Archive for October, 2016

Why Absolute Power Corrupts Outrageously

October 31, 2016

The Clintons, their friends the plutocrats, and their greedy servants have behaved ever more outrageously, ever since they outrigged, out-performed and outreached Reagan himself. This is part of a general pattern: absolute power brings absolute outrage, and that’s the only way to get rid of it.

Why are all too powerful individuals inclined to outrageous acts? Caligula fed his horse gold flakes while visiting serious tortures on many. French king Louis XIV honored the mightiest in his kingdom by pooping while they watched.. Then, naturally enough, the self-described Sun King pooped on French civilization, by pooping on his grandfather foremost achievement (peace with Protestantism). The end result was a weakening of France, thus Europe, which persists, to this day.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, self-described greatest lover of Great Britain, launched a world war in July 1914, mostly because he could. It was certainly an outrageous, gratuitous act, from a man with absolute power. 

Huma Abedin, Clinton’s “Daughter” & Business Woman Extraordinaire Will Say, Or Do, Whatever To Cling To Power

Huma Abedin, Clinton’s “Daughter” & Business Woman Extraordinaire Will Say, Or Do, Whatever To Cling To Power

[While chief of staff at the State Department, Abedin was officially allowed to pile up other jobs outside, with her own consultancy, and, of course, the Clinton Foundation. Don’t worry: she is now 40 years old, and a multimillionaire. Brought up in Saudi Arabia and connected to Muslim Fundamentalists, Abedin looks like an agent of the Saudi government of sorts. Remember that Obama was just overruled by Congress and the Senate to enable the prosecution of Saudi Arabia for 9/11… The elites of Wahington-Wall Street have long been entangled with the monster they created, Saudi Arabia.]

Adolf Hitler went on a succession of quasi-suicidal, outrageous acts, starting in 1939. In 1939, Hitler allied himself with Stalin to invade Poland, facing a world war with France and Britain (a war which clearly Hitler could not win). Then Hitler went on, invading all sorts of countries, all the way to attacking the USSR and declaring war to the USA (hey, why not, since Hitler felt he had lost in 1939). The result of all these outrages was that Europe lost the leadership of the civilization it had created (which has passed to start-ups such as Russia and the USA).


Beyond The Will To Power, The Will To Outrage:

Clearly, from their own words, the behavior of many of the mighty, from Caesar to Napoleon, is explained by an obsessive “Will to Power”. Nietzsche explained much human behavior that way. However, what happens when people have already all the power? Well, folly happens.

Think about it. How does a human being demonstrate power over another human being?    

More recent examples? US government officials (like Rumsfeld, US Sec. of Defense) declaring the Geneva Convention “quaint”, and violating it, for the whole world to see, in all possible ways, while invading and devastating Iraq (at least the Nazis tried to hide the evil they were doing). Or Obama conducting “signature strikes” (using the US military for deadly strikes within countries the US is not at war with, just because some gathering had the ‘signature’ of possible gathering of whom some secret organization in the US as possible malefactors).

Outrage can be profitable: Clinton was told of debate questions in advance. As I listened carefully (recording and re-listening to the debates), it seems clear to me, at least for the first debate with Trump, that Clinton knew of the coming questions. The questions were so ridiculous, Trump was surprised, even baffled, but Clinton came up with slick, rehearsed answers. That’s how I know. Since then, Wikileaks has revealed that knowing the questions in advance, in excruciating detail, is how Clinton defeated Sanders. It’s not just because it was advantageous, but also because it was dangerous, outrageous. That made it exciting.

Why did Bill Clinton officiate at the Abedin-Weiner wedding? (He actually did not have any authority to do so.) Weiner, long a “Democratic” congressman, is an obsessive-compulsive serial adulterer and pedophile who loves to publish his feats on the Internet. Weiner called himself “Carlos Danger” on the Internet.

So Weiner married to Clinton’s “second daughter”. Speaking of daughter, Chelsea Clinton travels around the world with the best accommodations, thanks to the “Clinton Foundation”. Clinton, a presidential candidate, travelled free of personal charge, thanks to said Foundation. All this costs a lot to the Foundation. Right, Bill Gates does the same (using the private airline he owns with Buffet to do so; thus double-billing taxpayers).

The Foundation Law was passed within minutes, and to compensate for, the creation of Income Tax Law. So the wealthiest Americans, like the Clinton or Gates, give millions to a Foundation (the Clintons have actually two entangled Foundations). Then those millions are deduced from the taxes they have to pay. Then as officers of the Foundation they need “first class, or private jet travel because of security and other requirements” as the Clinton Foundation explains. In other words, they live like aristocrats.

According to Roman historians (Suetonius, Cassius Dio), Caligula intended to make his prefered stallion, Incitatus, Consul. That was too much, and the head of the Praetorian guard decided to plant his sword in Caligula’s groin, and other crucial places, bringing his demise.

How did Caligula’s mood grow? As the preceding commander-in-chief (“imperator”) Tiberius sank into melancholy and increasing depravity, his influence rubbed off on the young Caligula. (see the case of Sextus Marius who was charged with incest with his daughter on the pretext of seizing his Spanish gold mines even that could have been done in the name of the state). As Tacitus puts it: “It was it probable that, when Tiberius with his long experience of affairs was, under the influence of absolute power, wholly perverted and changed, Caius Caesar [nickname: Little Boots, Caligula], who had hardly completed his boyhood, was thoroughly ignorant and bred under the vilest training, would enter on a better course, with Macro for his guide.

As I hinted above, the Will to Power is not everything: those at the top have to feel themselves exerting it. In the case of baboons, the subordinate has to offer his, or her bottom for the superior to consider (doing whatever it please with). But what of the case of one of our baboon-leaders, in the age of the Internet? Or in the age of the Roman empire, for that matter? The superiors, those with absolute power have to feel the subjugation and submission, of their inferior subordinates. They feel it, when they commit obvious outrages, and the miserable subordinates can only deplore the outrages deep inside, and do nothing about them.

The Roman empire, at least until Diocletian (circa 300 CE) was, formally, a Republic, SPQR, The Senate and People of Rome. The (now so-called) “emperors” were just commander in chief (“imperators”) and “first”, or “principal” in the Senate (“Princeps” from which “Prince” was evolved). In practice, they had absolute power.

After Tiberius, the principle that the Republic would be led by a imperator-princeps was more accepted. Thus, for the individuals at the top to feel that power, to be rewarded by that feeling, to compensate the risks they took, outrages had to be performed. The mood of committing outrages started discreetly under Tiberius (who performed tortures in Capri, but, overall, ordered at most a handful of executions, arguably less than Obama (I explained this in the past: of the 36 or so executions under Tiberius most were ordered by the Senate, and fully justified, because of very serious lethal conspiracies, which killed his sons, without him knowing!)


The More Powerful One Is, The More One Seeks Outrage:

For years Hillary has been hanging around the outrageous Bill Clinton (bad enough! Clinton apparently used the power of the offices he held for various sexual favors with many women, and lied about it under oath, leading to his quasi-impeachment). Apparently unsatisfied by these puny scandals, Hillary pushed onto her apparent closest friend and collaborator, Huma Abedin, her “second daughter”, a sex maniac (initially Abedin resisted). Weiner the Wiener, a sex addicted Congressman, sent unlawful material to, or in the presence of children, from 4 to 15-year-old.

Thanks to his Clinton connection Weiner is not yet in prison. However, the FBI just came into possession of a device of containing 650,000 emails, some of them (probably) classified Clinton emails. (A crude approach to insurance, if you want my opinion.)

As Weiner’s monicker, “Carlos Danger”  indicates, people who already have power do not want just power, as they already have it, but danger. But what happens when they have had it for a very long time, and got away with it, and did all outrageous things they could dream of? Well, they get new dreams, even more outrageous that the preceding ones. For Clinton to flaunt her relationship with lovers of pedophiles qualifies.

So does considering Bill Gates, or Tim Cook, the Apple chief, as Hillary did, for Vice President. Many people around the world consider Bill Gates to be a criminal. No, not because of the way he founded Microsoft (mostly from appropriating others’ property, thank in part to his mother, an IBM director). But rather in the way he co-opted local government official to push for Genetically Modified Organisms made by Monsanto, a Gates investment vehicle and collaborator of its Gates Foundation. Monsanto GMOs turned out to be a disaster for African peasant who were ruined and devastated. Countries such as Burkina Fasso just made them unlawful.

Caligula wanted to make his horse a Consul, because he wanted to get away with outrage greater than any he had visited on We The People before. The equally endowed from birth Commodus would get away with even greater outrages than those Caligula wrought (who reigned only 4 years).

So it was with many Roman emperors: ever greater outrages. Diocletian proclaimed himself god, and his quasi-successor Constantine, proclaimed himself to be the Thirteenth Apostle…. Until the entire grotesque show became so dysfunctional, the semi-barbarian Germans, the Franks took over, and started the slow process of re-establishing civilization (starting around 400 CE), by reducing the power of the oligarchs and plutocrats.

The present leaders of the USA have been so powerful as to be arrogantly outrageous. They treated the state as their private property. That the same holds for Russia, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe, or Venezuela, is besides the point: the US is supposed to be a democracy. And so is the West (although, as the West is more united than it looks, the rest of the West has become as democratic as the US, by obeying Washington-Wall Street orders).

Time for a flood, to clean the mess.

Patrice Ayme’

Obama “Lack Of Supermajority” Lie

October 29, 2016

The simplest, and most efficient, way of thinking is by not lying. Lying consistently requires to know both some elements of reality and the lies one adorned them with. The democrats lied about why they did nothing in the early part of Obama’s reign. They claimed it was because of the Republicans, but they are Republicans in disguise, and they did not do anything for “We The People“, because they identify as “We The Plutocrats” (“WE”, as Hillary Clinton admitted to Goldman Sachs partners). And often they are.

Diane Feinstein, one of Hillary Clinton’s main support, was a pure politician her entire life. Feinstein claims to be worth around 50 million dollars. She will conveniently forget to tell you her husband is at least a billionaire. We are demoncrats, and the demon, the devil, Pluto, made us lie, so please forget it. (And how come, as a pure politician earning no more than $160,000, she made 50 million dollars?) These people rule the world, not just the USA: Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, was a major investor in China… while his wife prepared and reigned, over pertinent legislation.

Sometimes, of course, one should lie. Say, if a dying child is anxious, full care requires lying with no limits whatsoever. Just tell the child she better sleep and will be refreshed when she wakes up.

However, in a politico-social context, lying is never a good idea. If one is on the side of We The People. Reciprocally, lying is how plutocrats rule. And they go all the way, inventing religions to justify their horrors (the most famous cases being Christianism and Islam, both set-up by dictators, respectively Saint Constantine, Roman emperor, self-described “13th Apostle“, and Prophet Muhammad, self-described “Messenger of God“; the latter imitating the former).

Obama was the do-nothing president. OK, Obama did a lot for plutocrats, transferring trillions of federal debt to the richest people and corporations in the world. As I called it ironically, TARP, Transferin Assets To the Richest People. But Obama did nothing much for “We The People“, besides very effective lip service. To justify doing nothing, to his supporters, from day one, Obama accused the “Republicans”. He just could not convince them, Republicans, he said. That was true, but it was also a lie. A true lie. Obama did not need to convince any Republicans. Not a single one. He was in control. In total control. (But is a child in control? Of course not: a child does not know enough. A fortiori a puppet of Goldman Sachs, Gates, Apple, etc. )

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

The Nazis used, and advertised, the big lie technique because they believed they had achieved a superior understanding of the human condition, so it did not matter what ways they used to implement their rule. There were enormous lies implemented by self-described “democrats” in the last 24 years. Passing laws in the service of what turned out to be plutocrats who have names: Hillary Clinton considered major plutocrats (Gates, Cook, etc.) as potential Vice Presidential choices (before she realized that would compromise her chances too much) .

While Obama claimed he could not do anything without the Republicans, the democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives, and the democrats had a majority in the US Senate. So was Obama lying? (Silly question, sorry.)

No, say demoncrats. US Senate tradition (since 1993!) is that one can talk and talk and talk and talk in the Senate, and block any bill. Once Democratic Senator Byrd talked around 24 hours. Continuously.

However, filibusters can be overruled when one has 60 votes in the US Senate, a SUPERMAJORITY. Obama had such a supermajority, for many months perhaps six months. He could have also forced a 12 months bullet proof supermajority by forcing two ailing democratic  senators to resign

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independent senators who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to be at the Senate everyday. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59.

On June 30 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was sworn in, after a lengthy recount and legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were SOMETIMES unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled up Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60. At this point, the democrats were back with a SUPERMAJORITY. Senator Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate. A forceful president with a progressive agenda could have made him resign. But Obama had no progressive agenda whatsoever. Neither did his helpers and sycophants. The leading ones are all establishment, they are happy wioth the establishment.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk on January 19, 2010, bringing the Democratic caucus back down to 59 again.

In June 2010, Sen. Byrd died. Byrd’s replacement, a Democrat, Carte Goodwin, was sworn two weeks later. So the caucus stayed at 59.

Obama said, it’s all the fault of the Republicans, and here is this Obamacare, my “signature achievement“, plutocrats will take care of you, as long as I send them your tax dollars.

When FDR became president, he enforced a progressive agenda on his first day. In the first month, Obama did just one progressive thing: sign, with great fanfare, the evacuation of arbitrary detention at Guantanamo. Well, not really. Guantanamo is still in operation, eight years later, with people inside, arbitrarily detained. The Do-Nothing president really did nothing. His true signature achievement. (Except for arbitrary drone lethal strikes, for all to see, a new judicial precedent, and savagely hunting those who reveal some bad actions of the US government, some of them unlawful.)

A progressive president needs a supermajority only for a couple of hours. In the early twentieth century, one morning, in a couple of hours, two laws passed: one set-up the Income Tax Law, setting up the IRS. The other law passed within the hour was the Foundation Law.  

The reigning democrats are lying. They are Republicans in disguise. Republicans brought up on a Reagan psychological diet.

In the last debate Hillary Clinton attacked Trump, because Trump had attacked then reigning president Ronald Reagan in 1987… with exactly the same position Trump has today.

Need I say more?

Yes, I do. I pointed out the preceding, at the time, in 2009, as it happened. Much later, the “Tea Party” was created later. So I got to be called “Tea Party”. Last week, some people on the Internet, in public, called me a “liar, racist, xenophobe”, and added even more flattering qualifiers, for daring to say that Obama had a supermajority, for many months, in the beginning of his presidency. Some added that I reiterated “Republican talking points“. Whatever. (If politicians adopt my ideas, i am not going to complain.)

I follow the truth, an attempt to espouse reality. Politically I am somewhat on the left of Bernie Sanders, but also in the future, and that means, on the side of Mother Earth. I know Obama, and wish this will help him to stop lying. The truth is that Obama wanted more progress than he got, because most “Democrats” are rather “Demoncrats”: just ask how come some of them made hundreds of millions during their strictly political careers. Say ask the two top California democrats, Nancy Pelosi, who headed Congress for six years, and Diane Feinstein, the Senior Senator of California. Pelosi is the richest US representative. She is married to an investment banker, Paul Pelosi, the sort of people Obama helped, Clinton breathe with (Goldman Sachs). Obama will say he did a lot to crack down on bankers. Right. And another lie. Another true lie: the Obama administration cracked down on commercial banking, and on banking for “We The People”. (Worldwide, it turned out, as American jurisdiction is brandished that way.)  Meanwhile, investment banking was helped, thanks to the pernicious pretext that banking needed help (yes, commercial banking needed help as Quantitiative Easing made it unprofitable, while derivatives were allowed to run amok, same as before, profitting investment bankers…)

There are system of lies, just like there are systems of thought, and the least plutocracy can do, is to lie systematically. To lie, or not to be, that is the existential question which defines plutocracy.

Patrice Ayme’

Aphorisms 10/26/16: Populism, ITC, Syria, Hormones, Hillary

October 27, 2016

I wrote to some “friends” who called me a liar, in public on the Internet (for saying that inequality grew under Bill Clinton). I rolled out graphs from FRED (Federal REserve Data). They replied that they just felt that I was a liar, and that was good enough. It’s all about how one feels. Thus they did not need to read anything I wrote, ever, never did, never will. Nor did they need to look at any graph I presented: so much stuff on the Internet, you know, complete with interviews of little green men. I pointed out that Obama had a “supermajority” many times over a 100 weeks period, he could have passed progressive legislation. They rolled out links saying the same exact thing inside (but not in their blaring titles), and then called me a liar again, by claiming that Obama had a supermajority at some point, although they had just proven my own point, which contradicted theirs. We live in the age of the 140 characters minds.

So maybe long essays, going deep, are inappropriate in the Internet age. And the “aphorism” approach needs to be revisited. Better to say everything in a few shocking lines than nothing new in a long book. (Nietzsche said roughly the same.)

Where Populism Comes From:

Since Bill Clinton abrogated FDR’s Banking Act of 1933, the part of GDP going to the richest has grown by 40% relative to the part of GDP going to We The People. Thank you Bill!

The alternative theory promoted by the servants and profiteers of the established order, is that populism comes from the undeniable allegations that Trump touched once the arm of a porno actress., and was like an “octopus” once in a plane, thirty-five years ago, let alone would have called an attempted murderess and Miss Universe “Ms Housekeeping”, in a private conversation. Thank you, Hillary, for going high, like Michelle Obama suggested. Is imagination higher than high? Imagination is higher than the reality that was, and create a new one, by its mere existence (this is what Quantum Theory says). Here for some imagination in action. If you think you can get away with presenting the empress, as if she had no clothes, you will be deleted by the plutocratic organizations Obama promoted:

Don't Insult the World President! Instagram accounts with up to 107,000 followers were deleted without warning when the preceding art was shown (it is to be noticed that this is is not Hillary Clinton as the latter seems to have an anatomy much more ready to resist famine).

Don’t Insult the World President! Instagram accounts with up to 107,000 followers were deleted without warning when the preceding art, in Melbourne, Australia, was shown (it is to be noticed that this is is not Hillary Clinton as the latter seems to have an anatomy much more ready to resist famine). Humor Is Disappearing, Terror Expanding.

[Facebook owns Instagram; Facebook considers female chests to be obscene, an object of well-educated revulsion, and thus a potential excuse for deletion of disrespectful, irreverent activity unbecoming a servant of the established order; and servants of that order, we are all implicitly considered to be; the alternative is deletion.)


Africans Are Criminals Says International Tribunal:

The International Tribunal Court (ITC; CPI in French) is a branch of the United Nations. The USA and Russia, apparently worried about their own future war crimes, have refused to become members. They did not need to worry. Since its creation in 2003, the ITC has opened ten inquiries, nine of them in Africa.

During the third week of October 2016, three African countries, Burundi, then South Africa, and now Gambia, have announced their withdrawal of the ITC. Gambia is an ill-disguised dictatorship (the president is running for his fifth mandate in December). However, the Gambian “Information minister, Sheriff Bojang, who is as black as a beautiful piece of coal, told the truth when he said that: “… Although one calls it an “International Tribunal”, the ITC is an international court of  whites who prosecutes and humiliates people of color, especially Africans”.  

As I said, Gambia is a dictatorship. However, Even dictators tell the truth sometimes. Every truth is precious, whatever its source, as any newborn is precious, even if born from hell.


Anything which compromises US supremacy is unfair:

Such as making Apple pay more than 1% tax in Ireland.The Obama doctrine, new paint, same old same old.

Mike Griffith, a fanatical Hillary Clinton supporter, and friend of mine, answering the preceding: “Why give up power?

It is revealing that Clinton partisans are actually rapacious, and power obsessed. Well what Obama did was to give an excess of power to hellish corporations (names unsaid, for obvious reasons) or poster boys (like the musky boy). This, by the way, was the core of Mussolini’s “fascismo” (a notion pushed by professor Gentile). Make corporations powerful, thanks to deals with the state. It failed. Why?

There are many types of power. Raw military power contradicts intellectual power. A balance of power makes the best power for the advancement of civilization.


If the Empress has no clothes, it does not matter who observed it:

The Economist accused Putin to have revealed some lies and manipulations of the Clinton machine. As if there was a Putin behind every US email. As if revealing a crime was more criminal than the crime. What is wrong about revealing manipulations of the US elections by American manipulators? Revealing the little plots of some Clinton helpers helps the democratic process. So, supposing Putin helped reveal the emails, he did not write them! Keep your cool, you the Clinton sycophants and servants, and learn to distinguish.

What I wrote should not be construed as support for Putin, and, or his activities, many of which I condemn. However I also condemn the fact that Clintonistas are talking obsessively about Putin when their own mess, manipulating illegally the US electoral process, is pointed out.


Hormonally Determined? Yes and No:

If one makes an Internet search for images on any subject, after a while, one seems to fall on pictures of women in various state of undress.

To this Kathleen Hawes Watkins answered: “Revealing the male perceptual preference for image over words. (I imagine a completely male-centric media would be all images with very few, if any words). Language is predominant in females, visual cortex predominates in males.”

Patrice Ayme I guess that makes me female, as I talk a lot… Notice too, that, historically, most of the important talking was made by men (from sexism, in part; unavoidable gender roles too). Does that make these men, who created civilization, into women? What is the real science behind that? And even if there is how do we know differences did not arise from sexism, which is already blatant in pre K?

It is true that there are sexual differences in depression (women get twice more depressed than males, presumably killing their enemies rather than crying about it). This seems to be actually traceable to real physiological differences at the cellular levels (studies in rats show). It makes all evolutionary sense, as females should be more cautious, and males more aggressive. Both behaviors improving the chances of future generations.


Virtuous Circle, Washington Way:

US defense contractors got 70 billion dollars of contracts, through military “help” to the Afghan army alone.

Afghan Taliban is indoctrinated in Islam schools in Pakistan. Who is the big ally of Pakistan? The USA. Who profits?  US “defense” contractors

The war in Afghanistan has thus contributed in making the  wealthiest in the US richer. One may ask whether that was not the aim all along (fostering Bin Laden, etc.). And, in a way, it has been a Machiavellian play, not at all what it looked..

US intervened in Afghanistan fully by July 3, 1979. (fostering Bin Laden, etc.). And, in a way, it has been a Machiavellian play, not at all what it looked.


“WE” Hillary I, And Us, the plutocrats, look down at you, low lives down there:

Hillary about low lives who want to change the world, when she was talking at Goldman-Sachs, for more than $200,000 a pop: “…we all should be really understanding… & we should try to do the best we can not to be a wet blanket on idealism.” Who is “we”?

A friend, Mr. Gartland wondered: “The royal we?” I have a more sinister  interpretation: it’s not just the royal “WE”, more probably, it’s:“We The Plutocrats”. Hillary identified with her audience during that speech, which was made of Goldman-Sachs partners. Hillary’s too many candle light dinners with Goldman-Sachs CEOs did that to her. Hillary will generalize, once most people understand exactly what it means. As a top banker told me recently: it’s a criminal organization. A criminal organization which does not just organize governments, but society and minds.

Patrice Ayme’

Bees Learn From Culture & Experience

October 25, 2016

When “INSTINCT” IN BEES:TURNS OUT TO BE LEARNING JUST AS HUMANS DO. Bees Practice The Experimental Method, Observe Others & Transmit Knowledge To Others!

Bumblebees can experiment and learn to pull a string to get a sugar water reward and then pass that skill on to other bees.

This comforts a long-held opinion of mine. See:

There I claimed that:

“Innate Knowledge” is a stupid idea. The truth is the exact opposite: LEARNING IS EVERYWHERE, OUT THERE. Learning is the opposite of innate. This insight has tremendous consequences on our entire prehension of the world.

My reasoning was typical philosophy: well-informed general reasons. Now there is increasing evidence that not only big brained vertebrates, but smaller brained invertebrates learn.

Conclusion: we humans do not differ from other animals, even insects, in kind, but in the amount of capability we enjoy. Thus, if we want to be truly human as much as we cannot just lay there like cows.  If we want to be fully human we must learn more of what is significant, and learn how to learn it. We cannot just sit on our hands and do as Barack Obama, the do-not much not-so-funny clown in chief, did, obsess about easy one liners and sport scores.


Intelligence Is A Fact, Instinct Just A Vague Theory:

For years, cognitive scientist Lars Chittka was intimidated by studies of apes, crows, parrots, and other brainy giants. Crows make tools. And they obviously talk to each other (my personal observation in the mountains). From the latest research in Brazil, parrots seem to have advanced language among themselves (which we don’t understand yet, as it too fast and high pitch for humans to hear it, and there is too much “austerity” around to pay scientists to understand the world as much as they could).

Chittka worked on bees, and almost everyone assumed that the insects acted on so-called instinct, not intelligence. Instinct? Come again.

As Bumblebees Can Learn To Pull Strings, So Can Plutocrats. Thus We Need To Outlaw Such Pluto Strings

Hillary Pulling Out Her Reward? As Bumblebees Can Learn To Pull Strings, So Can Plutocrats. Thus We Need To Outlaw Such Pluto Strings

Sophisticated behavior from “instinct” is a rather stupid assumption, because it is a superfluous assumption: Who needs instinct to explain an animal’s behavior, when we have simple, old fashion intelligence to explain it? Well, speciesists! (Same as who needs the Big Bang, a theory, when we have Dark Energy, a fact, to explain the expansion of the universe.)

Indeed we know of intelligence (some people, and certainly children, can be observed to have it). We can observe intelligence, and roughly understand how it works (it works by establishing better neurology, that is, neurology which fits facts better).

We can define intelligence, we cannot define instinct. But what is an instinct? We can neither observe “instinct”, for sure, instead of learning. Nor can we give a plausible mechanism of how “instinct” would generate complex behaviors (DNA does not code for “instinct”).  

When carefully analyzed, complex behaviors turn out to be learned. In humans, social motivations such as the Will to Power, are primary, thus Chitkka was motivated by : “…a challenge for me: Could we get our small-brained bees to solve tasks that would impress a bird cognition researcher?”


Einstein Bumblebees & Their Superstrings:

Now, it seems his team has succeeded in duplicating, with insects, what many birds and mammals are famous for. It shows that bumblebees can not only learn to pull a string to retrieve a reward, but they can also learn this trick from other bees, even though they have no experience with such a task in nature. Christian Rutz, a bird cognition specialist at St. Andrews university in Scotland concludes that the study “successfully challenges the notion that ‘big brains’ are necessary for new skills to spread”.  

Chittka and his colleagues set up a clear plastic table barely tall enough to lay three flat artificial blue flowers underneath. Each flower contained a well of sugar water in the center and had a string attached that extended beyond the table’s boundaries. The only way the bumble bee could get the sugar water was to pull the flower out from under the table by tugging on the string.

The team put 110 bumblebees, one at a time, next to the table to see what they would do. Some tugged at the strings and gave up, but two actually kept at it until they retrieved the sugar water: two Einstein bees out of 110! In another series of experiments, the researchers trained the bees by first placing the flower next to the bee and then moving it ever farther under the table. More than half of the 40 bees tested learned what to do with the strings. See: .Associative Mechanisms Allow for Social Learning and Cultural Transmission of String Pulling in an Insect.

Next, the researchers placed untrained bees behind a clear plastic wall so they could see the other bees retrieving the sugar water. More than 60% of the insects that watched knew to pull the string when it was their turn. In another experiment, scientists put bees that knew how to pull the string back into their colony and a majority of the colony’s workers picked up string pulling by watching one trained bee do it when it left the colony in search of food. The bees usually learned this trick after watching the trained bee five times, and sometimes even after one single observation. Even after the trained bee died, string pulling continued to spread among the colony’s younger workers.   

But pulling a string does not quite qualify as tool use, because a tool has to be an independent object that wasn’t attached to the flower in the first place. Yet other invertebrates have shown they can use tools: Digger wasps pick up small stones and use them to pack down their burrow entrances, for example.


Bees: New Aplysias For Intelligence & Culture?

Nobel laureate Eric Kandel, following a mentor of his in Paris, worked on the brain of the giant California sea snail, Aplysia Californica with its 26,000 neurons. This enabled to progress in the understanding of basic learning and memory mechanisms. However, Aplysias are not into tools and culture. Bees are. Bees have a million neurons, and a billion synapses.

[The bee brain is only .5 mm; whereas the human brain is ~ 400 larger, thus 4x 10^2 larger, its volume is thus ~ 10^2 x 10^6 = 10^8 larger than that of the bee brain; thus scaled up, with the same neuronal density, the human brain should have 10^14 neurons! Which is the number of synapses in the human brain. The density of the bee brain Thus we see, in passing, that human neurons pack up much more power than bee neurons! That has got to be a quantitative difference…]

The discovery of bee culture involved almost 300 bees, documenting how string pulling spread from bee to bee in multiple colonies. Cognitive studies of vertebrates like birds and monkeys typically involve smaller tribal units (30, not 300). Thus the bee studies on culture, more broadly based, show better propagation (at least at this point). .

Clearly bees are equipped, psychobiologically, for the meta behavior known as creative culture: learning from others, while experimenting on one’s own. Thinkers of old used to believe these behaviors were exclusively humans: animals were machines (Descartes) and only man used tools (Bergson, who called man ‘Homo Faber”, Homo Worker)

That insect can learn and experiment, and have culture was obvious all along, according to my personal observations of wasps’ intelligence: when I threaten a wasp. It gets the message, and flies away (I have done the experiment hundreds of times; it does not work with mosquitoes). Reciprocally, if I try to get a wasp out from behind a window, it somewhat cooperates, instead of attacking me. Whereas if I come next to a nest, I will be attacked when my intent is deemed aggressive (reciprocally if a nest is established in a high traffic area, the culture of the local wasps makes it so that they will not attack).   

What is the neural basis for these “smarts”? Some say that the insects might not be all that intelligent, but that instead, “these results may mean that culture-like phenomena might actually be based on relatively simple mechanisms.” Hope springs eternal that, somehow, human intelligence is different.

Don’t bet on it. Studying how bees think will help us find how, and why, we think. And the first conclusion is that it matters what we do with our brains. If we want to rise above insects, we cannot mentally behave as if we were insects all day long. Being endowed with human intelligence is not just an honor, but a moral duty. (Learn that, clown in chief!)

Patrice Ayme’

Between Friends: Donald, Hillary, & Angry Plutocrats

October 23, 2016

Trump Hatred Originates With The Average Plutocrat, Not The Clintons:

The Clintons and Trumps have long been friends, their children are great friends, especially Chelsea and Ivanka, and it shows. So why all the hatred? Well, it’s manufactured, It is part of a distraction show, kabuki theater. And a genuine worry, among most plutocrats, that Trump is a traitor who plays apprentice sorcerer. The figure of the rogue plutocrat turning treacherously against plutocracy, his alma mater, his nourishing mother, is a familiar one in history

Roughly all Main Stream Media, worldwide, are owned, held, or otherwise controlled by plutocrats (yes, including the public NPR and PBS in the USA). Those plutocrats hate Trump, because Trump has dared to say, and has been saying as loudly as possible, since at least 1987 (when he attacked Reagan in writing) that globalization, as practiced, does not work for We The People. That has been proven aplenty, and now angry voters are discovering that Trump was right all along.

Amusingly, Sanders’ final success in 2016 was forged by Donald’s iconoclastic work, from way back when he fought Reagan with the exact same idea he rolls out today again (whereas the ever more popular Obama lauds Reagan; that, and not racism, is the source of the antipathy between Trump and Obama: Obama was born half white and educated by 100% whites). When crafty Bill Clinton called Obamacare the “craziest thing in the world“, he was craftily following Donald Trump too (and thus neutralizing the Donald: no need to vote for Trump to put Obamacare out of its misery, Bill will do it for you…)


The Ill Informed Sing The Praises Of The Clintons, but the Clintons are followers of Goldman Sachs, establishers of  the financial plutocracy. One, of course, has to be educated enough, and curious enough, to understand the following graph. As rabidly pro-Clinton minorities are in general not graced with as much discernment, they are rather obdurate: they suffer you know. Thus it is that the victim elect their torturers, a generalization of the Stockholm Syndrome (the feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim towards captors). It is a case of capture-bonding. 

The Clinton Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

The Clinton System Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act of 1933 and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

 Since the Clinton economy affected income, median GDP per capita has lost 40% relative to the GDP of the USA. How come? The 40% went to the top, and mostly the .1%. 


We Are Friends, And Long Have Been:

Trump and Clinton roasted  each other in a funny way at the annual roast and Catholic fundraiser. Trump said he was delighted that Hillary was nominating him ambassador to Iraq or Afghanistan, and he got to choose which one. Hillary said Donald said she did not have stamina, but she had spent 4.5 hours with him, debating, and that was longer than any of his campaign managers ever did (an allusion to the fact Donald’s managers keep on resigning, or being resigned).

The host, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, said the candidates had “nice things” to say offstage.

“I was very moved by the obvious attempt on behalf of both Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump to kind of be courteous, to get along, to say nice things privately to one another,” Dolan said on NBC’s “Today.” “I was very moved by that. That was pleasant.”

Dolan, who sat between Trump and Clinton at the dinner, acknowledged the two were, like President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012, “kind of awkward together.”

“But the purpose of the evening is to break some of that ice, and thanks be to God, it works. The Al Smith Dinner by its nature literally tries to — I’m sitting there between the two — and literally,I’m supposed to be kind of a bridge to bring these two people together. And I try my best, and there were some very touching moments.”

The three of them prayed together. “And after the little prayer, Mr. Trump turned to Secretary Clinton and said, ‘You know, you are one tough and talented woman…This has been a good experience in this whole campaign, as tough as it’s been” She replied “And Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterwards.”  

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar In Below The Belt Considerations. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar Below The Belt. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

So much love! Not like the “arrogant” Dylan who, members of the Nobel committee loudly whine, has refused to acknowledge their glorious, yet most generous existence. Well, what do they think? It is embarrassing, that Nobel is embarrassing and Dylan knows it. (At least he did not get it just because he received power and brown skin!) If I were me, i would accept the Nobel, if i were Dylan, I would refuse it. The Nobel should be used to reward what, and, or, whom, deserves to be discovered, not one of the planet super stars. (Salman Rushdie was supposed to be a runner-up for the literature Nobel, Rushdie is a martyr of the struggle against fanatical, lethal theology, yet how come I get bored to death reading a few pages of his books? At least Dylan, I appreciate, and not just the music.)

So who hates Trump, if not the Clintons? Well, in the last presidential debate, Hillary accused Donald to be a “puppet” and he angrily retorted:”No, you are the puppet“. She meant he was a caricature, he meant she was something whose strings were pulled by multi billionaires (Soros, Buffet, the Gates, etc…) They both knew that they were right, and in which different ways. (Clinton may have enough of a temper to break a few strings, though…)


Hatred Against Trump Is Self Interested Among the Mighty:

Typical is the hatred of the (light weight, yet courageous) billionaire-intellectual-charming corruptocrat,  Bernard-Henri Lévy who nebulously accuses Trump of “possible infidelity to America itself. The party of Eisenhower and Reagan has been commandeered by a corrupt demagogue…”

To put Eisenhower and Reagan in the same category is embarrassingly ignorant: Eisenhower launched FDR New Deal style massive programs (for example the construction of a continental size FREE freeway system, all the way to Hawaii! Or several massive defense programs reminiscent of FDR again). To pay for them, Eisenhower brought up the tax on the wealthiest up to 93%. Free, highest quality public university system went up in the USA, for example the University of California. In shocking contrast, Reagan, an enemy of cognition, established a tuition at the PUBLIC University of California, starting the great movement of making it so that only the wealthiest are fully human (Thatcher would pursue it much later) 

By comparison, in 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.

The result was pandemonium (see the second graph in that’s when the rich started to get ever richer, and the poor, poorer). Reagan was the anti-Eisenhower (but Reagan’s followers were even worse! All those who laud Reagan in any way are just ignorant, Neoconservatives, or worse, clueless clowns. And most probably, all the preceding. Logically enough, as Trump blasted Reagan during his presidency, Trump hatred and Reagan loving are two sides of the same coin (many of Trump partisans, or their parents actually believed in Reagan, before realizing later that they had been had… hence their indignation).


Plutocracy strikes aging societies. Just like metastatic cancer strikes older individuals, and for similar reasons: the corruption of entrenched nefarious mutations. When a society is struck by plutocracy, it needs a revolution. That is why France, the core of the European civilization, went through so many revolutions: precisely to rejuvenate itself, from revolution to revolution (and France implemented a revolution machine in England, which worked for many centuries; even Brexit is a form of revolution, however flawed and misguided…)

Trump, by lashing back against plutocratic globalization, is refreshing. He is also sincere: his mood against some aspect of globalization can be found in a campaign he made against Reagan. Trump’s campaign against the “Politically Correct”dates from the early 1970s. It is not clear what Hillary will do against corrupting globalization, as she did a 180 degrees on the Trans Pacific Partnership (she said the details changed, she didn’t). The Democratic platform adopted several of Sanders’ propositions.

In any case, the differences between Hillary and the Donald are less great than feared by the young and naive. The difference of either of them with Obama, will be more marked: the impulsive Donald and the Hilarious One have lots of experience with the system, and do not really need said system, to become somebody: they are already superstars, and they think highly of themselves. But progressives have to understand they have to exert continual pressure if they want progress, be it Donald, or Hillary. Just making a blind Hillary cult after 8 years of blind Obama worship will mean ever more plutocratization, same as what we have been going through.

And keep in mind that the grotesque racist campaign against Trump is an example of how much manipulation is going out there. After a visit with John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, the Ecuadorean president, Correa, cut Wikileaks’ Assange his Internet access. Assange had been revealing various Clinton manipulations all over. The strident accusations of the US administration against Russia in the US electoral process, mean, precisely, that it takes one to known one. 

Hillary is a monster: a good sign. Devils know best how to fight evil. Maybe she will gobble Bill and his financial puppet masters too.

Patrice Ayme’

Alcohol, Sexism, Rape, Hypocrisy

October 21, 2016

Lots of females, and US Vice President Joe Biden (president of vice?), suddenly are all excited about the “rape culture”. Let’s have a toast to their health. Surely they realize they are joking? Did they realize they partake in that “rape culture”? This is a territory, where I prowl and predate: what to do to change the culture. Not just because I was there before (pre-date) but as a predator in the world of ideas.

I am 100% against “rape culture”, but even more against saying no, no, no, while actively collaborating with the exact opposite (as most hypocrites do). Much social activity in the West (and not just in the West) is engineered for rape (or sort-of rape, I-was-not-really-there cop-out) . Let’s say more: without the so-called “rape culture” most of the ostriches out there would not have any fun. And this is exactly why there was little progress on the “rape culture” ever since the concept and terminology appeared in the 1970s.

I will spare you, at least today, the gory psychobiology below all this, where it is explained why the happily enraged male pursues the delightedly scared female, prehistoric style. We are prehistoric creatures, because evolution created us over the aeons, and those time honed ways have a wisdom which millions of years of  survival certify.

Silence Is No Consent, But Drinking Factually Is

Silence Is No Consent, But Drinking Factually Is

Instead, I will focus on two facts. First, there is a lot of sexism imposed on children as young as five years old (for example more in the USA than in France). Sexism consists in gender behavior not forced by psychobiology. Sexism leads to alienation, thus the “rape culture”. Sexism makes females weak, whiny, provocatively passive, too emotional while the males are made tough, resilient, brutal, domineering, coldly rational, ambitious etc. Sexism makes inter-gender interaction naturally violent, exploited and exploitative.

Sexism can be hidden (OK, not so hidden) in activities as simple as dancing (again, with stereotyped roles).

The second fact nurturing the “rape culture” is alcohol injection (“consumption”). To put it bluntly, young people get into the alcohol culture, to partake in the rape culture.

From Scientific American, 2001: Enzyme Lack Lowers Women’s Alcohol Tolerance

…”one of the reasons why alcohol harms women more than men: women, it appears, are deficient in an enzyme that helps metabolize alcohol. The findings appear in the 2001 April issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. “It has been known for a long time that, in general, both women and female animals are more susceptible to the negative or toxic effects of alcohol,” team member Steven Schenker of the University of Texas at San Antonio says. “This is true for the liver, heart muscle and skeletal muscle, and it may be true for the pancreas and the brain. In other words, there is something about the female gender that makes them more susceptible to toxic amounts of alcohol.”

In the past scientists attributed this susceptibility to women’s smaller body size and their relatively higher percentage of fatty tissue. For this study, however, the researchers focused on what is known as first-pass metabolism. Before alcohol reaches the blood stream, it goes through the stomach, where so-called gastric alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) isozymes break some of it down. “In an earlier study we found that women have less of this ADH activity than men do,” notes lead author Charles Lieber of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. “Accordingly, women have a lesser first-pass metabolism and, therefore, for a given dose of alcohol, their blood level is higher than it is for men.”

Following up on that research, the team recently turned their attention to the makeup of ADH. They found that one of the enzyme’s three components, glutathione-dependent fomaldehyde dehydrogenase (x-ADH), is deficient in women, thus explaining their lower ADH activity levels. To Schenker, the take-home message is clear: “Women simply need to be more cautious than males in terms of the amount of drinking they do.”

There are other factors: women have more fat (in which alcohol does not dilute) and men have 20% more water (in which alcohol dilutes). In practice, a woman drinking alcohol in the same way as a male will always get more intoxicated, and often much more so. The Blood Alcohol Count (BAC) can be twice in a female relative to the male in the same equal social circumstances.

(By the way, the greater sensitivity to alcohol in women explains why so many women in the USA become alcohol addicts.)

Once the prey is incapacitated, all inhibitions down, the prey is there for the taking. Most “rapes” in the USA, involve alcohol.

43% of the sexual victimization incidents involve alcohol consumption by victims and 69% involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrators.

So let the prey know this. OK, sorry to be a party pooper. How are you going to have fun, looking forward? Screams against the “rape culture” especially in the USA, have become a cover-up for the alcohol culture. The more they scream against rape, the more they are getting drunk on their own fables, and their sorry sort.

I will taunt public opinion with the following proposition: young people get into alcohol, because they want to get laid. The rest is only habituation. Time to get sober, or let the hypocrisy, the show, and the fun, go on. They want no rape? Let them stop drinking, then, and we, or, rather, they can talk, and learn to talk, instead of just getting an uninhibited, inebriated ride on the most basic instincts .

Patrice Ayme’

Why Giving So Much Space To Nazis?

October 19, 2016

For Evil To Rule, Give The People Evil Heroes To Look Up To: Their Tolerance For Pluto Will Be Heightened

The following is on the borderline of subconscious theory applied to the collective (more on the subconscious, pretty soon). Psychological analysis, without sex, but full of rockets. I explore why the US gave such a prominent place to Nazi scientists after World War Two. The probable explanation is not obvious. And it is not pretty, and has a bearing on the subsequent US subconscious, that we are enjoying, to this day. Yes, because there is something as the national subconscious, and yes, the masters of a nation know how to make it their nest. It is in part because top Nazis were promoted as great minds in the 1950s, that we now enjoy ever worse political choices, as our masters succeeded to change our very values deep down inside.


Space And The Nazis:

The Saturn V program made the Apollo landings possible. The head of the program was Von Braun. The program could have been led by a born US citizen, educated in the USA. Instead, top Nazis were chosen in a leading role, and it was known with 100% certainty, as early as Spring 1945, that those individuals were major criminals

SS-Sturmbannführer (Major) Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun was a Prussian aristocrat (as the “Freiherr Von” label indicates). Most Prussian aristocrats did not like the Nazis, and very few enrolled in the SS. Yes, less than one million individuals served in the SS. The SS was recognized, after the war, by the Allies, as a criminal organization. In the state of Alabama alone, at least 118 top US space program engineers were Nazis. Many of them, as Von Braun, in the SS. They directed personally the extermination of dozens of thousands of slave laborers (in their drive to build “revenge weapons”).

Right, the Nazi, Russian, US, French Chinese rocket programs were developed for military reason (after 1942, rockets had been brutally efficient in WWII, against ships, planes and troops; it became clear that top military needed the best rockets). However, the usage of rocketry in the military happened thanks to the Mongols, even before the inventions of field guns by southern French.

The State Of The Art French Vulcain Hydrogen-Oxygen Engine Lifting This Ariane V, And Actually The Entire Rocket, Was Developed Without Any Nazi Help

The State Of The Art French Vulcain Hydrogen-Oxygen Engine Lifting This Ariane V, And Actually The Entire Rocket, Was Developed Without Any Nazi Help


Von Braun developed the V2.

The first V2s were fired on Paris (some hours later by some hit London). The V2 was the first ballistic missile. It could get out of the atmosphere, and reach Mach 5. Von Braun had pushed for a rocket to bomb New York with, and sang of the charms of orbital warfare (the US Space Shuttle had huge wings to go sideways and help wage nuclear war).

Several French slave-prisoners testified that they witnessed Von Braun’s personally oversight the abuse, torture, terrorization, and the extermination of dozens of thousands of slave workers. The Dark Side was strong in the “charismatic” Von Braun. (An Internet lie is that von Braun donned his black death head SS uniform just once. Not so, said former colleagues and witnesses.).

In a just world, and for future reference, Von Braun should have been executed 100 times. Instead his agents went to the moon. And his face to Time magazine’s cover. He rose to the top of NASA, and got the National Medal of Science (although rocket “science” is not really “science”, but technology). 

A Hero For Our Times. SS Major Von Braun On Cover, 12 Years After He Commanded the Extermination of Dozens of Thousands Of Slaves

A Hero For Our Times. SS Major Von Braun On Cover, 12 Years After He Commanded the Extermination of Dozens of Thousands Of Slaves

Thus a main motivation of the space program was by and from the Dark Side. It is neither bad, nor good. Just a fact to keep front and central: it plays in all ways.

Admittedly, not having enough of the Dark Side can lead to slumber. The Ariane V rocket was developed by Europe (mostly France and Germany). It is human rated (that is safe enough for launching people). However the European (mostly French Dassault) shuttle, the Hermes, was never launched. Why? Europe does not have enough of the Dark Side (differently from Brexiting Britain, the US, Russia, or the PRC).  

The USA tends to be motivated by war best (because, historically, war has been a mostly win-win proposition for the English colony in North America) . After getting to the Moon, beating the USSR (whose Big Rocket exploded spectacularly), the US public did not find space exploration appealing. It did not help that the McCarthyist Nixon, then president, selected the incomparably dumb Space Shuttle as the new US space effort.


Was It Technologically Necessary To Involve The Nazis In The US Space Program? No!

The involvement of Nazis in the US space program was opportunistic, but it could have been avoided. Indeed the top expert of liquid fuel rocketry was not German, but a US citizen, American physicist Robert H. Goddard.

Before 1939, German engineers and rocket scientists contacted Goddard directly with technical questions. As Von Braun said in 1963: His rockets … may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.”. Von Braun used Goddard’s plans from various journals and incorporated them into the building of the Aggregat (A) series of rockets.

Thus the US could have developed rockets without any Nazi help. Several important components of the US space program (such as the rockets of the Mercury and Gemini programs, which launched the first Americans in orbit) were 100% American.

Another proof that Nazis were unnecessary? The most sophisticated rocket in the West is the Ariane V (it launches most of the mass of the geostationary satellites, and is scheduled to launch NASA’s James Webb telescope, the successor of Hubble). Ariane V has mastered the very difficult  hydrogen-oxygen propulsion system (in its latest version a stop and go hydrogen engine is developed, with laser ignition).

All this state of the art French rocketry was mastered without any Nazi help.


Glorifying Nazis Like Von Braun Was Part Of The (Deliberately Subconscious) Nazification of the US:

Let’s go back to that Time cover. Why the glorification of a major Nazi criminal? I confess that I used to admire Von Braun too. I was a victim of pernicious propaganda, like hundreds of millions of others. Although coming from a family of “Justs” (de facto: saving 100 Jews qualifies in my opinion, although some official woman I wrote too told me to get lost, something I found rather strange…) on one side and an authentic anti-Nazi warrior on the other, I cannot let it pass…

So what was behind the glorification of Nazis? Well, the implicit glorification of many of Nazism ways and means. This had started by adopting the SS motto: “God With Us” (Gott Mit Uns), and morphing it into “In God we trust” (not to be confused with my personal motto: ‘In God we thrust’).

Mostly, by glorifying Von Braun, one of the most mass criminal of the major Nazis, the American Deep State, or its collective subconscious habituated the American public to overlook massive war criminality. Good things happen to plutocrats who rig the conceptual debate.

Nazification of the American psyche by mitigation of major crimes against humanity, by presenting one of the worst perpetrators as a saint for the space age would all blossom later. Not just with the Vietnam War. Not just with the will of destroying Iraq (the Bush-Clinton-Bush signature achievement).


No. In the end, what the American Deep State and its propaganda machine imprinted in the minds of the gullible was that it was OK to use some of the worst criminals ever, as long as it was opportunistic. So using hordes of Nazis provided some advantage, so let’s use them. In other words, opportunism rules, even if it means rewarding crimes against humanity.

And what was the advantage? As I said, overlooking the commission of major crimes. And even, to brandish top Nazis as great heroes, fit for unabashed worship. And this is exactly why the US presidential elections now pits a most corrupt plutocrat against a pretty stupid plutocrat.

More generally, the unabashed rule of the financial plutocracy, a form of mass criminality of the type which gives rise to massively unequal society and a new tyranny could be inaugurated under Bill Clinton (by repelling FDR’s “Banking Act of 1933”, so-called “Glass Steagall”).

To this day nobody has noticed, not any more than the colossal jump in incarceration of minorities, under Bill Clinton was noticed by the same minorities, which adore him, because he plays the saxophone with them.

Why all the blindness? People had been trained to not notice major ethical breaches. Let alone trained to expect not to see them punished. Thus, the same financial plutocracy, or at least the same mood of said financial plutocracy, which made the Nazis possible (contemplate Dr. Schacht, a creature of top world banker, JP Morgan), are now in the driver’s seat. Who said space and it rocket scientists did not impact the bottom line?

For tyrants to rule, terror and torture are not enough. One needs to control the mood of the slaves. And the way to do this can be subtle.

Michelle Obama recently said that:”If they go low, go high” (and everybody has lauded this recycling of the building principle of the European Union, which consists into “sortir par le haut”, finding a way out by going high… and which worked fine until the UK government sabotaged it). To exit by the top works, except if all values have been inverted. In particular if the notion of high is admiring some of the most cruel masters the world has ever known. Go back to that Time Magazine cover, typical of the times: the most glorious “rocket scientist” was one of the most towering criminal against humanity ever known. And that was on purpose, to make the Dark Side in its most evil aspect, most glorious.

A job obviously well done: please enjoy the present US election, where evil and infamy mock fight each other to death by hurling sex accusations, and the like. While plutocrats, the world over, enjoy caviar topped by gold leaf, silently chuckling, sailing the oceans of dark, undetectable money that their political servants made possible. It all started with flaunting major war criminals as those who incarnated the future. Here it is.

Patrice Ayme’

CONQUEST Of England, 950 Years Ago: End of Slavery, Birth of Modern Democracy

October 16, 2016

The BATTLE OF HASTINGS, WON By The FRANKS 950 YEARS AGO: Outlawing Slavery, Jump Starting Democracy

How did British democracy arise? With the exact opposite maneuver from Brexit. What is the opposite of Brit-exit? Frank-in. And when William the Conqueror, came in, conquered-in, he did not just bring, but enforced a more advanced civilization, and much more, a process to self-feed democracy.

The ascent of Britain, blossoming into the edge of world civilization is a long story which started well before Caesar’s two landings in England. The mighty, yet disorganized Celtic civilization had been divided into a diversity of a bewildering obfuscation (fostered by the Druids) of countless small units: Gaul had 60 nations, with 60 central banks, senates and three languages. Roman organization put an end to that non-sense, and Gaul came out much stronger, wealthier and more intelligent (the Druids cultivated stupidity, by outlawing written expression, except among themselves).

The collapse of the Roman state brought an even greater mess to Britain, while the continent got reorganized under the Franks’ Lex Salica (see chapter inside the essay on Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood). The reconquest of England by the Franks under the command of a Roman duke of Normandy added a whole new layer of complexity in the subtilty of government. It is William’s Conquest, a conquest by a plurality, and the most advanced principles, which instigated the rise of the world’s most advanced democracy, protected, as it was thereafter, by the insular nature of Britain (whereas the rest of the Roman empire, on the other side of the Channel, fell in ever worse divisions sheared from ever mightier armies).

After its conquest under Claudius, a Roman emperor born in Lyon (Lugdunum), Britannia was unified and pacified for more than four centuries. However budget cuts by the theologically minded plutocrats who ruled Rome around 400 CE, led to the withdrawal of the legions (which constituted the core of the crack field armies of the empire). Local Roman militia was unable to repel waves of invasion of determined Angles and Saxons in the next two centuries. Finally British forces retreated towards Wales or took refuge in what came to be known as Brittany (formerly Armorica, the large western peninsula of France advancing in the Atlantic). Then the Viking came, overrunning much of England, and all of Ireland.

By the Eleventh Century, the king ruling England, Edward the Confessor, had no direct descendant. (His earlier life had been astoundingly full of battles and unlikely events; suffices to say he was the seventh son of his father, from his second wife, Emma of Normandy who ended up marrying a Viking invader, Cnut, who conveniently executed some of Edward’s half brothers. Edward spent many years in exile in Normandy (and acted accordingly: Edward could see that Frankish civilization was superior). 

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue

William The Conqueror Territories In Red, That Of Some Of His Other Frankish Allies, in Blue (Poitou, Anjou, Flanders) or Green (Bretagne)

The Reconquista Of Britannia By A Dux Of The Roman Empire:

The reconquest of Britannia by a Roman Dux was no accident: five centuries after being overrun by the Angles and Saxons, the British Isles were more of a wasteland than ever, as waves of Viking sloshed all over. It was high time for re-establishing civilization. Only force can re-establish civilization (a theme of mine). William would apply overwhelming force, in the service of the most advanced civilization anywhere. And it worked splendidly: the progress he launched became self-feeding, and promoted peace. Indeed, after William’s conquest, except for a victorious Dutch invasion in 1688 CE (with the objective of defeating France’s dictator, Louis XIV), England would never be conquered again. 

The closest relative of king Edward the Confessor was the Norman Dux (“Dux”, Duc, Duke, was a Roman military title of the Late Empire: a Dux was the superior military officer of a large province, only subject to command from the Emperor himself). More exactly, Edward was the grandson of the maternal uncle of William the Conqueror. The accession of William to the ducal throne had been difficult because his father had died in Nicea (Anatolia), when William was seven years old. William’s mother was his father’s mistress, an independent business woman who then married somebody else. However, Dukes of Normandy were often “illegitimate”, and there is no doubt that his father intended William to be Duke (he made his vassals take an oath of obedience to his son, before leaving for the crusade, over his family’s objections).

By the age of 23, the battle tested William was the uncontested Duke of Normandy, and Edward was back, overlording an English realm streaked by Viking raids. Thus, in 1051 CE, Edward selected William as heir (no doubt feeling that Britain needed to be reintegrated in the Roman ensemble, for its own good as it indeed turned out). In 1064 CE, a top officer of Edward, Harold, showed up in Normandy, helped William wage war in Brittany, and told him that he, Harold, would support his claim to the throne (at least that is what Normand discrediting propaganda claimed at the time).

On January 5, 1066, Edward died and Harold, treacherously, took power as king of England. Many other claimants and grandees were not happy, and a complicated war started, with four parties involved.

However William was an official Duke of the Roman empire, had been named future king 15 years prior, and thus William was the only one with real legitimacy, and enormous clout (but making William king meant that Britain was reintegrating the Roman empire! And thus who thrived from the mess were going to suffer). Indeed, consent of Pope Alexander II for the invasion was obtained, and a Papal banner was flown by William. The Roman emperor also gave consent. On top of this, William was an extremely experienced military leader, used to command in the Roman imperator tradition (namely ready to execute miscreants as needed). William had been at war since age 8. And he was now 38 years old.

An enormous fleet was built, 3,000 ships it has been said. It sailed from the Somme river, once intelligence informed William that Harold’s army had been removed from the Channel and was battling in the north.

William led an army greatly composed of contingents under the direct command of many French barons who were not his vassals. In particular William’s forces comprised Breton, Anjou, Poitou armies (which made the left wing at the Hastings battle, commanded by Alan the Red, a relative of the Comte de Bretagne) and a French, Picardy, Flanders army (which made the right wing at Hastings, and was commanded by the Count of Boulogne, who was severely wounded in the pursuit of the Anglo-Saxon forces).


That two-third of William’s army was made of Frankish allies not his vassals was of great consequence: his non-vassal allies would shortly enforce upon the king the MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM, the Great Charter of Liberty.

During the battle, William’s left wing, the Breton army at some point cracked and fled, and was pursued by Harold’s forces, led by two of his brothers. That stretching of the enemy in the open enabled William’s cavalry to surprise and destroy them. The Normans feigned retreat twice more, to expose Harold’s army to cavalry (Harold had no cavalry, and no archers, William had both). William engineered attacks after attacks, changing strategy repeatedly, and had several horses killed under him. In the end, Harold was killed, some say by William himself (that Harold was killed by an arrow is apparently a later legend which arose when the Bayeux tapestry was misinterpreted).

The war was not finished.  English clergy and aristocrat nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king to replace Howard (whose body William had ordered thrown in the sea). To win the war, William instigated reforms right away.

William changed England in many ways. For example he was partly financed by Jewish financiers and brought rich Jews from Rouen to foster lending in England (an activity forbidden to Christians with Christians, but allowed from Jews to Christians). Thus William introduced Judaism to England (so Jews were not always victimized by it did not exist prior to that there).

William had made church reforms in Normandy. He extended them to England, and replaced English clergy by Normand clergy. William also enforced all the laws passed by Edward the Confessor (the preceding English king, who had spent most of his formative years in Normandy, thanks to William’s family, and much of his life, and had made his relative William his heir). Some laws protected especially the “Frenchmen who had come with William to England”, as one would expect after a conquest. But William went much further.


William The Conqueror’s Laws Created A New Polity And New Civilization:

William introduced ten major new laws. The first made Christianism the official religion (exit the pagan gods).

William’s second law made all Englishmen take a direct, personal oath of loyalty to the king, as if they were soldiers in the Roman army. Those who did not take the oath would not be considered to be freemen. The oath had to be witnessed by many. That was a very significant advance: prior to this, citizens did not have to take an oath of loyalty (only the Roman soldiers had to, except for a few years under Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius around 308 CE).

All problems have to be solved in court, ordered William. Non-attendees were heavily fined, up to the amount of the charge against them.

The final two laws passed by William were stunning:

No man is allowed to sell another man. Anyone breaking this law will pay a fine to the king.” This law outlawed slavery in England. 20% of the population had been enslaved under Harold. William, as a Roman Dux, had to implement the Lex Salica’s most prominent feature, the one that distinguished it more saillantly from Justinian’s refurbishing of Roman Law, was the interdiction of slavery. It is also on that law that the prosperity of the “Renovated Roman Empire” rested. Britain had been reunited with the empire (although, it was implicitly intimated that it never left).

No one shall be executed for crimes they have committed; but if they are guilty of a crime, they will be blinded and castrated. This law is not to be challenged.” Outlawing the death penalty was very much a world first. (Although the EU has outlawed the death penalty, the USA still uses it, 950 years later.)


Outlawing Slavery Was Not Just Frankish Law, But An Essential Part of William’s Power Grab

As a Dux of the Roman empire, William had to implement (Franco-)Roman law. Slavery had been made unlawful by the (English-born) Queen Bathilde of the Franks in 650 CE. Later the Franks conquered most of Western Europe, including the British isles and the part of Iberian and Italian peninsulas still held by the Muslims. The outlawing of slavery by the Franks was extended to these liberated territories where Roman rule was re-imposed.

In turn, the outlawing of slavery no doubt facilitated this Roman reconquest. For example, the 20% of Englishmen who found themselves to be “freemen” as long as they took a loyalty oath to William were no doubt enthusiastic supporters of William.


Frenchmen, and French

In the following centuries, many powerful French characters and adventurers in England, would try to preserve their power, or try to seize power, and would push for various democratic reforms limiting the power of the king. Out of that came the Magna Carta Libertatum (the descendants of the allies of William wanted to keep the powers William had conferred to them, that of allies, not vassals), the power of Parliament (Lancastre hoped to be elected king through Parliament, so he boosted its power; Lancastre was killed on the battlefield, but his reforms stayed). And so on.

Ever since William’s conquest, France and England have been entangled (although intellectual life on both sides of the Channel had been entangled for two millennia already: Druids would study in Wales, Saint Patrick was educated in Cannes, Anti-slavery queen of the Franks Bathide was from Kent, Alcuin, Charlemagne’s main PM and philosopher was English).

The reason for thinking otherwise, that England and France have serious differences (instead of being family), was the dictatorial drift under the fanatical Jihadist tyrant Louis XIV, while England went the other way, towards more democracy. Democracy brings power, dictatorship, weakness. The result was that France became weaker and England blossomed into a superpower. In the (world) wars of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Year War, and the Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars, a haggard France was defeated and more subtly plutocratic England became a world empire.  

It is the mess of more distributed power which rendered England ever more democratic. Whereas in France, the emperor-in-his-own-kingdom (that was the official expression!) Philippe-Auguste (literally: the lover of horses who augments!) colluded with the Pope to destroy the (quasi-republican) giant County of Toulouse (which was ruled under a Count, but mostly by Parliament).

However, moods perdure. Lancastre, one of those who exploited Toulouse got there the idea of using Parliament as a weapon against the king, and implemented the idea in England.

Intelligence is greater, the greater the ability to detect, distinguish, identify & imagine (knowledge, distinctions, equations & allusions).

Contemplating history shows that reason is not linear, but a web. And guess what? Quantum Theory says the same, and it has a name, entanglement. This is an entangled world, and to reveal it, one has to reveal its implicit order. It arises from occurrences. By building one’s neurology while missing the most important occurrences in the world pertaining to it, one risks becoming stupid. 

Patrice Ayme’.   


Noble? Or Opportunistic? Dylan’s Nobel

October 14, 2016

Did That Prince of The PC Establishment, Bob Dylan, Deserve the Nobel? Maybe, But…

I liked Bob Dylan’s music for decades. Too bad so much of it is marred by his often terrible voice. I did not pay attention to his writing, with the exception of “Hurricane” (below), which I praised and “Like A Rollingstone”, which I view as well deserved compendium of sexual jealousy and deplorable hateful resentment. So now Dylan has a Nobel in literature, the US PC establishment rises, stronger than ever before, as if it knew how to write better than anybody else in the entire world. Hey, the killer with the great suits in the White House thinks so. So what does that mean with the state of the world? More confused than ever?


The Elite Is Transnational, And Sweden Nothing Much Without the US:

The permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius, confided that while it had “not been a difficult decision”, she ‘hoped’ the academy would not be criticised for its choice, as Dylan “created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”. America never stopped being a great song. Something is going on, but we don’t know what it is. Do you, Ms. Danius? Let me help you, with a few allusions about that elite which feeds you so well.

The tall and good looking Sara has a PhD from Duke University (and also one from Uppsala U.). Duke is what I call a plutocratic university. Why? Tuition at Duke for graduate study is $52,995 (in 2016). That’s more than the median family after tax income in the USA. Such hefty fees prevent the attendance of anyone who is not part of the elite, or loved by the elite. What a joke of a democracy!

Let me explain a bit more: its colossal tuition, means that the people attending Duke University have a special connection with the elite (Ms Danius got somebody in the Swedish-American power circles to pay for her attendance at Duke, somebody who invested a third of a million dollars, and somebody which she now rewards with great lip service, among other services, maybe even a Nobel, Pluto knows, I don’t, but I can guess).

How to thank the elite for their dinero, indeed? It could simply be with the eagerness to serve said elite. As Ms. Danius was processed through Duke, she learned the proper attitude to have, relative to, and in service of, the powers that be. Same as her hero, Bob Dylan. Talk big, carry a celery stick for a weapon, and get entangled with the elite big time, complete with honoring each other as if there would be no tomorrow.

So the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy is another great bridge between great America and Politically Correct, rape obsessed, Sweden (Sweden has officially twice the rape rate of any other country; whichever way one looks at it, it says something about the country… and especially the pride Swedes experience from that number alone: hey, it had imprisoned that critique of “great America”, Julian Assange, for five years now on obviously fake rape charges allegations).


Dylan Is A Pillar Of The Domineering PC Establishment:

One could say Dylan invented the genre. And has been that way, nearly since his inception (the singer-composer got his first public award in 1963, and proceeded to insult the audience at the award in an ageist fashion). Dylan did not get just the Pulitzer, he invented a whole new way of making American Politics Correct: protest against the “Masters of War”, in the abstract, but not against the Iraq invasion, in practice, and let them embrace your neck. 

US Establishment Deserves Nobels, According to Itself

Three US Nobels Congratulate Each Other On Their Good Fortune, And We Are Supposed to Adulate The Product Of Their Thought Processes.

[Dylan getting Medal of Freedom from Nobel Obama, While Nobel Novelist Morrison applauds, and Astronaut-Senator John Glenn watches.]

Funny picture, is it not? It was made 800 years, to the day, after the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedom). The Magna Carta was in particular supposed to prevent the king from doing whatever caught his fancy, including killing people at will… A right which Obama conferred to himself, for the whole planet to see, and meditate.

Bob Dylan is so much the establishment that the servant of our masters, the Clintons, are his spiritual babies: all for the few, nothing for the rest, under the guise of total Political Correctness, only second to Stalin’s (amusingly, Dylan, version December 1963, agreed that politics was down in the gutter, and that he “saw something of himself in Lee Harvey Oswald”, as he put it pedagogically, a few weeks after president Kennedy’s assassination).

Sara Danius, the noble Nobel giver: “We hoped the news would be received with joy, but you never know.” She compared the work of the American songwriter to the works of Homer and Sappho. Indeed, many writers were positively irate after the announcement, and proclaimed the Swedish Nobel elite had ridiculized itself.

Sara:We’re really giving it to Bob Dylan as a great poet – that’s the reason we awarded him the prize. He’s a great poet in the great English tradition, stretching from Milton and Blake onwards. And he’s a very interesting traditionalist, in a highly original way. Not just the written tradition, but also the oral one; not just high literature, but also low literature.”

It is not just “America” which is great, it is England too. Anglo-Saxonia, ever greater, and keep that Ecuadorian embassy, with Assange locked up inside, under close supervisionLow literature? What is that? Babies surrounded with wild wolves? (See below!) Salman Rushdie opined that : ‘Dylan towers over everyone‘.  Well, at least he is not boring like Salman.

Something is going on, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Rushdie? Well the work of “Homer” (there may have been more than one Homer) comprises 270,000 words, whereas at (say) 200 words average for 500 songs, Dylan’s work is around 100,000 words long (less than a tenth of the work of yours truly). However, much of it is very repetitive. After all, Dylan’s work is music, namely rhythm… But that means the fresh ideas are not that thick on planet Dylan.  


Beyond Dylan, It Is Rock & Roll Which Is Honored:

In 1967 the Rolling Stones played in the Polish capital, beyond the Iron Curtain. Local press compared that to a :hurricane”. Displeased by the elite of the regime’s youth in the front rows, protected by police officers, covering their ears from being damaged by the Stones’ wall of sound, Keith Richards used his mike to abuse the elite:

“You fucking lot! You can fucking get out and let the bastards in the back down front!”

Mick Jagger ate, chewed and spat out a bucket of flowers, and made constant obscene gestures towards the police cordon and the front row elite. The insolent behavior of the Stones turned most of the crowd in the back red hot with approval. Outside a battle between the crowd and the police erupted. The police state got severely disrupted.

The Stones made no money from playing on the other side of the Iron Curtain: they just wanted to disrupt. And so it was, not just in the East, but also in the West. In the 1960s, rock and roll was highly discombobulating for the established order. The Stones’ apocalyptic Gimme Shelter and Sympathy for the Devil shook the souls deep down inside. So did Dylan:

Dylan’s A Hard Rain:  

“Oh, what did you see, my blue eyed son?

And what did you see, my darling young one?

I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it

I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it

I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin’

I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin’

I saw a white ladder all covered with water

I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken

I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children

And it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard, and it’s a hard

It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.”

Stones’ Gimme Shelter, written a few years later:

“Oh, a storm is threat’ning My very life today If I don’t get some shelter Oh yeah, I’m gonna fade away

War, children, it’s just a shot away…Ooh, see the fire is sweepin’ Our very street today Burns like a red coal carpet

Mad bull lost its way

War, children, it’s just a shot away… Rape, murder! It’s just a shot away… Rape, murder yeah!”

The music of Gimme Shelter is superlative, a Ninth Symphony for the Twentieth Century.  Just as good, or better, than the best of Dylan. And there are a few striking ideas there, and in songs such as “Paint It Black“. So a music Nobel for the Rolling Stones? Yeah. A literature Nobel? No.

All this disruption is now mainstream, perfectly synchronized with the global, tax-free, financially towering, Clintonian elite (Wikileaks just showed Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs give Hillary advice, or orders, about what to do with Iran… and Obama obeyed!) Yesterday’s disruption, now mainstream, needed to be rewarded. And who is the most rewardable? Clearly, the one most honorable in Rock & Roll is Bob Dylan. Dylan was already part of the establishment by 1963, as we saw above, when he and Joan Baez were the object of a cult. Soft, whiny PC singing: nothing like it. After all, the Nazis had “Lili Marlene“:

“Outside the barracks, by the corner light
I’ll always stand and wait for you at night
We will create a world for two
I’ll wait for you the whole night through
For you, Lili Marlene
For you, Lili Marlene…

Bugler tonight don’t play the call to arms
I want another evening with her charms…
When we are marching in the mud and cold
And when my pack seems more than I can hold
My love for you renews my might
I’m warm again, my pack is light
It’s you, Lili Marlene
It’s you, Lili Marlene”


Philosophy Is Elevated By Songs, That Is Nothing New:

Neuronal circuitry is established by repetition (Hebbian mechanism). Songs are repetitions full of repetitions. Thus their importance to imprint young children with ideas, and emotional systems.  

Cato the Elder wanted to destroy Carthage. So, at the end of any of his discourses in the Roman Senate, on any subject, he would end with:”Carthago delenda est.” (We must destroy Carthage.) It worked. Sheer repetition works, it hammer the words, hence the meaning. This is what songs do, and why children are so thrilled by songs, as they learned from them what is important, with aforesaid hammering.

The colossal Middle Age philosopher Abelard was immensely famous in his times for his philosophical teachings from the Notre Dame Cathedral School (Soon to be renamed as a “University”) (OK, )  But he was even more popular, throughout Europe, for his songs (the tradition of top singing from Notre Dame would last centuries, and had a huge influence on music).

I long thought that “literature”, per se, is all too often despicable. It’s just something for airport people who are not really interesting. I mean, look out there, at this astounding world! Most novelists and their novels say nothing of it. I t’s not just that they don’t know Quantum Theory, but they love to rehash Conventional Wisdom, especially around the terrible world war of 1914-1945. Thus they have nothing to contribute in the way of new ideas of important significance.

Thus it is a breath of fresh air to give the Nobel to somebody who made so many think, out of the small little boxes they use for repeating what they heard, without considering what it means.

It is no accident that Dylan is opening for the Rolling Stones at the Desert Trip festival, while said Stones made a magnificent, majestic version of John Lennon’s “Come Together”: Hillary Clinton’s motto is “Stronger Together”. To make that link a bit clearer, Pink Floyd’s Waters floated a giant pig above the audience, with Trump’s face accompanied with the words “Ignorant, lying, racist, sexist pig.” Just to make sure, giant letters flashed across the big screen reading “Trump is a pig.” I am sure the millions of unemployed workers from Clinton’s era (past, present and future) were not in the audience, so it was rather safe. Just  as it was safe for Jagger’s tax status to campaign for Brexit (only the EU is unsafe).

“Desert Trip” put together Dylan, opening for the Stones, Neil Young, opening for and with McCartney, and Roger Waters and The Who. Official ticket prices for “Desert Trip” started at $500 and went up above $1,500  Only the wealthy and the clueless underclass can afford to be Politically Correct nowadays. OK, the elite can give each other Nobel Prizes and make, as the Clintons did, 250 million dollars out of what is clearly, legal political corruption. Many things are legal, for the wealthy. The kind of Roger Waters generally enjoy perfectly legal tax havens’ part residency. Roger Waters is a socialist who loves Switzerland’s towering walls (he, or at least his tax base long resided there, before the rise of Dark Money under Obama has made the whole issue moot: the hyper rich can perfectly well escape taxation, as Apple Inc. does, and the White House will probably give you the Nobel Prize for it, and then fine a European bank to death, as the cherry on the cake).


Some of Dylan’s poetry hit right in the middle of what needs to be considered: Basically the opposite of the sex accusations laden US political campaign.

Blowin’ in the Wind, Bob Dylan:

How many roads must a man walk down

Before you call him a man?

How many seas must a white dove sail

Before she sleeps in the sand?

Yes, and how many times must the cannonballs fly

Before they’re forever banned?

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind

The answer is blowin’ in the wind

Yes, and how many years can a mountain exist

Before it’s washed to the sea?

Yes, and how many years can some people exist

Before they’re allowed to be free?

Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head

And pretend that he just doesn’t see?

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind

The answer is blowin’ in the wind

Well, cannonballs have flown since they were used by the (southern) French in the “Lancasterian” phase of the “100 Year War”. They will be banned only when they have been replaced by more potent weapons (such as the drones Obama ordered around to kill and maim). The winds of history shear through human destinies as self-devouring hurricanes.

Bob Dylan is no giant philosopher. He fails the honesty test. “I’m only Bob Dylan when I have to be.” He puts a  “Bob Dylan mask on,” he admitted to a Halloween crowd during a show in 1964. Asked who he was the rest of the time, Dylan sighed: “Myself.”

However, as a political philosopher, Dylan played an important role.“Hurricane” is not just fabulous music, put excellent politically, thus, in practical philosophy.


Pistols shots ring out in the barroom night

Enter Patty Valentine from the upper hall

She sees the bartender in a pool of blood

Cries out “My God they killed them all”

Here comes the story of the Hurricane

The man the authorities came to blame

For something that he never done

Put him in a prison cell but one time he could-a been

The champion of the world.

Three bodies lying there does Patty see

And another man named Bello moving around mysteriously

“I didn’t do it” he says and he throws up his hands

“I was only robbing the register I hope you understand

I saw them leaving” he says and he stops

“One of us had better call up the cops”

And so Patty calls the cops

And they arrive on the scene with their red lights flashing

In the hot New Jersey night.

Meanwhile far away in another part of town

Rubin Carter and a couple of friends are driving around

Number one contender for the middleweight crown

Had no idea what kinda shit was about to go down

When a cop pulled him over to the side of the road

Just like the time before and the time before that

In Patterson that’s just the way things go

If you’re black you might as well not shown up on the street

‘Less you wanna draw the heat.

Alfred Bello had a partner and he had a rap for the corps

Him and Arthur Dexter Bradley were just out prowling around

He said “I saw two men running out they looked like middleweights

They jumped into a white car with out-of-state plates”

And Miss Patty Valentine just nodded her head

Cop said “Wait a minute boys this one’s not dead”

So they took him to the infirmary

And though this man could hardly see

They told him that he could identify the guilty men.

Four in the morning and they haul Rubin in

Take him to the hospital and they bring him upstairs

The wounded man looks up through his one dying eye

Says “Wha’d you bring him in here for ? He ain’t the guy !”

Yes here comes the story of the Hurricane

The man the authorities came to blame

For something that he never done

Put in a prison cell but one time he could-a been

The champion of the world.

Four months later the ghettos are in flame

Rubin’s in South America fighting for his name

While Arthur Dexter Bradley’s still in the robbery game

And the cops are putting the screws to him looking for somebody to blame

“Remember that murder that happened in a bar ?”

“Remember you said you saw the getaway car?”

“You think you’d like to play ball with the law ?”

“Think it might-a been that fighter you saw running that night ?”

“Don’t forget that you are white”.


Arthur Dexter Bradley said “I’m really not sure”

Cops said “A boy like you could use a break

We got you for the motel job and we’re talking to your friend Bello

Now you don’t wanta have to go back to jail be a nice fellow

You’ll be doing society a favor

That sonofabitch is brave and getting braver

We want to put his ass in stir

We want to pin this triple murder on him

He ain’t no Gentleman Jim”.

Rubin could take a man out with just one punch

But he never did like to talk about it all that much

It’s my work he’d say and I do it for pay

And when it’s over I’d just as soon go on my way

Up to some paradise

Where the trout streams flow and the air is nice

And ride a horse along a trail

But then they took him to the jailhouse

Where they try to turn a man into a mouse.


All of Rubin’s cards were marked in advance

The trial was a pig-circus he never had a chance

The judge made Rubin’s witnesses drunkards from the slums

To the white folks who watched he was a revolutionary bum

And to the black folks he was just a crazy nigger

No one doubted that he pulled the trigger

And though they could not produce the gun

The DA said he was the one who did the deed

And the all-white jury agreed.

Rubin Carter was falsely tried

The crime was murder ‘one’ guess who testified

Bello and Bradley and they both baldly lied

And the newspapers they all went along for the ride

How can the life of such a man

Be in the palm of some fool’s hand ?

To see him obviously framed

Couldn’t help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land

Where justice is a game.

Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties

Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise

While Rubin sits like Buddha in a ten-foot cell

An innocent man in a living hell

That’s the story of the Hurricane

But it won’t be over till they clear his name

And give him back the time he’s done

Put him in a prison cell but one time he could-a been

The champion of the world.

[This song, and another six of Dylan’s songs, was co-written with Jacques Levy; funny that the one song of Dylan I appreciated the words of, was written with someone else; Carter was released from prison in 1988, after 19 years in prison.]


PC Splendid In Masters Of War:

Bob Dylan:

Come you masters of war

You that build the big guns

You that build the death planes

You that build all the bombs

You that hide behind walls

You that hide behind desks

I just want you to know

I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin’

But build to destroy

You play with my world

Like it’s your little toy

You put a gun in my hand

And you hide from my eyes

And you turn and run farther

When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old

You lie and deceive

A world war can be won

You want me to believe

But I see through your eyes

And I see through your brain

Like I see through the water

That runs down my drain

You fasten all the triggers

For the others to fire

Then you sit back and watch

When the death count gets higher

You hide in your mansion

While the young people’s blood

Flows out of their bodies

And is buried in the mud

You’ve thrown the worst fear

That can ever be hurled

Fear to bring children

Into the world

For threatening my baby

Unborn and unnamed

You ain’t worth the blood

That runs in your veins

How much do I know

To talk out of turn

You might say that I’m young

You might say I’m unlearned

But there’s one thing I know

Though I’m younger than you

That even Jesus would never

Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question

Is your money that good?

Will it buy you forgiveness

Do you think that it could?

I think you will find

When your death takes its toll

All the money you made

Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die

And your death’ll come soon

I will follow your casket

By the pale afternoon

And I’ll watch while you’re lowered

Down to your deathbed

And I’ll stand o’er your grave

‘Til I’m sure that you’re dead.

“Masters of War” is pretty good as a flow of invectives. Just “Like a Rolling Stone” is pretty good a torrent of insults and schadenfreunde. Yet “Masters of War” will slip on history, like water on a duck. Why? It is primary school philosophy. It thinks war is about money, primarily. Yet, it is not, war is a force which gives us meaning. At least to those of us who don’t make much sense otherwise. 

Nasty people do not enjoy their souls as flaws, they relish them as the treasures which make the world good. They enjoy their nasty souls, they bought them at high prices.

They know all too well, that there are no souls, only destinies, and most can be crushed to elevate the few.

Thus what we have above is mostly posing, in the greater scheme of things. Scheme, like in a conspiracy.


Is Dylan A Progressive?

The establishment want us to believe that, as it makes the establishment, which approves of Dylan, progressive too. Some will say, yes, and point at the Vietnam War. However, the Vietnam War, in the greatest scheme of things, was a conversation between the Viet Minh leadership, which the US had supported against the French. The conversation was muscular, more than three million innocent people died, the land got poisoned. And now the USA and Vietnam are allied again, as they were in 1945. Against China. It is as if nothing happened.

I did not hear Dylan any during the Iraq invasion. Or during the UN blockade organized by the Clintons in the 1990s. The great game played in the Middle Earth is completely outside of the range of usual critique (the best proof of this is that Obama, under order from the Deep State, tried his best to prevent US victims to sue the Saudis for the 9/11 attack. In this case, amusingly the Republican Congress and the Senate overwhelmed the deep state.)

Conspiracies can become so involved that nobody understands anymore, or, at least, none of the victims understands anymore, what they are about, or even suspects their existence. Undetected conspiracies are the most efficient ones. To this day, conspiracies such as the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle trio, or the plot against Caesar, have not been really condemned for what they were (in both cases, conspiracies against We The People, and that can be seen just by looking at the grossest, most elementary facts of the situation; similarly, the US attack against Afghanistan (July 3, 1979) and the Iraq invasion were, first of all, parts of a huge conspiracy to put most of the Middle Earth out of order; some will say, there was no hand-written plan; sure, it was written in the minds, in so many non-saids).

Unfortunately, in this respect, detecting the power lines of oppression and subjugation, Dylan does not seem to help much (differently from, say, a John Lennon, who would certainly have expressed himself about Iraq). Tacitly, by being such a prominent member of the establishment for so long, Dylan supports it.

And the establishment we have in straight from hell, second to none. No human establishment prior to the present one, presided over the destruction of the biosphere: we are on track for a temperature rise of three degrees centigrade, within 80 years (but all member of the establishment are happy with the situation, starting with Nobel Al Gore; do you see a pattern here? Give a Nobel, keep the establishment happy!)  

So Dylan, and all famous musicians nowadays, are as progressive as climate change: not for the better. Money, fame and power have made their souls into the pillars of what made them great in society, the establishment.

The predecessor of Ms. Sara Danius, Horace Engdahl, then permanent secretary of the Nobel prize jury commented in 2008, that “the US is too isolated, too insular. They don’t translate enough and don’t really participate in the big dialogue of literature … That ignorance is restraining.”

Funny how things change. Meanwhile the Obama years happened, Bush with a fresh coat of paint, and US plutocracy has become more powerful than ever: the world is its island. Ignorance is a strength, it helps warriors concentrate on what they know best. The very paucity of Dylan’s poetry is a strength. Ballads for thin brains. 


Math and Philosophy Nobels Needed:

There is no mathematics Nobel: Nobel’s wife had eloped with a famous mathematician. There is no philosophy Nobel: Nobel spent most of his wealthy life in France, where he came to be known as the “merchant of death”. He was not amused by such sharp criticism. Philosophy criticizes or is not. (Some philosophers got Nobels: Russell, Bergson, Camus, Sartre… But the discipline deserves its own prize, especially as it could then cover adjacent areas such as sociology, psychology, gender theory, etc.)

Sara Danius, the Nobel spokeswoman, opined that the Nobel committee wanted to give the prize to Dylan, but they wondered if they had to create a new category of Nobel Prize (!) Then she said, no, we realized that, ever since Homer, poetry was an essential part of literature. Ii is interesting to see a woman think in public, a rare spectacle (the Nobel was attributed to Zero Woman this year, confirming that this Zero (?) gender is mostly best at foiling Donald Trump; this pernicious remark of mine should not be construed as a sneaky attack against either Trump, women, or the Nobel Committee; the fact is, there is lots of sexism out there, and neither Trump nor the Nobel, nor women themselves are basal fabricating factors; greater schemes are at work).

Poetical thinking is an indispensable method of thinking. One cannot think, and not be a poet. Or then one is a Tesla, Model S (2 fatal crashes this year). The most edgy philosophy depends upon poetry like propulsion depends upon force (and therefore, all the rest of creative thinking depends upon poetry too).

So let me help the Nobel committee here:


Yes, Nobel Committee, you need to create new Nobel Prizes. A Nobel Prize in MUSIC would have been best for Dylan.

Last week the Nobel in physics was attributed. It rested on some fundamental work in mathematics, more specifically in topology (fiber bundle theory, Chern classes, etc.). I knew Chern, and he was a more important thinker than the worthies who got the Nobel. Still, as a geometer, Chern could not pretend to get the Nobel. Thus the worthiest was not rewarded. Not just the worthiest individual (Chern’s life was rewarded enough), but the worthiest field. The occult masses don’t know what topology and differential geometry are, and that absence of knowledge makes them more stupid than they would be otherwise.

This is the first time, but not the last that fundamental work in mathematics and logic has an enormous impact on society: the work in LOGIC of the famous topologist Brouwer, is applied every single time someone uses a machine distributing money or other goodies.

It is not that I am anxious that some celebrity gets a prize. By giving highly visible prizes, one makes a field famous. Brouwer, famous for his Fixed Point theorem, went at mathematics with a hammer, and rejected much of the infinite obsession other mathematicians had. That was excellent for the computer, which cannot handle the infinite well (I am even worse that way, as I am what one should call an ultra-finitist).

By making famous fields which otherwise would stay ignored, one promotes the Open Mind without which the Open Society would not be.

So, yes the Nobel Committee should create prizes in: Logic, Mathematics and Philosophy. Similarly, the prizes in Biology and Medicine should be split (just like physics and chemistry are distinct, although often the works and certainly the fields, overlap). Maybe the Nobel organization has probably not enough money to do so. Then one should not have to attribute the prizes every year (sometimes, Nobel prizes were not attributed, for cause of World War).

I disagree with the novelists who were irate about giving the Nobel to Dylan, found that ridiculous. Maybe their work is ridiculous. (However, maybe there are excellent poet and writers out there, unjustly discriminating against by an all too discriminating Nobel committee, little do I know.)

It’s good to see a new genre be rewarded. Someday a pure Internet author will get the Nobel. Meanwhile, the Swedish Academy may want to look at science-fiction more carefully. As far as I can tell, there are more ideas there than in airport novels, and novels about East Coast low lives.


All Along the Watchtower

Bob Dylan

There must be some kind of way outta here

Said the joker to the thief

There’s too much confusion

I can’t get no relief

Business men, they drink my wine

Plowman dig my earth

None were level on the mind

Nobody up at his word

Hey, hey

No reason to get excited

The thief he kindly spoke

There are many here among us

Who feel that life is but a joke

But, uh, but you and I, we’ve been through that

And this is not our fate

So let us stop talkin’ falsely now

The hour’s getting late, hey

All along the watchtower

Princes kept the view

While all the women came and went

Barefoot servants, too

Outside in the cold distance

A wildcat did growl

Two riders were approaching

And the wind began to howl

The establishment deserves all the prizes it can get. At least that is how it nurtures the respect for itself which feeds it supremacy.

Yes, the thief does not want us to believe he talks falsely. There is no way, but some kind of joke outta there. The hurricanes of a vengeful Earth will soon howl us all to shreds, we are lorded over by thieves all along the watchtower. Prizes are given to princes, while barefoot servants dare deplore the death of pathetic hope. Can’t low lives just look up to dreams they are unworthy of? Instead of clinging to their guns, their insults, and their pain?

Ultimately, the beat goes on, and the beaten fades away, even as an objection or a murmur.

OK, let’s finish on a positive note. I attacked fiercely the barely disguised human sacrifice religion known as Abrahamism, the Judeo-Christo-Islamism, which is not satisfied with killing people, but civilization itself. That Muslims worship to this day the  willingness of a man to kill his son to satisfy his superior’s mania. I think that is ultimately repugnant, and it explains much of the murderous of Judeo-Christo-Islamism. My point of view is not funny, it is that of a severe critic. Yet Dylan is smarter than me here, from some angle, as he turns the whole mania into a joke:

“Highway 61 Revisited
Written by: BOB DYLAN
Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61””

Well, F God, indeed.

Patrice Ayme’  

FLASH CRASH Of Civilization Risked. And Why.

October 9, 2016


Are Our Idiotic Leaders Playing With Computer Fire? A Financial “Glitch” Last Week Is Most Telling: 

In the famous Terminator movie, a worldwide automated defense net takes over and launches strategic missiles all over, annihilating much of humanity and nearly all of civilization. Science-fiction? Not at all.

In 1979, the strategic command of the USA saw on its screens a Russian attack by 200 intercontinental missiles, enough to annihilate the USA. There were only minutes to launch a counter-strike. Panic ensued. Bombers were scrambled. The presidential plane took off, without the president. And so on! A smart general found that a training tape had been inserted by mistake. Alleluia! Nuclear Armageddon avoided this time.

The financial system has been riddled with “computer glitches”. Except they are not really glitches, but part of the war hyper rich financiers are waging against We The People.

Here is what happens when computers and plutocrats rule: 

In Minutes, The British Pound, Hence Great Britain, Lost Up To 8% of Its Value, Thanks To Robots In Common

Friday October 7, 2016, The British Pound, Hence Great Britain, Lost Up To 8% of Its Value, In Minutes, Thanks To Robots In Command

The robots we have put in charge do not have to respect Asimov’s First Law Of Robotics, which is that a robot should not hurt a human.

Ok, let’s give more details of this latest example, Friday October 7, 2016, as described by the Wall Street Journal:

Computers Seen as a Culprit in Pound’s Plunge

Unusual intraday move of 6% triggers concerns about automated trading

By Mike Bird and  Saumya Vaishampayan (Updated Oct. 7, 2016 6:44 p.m. ET)

LONDON—For a startling moment on Friday, the British pound crashed. In just three minutes shortly after 7 a.m. Hong Kong time, the pound sank 6% to as low as $1.18, according to Thomson Reuters data. Some electronic platforms recorded scattered trades near $1.15. For the currency markets, where moves are recorded in thousandths of a penny, it seemed that currency traders were all hiding under their desks. The most accepted scenario was that computers, not humans, were the ones that refused to buy. Coming at the most thinly traded moment of the global trading day, the latest “FLASH CRASH” once again showed how algorithmically driven trading programs have rewired the global finance game.

The pound’s gyration Friday was the second largest intraday move from its highest to lowest point in the past nine years, according to FactSet. The biggest move came when sterling swung down by as much as 11% the day after Britain’s June vote to leave the European Union.”

So why do we have hair-trigger systems all around the planet, with malevolent robots in charge?

The basic trick is this: hyper rich individuals, employing armies of physicists, mathematicians and programmers have set-up automatic systems to trade faster than individuals can. That’s called “high frequency” trading. High frequency trading is made possible by NOT taxing the sort of transactions the hyper wealthy are allowed to do. Normal people get taxed, the financially wealthy do not.

Flashback on 10,000 years of civilization: when the hyper wealthy does not get taxed, one has an aristocratic system: that is both the major cause, and major symptom.

Taxing small financial transactions would limit their speed, hence re-establish the notion of causality (that fact comes straight from knowing the fundamental physics which is deeper than the Theory of Relativity).

We are led by cretins. Russia and the USA have produced magnificent examples of complete cretins, put in command to instill deeply flawed strategies. And no, I am not just thinking of Trump, Clinton, Putin, Obama, etc.   

Let me go back on my question earlier, and generalize it a bit: Why do we have hair-trigger systems all around the planet, with malevolence in charge?

At first sight, it is because we are led by cretins, who do not see the danger. That certainly is partly true, but it’s not the whole truth: how could they be that dumb? Indeed, the danger is surely obvious, from the financial markets to nuclear war. Then what? We are led by people who do not mind the danger that they inflict to humanity and civilization, because, meanwhile they satisfy their greed, or will to power. In a way, to help engineer a giant catastrophe is surely a way to satisfy one’s ultimate will to power. As the French King Louis XV used to say:”Apres moi, le deluge” (“After me, the flood”).

An even deeper question is why did it come to this. Societies have moods. Those moods are caused by (imaginary or not) facts, habits, experiences, hopes. In the end, they influence hormones, not just in the masses, but in the individuals. Those hormones, some of them neurohormones, in turn change the logic individuals are capable of. When he was still facing some opposition inside Germany, Adolf Hitler sneered that his opponents did not matter because “we already own the youth”. Hitler knew that he had molded  the minds of German youth by creating an emotional ambiance which had turned into a mass driven hormonal, not just logical, Nazi setup. It was a case of mass procreation of Nazism.

After Thatcher and Reagan came to power, they imposed the mood that greed and the will to power was the ultimate motivation of human beings. (The Nazis were all about the will to power AND race; except “race’ does not really exist, as the Nazis found out all too soon, and the SS was forced to employ elite soldiers from all over!)

That Thatcher-Reagan-Neoconservatives mindset forsaken by humanity, propagated around the planet: France, Russia, fell to it later, with catastrophic results . That mindset focused on greed as the ultimate motivation is why Obama, a great admirer of Ronald Reagan, setup Obamacare the way he did, articulated by private companies looking for profits.

In other words, the ultimate good motivations of humanity, are supposed to be greed, and the closely related, and more general, will to power. The ultimate motivations are not supposed to be the will to care, or love. (Whereas, in truth, without love and care, there can be no humanity, to start with! Greed and the Will To Power are secondary motivations, sorry, Friedrich Nietzsche).

So here we are with more and more hair-trigger system. What is the interest of hair trigger systems, holding the entire civilization in its cross-hairs, or cross-hair systems making society ever more unjust, with some having all the power? The interest of hair-trigger systems as gods is that it tells everybody, deep down in their bones, at the deepest level of the emotional system, that greed and will to power are the ultimate good: they are worth going back to the Middle Ages, in a flash, with massive inequalities, or even back to the Stone Age (for the few survivors). Hair trigger, total destruction systems do not just celebrate will to power in its ultimate form, extermination. Having everything, from liberty, to equality, to fraternity, and even survival, at the whim of computer glitches is an expression of the will to collective suicide, and mass mayhem.

Some will say, such desire for appalling destruction is surely not an instinct? Quite the opposite. The will to appalling destruction is the ultimate human, all too human, instinct. Let me sketch the explanation. It goes deep in the bowels of evolutionary psychology, in its all too human variant, which no other animal has to that extent.

For millions of years, humanity has ruled the Earth, and increasingly so. The enemy of humanity was humanity itself, too much humanity, way too many humans. (At some point, a bit more than a million years ago, there were 14 humanoid species in East Africa alone.) To re-establish an ecological balance, humanity had to be culled. Now there are thousands of times more humans, so we need industrial means, computer glitches, nuclear war, and massive inequality.

However, understanding this will to collective suicide and mass mayhem logically will unbalance our stealthy collective subconscious, and the pernicious topology of its emotional ways. Something excellent philosophy has always done.

It goes without saying that all too traditional humanism has nothing to say about the preceding. And that is why it has become so irrelevant to what seriously matters, and why ‘progressives’ are so adrift. Humanism is not static. As technology progresses, our humanism has to become ever more subtle and powerful, just as, and because, our technology does so. Ever more power is what has defined ever more humanity, but all that ever increasing power, can only be managed with ever more intelligence.

Patrice Ayme’