To know the worth of a country, look at how it treats the most innocent, the children.

Obama just belatedly proposed to not expulse right away five million immigrants with children (out of at least 11 million illegal immigrants). However genuine the president’s emotions, this all swims in a sea of hypocrisy: why did the “Democrats” not act, when they controlled Congress, and the presidency, five years ago… As they had promised they would?

Worse: the measures proposed by Obama are only temporary. If (as is likely) the USA has, within two years, an entire “Republican” government, the ‘generous’ invitation of Obama to illegal immigrants to “come out of the shadows“, will backfire: once localized by authorities, illegals will be thrown out, more easily: a textbook case of bait and switch.

Even worse: the gigantic illegal immigration in the USA masks a state system of plutocratic exploitation of (workers and) children. It is deliberate.

Is Obama left wing? Not really. All he is proposing is to try to impose International Law for a few months, because such is his good pleasure, at this point. He just forgot to have a law passed when he had all the powers. Too busy golfing with his buddies. (I don’t golf, golfing is a pseudo-sport for conspiring pip-squeaks who love to replace wilderness by fertilized lawns.)

Deporting children born in the USA, or their parents, would be a violation of the Convention of the Rights of Children, an International Law in all countries, except… the USA.

Paul Krugman woke up to the issue in “Suffer Little Children”. Says Krugman:

“there are more than a million young people in this country who came — yes, illegally — as children and have lived here ever since. Second, there are large numbers of children who were born here — which makes them U.S. citizens, with all the same rights you and I have — but whose parents came illegally, and are legally subject to being deported.

What should we do about these people and their families? There are some forces in our political life who want us to bring out the iron fist — to seek out and deport young residents who weren’t born here but have never known another home, to seek out and deport the undocumented parents of American children and force those children either to go into exile or to fend for themselves.”

When I say Krugman woke up, I am generous. Like the New York Times, he writes as if he were unaware of the fact that only the USA, on the entire planet, violates the Rights of Children, as official government policy!

I sent a powerful comment, the New York Times naturally censored it (this way, if nothing else, they can steal the ideas therein!). It’s reproduced below, and having censored it, is testimony to the general hypocrisy, and that the New York Times is not just far right wing, but somewhat inclined to abuse children, as a matter of systematic thinking.

The USA, as a country, loves to give all sorts of lessons to the world. Those high moral principles are often self-dealing, but it requires some work to find how. For example, the actions of the USA to destroy the European imperial (“colonial”) system, starting in 1918, sounded lofty, but aimed at replacing European administration, by American plutocratic exploitation.

Similarly, the on-going crack-down on banks, by being more severe with overseas banks, aims to replace world banking by American banking. And the crack-down on tax evasion, by being squarely aimed at the middle class (FATCA), aims to impoverish said middle class, and condition it to live in a police state, while reinforcing the transfer of power from everybody, to the reigning plutocracy (something else Obamacare also achieves).

Loving children is natural, being essential to the species’ survival. Hating children, is artificial, perverted. We expect no less from plutocracy, the rule of demonism (demonism, the rule of all things demoniac, in other words, plutocracy, is my answer to Leibnitz’s theodicy).

Before I get into the comment censored by the NYT, let me answer those would suggest this is only a problem for the USA.

Not so.

Starting in 1918, the USA maneuvered efficiently to get in control of the world, helped in this by German racial fascism, British naivety, and an idiotic, if not outright treacherous French commander in chief in 1940.

The end result is that the USA controls the world. By this I do not mean just that Washington and Wall Street rule. Russia, under Yeltsin was mostly destroyed by the perverse, self-dealing advice given by top American Universities, including the University of Chicago (where Obama taught) and Harvard (where Obama was distinguished, in more ways than one).

A lot of this has to do with a vicious mood best cultivated by mistreating children.

Candidate SS officers burnished their mentality by piercing the eyes of kittens; that Americans tolerate not knowing too well that children working in the fields fill their vegetarian plates is akin to that. And now for hypocrisy supreme:


In 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by UN General Assembly. On September 2, 1990 it became international law. 194 countries signed and ratified it. With one notable exception: the USA has not ratified it. It is keeping company with Somalia, and South Sudan.

Both Somalia and South Sudan are wrecked by war. Is then the USA wrecked by war? War against civilization, maybe?

The Rights of Children include not executing children and not making children work. The USA violates both.

It is easy to blame the Democrats: after all, they were in control of Congress and Senate (with a super majority) when Obama became president. Too busy partying?

Another point is that this immigration which happened illegally obviously happen with the complicity of the state. Or more exactly, the complicity of the United States of America. Indeed, no other advanced country had such an enormous illegal immigration (not only in absolute numbers, but relative numbers).

It stretches the imagination beyond decency to pretend that what is, by far, the world’s greatest military power, was such a failure at defending its borders, without deliberately organizing said failure.

How is a failure to contain immigration carefully organized? By deliberately organizing weak controls and weak penalties (the same way Great Britain did it).

Why is a failure to contain immigration carefully organized? Because of a will-to-exploitation.

