOTE ROMNEY.

In 2010, a black lady, an accountant, in a town hall meeting, declared she voted for Obama, but now regretted it, as nothing much had changed. Obama, on automatic, flashed his standard mile wide smile, before realizing, too late, that his beaming attitude was not appropriate to the serious mien of his interlocutor.

Telegenic does not a genius make. Obama’s tenure was abysmal, compared to what should have been. Obama was awed by current of thoughts that were pretty much bipartisan, long established, revering Reagan, plutocracy. The buttler approved of them.

Serious People Fleece Together
Smile & The Sheep Shall Follow

(Un)democratic and (Un)republican controlled congresses both signed on all these policies for years. And therefore the deficit! What did Obama start? Obamacare aka Romneycare?

The auto rescue (good), rescue of the banks (good), just as the sinking of homeowners, rescue of the banksters, Patriot Act, drone strikes on civilians, tax cuts for the rich (all very bad): all started under G. W. Bush.

The question of love is a vast subject. Obama’s sycophants, feigning love, did not help him, nor did they help the polis. I do not see myself as unloving, nor do I see myself as angry. However, I think passion is important to generate creative thinking. Broadcasting abstract creative thinking, when not connected to profit, is intrinsically mass loving, because only to the masses it is addressed, and only love is present as the gift that keeps on giving.

Obama needed a greater aura he could trust to counter-balance the errant oligarchies, but, differently from Pericles, had apparently none. Thus Obama presided over the wreck that fakes intellect.

I met an American in Paris. “My compatriots are such fools,” she grumbled, “they say France is a 2.5 world country. They do not realize everything was invented here, even most of the laser.” Me: “You mean Alfred Kastler discovered Optical Pumping at the same Normale Superieure lab where, 50 years later, Haroche discovered how to see light with atoms, earning him the 2012 Physics Nobel Prize?” “Yes, that’s what I mean. without optical pumping, there would be no laser.” Me:”But Kastler got a Nobel prize all to himself.” The American PhD in Paris:“Yes, well, occasionally those infeodated Swedes in Stockholm have to recognize the truth.” 

Me: “Is not the French social system too expensive?” Connie shrugged:“Well, France buys nearly all its energy outside. The oil from the Middle East, the gas from Russia. Even the uranium comes from Africa. The rare earths are bought all over the planet, France has nearly none. The USA is fortunate owning such a rich continent that it could out-Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia itself, as the right wingers have been arguing.

Plus the French president told, at the Elysee palace on Monday, the CEO of Google that Google had an outstanding tax bill of more than a billion euros. Americans have to understand they cannot go around the planet like vultures around the savannah, picking the bones of their victims clean.”

So much with the big argument that Obama is a dangerous socialist who wants to turn the USA into France. The USA uses lasers all over because Alfred Kastler in Paris found how to make optical pumping. Americans may have invented mother and apple pie, but even the laser they use on Mars is made in France (by the French defense giant Thales).

Haroche succeeded to see light with atoms, a proposition so insane that no firm would ever support it (be it only because it’s not ready for showtime in the economy). Several Physics Nobel Prizes at the University of Colorado, Boulder, for  the good and simple reason it’s associated with NCAR (National Center Atmospheric Research) where Federal funding for farfetched ideas is steady (the Connie above worked at NCAR on sun physics).

CERN, Kastler and Haroche were not financed by private plutocratic friendly universities, but by state institutions. I know lots of Nobels are attributed to American universities, in a feat of lucrative self glorification. But the judgment of history is clear: the deepest basic research tends to be state funded (something Obama somewhat violated because he got confused between medicine men trying to make a buck (Solyandra, Musk, A123, Fisker, etc.) and fundamental science… and thinking.)

Another, and very important, example are the giant governmental budgets for archeology in France. They allow us to know the ways and means of the past, hence ourselves, today (in turn they entice the rest of the planet to research archeology too).

What of the reproach Obama is a socialist? Misspelling: he is rather a socialite, the best friends banksters could have had. If Romney had been president, giving, as Obama, $8,000 billion to the banksters so they could pursue more of the same conspiracies, the democrats would have been in the streets, and Romney would have had to arrest banksters. But, with the Obama put, banksters were protected.

All economies are socialist, and they have been in the last five millennia since the West’s representative democracy exist (I’m thinking of Sumer). More or less. Why did the Papuans not develop civilization, whereas the West did? Because the West was full of socialism, whereas the Papuans concentrated on human meat recipes, however delicious, not enough a socialistic end. [See note Egypt versus cannibalism.]

What to do with the elections in the USA? I already voted, and it was NOT for Romney. The big argument in favor of Obama is that he represents the devil we know.

The Obama we have now makes us believe that he is less in love with banks and Wall Street. That is partly corroborated by Wall Street, which was the main contributor to Obama’s campaign in 2008. Apparently Wall Street is now heavily supporting Romney.

In most states, there are other candidates than Obama and Romney, such as Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. The establishment, to celebrate her candidacy, arrested her several times in the last few weeks.

Evil is the label attached to the mental system that allows to override love, the human mental default state. Due to changing martial, social and environmental circumstances, all we need is NOT love always. Sometimes, evil deed is all you need, nothing else will do.

Obama could say:”I told you so! Did I not read this all over your sites? Practice evil, do what’s necessary. I love it.”

Well, no, Barry-Barack, your problem, precisely, is that you mostly did easy war, with CIA robots in Eurasian mountains, or in a senseless Afghan built-up. You, Obama, as president, did not do the hard war against mad, terrorist finance. Instead, when the banksters were on their knees, you practiced bankster worship, as your cultish association with carnivorous Wolf (UBS) and daemon Dimon (JP Morgan) amply demonstrated. And when you finally reluctantly paid lip service against mad finance, hiding behind, of all things, the financial criminal Buffet, who you personally adulate, mad finance dropped you like the sloppy butler you revealed yourself to be.

Michelle Obama:”I am confused. Patrice, are you in?” Me:”Ask not, Michelle, whether we are in or out, but whether your mind is plugged in, or not.”

***

People such as me are advocates of civilization, that is, the state that makes it possible. The state of the state is both problem, and solution. Nothing else compares.

When Obama set-up his lamentably small stimulus, he forgot, or did not know, rule number one: if it is not big enough, it may well have no effect. Rule number two is that one should have an effect that can be used as a symbol.

Say as the Hoover dam. As I asked:”Tell me Mr. big time socialist (as alleged by republicans) president, where is your Hoover dam? Obama should have concentrated on making one (North East corridor) or two (California) High Speed train line(s) work. Another symbol would have been to equip the financial damnation capital, New York City, with sea gates. Even London, another financial pirates’ den, has sea gates. And London is not threatened by hurricanes.

New York was lucky this time: it did not take a direct hit from a force five hurricane, with sustained 300 km/h winds and a fifty foot storm surge rushing in at 20 km/h. But it is sure to happen, in the fullness of time, considering the CO2 built-up. So Obabla could talk about this, and not just look smart, but be smart. Of these sort of intelligent forward thinking does the survival of civilization depend. Big time government thinking. Not just hanging around the small bore sharks in Silicon Valley, who confuse technology they did not invent with civilization they cannot stand.

Obama did not do anything much when he became president, because he was a house divided between what he knew he had to say, and his self interest, his “navigation”. Romney would certainly not fall in that hypnotic self glorification. Romney would do a lot, change everything in a few weeks. Thus, he may make a much better president. Or then Paul Ryan, his ideological VP candidate could be unleashed, and full regression yowards the jungle applied. We don’t know. 

Some have called my acerbic sounding critique of Obama “nihilistic”, and have even compared me to PM Chamberlain (supposedly too nice with Hitler, as I am supposedly to Romney). Three points about that:

1) I am not nihilistic. Quite the opposite. Obama has a high nihilistic index relative to me.

2) Chamberlain was not the worst PM of the 1930s, far from it. He was from the other side of the pro-Nazi divide (after the UK got rid of those who were too clearly pro-Nazi in 1936). In his argument with Chruschill about the Air Force, Chamberlain was right about developping the new planes versus mass producing the old ones, as Churchill wanted. Simply, at Munich in 1938, the UK was strictly unable to go to war… having no Air Force, and no Army, among other problems. Churchill was rather pro-Nazi in the 1920s, BTW….

3) What is needed in USA politics is normal people getting in it, not through elections (that’s close to hopeless, see prop 37 in California), but through everyday awareness and protest. As long as USA politics is the exclusive province of a few thousands professionals instead of 200 million citizens, the march towards plutocracy will proceed…

With Obama in power, one may always dream that the left would finally wake up, and help him with a spine. Probably we would just get Romney light. That’s more survivable than Ryan strong. Outside of swing states, I would recommend the Green Party. Greens, worldwide, have often had a positive influence when they start to look threatening to the established order.

There is also a more general problem in the Obama versus Romney choice. Let’s rise above the individuals involved. ever since Reagan, the motto has been that:”The government is not the solution, the government is the problem.” This is a very erroneous notion. So bad, that Reagan himself did not believe in it.

However, the slogan was removed from its context, namely the caveat that Reagan did not exclusively believe in it, and the slogan took a life of its own. A new generation was brought up, and learned to believe in that slogan as if it were the gospel (Obama, and certainly Ryan belong to that naive crowd).

The truth is pretty much the opposite.

To many deep problems in society, only the government can bring a solution. Civilization cannot exist without government.

An article in Slate argues the obvious: socialist Europe is better for families than plutocratic USA.

This, let it be said in passing, has been my argument, since ever, against Price Purchase Parity: PPP takes the price of hamburgers into account, as if child care did not matter. (Or does the heartlessness of the conventional PPP mean that children should be turned into hamburgers, or are not any better than hamburgers, or are best represented as hamburgers?)

Some could say:”Government should not do child care.” Answer:”The government always did child care.” Indeed, in prehistoric groups, there was child care. Even wild dogs packs have child care. A fortiori humans. So the healthy adult parents forage, and the rest of prehistoric society took care of the children. Civilization had to reproduce that prehistoric set-up, because that is who we are, as we evolved under these circumstances, those of child care.

It’s not just child care. Running through the Lyon train station in Paris, my sick American spouse who had flown the preceding day from California was given antibiotics by the pharmacist. (OK, not given: a ten day course cost nine dollars.) The antibiotics did wonders. The same scene is unimaginable in the USA (one would have had to make an appointment with a doctor first, and the doctor would have been indoctrinated with the notion that only fowl, sheep, cattle and pigs should get antibiotics) .

I argued above that a more socialist system does wonder for deeper thinking, even in, say, physics.

Let alone mathematics, philosophy, sociology.

Hence by supporting Obama one supports the idea of the state that has been vehemently criticized by plutocrats and their obsequious servants, and attributed, by them, to him.

Romney is not a bad person, and could have been a much better president than many of the recent ones (including the dissembling Clinton). However, the election has also turned into an implicit referendum on ideas of the Tea Party, and some of those ideas are very bad.

The truth is often quite the opposite of what the partiers having tea hold. Namely, in truth:

No government, no civilization. No socialism, no civilization. It is not the state that is a problem, but the state of the state. And to the gravest problems, only the state can bring a solution.

Ironically, Obama, who did so little progressive, when he did not apply full reverse, with the extravagant powers conferred to him by an obsolete constitution, has been transformed into the vainglorious knight symbolizing civilization.

***

Patrice Ayme