Interrogating agribusinesses’ owners is revealing: they needed, and need, the illegal workers. They are actually the ones employing the children, in total violation of International Law. Many are far right wing “Republicans”. They support illegal immigration, and have enough money to buy the authorities, including the politicians (who are themselves exploiters, so this is a peer to peer fraternity, exploiters to exploiters, playing kabuki theater).

This entire picture is a damning condemnation of the American system. Not just its famed “way of life”, exploiting right and left, but also its way of thinking, and even its emotional system.

Americans can go to Church all they want, and evoke god at every turn, but, by the measure that counts the most, their cruel country is the world’s ugliest.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “MOST CRUEL COUNTRY?”

  1. gmax Says:

    You keep your bite! That the US did not sign on the Rights of Children is really all f**k up, and totally gross. Obama has egg all over his face, as he always does, and it’s the other guys’ fault, he always says that, forgetting who has been president!


    • pshakkottai Says:

      Well said!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There is an African saying that feeding a crocodile lettuce will not turn it into a vegetarian. The plutocrats had chosen well with Obama. A conservative, very close, friend of his, who knew him since they were quasi-class mates in childhood, struck me when he told me, a decade ago, out of the blue: “I trust you much more than I trust him!”
      I had plenty of bitter experience meanwhile to check the acumen of that observation, and regret not to have meditated it more carefully.

      What happens around power is reminiscent of what happens around a dead cow, when you let hundreds of vultures fly in: you can’t see a thing anymore, but for a sea of jumping masses, puffed out feathers, struggling wings, swinging necks and gaping beaks.

      The solution is to cut out the power, and treat over-concentrated power the way we treat slavery, and for the same reason.


  2. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    I remember in my early 20s I had a moment where I thought that being the President of America would be a good job for me.

    But then I saw the stupidity of a lot of that. Puppets on strings following often mediocre logic. Someone I know just posted an article about Obama and his immigration policy…and how he is a master chess player. Gosh. Please. Obama got some things right but he got A LOT wrong. People pat themselves on the back about Medicare but it is a very impoverished view to consider that a success story. From the point of view of economics ie irrigation – he is a a very primitive president (as most are). A few very clever men bankrupted America and made A LOT of money doing it. They bankrupted the system and the government bailed them out (they had no choice). And yet no policy change has come. No serious policy change. Adam Curtis is the only competent journalist I have come across to hold up the mirror to this hypocrisy and yet no change comes of it. Obama kisses the ass of Silicon Valley and Wall Street and never looks at the uncomfortable truths about plutocratic power…

    If you study the economic policy of every political party in the UK they are all the same. No real difference among them all. EXCEPT the Green Party. If politics is irrigation and the life blood of that irrigation is where money goes….then we hardly have a political field do we? We have two options and one of them is not an option. ie the Green party ain’t going to get anywhere (and they are the only people who don’t follow this austerity bullshit). So we laud incredibly stupid men as “master chess players” because they do the same thing over and over. America’s immigration policy has been well managed for decades. The Brits screwed up immigration under labour governments…but to say Obama is a master chess player…Pulease. It’s been well managed long before him and it’s not difficult to get wrong because of that.

    Obama is an anti-social 5 in the enneagram. He lives in an intellectual ivory tower and he does not take criticism well and his personality further stoked the house divided…and he has made no progress on the economy…He has just let the likes of Goldman Sachs run riot….continue to bankrupt Greece and play their dirty tricks…Same old irrigation. The ‘audacity of hope’ was his phrase….but how can you have hope when the same old beast in a different skin colour is selling the same old dirty tricks?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The “audacity of hope” was not Obama’s phrase. He borrowed it from a Church in Chicago.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Nathan: Tell that naïve, credulous, ignorant, not observant, uncritical guy that, if, for Obama winning the game it means stronger and meaner plutocracy, and total “Republican-plutocratic” control, he is indeed winning. He should read my “Most Cruel Nation?”.
      About immigration, Obama is posing. And acting as an agent of repression: when all the illegals are out of hiding, the Republicans will pass a law, and do with them as they want, now that they know who they are.


  3. John Rogers Says:

    “. . . golfing is a pseudo-sport for conspiring pip-squeaks who love to replace wilderness by fertilized lawns.”


    I like pretty much everything you write, but this resonates on a very deep level. A “sport” which requires expensive equipment, is predominantly played at expensive private clubs underwritten by bullshit tax subsidies (“green spaces”), and whose dues and fees can be deducted for tax purposes by the artful dodger.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the support, John! I nearly did not write this, as it sounded too personal, and off the main message. But I remember people around Obama, and in my family, and many others, who took golf, precisely to “network” (=conspire) around the greens…

      OK, I never golfed myself (and I don’t drink alcohol either, the latter being often very awkward in society, French or American, Silicon Valley or universities, but never mind…)

      So here we are. I know young parents who I used to show them the wilderness to, and now they golf instead (to cultivate those great business relationships). A similar situation happens with skiing. (Although I do ski, but Silicon Valley types mostly use it socially, trying to show they can spend hundreds of dollars a day…)


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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: