“Neoliberalism” Is Neither Liberal, Nor New. Plain Old Plutocracy.

November 12, 2019

“Neoliberalism” is neither. It is not attached to liberty, but to slavery. And it is nothing new. Plutocracy is the cancer of civilizations, and kills them readily. But this time, the entire biosphere is going down.

A better name for “Neoliberalism” would be “plutophilia”, the love of the darkest passions, the love of plutocracy, which is etymologically and in reality, the rule of evil (as this is exactly what pluto-kratia means: the rule of wealth being a particular case of Pluto’s propensities).

“Neoliberalism”, was initially called “trickle down”. One of its axioms was as professor Stiglitz says: “the credibility of neoliberalism’s faith in unfettered markets as the surest road to shared prosperity[1]. However, by “markets” one really meant “merchants”.

When only a few have all the disposable cash, they have all the power, It’s not just bad for ethics, democracy and the sense of fairness we primates all share. It’s also terrible for incentive, motivation, and the blossoming of ideas.

Indeed, what is a market? Who dominates a market? Well, those with enough capital to do so. In other words, the wealthy, or those that banks have decided to lend to… typically, again, those with collateral, namely the wealthy. So the banking system, if it looks for a profit, makes the wealthy wealthier. Hence the so-called “unfettered markets” were, in truth, the unfettered wealthiest, while the fetters were put on everybody else.  

But, unfettered, wealth grows exponentially (as the wealthiest have nearly all the money and lend it, leveraged, to the wealthiest, namely themselves). 

This is exactly what happened: the wealthy got wealthier. And what is wealth? It is power onto others. So the powers of a few grew, onto most people, helped along by a government by “representatives” which learned to act in its own best interest, serving power, that is, wealth. 

“Neoliberalism” fostered, in turn, other myths, first of which was that, unfettered globalization, worldwide, was good for the Republic. Actually, globalization was a disaster: it undermined social rights and taxation. 

The most spectacular example of the disaster engineered by unfettered globalization was the Roman Republic. The Roman REPUBLIC, which lasted 5 centuries, had an absolute wealth limit. And the Roman Republic lasted 5 centuries because it had an absolute wealth limit.

One could argue, and it was argued at the time, that the Res Publica kept on going, in many ways until the end of the “Principate” Diocletian insisted to be called “Dominus” and be considered a living god; in any case, the political regime inaugurated by Augustus should be called a “plutocratic Republic”, and there was a famous dinner, under Domitian, circa 80 CE, where the principal plutocrats of Rome, Domitian among them, argued just that!)

The Florence Republic fell to plutocrats, the Medici, a family of bankers, after exactly 417 years, precisely because it had no wealth limit. (In that case the collapse into plutocratic dictatorship was more brutal than with Rome.) 

There was an absolute wealth limit, because the wealth tax, during the Roman Republic, was 100% above a  threshold (the threshold was pretty low, at most 30 million 2019 dollars, and maybe as low as ten million). Above that threshold, 100% of the property was transferred to the Ager Publicus.

After 200 BCE, and the Second Punic war, having had to fight extremely hard, at immense cost and sacrifice, in Greece, Spain, Africa, the Roman republic became global. Yet, taxation was still local, so wealthy Romans were able to escape the wealth limit, by residing overseas, and Roman billionaires appeared.

The plutocrats immediately started to plot against the Republic. The best way to do that was to corrupt it, by buying politicians. It took many generations, but the Republic declined and collapsed, in spite of the life endangering efforts of many heroes, including the Gracchi brothers, Marius, and his nephew Caesar (Caesar passed a wealth distribution law in 59 BCE).

***

Plutocracy expects We The People to believe that a few know best, and deserve all the wealth, all the powers. As a result calamitous policies are engaged into, because only a few brains, without debate, devoured by greed, don’t think too well. Moreover, plutocratic policies look accidentally bad, but they are actually so by design: the worse things get, the more the worst gets going. The more evil things get, the more at home plutocracy is, the more evil can rule… 

***

A particular example of these satanic policies is the climate catastrophe, which is part of a mass extinction, the likes of which have not been seen in 70 million years. There were technologies, at the ready already in 1990, to prevent the CO2 catastrophe: in 2019, France pollutes 5 tons of CO2 per capita (the world average), California 9.2 tons, the USA 16 tons, Canada and Australia more than 16… So France knows how to do it, and the others chose not to (the UK, Spain and Italy are around 6 tons; whereas hysterically pro-coal Germany is at 10 tons…) The mood in France is more ecological, more egalitarian, more social… All this is related: respect the environment, just as, and because, you respect your neighbor. Disrespect the environment, as countries like the US, Australia and Canada do, disrespect the neighbor.    

The global plutocracy is indeed intensely related to its fossil fuel component: fossil fuel money is recycled through Wall Street. US President FD Roosevelt set-up that system, meeting with Ibn Saud on the Great Bitter lake in Egypt, shortly before his death. Similarly, when Obama became president, he presented fracking as “the bridge fuel to the future”, and Wall Street, applauding, made massive fracking investments on the lands and water Obama put at its disposal. Thus, once again, the US is the world’s greatest fossil fuel producer: alleluia, say the “America First” crowd, and one expects them to make dark secret masses to their hero Obama, who made fracking into the lifeblood of the US.

***

Plutocracy rules through minds. Careful disinformation, and lack of significant information needs to be fed to the masses. Here is an example: 

The New York Times just woke up to the fact that climate scientists systematically underestimated the gravity of the climate crisis we are in. The paper couldn’t explain why this happened, but showed with great clarity how much it happened. I sent a comment basically explaining that the “Neoliberal” regime paid the salaries of those scientists, so they couldn’t be too alarmist, if they wanted to be employed. 

The New York Times apparently found my explanation alarming, a danger to the elite, and refused to publish it. Just as, over the years, much of the MainStream Media has found any discourse against the “Neoliberal” order deranged and alarming (and censored thousands of my comments). Here my comment explaining why scientists were not too alarmed by the climate catastrophe:

The problem has been that scientists are paid by governments which are manipulated by plutocrats, most of them part of the establishment… And the establishment is fossil fuel plutocracy dependent (say, Wall Street, as an example).

So scientists do not want to bite the hand that feed them. And this is still true. The real truth is that the giant masses of ice of Antarctica will melt with a warming of just a few more degrees. I have explained the exact mechanism in essays on my site, in great detail, for more than a decade. The reason is that half of Antarctica is under water… And the densest water is at 4 degrees Centigrade (roughly 40 Fahrenheit)… 

Thus a hyper catastrophic melting is entirely possible… Millennia before what the old, baseless, “scientific” analyses pretended. 

Also a serious diminution of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, ridiculed by well-fed scientists, is actually entirely possible under very plausible (yet complex) scenarios. And so on.

The plutocracy which rules over us is mostly fossil-fuel based. Any plutocracy knows that it needs to control the minds. Nowadays this means controlling the scientists. The gross attack, “climate denier” style, are there only to confuse us.

The real danger is the subtle disinformation that the situation is not dire, that we have time, it’s a question for the grandchildren. I have lived in smoke for weeks on end in the tech metropolis of the San Francisco Bay Area: the burning climate catastrophe is upon us now. One can see it very clearly when one looks outside, and all one sees is smoke.

To free ourselves from “Neoliberalism”, which is economic neofascism by another name, will require a great intellectual effort. I don’t see our schools, including universities, committed to it.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] The End of Neoliberalism and the Rebirth of History
Nov 4, 2019 JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
For 40 years, elites in rich and poor countries alike promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. Now that the evidence is in, is it any wonder that trust in elites and confidence in democracy have plummeted?

NEW YORK – At the end of the Cold War, political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote a celebrated essay called “The End of History?” Communism’s collapse, he argued, would clear the last obstacle separating the entire world from its destiny of liberal democracy and market economies. Many people agreed.

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, open societies were triumphant and international cooperation became the dominant creed. Thirty years later, however, nationalism has turned out to be much more powerful and disruptive than internationalism.

Today, as we face a retreat from the rules-based, liberal global order, with autocratic rulers and demagogues leading countries that contain well over half the world’s population, Fukuyama’s idea seems quaint and naive. But it reinforced the neoliberal economic doctrine that has prevailed for the last 40 years.”

Fukuyama, a Fukushima of the intellect was, and is an idiot, as a would-be master thinker, but extremely intelligent in the satisfaction of his greed, and a very useful idiot for the global plutocracy. Yes, an idiot: how can one be more idiotic that claiming nothing new will happen in history ever again, because “Neoliberalism” was , and is, the best of all possible worlds? The best of all possible worlds for Fukuyama himself, yes. Of course. As for many idiots, the rule of one, the rule of the self, is the rule of all.

Fukuyama is swimming in a sea of honors (…or horrors, depending upon the perspective). I am surprised he didn’t get a Nobel yet, considering how useful he is for the establishment.

Recently Fukuyama/shima was, among other things, “Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law” at Stanford University. A rattlesnake teaching medical care. In August 2019 he was named director of the “Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy” at Stanford. (That Ford plutocrat, aka “philanthropist” seems to have no relation with the original sponsor of Adolf Hitler, Henry Ford… I perfidiously checked, already chuckling…)

Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. Yes, there are plutocratic universities (I used to teach at Stanford, by the way…)

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/tag/plutocratic-universities/

If The USA Had Been Decent, Would The Nazis Have Disturbed The Peace?

November 10, 2019

History follows some paths. There are others. Just as with thought experiments in physics, inquiring minds inquire best by weighting the factors, making thought experiments in history (all historians have always done this, to an extent or the other, connecting the dots). The most interesting and instructive weighting of the facts occur when one changes nearly nothing, and one changes events slightly according to not just plausible, but probable scenarios. (The military learns much by running “what ifs” scenarios, and does this all the time [1]). It turns out that history is full of butterfly effects, where a small fluttering somewhere has giant effect after a while (the weather is notoriously that way with a three week horizon). Therein a morale: if one wants history to enfold optimally, looking forward, one should not neglect the utmost precautions. Including the fact that too much precaution can kill precaution, if one doesn’t understand the underground logic at hand.

This is what happened in Nazi Germany, when the army command tried to reintroduce rationality: it didn’t work, because they had missed the evil design of the Anglo-Saxon Deep State, and its attached plutocracy.

Ludwig Beck, a real hero in his belated struggle against Hitler, but too trusting of the Anglo-Saxon elite. Beck was chief of the German army and, from pro-Nazi, turned into an anti-Nazi conscious of the madness of Hitler and Al. He directed his subordinates, including the top admirals, to propose to the Americans and the British to announce that the USA and the UK would side with France in case of conflict with the Nazis. He was going to use this as a pretext to make a coup against the Nazis. Instead the US and UK warned Hitler of the conspiracy. Fired by Hitler, who couldn’t do more than that, as Beck’s prestige was immense, he organized behind the scene the coup of 1944. He was asked to commit suicide.

The question was asked: If the US joined the League of Nations, would WWII have occurred?

Let me change the question slightly into: If the US had respected its parent, France, and practiced other aspects of basic decency of a civilized nation, as its Gallic parent had tried to instill to it, would WWII have occurred? Or, otherwise said: If The USA had Been Decent, Would The Nazis Have Disturbed the Peace?

The short of it: no.

World War Two happened because the French Republic had more than enough with the Nazis. The French had been itching to go destroy Hitler since the latter invaded Spain in 1936 (with the help of the rogue Franco, and fascist Italy). However, after agreeing to come to the rescue of the Spanish Republic, the French, led by PM Jewish Socialist Blum, were submitted to scathing threats from London and Washington, so they didn’t. Then there was the Munich circus, followed by Hilter invading Czechoslovakia, Austria… 

After the fall of Spain (early 1939), the French stiffened the Polish spine, and added a chastised Great Britain in the appendix to the Franco-Polish treaty (“entente cordiale would apply…) Cornered, an enraged Hitler made his ultra secret alliance with fellow dictator Stalin official. Surely, now confronting fascist Japan, Italy, Germany and the USSR, the French won’t attack? But the French were undeterred. At that point the Nazis were stuck. They couldn’t lose face: Hitler knew that the German generals had nearly staged a coup already.

What could have stopped the war? Those German generals: they had all the power. Had the USA declared it sided with France, the generals would have known they were facing the infernal trio of France, Britain and their progeny, the USA, and, thus, Germany couldn’t win. So they had to stage a coup to save Germany, as they explained in 1937 to the Anglo-Saxon ambassadors.

However the position of the USA in 1939 relative to Nazism was not clear: plutocrat FDR detested egalitarian, socialist France, and wanted to grab all her colonies to make them part of the US empire. Moreover US plutocrats were roaming all over Germany doing excellent business under Hitler, owning a large part of it: IBM had the monopoly of computing, for example, a gift of Hitler (see “IBM and the Holocaust”). Finally, the US was a racist country, and much of Nazism was copied from US themes.

***

The very idea of League of Nation was born in France in 1916 (and then co-opted by hyper racist Wilson). So the entire US “isolationist” posture, which didn’t apply to Nazi Germany (the “Third Reich” was full of US plutocrats, US investments, US tech, etc.) was more directed against France, and an excuse for the US to deal with Germany as a new “Wild West“… like the myth of the “crippling” reparations, launched by racist plutocrat Keynes, who was enraged that Eastern Europe had been freed from Germany by Versailles… (the reparations were so little “crippling” that the French are still rebuilding, more than a century after the fascist German invaders dismantled even treasures of the Middle Ages…)

To be in the League, per se, would not have been enough, to prevent WW2. However, had the USA being just decent with its parent, France, the German generals would have seen their defeat was unavoidable, as the USA was siding with France.

And guess what, as I already said, but it’s worth repeating? The German generals, led by Ludwig Beck [2], asked, as early as 1937, the UK and US, to do just that, declare they would side with France. But they didn’t. Instead, they told Hitler… And FDR recalled his friend Dodd, US ambassador in Berlin, too friendly to his French peer, and too anti-Nazi. FDR replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi, and did the same in Britain, installing the notoriously pro-fascist plutocrat mafioso Joe Kennedy as ambassador there… (More details on the Dodd-Francois-Poncet interaction in the book “The Garden of the Beasts”…)

The German generals, as a collective mind, were not smart enough to realize they were going to become victims of the greatest bait and switch imaginable… Although the same exactly had happened to Germany in WW1… (The USA encouraged the Kaiser to attack, and then sustained him, until it became clear that France and Britain were going to win, then switched sides…)

Nowadays, the Germans have finally figured it all out, deep inside… Just as the Brits lost it completely… History is the ride that never ends…

The most amazing part of this subject is that many individuals who believe they know it well, actually keep on repeating the basic Nazi themes (hence my re-education program)…

And, even more interesting, those themes often only partly originated in Germany… Even the famous “stab in the back” theme the Nazis used as a pretext against Communists, Socialists, and Jews, had been uttered first by a British general who had lashed back sarcastically at war criminal general and principal original Nazi, Ludendorff… Ludendorff ran away with that theme…  A way to bury his own war crimes under fresh layers of invented indignation…

Ah, relevance for today? If one can’t still see the manipulations of the plutocrats and their associated Deep State, a century ago, how could one see them today?

Indeed, the fact the deep maneuvers of the US Deep State and its sponsor, US plutocracy, the billionaires and their descendants hidden in Foundations, Boards, Institutes, “Charities”, “Think Tanks”, plutocratic universities and the like, have not been exposed in full, doesn’t just explain the amazing (however ephemeral) success of the monstrosity known as Nazism.

More fundamentally, the obliviousness, and lack of interest, in the maneuvers of the Deep State and its sponsor, Anglo-Saxon plutocracy, explains much of the rise of global plutocracy and its attendant inequality, poverty, drug abuse, decay in education, healthcare and many basic services observed since…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

P/S: If I use the expression “Deep State” in the plutophile New York Times, it will censor the comment: We The People in the present day USA have been imprinted to believe that, should they see a conspiracy somewhere, and a fortiori a machine to create conspiracies, one is deranged… BTW, it’s the US Senate which blocked the entry of the USA in the League of Nations… Roughly simultaneously, all the documents revealing the theft of German property by the US government, and its transfer to US plutocrats, conveniently burned with a building in Washington in 1921 (so US Plutos stayed in control of German property they had stolen, thereafter… enabling them to steer Nazis) .

For the mood at work, have a glance at this, from 1943:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1943-10-01/enemy-owned-property-restitution-or-confiscation

***

[1] Famously, re-runs of the 1940 Battle of France and Midway, give opposite results to what happened. In both cases, huge forces which should have been detected were not.

***

[2] Ludwig Beck, in a series of memos to the top Nazis and Hitler in May 1938: “The French army is and remains intact and is at the moment the strongest in Europe… The military-economic situation of Germany is bad, worse than in 1917–1918. In its current military, military-political and military-economic condition, Germany cannot expose itself to the risk of a long war…

Furthermore the chief of the German general staff cannot “accept these estimates of the military power of France and England…Germany, whether alone or in alliance with Italy, is not in a position militarily to match England or France. The May Crisis of 21–22 May 1938 further convinced Beck of the dangers of going to war in 1938, and led him to increase his efforts to stop a war that he felt Germany could not win. In November 1938, Beck informed a friend that, from the time of the May Crisis, the only consideration in his mind was “How can I prevent a war?”

On 29 July 1938, Beck wrote a memo stating the German Army had the duty to prepare for possible wars with foreign enemies and “for an internal conflict which need only take place in Berlin” [against the Nazis, that is]. The 29 July 1938 memo is considered the start of Beck’s efforts to overthrow the Nazi regime. However, Beck would resign too early, and alone, and Hitler manipulated him in keeping the resignation secret…

 

Do Onto Others, As You Want Them Do Onto You? Not So Fast

November 9, 2019

TOWARDS MORAL DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY:

The Golden Rule: do onto others as you would like them to do onto you, was spread around by Thales, Confucius, 26 centuries ago, but it is already found in Egypt’s Middle Kingdom 40 centuries ago, in the mightiest form. The idea is also found in the fundamentals of India:

“O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.”

— Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9

Egypt’s Ma’at, the goddess of truth, enjoins to follow the golden truth that, to impel a behavior onto others, one better embrace it first.

The Golden Rule is completely obvious, it’s a matter of basic logic: even Capuchin monkeys are familiar with it. Capuchins expect some reciprocity standards, and if they get violated, those intelligent monkeys get very angry, experiments have shown. 

So the Golden Rule is the essential cement to hold together a society. When buffaloes charge lions who have seized a youngster, they use a version of the Golden Rule. Thus, if it’s a basic principle of buffaloes, it should be one of humans. However, the Golden Rule is often used as a supreme philosophical principle, for humans… reducing humans at bovid level. The Golden Rule as a philosophical principle is terribly flawed.

A general principle should resist particular counterexamples. Indeed, what does the Golden Rule imply, when applied to masochists who want to be eaten alive piece by piece? Do we want masochists to do onto others what they want done to themselves? Before scoffing consider this: it’s called sadomasochism for some reason… (There have been even contemporary examples, say in Germany, of guys eating guys, consensually). Some may still scoff, because they like to scoff. However, as Salvador Dali pointed out the entire launch into a World War by the Nazis was an exercise in sadomasochism: the Nazis launched the war so they could lose it. I have argued the details of what exactly happened before, when I researched the plausibility of Dali’s assertion (At what point did German Commanders realize the war (WWII) was lost for Germany?)… which initially stunned me (and made me scoff, before I thought twice about it; now I consider Dali correct).  

In Eighteenth Century England, children as young as seven were hanged for setting a fire deliberately (fire was feared at the time, cities being made of wooden high rises pressed on each other). Deeply religious people were all for hanging children. They would also have liked to be hanged, as children, had they sinned that way, to partly attune for their crimes (thus opening to themselves the gates of heavens a bit wider…) 

***

Chinese philosopher Mengzi (“Mencius”) has his own version of the Golden Rule: his motivation may have been to differentiate himself from Confucius, who advocated the Golden Rule, two centuries prior. Mengzi suggested, 24 centuries ago, that if one wants to treat nicely neighbor x according to principle p, one should extend that kind treatment p to more distant person y. In Mengzi original example, a king had treated well a frightened ox, and was asked to extend this courtesy to the People he ruled over. 

Mengzi’s version of the Golden Rule has been the moral engine of globalization: one had to be as nice to Chinese workers and leaders as one would be to European, or American workers or leaders. It’s, superficially a moral idea, and it has been used as cover for the so-called “left”, when in power, in America or Europe, to foster the plutocratization of the planet. 

Is this great moral progress? No. It endorses unwittingly deep psychopathy. Indeed Mengzi’s Golden Rule is very well known of serial killers, in its mirror image version: if a serial killer K, wants to kill person x, but can’t, he may as well kill person y, who reminds him of x, however more distantly related to x is y. (The most basic version of this is found in Lafontaine, Le Loup et l’Agneau, an improvement on the older original. The lamb shows to the wolf he is innocent, so the wolf concludes that:”if it’s not you, it’s your brother.” After these words, he eats him.) 

Golden Rule in action, or when the gold beasts go at each other… Do onto others as they do onto you, can turn into another version of a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, etc. We humans are smarter than that!

 The Golden Rule, especially in Mengzi’s version, ignores that loving depends upon discernment. It’s easier to discern those who are close-by, starting with oneself. Ignoring the lack of discernment that loving those who are far way implies, is to be blind to a reduction in knowledge, and its impact on one’s emotional intelligence.

Actually, it’s exactly what happened to the real Mengzi. Unbeknownst to the professional philosopher who wrote the adulating piece in Aeon (linked to above) about Mengzi, the latter gave the green light to the mass murdering invasion of the kingdom of Yan by Qin (where Mengzi was an official) [1].

To extend altruism at an arbitrarily large distances brings contradictions, especially in the age of globalization. 

***

Towards MORAL DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY: 

Ethics is not a flat, but curved, even twisted, space, with variable local metric (the local morality). A curved space has an event horizon, beyond which, one cannot see, let alone act. Thus straight segments parallel here, when parallel transported along different histories, will end up not parallel. This is true in differential geometry, it should be true in differential morality.  

Thus if we want European or US workers to have work and be treated according to the Rights of Man, Bill of Rights, etc. we should want the same for Chinese workers. However the latter having work and dignity, may mean the former don’t, so, it’s seems to be a zero sum game: the rights given to them are removed from us… Actually, it’s worse: the rights removed from here aren’t even given there.

A related application of Mengzi’s Golden Rule is when Democratic candidates want illegal aliens forcing their way into the USA to receive free medical care. Is that because they would like their neighbor to get free medical care too? It’s another case of stealing those around us to give at a distance.

When the Huns (who originated in north-central Mongolia) were roaming around western Europe, it was not only hard to want to treat Hunnish babies just like European babies, but it turned out to be impossible (for reason of agricultural productivity, the Huns wanted what the Europeans had). Ultimately the Huns had to be massacred into submission. 

The most basic objection to the Golden Rule is that we are what we eat, and if we can’t eat, we can’t be. Sometimes, historically speaking, one has to eat another, and better a distant one than a neighbor.

The main problem with claiming the Golden Rule as the last word, is that it reduces us to Capuchin Monkey level. Sorry, we are above that. Imposing on humanity the Golden Rule is like imposing upon us the “moral” principle that we ought to breathe. Real human morality, the debate, is at a much higher level, and we need to impose upon all the desire to commit to the work out to reach there. This is what Obama basically said when he criticize the recent craze of the “woke”, “call-out” and “cancel” “cultures found in today’s so-called youth. Youth in body, old in obsolete culture. To contradict Obama, all the New York Times could do was to roll out a youngster who called Obama old and a “boomer“. I pointed out that the argument was ageist thus racist: calling Obama “old“, thus wrong, is the essence of judging from appearance, not substance. Of course the New York Times censored my (very polite) comment.

Next Bill Gates declared “I’m all for super-progressive tax systems. I’ve paid over $10bn in taxes. I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to pay $20bn, it’s fine… But when you say I should pay $100bn, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over… [Scratching his head]… Sorry, I’m just kidding. So you really want the incentive system to be there and you can go a long ways without threatening that.”

This is a grotesque myth out there: nobody would do anything anymore if we lost the possibility of being worth a billion dollars someday. Gathering enormous wealth is gathering enormous power on other people, thus an incentive worth having only in a sadomasochist society.

Top Roman republicans had much more incentive than a half boiled squid such as bill Gates. They could go, unflinching towards certain, horrible death, at the hand of their enemies. One could argue that the 100% wealth tax made them stronger.

Great creators of humanity were obviously not motivated by being one million times wealthier than the average citizen… I just computed this is the rough quotient of (Gates wealth)/(Average US citizen wealth). Power onto the rest of the monkeys was not, never is, the incentive of humanity’s greatest creators: only satanic dimwits think that way… plutocrats. Plutocrats are not just too powerful, they are too dumb. And, moreover, their power enables them to leverage, not just their power, but also their stupidity, including their version of the Golden Rule (whatever looks golden should rule).

Yet, a society where billionaire rule, is a society where wealth is perceived as the greatest incentive. Because the rule of wealth percolates down: it costs roughly of the order of a million dollars, around twenty times the median US family income, to get a top “college” (first four years university) education in the USA.

A society where money, let alone evil, rules, twists even the Golden Rule: when the only thing one can do to others, or from others to you, is through money, that is, through the rawest power, you get a gold plated Golden Rule. Just as with lions the meaning of action upon and from others, has been perverted. 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Mencius held office in the legally minded state of Qin (I have argued that it is the importance given to law which enabled Qin to unify China). During this tenure, he was involved in Qi’s invasion of Yan, although the precise nature of his role was disputed (as Mengzi/Mencius is the number two Confucian after Confucius, one doesn’t want to accuse him of being a war criminal, in the Joachim Von Ribbentrop style…). The state of Yan was in turmoil due to a succession crisis. Mencius was asked, “unofficially”, whether it might be legitimate to invade Yan to “restore order”.

Mengzi replied that it was. However, after Qin successfully invaded and annexed Yan, the invasion turned into a fiasco (a full century of war between Qin and Yan, part of present day Manchuria, would follow). Mencius complained that he had not encouraged the specific actions that Qin took, which apparently included widespread killing of noncombatants and taking spoils of war… Anyway, so much for at-a-distance morality. It was actually an explicit strategic doctrine of Qin, one of “36 stratagems”, to make war with those in the distance, after allying the state with neighbors… Like Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger, Mengzi leaves a strange taste of plutocratically inclined philosophy… no wonder the contrived Golden Rule…

 

We Exist To Think (Dostoevsky Implicitly Observed).

November 6, 2019

Let me do what I don’t usually do: comment on a drab and ridiculous novel from a degenerated aristocrat, with philosophical pretense. But here the target is Dostoevsky, and, differently from, say, the nearly as famous battleship Bismarck, Dostoevsky makes a few valid points, that should be obvious… But are not, apparently as most famous thinkers of the last 150 years missed them. So as to not waste the reader’s time with Dosto, let me point out some of those points I have made in the past: Human beings are thinking machines. And the meaning of life is to live. Remorse binds it all together. This is the essence of what Dosto has his protagonist say in…

The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, Dosto’s penultimate work, is philosophically similar to Dostoyevsky’s 1864 novel Notes from the Underground. Such writings led Nietzsche to claim he found a “fellow soul”. Personally I always found Dostoyevsky’s gloom and doom drably suicidal and not joyously satanic enough to make his novels worth reading. I prefer a more vigorous mix of good and evil, such as authentic stories of people in combat. For example elite Soviet girl sniper shooting down a colt so she and her team can eat for the first time in three days (that particular book of  military stories got the Nobel prize, thank Stockholm; but nearly any war book, even written, especially written, by a war criminal, will do better than Dostoevsky). However, most people love a tale, however dismal, and decrepit creeps, however unsavory, probably feeling thus relatively elevated, so Dostoevsky is popular. Nothing like writings by another decadent plutocrat of noble descent, not liking a bit a world were serfdom threatens to disappear…

Dostoevsky: It’s hard to degenerate ever more…

… Except in real life, he became a complete success, even internationally…

Dostoevsky begins his Ridiculous Man with the narrator wandering the streets of St. Petersburg on “a gloomy night, the gloomiest night you can conceive,” obsessing on how others have ridiculed him all his life and haunted with the “terrible anguish” of believing that nothing matters (“nihilism”) [1]. Gazing at a lone star, and he contemplates suicide. Two months earlier, he bought an “excellent revolver”, but the gun had remained in his drawer since. As he is gazing at the star, a little girl of about eight, wearing ragged clothes and clearly in distress, grabs him by the arm and inarticulately begs his help. The protagonist, disenchanted with life and its creatures, shoos her away and returns to the squalid room he shares with a drunken old captain, furnished with “a sofa covered in American cloth, a table with some books, two chairs and an easy-chair, old, incredibly old, but still an easy-chair.”

He sinks into the easy-chair to think about ending his life. Yet, he is haunted by the image of the little girl, leading him to question his nihilism. Dostoyevsky writes:

“I knew for certain that I would shoot myself that night, but how long I would sit by the table — that I did not know. I should certainly have shot myself, but for that little girl.

You see: though it was all the same to me, I felt pain, for instance. If any one were to strike me, I should feel pain. Exactly the same in the moral sense: if anything very pitiful happened, I would feel pity, just as I did before everything in life became all the same to me. I had felt pity just before: surely, I would have helped a child without fail. Why did I not help the little girl, then? [REMORSE IS CAPITAL FOR THINKING] It was because of an idea that came into my mind then. When she was pulling at me and calling to me, suddenly a question arose before me, which I could not answer. The question was an idle one; but it made me angry. [NOT ANSWERING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IS A GREATEST SOURCE OF THE ULTIMATE PASSION, ANGER] I was angry because of my conclusion, that if I had already made up my mind that I would put an end to myself to-night, then now more than ever before everything in the world should be all the same to me. Why was it that I felt it was not all the same to me, and pitied the little girl? I remember I pitied her very much: so much that I felt a pain that was even strange and incredible in my situation[REMORSE; FAILURE TO PROTECT The HUMAN SPECIES]

It seemed clear that if I was a man and not a cipher yet, and until I was changed into a cipher, then I was alive and therefore could suffer, be angry and feel shame for my actions. Very well. But if I were to kill myself, for instance, in two hours from now, what is the girl to me, and what have I to do with shame or with anything on earth? I am going to be a cipher, an absolute zero. Could my consciousness that I would soon absolutely cease to exist, and that therefore nothing would exist, have not the least influence on my feeling of pity for the girl or on my sense of shame for the vileness I had committed? [PERSONAL SURVIVAL LESS IMPORTANT THAN SURVIVAL Of The HUMAN SPECIES]

It became clear to me that life and the world, as it were, depended upon me. I might even say that the world had existed for me alone. I should shoot myself, and then there would be no world at all, for me at least. Not to mention that perhaps there will really be nothing for any one after me, and the whole world, as soon as my consciousness is extinguished, will also be extinguished like a phantom, as part of my consciousness only, and be utterly abolished, since perhaps all this world and all these men are myself alone.”

Beholding “these new, thronging questions,” the would-be suicide contemplates free will. And then finds the obvious: what gives meaning to life is life itself:

“One strange consideration suddenly presented itself to me. If I had previously lived on the moon or in Mars, and I had there been dishonored and disgraced so utterly that one can only imagine it sometimes in a dream or a nightmare, and if I afterwards found myself on earth and still preserved a consciousness of what I had done on the other planet, and if I knew besides that I would never by any chance return, then, if I were to look at the moon from the earth — would it be all the same to me or not? Would I feel any shame for my action or not? The questions were idle and useless, for the revolver was already lying before me, and I knew with all my being that this thing would happen for certain: but the questions excited me to rage. I could not die now, without having solved this first. [ULTIMATE RAGE: NOT FIGURING OUT IMPORTANT ISSUES Extremely RELEVANT TO The HUMAN SPECIES SURVIVAL] In a word, that little girl saved me, for my questions made me postpone pulling the trigger.

Then he falls asleep, and mulls upon dreams:

“Dreams are extraordinarily strange. One thing appears with terrifying clarity, with the details finely set like jewels, while you leap over another, as though you did not notice it at all — space and time, for instance. It seems that dreams are the work not of mind but of desire, not of the head but of the heart… In a dream things quite incomprehensible come to pass. For instance, my brother died five years ago. Sometimes I see him in a dream: he takes part in my affairs, and we are very excited, while I, all the time my dream goes on, know and remember perfectly that my brother is dead and buried. Why am I not surprised that he, though dead, is still near me and busied about me? Why does my mind allow all that?”

The protagonist then dreams that he takes his revolver and points it at his heart — not his head, where he had originally intended to shoot himself. After waiting a second or two, his dream pulls the trigger quickly. Then:

“I felt no pain, but it seemed to me that with the report, everything in me was convulsed, and everything suddenly extinguished. It was terribly black all about me. I became as though blind and numb, and I lay on my back on something hard. I could see nothing, neither could I make any sound. People were walking and making a noise about me: the captain’s bass voice, the landlady’s screams… Suddenly there was a break. I am being carried in a closed coffin. I feel the coffin swinging and I think about that, and suddenly for the first time the idea strikes me that I am dead, quite dead. I know it and do not doubt it; I cannot see nor move, yet at the same time I feel and think. But I am soon reconciled to that, and as usual in a dream I accept the reality without a question.

Now I am being buried in the earth. Every one leaves me and I am alone, quite alone. I do not stir… I lay there and — strange to say — I expected nothing, accepting without question that a dead man has nothing to expect. But it was damp. I do not know how long passed — an hour, a few days, or many days. Suddenly, on my left eye which was closed, a drop of water fell, which had leaked through the top of the grave. In a minute fell another, then a third, and so on, every minute. Suddenly, deep indignation kindled in my heart and suddenly in my heart I felt physical pain. ‘It’s my wound,’ I thought. ‘It’s where I shot myself. The bullet is there.’ And all the while the water dripped straight on to my closed eye. Suddenly, I cried out, not with a voice, for I was motionless, but with all my being, to the arbiter of all that was being done to me.”

“Whosoever thou art, if thou art, and if there exists a purpose more intelligent than the things which are now taking place, let it be present here also. But if thou dost take vengeance upon me for my foolish suicide, then know, by the indecency and absurdity of further existence, that no torture whatever that may befall me, can ever be compared to the contempt which I will silently feel, even through millions of years of martyrdom.”

I cried out and was silent. Deep silence lasted a whole minute. One more drop even fell. But I knew and believed, infinitely and steadfastly, that in a moment everything would infallibly change. Suddenly, my grave opened. I do not know whether it had been uncovered and opened, but I was taken by some dark being unknown to me, and we found ourselves in space. Suddenly, I saw. It was deep night; never, never had such darkness been! We were borne through space and were already far from the earth. I asked nothing of him who led me. I was proud and waited. I assured myself that I was not afraid, and my heart melted with rapture at the thought that I was not afraid. I do not remember how long we rushed through space, and I cannot imagine it. It happened as always in a dream when you leap over space and time and the laws of life and mind, and you stop only there where your heart delights.

Through the thick darkness, he sees a star — the same little star he had seen before shooing the girl away. As the dream continues, the protagonist describes a sort of transcendence akin to what is supposedly experienced during psychedelic drug trips or in deep meditation states:

“Suddenly a familiar yet most overwhelming emotion shook me through. I saw our sun. I knew that it could not be our sun, which had begotten our earth, and that we were an infinite distance away, but somehow all through me I recognized that it was exactly the same sun as ours, its copy and double. A sweet and moving delight echoed rapturously through my soul. The dear power of light, of that same light which had given me birth, touched my heart and revived it, and I felt life, the old life, for the first time since my death.”

The dreamer finds himself in another world, Earthlike in every respect, except “everything seemed to be bright with holiday, with a great and sacred triumph, finally achieved” — a world populated by “children of the sun… whose eyesshone with a bright radiance” and whose faces “gleamed with wisdom, and with a certain consciousness, consummated in tranquility.” The protagonist exclaims:

“Oh, instantly, at the first glimpse of their faces I understood everything, everything!”

Conceding that “it was only a dream,” he nonetheless asserts that “the sensation of the love of those beautiful and innocent people” was very much real and something he carried into wakeful life on Earth. Awaking, he exclaims anew with rekindled gratitude for life:

“Oh, now — life, life! I lifted my hands and called upon the eternal truth, not called, but wept. Rapture, ineffable rapture exalted all my being. Yes, to live…”

Dostoevsky concludes with his protagonist’s reflection on life, our common conquest of happiness and kindness:

“All are tending to one and the same goal, at least all aspire to the same goal, from the wise man to the lowest murderer, but only by different ways. It is an old truth, but there is this new in it: I cannot go far astray. I saw the truth. I saw and know that men could be beautiful and happy, without losing the capacity to live upon the earth. I will not, I cannot believe that evil is the normal condition of men… I saw the truth, I did not invent it with my mind. I saw, saw, and her living image filled my soul for ever. I saw her in such consummate perfection that I cannot possibly believe that she was not among men. How can I then go astray? … The living image of what I saw will be with me always, and will correct and guide me always. Oh, I am strong and fresh, I can go on, go on, even for a thousand years… And it is so simple… The one thing is — love thy neighbor as thyself — that is the one thing. That is all, nothing else is needed. You will instantly find how to live.”

Ah, the Golden Rule, so silly and so hypocritical. Such an excuse for decadent aristocracy, such a change of conversation… So unreal. So this was Dostoevsky. Thank Beelzebub, Nietzsche was not as trivial…

And what of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”? Well, whatever. Now Amy Robach, a blonde ABC news anchor came out with stunning accusations about plutocrats connected to Epstein, including Prince Harry and Clinton, etc. This was three years ago, and the rapes went on. Fortunately for the plutocracy, Epstein was (probably) assassinated…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Nihilism is unknown to those fighting off a lion, or chasing dinner. Nihilism, caring about nothing, is what happens when one is not hungry enough and the dishes are too uninteresting. Nihilism is a modern condition, unknown to prehistoric man, the anchor of all our considerations.

***  

1989: End of Cold War. Start of Unbridled Oligarchic Plutocratization. Now… Terrorized By Warren !

November 5, 2019

Warren Scares Financial Plutocracy:

There are periods for revolutions: From 1776 (onset of US war of independence), or 1789 (French and US republican and human rights constitutions) until 1848 (revolutions all over Europe) and 1865 (end of US Secession War and US slavery). Just like there are times for fascist attack: 1914-1945.

In 1789 US Vice President Al Gore announced that there was a terrestrial emergency, from the CO2 catastrophe… Not in these terms, so it was not taken too seriously by the deciding elite. 

Since then world plutocracy instrumentalized the globalization rendered possible by the end of the Cold War.

China was excluded from ISS to protect Intellectual Property

Yet even if Ms. Warren cannot get most of her more far-reaching proposals through Congress, as is likely, finance executives fear and moan that as president she would appoint regulators who would actually take a far stricter view of the industry, and enact laws and regulations passed… Under Obama.

Consider this:

“Everyone is nervous,” said Steven Rattner, a prominent Democratic donor who manages the wealth of Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor. “What scares the hell out of me is the way she would fundamentally change our free-enterprise system.”

So the ex-mayor of New York is so wealthy, another hyper wealthy man financing “democrats” (of his own choosing, with his own ideas, and feelings) is managing his fortune… 

Meditate this:

Mitch Draizen, a former fund-raiser for Mr. Obama who made his money in the financial industry (surprise, surprise, remember we have no corruption in the USA, financing Obama is no corruption), said he would back Ms. Warren’s candidacy against Mr. Trump’s. But he is supporting former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. this time, worried about Ms. Warren’s disruptive approach. “She would be just as unpredictable and unproductive as Trump if she were to become president, and who needs that,” he said. “She’s getting a little carried away and to me it’s irresponsible.”

What is is more responsible than a great white shark?

She’s screwing around with the wrong guy. I want to give it all away, but I want to control the decision. I don’t want the government giving away my money. The idea of vilifying wealthy people is so bogus,” billionaire Leon Cooperman, worth more than three billion dollars. Cooperman declared Warren’s proposed wealth tax is “morally and socially bankrupt.

Plutocrats know everything about morality, they rape it, everyday. And of course everybody gives it all away: that’s called death.

Hour after hour, day after day, month after month, plutocrats use their present wealth to steer the world in the direction they like, where their perverse morality, their satanic, Dark Side morality rules. And this is the gift they leave behind. Look at Augustus.His gift was called Tiberius. And others he personally knew, who came to rule too, including… emperor Galba…

Actually Trump has mostly fought globalization, the exportation of jobs, investment and know-how to, mostly, China. And that was very effective: the US economy got a boost from it, obviously. And one can compare. Europe has been affected just as badly by the phenomenon of exporting industry and IP to China. For example, the French nuclear know-how was exported to China… while being forgotten in France. Thus now China makes and sells reactors most of the research on was made in France, for a generation. The same happened with trains, is developing with Airbus. (China was excluded, at US insistence, from the International Space Station, just from fear of IP theft… Not happening with Russia, as Russia was more advanced in more ways than one…)

However, the US, thanks to Trump’s local plutocracy drive, has reacted to the exportation of everything to China (by and for the intermediaries, those wealthy, world controlling plutocrats). Conclusion, the US has avoided a recession, for the longest time, ever. As Europe is slowly sinking into one, led by… Germany. 

A small financial elite has grabbed the levers of command of the planet. This is not really a new phenomenon, it was condemned already in the Bible. The hyper wealthy will go to paradise less than a camel through a needle, hence the interdiction to lend to one’s coreligionists found in Judaism and its descendants. The “money changers” are parasites, as soon as they earn too much money for what they do, as is presently the case. To help moneyed individuals to invest is one thing. What we have now is something else, a giant corruption machine. 

The finance industry has money laundered cash from corrupt regimes or fossil fuel industry, as set up by FDR in 1945.  Too much money is made by transactions so fast that normal individuals cannot partake, and which the “industry” itself creates. Also some of the leverage used is enormous, out of proportion relative to the size of the world real economy, it’s a case of the tail moving the dog, and a case of free money for a tiny gang. A way to cut that out is simply to introduce a financial transaction tax: even if very small, of no consequence for normal investors, it would be enough.

The hyper wealthy financial plutocracy a dreadful influence on decision makers, worldwide, starting with banks, governments. Thus the world keeps investing in fossil fuels instead of new energies (such as hydrogen, fusion, etc. energies which get less money in a year than many individual financial parasites), and in sports and the like, instead of housing for the needy (a reader here pointed out here, the salaries of a couple of sport idiots is as great as all thermonuclear research in the USA)…

The Roman Republic survived 5 centuries, thus as long as it had no billionaire (Roman Republican taxation was 100% above the equivalent of $30 million). Globalization enabled the wealthy to escape that, they plotted, and the Republic died.

Yes Trump will probably defeat Warren: too much misogyny around… And Trump has actually been effective against globalization. But what is important is to advance the ideas, change the underlying emotions. And, in four years there will be another campaign.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Some of the essence of the preceding was sent, under more moderate guise, to the New York Times as comments of articles critical of Elizabeth Warren’s program. Such articles focus on the distress of the financial industry, the anxiety of the medical industry, as Warren threatens in the distance, etc. The latest such article confronted the ogre Warren, boldly identifying her to… Trump (as quoted above) the article also revealed the financial plutocracy is so scared that the laws and regulations passed under Obama, thanks to Sen. Warren, would be applied… Because, turns out, they are not.
Those comments of mine were censored, because the New York Times is terrorized of Warren and her alleged alter ego, Donald Trump (!) So in depth analogies and advocacy are unacceptable.

Meanwhile, to add insult to injury, Obamacare was nothing (I have long said, except a gift to the wealthiest in US health care)… Warren confirms this.

As Sanders campaigns with the Sharia refugee and perpetrator, Omar, who got elected to the US Congress to promote her opinion that women are half of men legally. Is it progressive to be pro-Sharia now? Because subjugating women is the future, according to pseudo-progressives?

***

[1] Trump supported Farage, the financial guy who became the inventor of the Brexit notion in a long phone call, last week. Now Trump is very much disliked in Britain. So that call led, unsurprisingly, to an immediate collapse of Brexit Party support by 50%! (OK, Farage not running may have helped.) People who have no feeling for Machiavellianism may not understand that, this way, Trump was helping Boris Johnson, in the guise of helping his opponent (like Nero helped Claudius with a serving of mushrooms). Another example of Machiavellianism is the Trump Impeachment by the plutocrats and plutophiles leading the “Democratic” party… It is designed to make Warren fail

 

NAPOLEON: DIRTY & Only Memorable That Way

November 2, 2019

NAPOLEON ENVY & ADMIRATION IS A GRAVE DISEASE THAT NEEDS TREATMENT. Here is some cure against this still rampant affliction:

Napoleon was no Caesar:

To immediately focus away from what is not at issue here, let me remind the reader I am an admirer of Caesar (although aware of Julius’ flaws, including deporting millions, seizing the last free Greek city-state, Marseilles, and exterminating entire cities). The point though is that Caesar lived in the most difficult times, and, although “Dictator For Life” (a stupid, but understandable idea considering the circumstances; he should have put a ten year limit), Caesar had left the Republic intact (and that cost him his life, as he had not measured the full depth of corruption of his opponents).

Napoleon had none of the excuses of Caesar. And none of his achievements. Even as a general, Caesar was vastly superior, tactically and especially strategically.

Although Caesar led a revolution (complete with redistribution of wealth: consider his Agrarian Reform of 59 BCE), Napoleon buried one. Caesar wanted to save the Republic, Napoleon killed it.

***

Why is Napoleon Bonaparte considered a hero?
N
apoleon is admired because most people are tempted to become nasty nuts, and are mesmerized by Napoleon for having done so. That’s the positive side. On the negative side, Napoleon’s admirers are plain ignorant. They attribute to him things he wanted gone, while other things he did, they have no idea.

On one thing they are right:  Napoleon was an authentic hero in combat, on the battlefield (as Caesar, a “savage” fighter, “like a wild beast” was). Napoleon was also an expert in calculus… and geometry (there is such a thing as the intriguing Napoleon’s theorem). 

Could Napoleon have been Caesar? Did Napoleon simply chose to be a cretin? I doubt it. Caesar’s background was unequaled; he was the nephew of seven times Consul, populist and supreme general Marius, savior of Rome. Caesar got the best teachers. His first and last words were in Greek, not Latin. 

In comparison, Napoleon, with due respect to Corsican savages, was just one of them. And it showed.

Napoleon in a nutshell: A grandeur deluded, macho, sex-obsessed, misogynistic, vain-glorious, self-obsessed, tyrannical, cruel, jealous, god-crazed, mass-homicidal greedy mafioso assassin disease ridden revolution diverting slave master… What could have gone wrong?

German philosopher Hegel, a philosopher of history who made some valid points in a sea of massively lethal delusion, was transfixed by the dictator. In a letter from Iena to his friend Niethammer, October 13th, 1806, when he had just finished writing The Phenomenology of Mind : ”I saw the Emperor -this soul of the world- go out from the city to survey his realm; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it.” (Correspondance, T. I, p.114) [1].

History top biologist, Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck handing the book ‘Zoological Philosophy‘ to Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, 1809 (pastel on paper, 1920 by Ezuchevsky, Mikhail Dmitrievich (1880-1928); 32.5×24.5 cm; State Darwin Museum, Moscow; The French “naturalist historian” Lamarck (1744-1829) published ‘Philosophie zoologique‘ in 1809, in which he outlined the theory of evolution and in particular the smart mechanism now known as Lamarckism (soon to be proven right). [Russian, out of copyright. Soviets were favorable to Lamarckism, for obvious reasons, just as Napoleon had excellent reasons to hate it, preferring Cuvier’s catastrophism… Both Lamarck and Cuvier were right… ]

How Hegel Justified Hitler:

Hegel explains quite a bit the apparition of the likes of Bismarck, and, worse, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hitler. For Hegel, Napoleon is a hero because he knows “what is necessary and what to do when the time comes” (Lectures, p.35). The historical heroes, including Napoleon, know ”the truth of their times and their worlds because they are aware of the historical necessity : that is why, like Alexander and Caesar, Napoleon is a wise man because he knows the nature of his era.

Well, actually Caesar is one thing, Alexander, another. Caesar found a collapsing Republic, infused with righteous plutocrats, thoroughly corrupt at a lethal level (Cassius and Brutus, the two  main Caesar assassins, committed serious, even attempted murderous crimes against the Greeks… and that was, by sheer greed, although they were among the wealthiest men in the Republic, so powerful, their corruption was not seriously prosecuted).

Alexander, instead, found a Republic and Direct Democracy, Athens, still recovering from her near-death experience of the Peloponnese War. Alexander actually visited, as the world’s most famous tourist. The truth of the times was that Athens was the treasure. Had he really embraced progress, and the cutting edge of civilization, Alexander would have become Athens’ main weapon. Instead, Alexander adopted an ambiguous role… Which enabled Antipater, Alexander’s senior and successor, to defeat Athens and turned her into a… plutocracy. Also Alexander annihilated Thebes, and Tyre, crimes of the sort not even Hitler committed. Tyre was at the origin of the entire Greek civilization: that’s where Europe came from, or, at least, the alphabet.

For Hegel, annihilating cities such as Thebes, Tyre was a “historical necessity” which made Alexander a hero. Is there anybody reading this who still ponders why Hitler appeared where he did, speaking the same language? How come such a little jerk is viewed as a great philosopher?

Following Hegel like the sheep the shepherd to the slaughterhouse, some say Napoleon made France into a great power. False, even ridiculous, quite the opposite. It’s the Republic which won the minds, and it is the Republic which is still winning them, not the Corsican mafioso. 

Watch Brexit for further edification: in the present UK electoral campaign, all parties are running on populism, that is, Republicanism

***

France had been the superpower of Europe, nearly since the early Franks: 

Roman emperor Julian was elected Augustus by the Parisians in 360 CE (and tried to stem the slide of the empire into superstition). 

Over the next 800 years, the Franks would conquer what they called Europe, from Scotland to Sicily and from the Spanish March to Poland. The Viking even got started after the Franks gave an ultimatum to Denmark (about recovering fleeing, plotting Anglo-Saxons).

One could even say that the Franks, a confederation of Romanophile Germans were created around principles which went beyond what Rome was capable of. So no wonder they conquered Europe, succeeding where the Romans had crucially failed, with the worst consequences for the empire (maybe because conspirators assassinated Caesar five years early)

***

Napoleone di Buonaparte, from artillery officer to genius general: 

The future dictator of France didn’t learn to speak their language until he was sent to boarding school at the age of 9. It was not his second language, but his third. Napoleon, that little plutocrat from Corsica, was recognized as noble by the plutocratic Ancient Regime, so he was admitted to artillery (boarding) school (after passing an exam). Bonaparte came out an officer, and a good one: he triumphed at the siege of Toulon, which was occupied by the plutocratic, invading British. Napoleon’s attack plan worked perfectly, and the Brits, finding themselves under French guns, had to flee, giving up on their invasion of France from the south. 

Severely wounded during the Toulon assault, Napoleon was promoted from captain directly to general. Soon, the republican Directoire wisely came to hate Napoleon, and sent it to Egypt, hoping he would die there. After a lunatic and mass murdering campaign, Napoleon couldn’t take an Ottoman fort full of ammunition at Saint Jean d’Acre, in his little completely demented plan to take over the entire Ottoman empire with his small army cut from its bases petered out, and he had to flee. On the positive side, he had freed Egypt from the Ottomans, and offered it to the United Kingdom…

***

The legal system set-up by Napoleon was extremely misogynistic. He cracked a joke about it: women had all the power already, so his legal code removed all their rights. This was all the more remarkable as women played a central role in the Revolution and nearly got the right to vote. But Napoleon loved to enslave: he actually re-established slavery, which the Revolution had outlawed.

There is no doubt Napoleon was physically courageous, behaving as a hero many times, in many ways. But one can find plenty of heroes, in the sense of risking one’s life or limb, with many abominable causes.

Much is made of Napoleon’s military genius. However, other French revolutionary generals won great battles before him. A lot of these battles were won from the enthusiasm of the French revolutionary draftees, and also the fact that France had the best engineering, in particular the best explosives. The Polytechnique School, a branch of the military was created during the Revolution just to make sure French military tech was superior.

 

The enormous achievements of the French Revolution (the basis of modern egalitarian law, and UN Charter) are often considered to be due to Napoleon, by the ignorant. For example, on 7 April 1795 the metric system was formally defined in French law: nothing to do with Napoleon. Actually Napoleon hijacked the Revolution, and greatly demolished it, in fact and spirit. Instead of letting Europe unite as a Republic, he grabbed it as a plutocrat, and pressed it like a lemon.

The fact so many admire Napoleon, from Hegel, to all too many people around the planet, and implicitly, the structure of the French state (widely copied worldwide, even by the USA) is a serious problem. Indeed, it’s a glorification of fascism and the Dark Side. 

***

Why Napoleon hated evolution: because, by removing “God”, evolution made him responsible for his abominable deeds, his despicable character, and childish impulses:

Lamarck, by then immensely prestigious, offered to the self-declared emperor one of his books on evolution. Napoleon made the research professor who discovered evolution, cry. No doubt Lamarck cried seeing the world at the feet of such an unwise, primitive maniac. Napoleon suggested, even with his favorite Laplace, that the universe had been created by “God”,no doubt to justify his own primitivism: Napoleon’s crude behavior was an act of god, Napoleon was not truly responsible. Not really Napoleon’s fault that he had to kill innocent people he disliked.

Lamarck’s suggested that complexity and the striving for solutions drove evolution. In other words, intelligence drove the universe, not the happenstance of god, and thus, as Napoleon invaded Spain and caused havoc there, and thus, as Napoleon invaded Spain and caused havoc there, Napoleon, not “God”, was responsible for the atrocities in the Iberian peninsula. Spain was among other places that Napoleon, in the guise of propagating the Republican revolution, peppered, as the rest of Europe with his relatives made into the local tyrants…

This being said, the conflict between Napoleon and Lamarck was complicated… And at a very high level of mental debate: Napoleon sided with Lamarck’s deadly enemy Cuvier, himself a top evolutionist, but who believed in evolution generated by catastrophes (like the one which destroyed the dinosaurs). Cuvier has certainly been proven right, yet Lamarck, of course is a towering giant whose time is yet to fully come (Quantum Mechanics makes evolution intelligent, I reckon…) 

***

Come general, the affair is over, we have lost the day,” Napoleon told one of his officers. “Let us be off.” The day was June 18, 1815. Around 8 p.m., the emperor of France knew he had been decisively defeated at a northern French village called Waterloo, and he wanted to escape from his enemies, some of whom—such as the Prussians—had sworn to execute him (the Prussians had been keen to execute the French since 1792…). By 5 a.m. the next day, they stopped by a fire some soldiers had made in a meadow. As Napoleon warmed himself he said to one of his generals, “Eh bien, monsieur, we have done a fine thing.” Extraordinary sangfroid that even then, in the midst of catastrophe, Napoleon was able to joke. However, it was not funny: thanks, in great part, to his antics, racism and oppression were to rule over central Europe, masterminded by Prussia. And British plutocracy was on a roll, and would stay that way for another 204 years (and counting).

What?

***

Like Augustus in Rome, Napoleon had not fully defeated the Republic; instead both used the Republic as leverage. As with Augustus, that was good for the tyrant, but it wore out the Republic:

In 1815, after Napoleon, and thus French Republicanism defeat, racism, anti-Judaism, oppression, occupation of Eastern Europe by Prussia and company was reestablished. 

Let me quote from: “Why We’d Be Better Off if Napoleon Never Lost at Waterloo

On the bicentennial of the most famous battle in world history, a distinguished historian looks at what could have been. 

If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited inestimably. The reactionary Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush liberal constitutionalist movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; Jews would not have been forced back into their ghettos in the Papal States and made to wear the yellow star again; encouragement of the arts and sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.

Napoleon deserved to lose Waterloo, and Wellington to win it, but the essential point in this bicentenary year is that the epic battle did not need to be fought—and the world would have been better off if it hadn’t been.[2]

Yes, but plutocracy would have suffered, and plutocrats don’t like that, do they? if nothing else, their perverse admiration for Napoleon rested on the evidence that Napoleon was the best weapon against the Republican Revolution. There is evidence that, starting in 1812, with the Russian campaign, Napoleon military genius deserted him. In 1812, the Grande Armee, more than 600,000 strong, full of idealistic young Germans and Poles, was poorly managed: too many stupid, frontal battles (instead of the subtle victories an outmanned Caesar had no problem producing). Moreover, the Grand Army had typhus, soldiers were dying like flies, and the campaign should have been delayed. 

At Waterloo, Napoleon split stupidly the French army, and then committed a long succession of mistakes, including the charge of the French horse at the wrong moment, not ordered by him, and waiting for general Crouchy, at the risk of getting the Prussian army instead (as happened). In spite of its remaining revolutionary zeal which had been Napoleon’s not so secret fuel, this was too much for the French veterans.

And why did Napoleon attack the Czar? Long story. And the Czar, allied to perfidious Albion, managed a country with awful serfdom, close to slavery without the possibility of being sold. 

The basic irony, though, is that Napoleon, following earlier revolutionaries, wanted to unite Europe. The philosopher proximally culprit of the French Revolution, personal enemy of Napoleon, Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade, had warned them all: don’t try to impose the Republic upon Europe. Fight mostly defensely. Revolution, the Republic, would come all over in time. The revolutionaries didn’t obey Sade. Napoleon sent Sade to a mental asylum. 

However Sade was right: the Republican revolution would self-propagate. It’s now Great British plutocracy itself which is self-imploding, and Europe can be united under Republican, that is French, principles, all over. 

So, now, for the case of Russia… 

Meanwhile, please remember: Napoleon is not even worth forgetting.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1]  Hegel in Elements of the Philosophy of Right (& 348) : ” At the forefront of all actions, hence of historical actions, stand individuals or subjectivities which effectively cause the substantial reality to occur. ” In Lectures on the Philosophy of History, a few years later, Hegel teaches that historical heroes ” are practical-minded men. ” (p.35). Napoleon, like Alexander and Caesar, is thus a man of action : he is not what he thinks, neither what he hides, but what he does. In The Phenomenology of Mind, he wrote: ” The real being of man lies rather in his deed; it is in this deed that individuality is effective… the individual is what this deed is. ” (p.231).

You are what you do, not what you eat? Neither: historical heroes act according to what they feel and what they think, most of it, imprinted into them as children: Alexander’s was the exact prolongation of his father Philippe, just even more nutty (bold). Caesar was essentially Marius reborn, just newer and better… And Napoleon was just according to his formation: a classical glorified island bandit, from an island famous for its piracy… by comparison, a young Caesar was captured and held hostage by pirates allied to Mithridates (and Roman plutocrats). After a second kidnapping, Caesar, held for 38 days, promised to his captors that he would seem them crucified, and he did

Long after his defeat, Hegel admired in Napoleon the founder of the modern State. In Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Hegel relates and then justifies the coup of Brumaire, 18th. : “Again arises a government organized like the old one ; but the leader and monarch is now a changeable Directoire of five people forming undoubtedly a moral, but not individual, unity. Mistrust was prevailing among them as well and the government was in the hands of the legislative assemblies. It had therefore the same fatal destiny, because the absolute need of a governmental power had made itself felt. Napoleon reinstated it under the form of military power and then placed himself again at the head of the State as a source of individual will ; he knew how to govern and was soon done with the internal. ” (p.342).
Napoleon is thus, to Hegel, the founder of the modern State because its principle is henceforth not the will of all, not the will of a few but the will of the Prince. There is no difference with, say, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Diocletian, Clovis, Philippe Le Bel, Louis XI, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, so Hegel is either an idiot, or a clever merchant who knew all to little history to pretend teaching it, except to the deeply ignorant.

***

[2] This is only a very small list of the satanic (Pluto!) ways which arose after Napoleon’s defeat, and thus the Republican Revolution coup d’arret. Jews were racially tortured all over Europe (except France, Britain) after Napoleon/French revolution’s, defeat. As I said, Eastern Europe would not be freed until after the Versailles Treaty of 1919… And the 1914-1945 war can be seen as Waterloo’s revenge, part one. Part two is Brexit.

 

 

 

WANT BETTER PHYSICS? GET BETTER PHILOSOPHY

November 1, 2019

Philosophical progress, the art and desire of guessing new utmost significance, guided our progress in understanding physics for the last three million years, and always will, indeed. 

We can’t experiment before we guess what experiments to conduct, according to the obscure light of a half-baked theory (in other words, philosophy)

So why has the philosophical training of physicists become so abysmal in the last century? The symmetrical question is why most of those called philosophers have had no training in physics and math? Plato would have scoffed that those were not philosophers. 

Neglecting the importance of the philosophical method in physics, for the last two generations may have been caused by the militarization of physics: obeying and pleasing those who order military spending requires yes men, shutting up and calculating, not deep thinkers [1]. History is full of examples of period of stasis, or even massive backsliding, of the understanding of nature, due to the hostility of the establishment to further understanding. This is why the Greeks’ progress in “Physis” stagnated after the establishment of Greek (so-called “Hellenistic regimes”) and Roman dictatorships. Soon after the Macedonian dictatorship grabbed Greece, Euclid wrote his elements… completely forgetting the non Euclidean geometry established a century before! (And it stayed forgotten for 21 centuries!) one wonders which other parts of Greek science got also immediately forgotten: these were times when thinkers would be killed on sight (Demostenes actually argued with the guy dispatched by the Macedonians to kill him: they knew each other; the assassin at the head of his squad pointed out to the philosopher he had to earn a living, and him not Demosthenes would have no effect, as somebody else would do the deed. Best to go with a friend!) 

Greatest physicist ever? Du Chatelet discovered… ENERGY, no less! Not just infrared (which she also discovered)! She was also a first class philosopher, and of course, a feminist. She left extensive writings.

Once the will, desire, and methodology of deep thinking has been forgotten, it takes a long time to get it restarted: Europe tried half a dozen attempts at a sustainable Renaissance, over a millennium [2]. What had happened? Books and scholars got deliberately eliminated for 250 years: starting  in 363 CE, religious fanatics systematically burned libraries and tortured to death intellectuals (see Hypatia’s tragic assassination directed by Christian “saint” Cyril).

Spending in physics is good… if nothing else, new technologies can be developed, especially involving high energies. But it shouldn’t focus on only a few avenues of inquiry. However, “High Energy” physics is a revealing term: do we live in a “High Energy” world? No. So why don’t we also focus on “Low Energy” fundamentals? 

Sociological considerations of career advancement show it is safer within the herd, and the herd thinks alike. This is why university physicists form a herd.

Cathedral schools” were mandated 13 centuries ago, and then turned into universities. However, when one looks at quantum jumps in understanding, one realizes that most such jumps happened outside of the career mainstream. The greatest thinkers tend to not follow the most prestigious path at the time! Obviously on the path less traveled are the diamonds found. Master thinkers such as Abelard, Buridan, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Leibniz, Papin, Du Chatelet, Lavoisier, Lamarck, Cuvier, Faraday, Darwin, even Poincare, De Broglie… are examples of master thinkers who didn’t have conventional careers [3].

There are too many of the most towering intellects standing straight out of all society and academia, for it to be an accident, or a coincidence [4]. And the reason is very simple: it’s easier to be an intellectual hero, and jump out of the box, if you are mostly out of the box of obsolete logic already.  

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Military science has been hard core high energy physics, ever since the French army ordered research on tanks, under the Ancien Regime (now viewed as the first “cars”, but, truly, tanks…18 C). New high explosives saved the French at Valmy. Within a few weeks the first production combat lasers will start protecting some US air bases…

***

[2] Clovis immediately made a reinterpretation of Christianism into something milder, tolerant, compatible with other faiths (~ 500 CE). Within a century, Frankish bishops were teaching secularly, ignoring lethal threats from Rome. In the Eight Century, a law was passed making schooling and its teaching by religious establishments mandatory. In the Eleventh Century, full Renaissance in north-west France brought a violent territorial expansion (England, Sicily, Italy, etc…), a booming economy, the Duke questioning the geocentric system and his protege Berengar assimilating god to reason… 

***

[3] Abelard, Buridan, Leonardo da Vinci, Tycho, Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Boulliaut/Bulaldius, Leibniz, Papin, Du Chatelet, Lavoisier, Lamarck, Cuvier, Galois, Faraday, Darwin, even Poincare, De Broglie…

    1. At twenty-two, Abelard set up a school of his own, although opponents barred him from teaching in Paris. Eventually without previous training or special study, triumphed in theological debates, and stepped into a chair at Notre—Dame. The rest of his life was a “calamity” (his word) reminiscent of the adventures of all too many an intellectual of Antiquity, and others in my little list: he got emasculated and nearly killed in an attack… Abelard fought Saint Bernard, Christianism most important person,  nearly to death, and, though an abbot was excommunicated… twice. 
    2. Buridan chose not the faculty of theology but the much lower one of arts. 
    3. Leonardo da Vinci was a serious physicist… Yet took to painting and direct regalian support…
    4. Kepler was Tycho’s assistant. Tycho lived off a grant from the Germanic Roman emperor. Kepler spent a lot of energy preventing the execution of his mother as a witch.
    5. Descartes, discoverer of Algebraic Geometry (“equations”), and calculus, an army captain, was on the run, and was not dumb enough to return to France where the Catholic fanatics ruled.
    6. Fermat, co-discoverer of calculus, was a lawyer and MP.
    7. Boulliaut/Bulaldius was a French priest. He got the idea of the 1/dd law of gravitation… As Newton pointed out.
    8. Leibniz was all over the place, even an ambassador. Nobody knows where he is buried.
    9. Papin made the first working steam engine, and the first steam boat (which worked very well). He had to flee France (being a Protestant), then he ran in trouble in England as locals stole his invention, and after legal action, fled to Germany (where he interacted with Leibniz… Same Leibniz of infinitesimals, who made preliminary work on energy which Du Chatelet extended. 

 

  • Gabrielle Émilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, Marquise du Châtelet was top nobility, and hot to trot. She had no academic career, but converted her castle into a lab on her own dinero… Lavoisier did something similar, but the Revolutionary Tribunal found he had used taxpayer money to do this (so what? He should have had an exemption and got an award instead of being shortened…)
  • Buffon, Lamarck, Cuvier were research professors at the Museum of Natural History, where they established evolutionary science, but they were not university professors… Darwin, who pointed out natural selection by itself was enough to cause evolution, without the arsenal of contingence deployed by Lamarck and Cuvier two generations earlier, was not a professor at all, but an independent scholar.
  • Galois, an absolute revolutionary. He invented groups, and  demonstrated some equations couldn’t be solved. He got in big trouble for his republican politics, under a dictator, and was killed age 20 (!) spending his last night writing down Galois theory.
  • Faraday, not a university professor, and little schooled in mathematics, was directly funded by the king.
  • Poincare followed an unusual, secondary career path, until he shattered mathematics and physics (he established Relativity, including E = mcc), De Broglie, a prince, studied Medieval history, before pivoting and decreeing Quantum Waves, inventing Quantum uncertainty and the “Schrodinger” equation on the way… (Germanophiles did the rest by attributing his discoveries to… Germanophones; however he got the Nobel within 4 years of the ebauch of his thesis). He was never a professor, but I met him in person… Fellow minds…  

***

[4] Just restricting oneself to Paris, the largest city in Western Europe for most of the last 15 centuries, one could get evaluations of the number of professional intellectuals. Those who really brought progress, were very few, and they have in common that, even though sometimes they were part of the establishment, they were also continually at war, because their advanced ideas alternatively seduced and infuriated the powers that be. But 99.9% of intellectuals, most of the time, didn’t cause a ripple…

 

 

Burn California, Burn… The Price of Hypocrisy?

October 30, 2019

Obama (rightly) just lashed out at “purity”, observing that “casting stones does not get you very far”. Hopefully, I will dig in this opinion of the former Commander in Chief a bit more. However, casting stones on those ho cast stones goes only so far too: to be wise means to be more wise, and that addition of wisdom requires some demolition of old logic always. The following essay is about having a correct urban culture, but that requires to demolish the opposite mentality.

Some who believe they are clever and are believed to be clever, pose and deny the enfolding Climate Catastrophe: there is a lot of fame and money to be gathered that way. However, fires are happening all over, including in one of that pole of opinion, California… And it’s no accident my power was not cut: instead of living like a hog in a giant mansion (that could have been organized), I long opted to live correctly (not torturing the biosphere with extravagant energy spending… as the most successful US academics tend to do, with self-glorifying trips all over the planet…)

The problem in a nutshell: giant mansions and giant flames. California’extravagant lifestyle is greatly at fault, helping to cause the greenhouse calamity and making its consequences worse. [Malibu, 2018; but mansions like that are all over California, it’s not just a few celebrities getting roasted…]

California makes a lot of noise about “Climate Change”, and pretends to be leading the way, and, for the US, it is: 9.2 metric ton CO2 per capita per year (more than double France and the world average). 

https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/carbon-dioxide-by-state/

However considering the overall situation, this is rather mediocre. California has lots of advantages: an ideal Mediterranean climate covers most of the state, which gets lots of wind, lots of sun and lots of water falling down from high mountains which cover most of the state. Moreover, the state packs more intellectual, and engineering power than any other US state, and its semi-direct democracy and size enables it to behave as a semi-independent country, brain and engine of the USA, if not the world.  California’s CO2 production is not decreasing fast enough.

***

So what is wrong?

California cities. They are too spread-out in the wilderness. California has three huge metropolitan areas. The San Francisco Bay, including Sacramento, has a population of twelve million and a GDP of the order of the Netherlands. It is also 250 kilometers across, and the public transportation system can only cover a very small part of it. OK, there are mountains, bays, parks, even two large national parks (Point Reyes and Marin Headlands/Golden Gate) in the middle of it all. 

But the fundamental problem is a flaw in the Californian character. It’s not that the Californian race is a bad sort: there is no such a thing. Minorities are a majority in California, and 25% of the population was not even born in the USA. However, as soon as aliens land in California, they wiggle their antennas, and immediately adopt Californian ways, some of which are not just ridiculous, but offensive to the planet.  

OK, now for a bit of comic relief:

***
The Qur’an says Allah found fire to be the solution to hypocrisy:

Sura 9, At-Tawbah (Arabic: التوبة‎, “The Repentance“),

68. “Allah has promised the hypocrite men and the hypocrite women and the infidels, the Fire of Hell, to abide in it forever. That is enough for them, Allah has cursed them, and for them is a lasting chastisement.”

***

California talks big and lives even larger, hence the big flames. In the Golden State, to be inhabiting high density  living is generally viewed as low class, a failure, nearly immoral if pursued too long (except for a few luxury apartments in downtown San Francisco lots of them bought by Chinese who don’t know any better). A real Californian is supposed to move to the leafy suburbs, conducting there the Californian dream, a car life according to which a family has an entire fleet of electric cars plus a few gasoline SUVs for longer trips (60% of California CO2 emissions are from transportation).

Gigantic houses cheaply built in wooden planks among the chaparral. That’s the bottom of the problem: the highly flammable character of this life of debauch and luxury spread from horizon to horizon among desiccating hills prone to annual fires can’t go on, its ecological cost is too great.

Just look at the San Francisco Bay Area: its real dimensions are astounding: it’s 150 miles from Santa Cruz to Sacramento, and there are houses all along the way, often mixed with dry grass and trees. Most of the landscape is covered by large houses if not mansions, separated from each other by landscape which has evolved to burn over million of years… 

Only high density living is easy to defend from fire, and that’s a small portion  of this urbanism. A change of mentality is needed: instead of living from horizon to horizon, horizon after horizon, California has to learn to esteem high density living. I am living in a small sliver of relative high density living where power was not cut, precisely because there is nothing to burn very easily. Even if lines get buried as in Provence, where the winds are more frequent, and stronger, the fact is, Californians have to learn to live in high density living if they don’t want to burn (and stop being hypocritical in ecology)… Once again, as in Provence (planting more Redwoods would also help, as they stop fire.)

Don’t expect Californians to change their ways soon: laws proposed by politicians to encourage high density living were beaten back by the enraged mansion dwellers, in their luxurious wisdom.

However, the problems with power supply (as perhaps 5 millions were cut of it in the last few weeks), will probably help expand the photovoltaic and battery industry…. And that is an excellent development, so burn, California, burn…since I am in an area protected from cuts, I can run my air filters, even when visibility outside tank… And this is not the nice smell of African savanna fires; in California smoke carries a whiff of scorched plastic…

Patrice Ayme

How Hedonistic Europe Sold Its Soul To America

October 29, 2019

Europe has all these socialist advances the US is deprived of. But then the US economy is vibrant, and provides Europe with goodies. Could both facts be related? They are! Europe’s comfort is the product of a social bargain: it sold its soul to the US Devil. The same bargain also happened, and happens, within Europe, and had huge historical consequences.

The New York Times made a little video of the sort U Tube and minds of superficial youth is infected by: How Europeans See America

We asked young, ordinary Europeans to take a look at U.S. policies on everything from food to guns. As they discover facts about America, they’re not impressed.

I am as “anti-American” as they come, but this video is silly. My comment below was censored by the New York Times, probably because it explained why and how European countries could afford their socialist policies, both in money spent and character weakened )once again, I believe sort of MENTAL STEERING BY DISINFORMATION SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL:   

“What the video doesn’t point out, is that Americans sell themselves to the US dream, the same dream Europeans dream of, and the price they pay is less socialism. The American dream? Americans live differently, often larger: larger homes, larger and more cars, larger pollution, more energy spending, etc. All this fancy way of life is fueled by debt burdens and then displacement of convenience. 

 

As Trump points out continually, Europe spends in other ways, but not to protect itself: the USA does that, with mostly, and only, the help of France. France is the only European country with its own military-industrial complex… and yet France can’t afford it, because the rest of Europe doesn’t pay France for protection, and pays the USA only indirectly (by not charging US multinationals with taxes commensurate with their sales in Europe). 

 

Practically this means gigantic economic means diverted for the defense of the West, not to say civilization, in the USA or France, can be focused instead on social services in a country like Denmark. Denmark was at war only six hours against Nazi Germany in World War Two (after a surprise attack, a few hundreds soldiers died). France and Britain were at war nearly six years after declaring war TO the Nazis. France and Britain paid a heavy economic, and human price for that war, so did the USA.[1] 

The picture is a bit misleading in several ways: France and Russia spend more than it looks, because they have military-industrial complexes attached. So, in particular they spend more than Saudi Arabia, which buys a fortune of equipment to the US and Europe . And good they do as the recent attacks on Arabia showed sophisticated US anti-aircraft weapons are useless against drones… This is the sort of nasty military surprises France got in May 1940…

In other words, it is the US’ expensive inhumanity which protects Europe’s delicate humanism. Same holds within Europe: much money is diverted from West to East by EU.

As I have explained in many essays, small, neutral, hedonistic countries, in particular Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden, were direct enablers of Hitler’s stunning victory of May-June 1940 against the French army seconded by Britain. If only one of the small hedonists had betrayed, Hitler would probably not have won, but the combination of the three was lethal. We have more of this now. France should somehow make it so that other European countries are forced to pay for the French military… just as they already pay for the US military (but not enough as Trump keeps on bellowing). A way to pay is to feed the French military-industrial complex by purchasing French military equipment as is done presently (why do you think so many European countries purchase some US equipment known to be inferior to their French alternative?)

Not that the French are all innocent: maybe fracking would work in France, but we won’t know, because fracking prospection was outlawed there, in spite of large possible natural gas reserves (the French consider obvious that the planet has to be saved, and that it is the US which, in this respect has sold its soul).

 

Some products enabled in the USA are known to cause all sorts of diseases, and that’s why they are outlawed in Europe. Generally because lobbyists have proven more efficient in Washington, and US politicians much more corrupt. Hence a question: is it more corrupt to be corrupt, or to sell one’s destiny to the corrupt?

 

So now here we are: thanks to Brexit, France can at last realize Napoleon, Charlemagne and Caesar’s dream, unify continental Europe. Actually all serious French kings, after 1,000 CE, realized that it had been a mistake to let go of the rest of the Renovated Roman empire. As the Bouvines battle, in 1214 CE, and countless other battles, demonstrated; the European Union needs to be unified, and that means military force, otherwise it’s an ongoing butchery (see German fascism to see what military force and abominable destruction was needed to win the 1914-1945 war…). Small remnants of once large empires, such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria can’t preach otherwise: this lack of military power is why they got small. 

 

France and Britain are poised to lead Europe again, as they did for most of the last millennium… And even to rule the world, with the child they have in common. OK, it’s all a bit incestual, as France had given birth to the present version of England earlier (not just in 1066, but in the following centuries when rambunctious French lords in England used Parliament to boost themselves).

 

But Trump is right: Europe has to spend more on defense… It shouldn’t be to the US to defend Europe’s backyard: Syria, Ukraine, etc. This doesn’t mean I am a Trumper. Trump just surfs there the wave of historical evidence, as presented her for ten years: one needs military force to have an empire… And if one doesn’t have the force of empire, one has nothing. In particular not the force of law. [2]

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] France and Britain lost (as empires) around a bit more than three million dead in World War Two (2.6 million for the French empire, 500,000 killed for the British Commonwealth: the French had more military dead than the British). Entire cities were devastated, reduced to rubble. France had some point had only three railway engines left (the air forces and Resistance took care of the others). Normous debt were piled up. The USA actively, even militarily, under the guise of “decolonization”, deprived the Europeans of their empires and replaced them by their own, most juicy, while enjoying various rents from Europe…

***

[2] Some may look at Sweden and say Sweden is neutral, bla bla bla… Well, Sweden gave Hitler all the high grade iron he needed and the 88mm gun… In May 1940, the Franco-British army, led by the French Foreign Legion was poised to cut Sweden in two. Now the Swedes look nice, and they can point at their jet fighter… But it has lots of US technology inside: more of selling one’s soul to the US.

Is Nazi Ideology Still Alive And Well? Yes!

October 27, 2019

Central to Nazi ideology was the “Fuhrer Prinzip“, the “principle of the leader“, an idea also central to Marxism (the “dictatorship of the proletariat“). “Representative Democracy” is not much removed from that (as Nazis themselves pointed out). Who ponders this?

The leader of the so-called Islamist State, a terrorist organization (forget the pleonasm!), blew himself up, with three innocent children of his, rather than surrendering to US Special Forces. He was whimpering, crying and screaming according to Trump, which I don’t doubt, because he was a coward, that was the entire ideology of the Islamist state, and I don’t doubt it because his assassination of children is proof enough. And the Islamist State, just like Nazism has demonstrated, again and again to be an evil ideology… Which makes it plutocratic by my definition: evil-rule being pluto-kratia in Greek.

Hitler loved Islam, he said it himself, more than once. Yes I have read Hitler thoroughly, he is one of my preferred authors… not because I esteem him, I actually thoroughly despise him and those sharing most of his ideology, and this is precisely why I read him so much, he is an excellent lab rat for someone researching evil.

Of this today I talk.

Nowadays “Nazism” and “Fascism” are brandished, by those who know too little… and often unwittingly practice what they preach against.

Is fascism alive? In the most general sense, any time individuals brandish ill supported aggressive slogans, intellectual fascism is alive and well. It is a neurohormonal attitude. What this neurohormonal complex is applied to is just a detail.

Who is a Nazi? The question can be answered only after defining Nazi ideology first. One can go for a broad scope of the term “Nazi”, or concentrate on the original meaning. Broadly, one could define “Nazism” as any extreme nationalism mostly founded upon the hatred of some other group(s), and be done with the notion. That’s a perfect definition, and those uninterested by the peculiarities of German Nazism and its source in old European hatred can stop there.

Nazi storm troopers guarding a Jewish-owned business in Vienna shortly after the Anschluss in 1938. The graffiti on the store window reads, “You Jewish pig, may your hands rot off!”

German Nazism is often reduced to anti-Judaism. Many confine Nazism to the hatred of Jews, and then, self satisfied with their  self-declared “Anti-Nazism”, because they don’t hate Jews, then proceed to boldly embrace the rest of Nazi ideology… without knowing (even US Jews such as Paul Krugman do this… when they embrace their hero Keynes and his major notions in his major book:”The Economic Consequences of Peace”).

Such reducers of Nazism to its simplest expression, anti-Judaism, are oblivious to the entire universe of knowledge beyond their small and pathetic cognitive horizon, another way in which they get to be Nazis, without knowing… Ironically by not giving the concept of Nazism its full meaning… 

When talking crocodiles, one better observe crocodiles first. Hitler started Mein Kampf by accusing the French. He switches to the Jews only later. So one may suspect that any anti-French sentiment is even more Nazi than anti-Judaism sentiment (yes, Hitler wanted to exterminate the French too, and said it for example after losing the crucial battle of Bir Hakeim, against the French, in July 1942. However, differently from the Jews, the French had a country and the laws of war were supposed to apply, something most of the Nazi army approved of… in France… NOT in the Soviet Union!)  

***

Why is Nazi Ideology still alive and well? Too little facts known, including about Nazism itself:

Are there people who are Nazis, in the sense that they embrace most of Nazi ideology, and don’t even know it?

Heiko Kallweit, who has a PhD in archeology wrote to me: “In 1939, people were still around recalling the memory to French revenge in 1919. A French policy of hate and the wish, to humiliate and destroy Germany. Some people, especially those living close to a border with France, recalled stories told by grandmothers and fathers, about what the French and Napoleon brought besides the metric system or the Code Napoleon. They brought plundering and destruction, war and again humiliation and domination.”

Ideas, to be cogent, need to rest on true facts, not fake facts. How are fake facts determined? By knowing enough significant facts to build NETWORKS OF PLAUSIBILITY. In a network of plausibility, an emotional-logical category is established, where truth flows. If a fact sticks out, no truth leading to it, no truth emanating from it, then it has to be examined carefully. 

Coucy was the largest, tallest Medieval Castle, in the world. It took 28 tons of dynamite for the Germans to bring down the Donjon, and ten tons for dynamite to destroy each tower. The destruction of Coucy by the Germans in WWI is exemplary of the wanton criminal acts of destruction committed by the Germans in WW!, unrepaired to this day. The French have been rebuilding the castle for a century. It used to be the third most visited monument in France, after Versailles and the Mont Saint Michel… So Nazism, in the general sense was not invented by Hitler, and talking of extreme, devastating, reparations imposed by the French on the Germans, which would have caused Nazism, just a superposition of lies. North East France is still injured by the devastation caused by the fascist war criminal invaders from the tyranny to the east in 1914-1918.

Significant facts about German Criminal Insanity Starting in the 18th Century, the culmination of which was Nazism in the strictest sense of the term: 

1) “Germany” was created in 1871 in Versailles France. Actually “Germany” called itself the “Second Reich”, the idea being that the first empire was created by… Charlemagne, a Frankish king ointed in Reims, Francia (as France was then called). Actually the Franks talked about Renovatio Imperium Romanorum (Renovation of the Empire of the Romans). 

 

2) I hate Napoleon, who was a bloody dictator, a glorified mafioso, who hijacked the revolution, and I despise those who have googoo eyes for him. His body should be removed from the Invalides, and thrown into the Seine, or send back to Corsica. The Grand Army which seized Moscow had been decimated by typhus, invading Russia wasn’t smart, they got the coldest winter, Napoleon himself was sick, etc. However, Napoleon’s Grand Army invading Russia was mostly made of German and Polish speaking youth (as Napoleon himself pointed out to Metternich after the debacle).

 

3) The French invasion of Mittel Europa has to be looked in context: it was itself a counterstrike from an earlier invasion of France, that one deliberate, and unprovoked. A coalition of all European plutocrats attacked the French Constitutional Monarchy in July 1792, led by Prussia and Britain, the overall commander the Duke of Brunswick threatened all of Paris with “military execution”. One could not imagine a more infamous context: the European plutocrats attacking France could not have been alarmed by the French King, the same Louis XVI who ruled over France for more than 20 years. No, what alarmed them was “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” of 1789: all men are equal, etc.. . Plutocrats hate equality. 

 

4) The French freed the Jews and the Poles from the slave status and racial oppression the racist, invasive kingdom of Prussia had brought much of Europe, and especially Poland. Prussia more than doubled its size by initially grabbing Silesia from Austria. Prussia had been also bankrolled earlier in the seven year world war of 1756-1763 by… Britain. Prussia and Russia destroyed Poland, an older nation than themselves, and long much larger. 

 

5) After 1815, the Prussians and Austrians ruled Europe, with the Russians, and dismantled Poland again, and made Jews and Poles into slaves, racially inferior. People were barred on racial ground to exert some higher professions, such as lawyer and doctor.

 

6) The Second Reich decided to deliberately attack the world in July 1914. The immediate pretext was the Sarajevo assassination. That assassination was also an enabling factor: the Archduke was the Kaiser’s only friend and a partisan of peace at nearly any cost. Had the Archduke been alive, it’s unlikely the Kaiser would have allowed the attack upon the world, planned December 11, 1912. Things fell in place when the right arm of fanatical racist US president Woodrow Wilson saw the Kaiser June 1, 1914, and proposed an alliance with Britain against the “racially inferior French”. This is why the USA, happy to weaken France and Britain, initially supported the Second Reich by breaking the Franco-British blockade, by using the “neutral” Netherlands. It was good money for Netherlands and US.

 

7) Attacking the world is per se, a war crime of the highest order. On that ground again, all the top commanders of the “Second Reich” should have been executed, including the Kaiser and the conspirationists of Dec 11, 1912. Generals such as Ludendorff, who personally ordered war crimes during the siege of Liege, should have been executed (he was for many years, the most important Nazi: one less Nazi). Thousands of war crimes were committed in August 1914 by invading German troops, including that of a two year old belgian girl, thoroughly documented, never punished. Besides her da, many civilians were killed just that day in that particular village. The Germans had been driven insane by the violence of a French counterattack (where 23.000 French soldiers died). That was August 23, 1914. At least, those crimes should be retrospectively condemned: then today’s people, around the world can learn why plutocratic dictatorship can rendered even people in some ways very educated as the German, criminally insane. 

 

8) German war crimes were committed throughout the war, but especially when it became klar that the Second Reich was losing.  The entire north east area of France, her industrial core was utterly destroyed, from exploded, flooded mines, to flattened factories, to even telephone poles, cut and burned. The French actually invaded the Ruhr in 1923 after the Germans claimed they could not replace the telephone and power poles they had destroyed in France, 5 years earlier. 

 

Even castles got destroyed.

Germany should have paid and replaced all it destroyed in France. To this day, that’s not done. The Coucy castle, destroyed by the Germans in 1917, the largest, strongest, tallest Middle Age castle destroyed by the blood thirsty robotic servants of German plutocracy in 1917 is still a field of ruins. The French have been rebuilding it for more than a century!  [1]

 

9) As far as humiliation and domination is concerned, the Germans imposed that to themselves by being ruled by criminals such as Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hitler. Or, for that matter, in the case of Prussia, the racist Frederik der Grosse. To claim that’s the fault of the  French that Prussians and Austrians enacted racist laws, occupied countries, and tried to destroy them, and then attacked the world, is sheer insanity, the sort of insanity the Nazis were famous for. 

 

10) Heiko wrote: “In 1939, people were still around recalling the memory to French revenge in 1919. A French policy of hate and the wish, to humiliate and destroy Germany.” then you go on with details. This is an excellent abstract of the first six pages of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Yes, I read all what Hitler wrote, including his second book published post-mortem, and much of what Hitler said, and more than once. I study evil, you see. I also have a personal interest: not only was my family in the resistance and an uncle in the French military as an officer, fighting for six years (Oncle Edmond), not only my father saw combat twice against the Nazis, but an other (French) uncle (Tonton Daniel) was married to the (German) daughter (Tante Annie) of the main artisan of World War One, Von Molkte! I also had one family member who were pro-Nazis (born after the war).  When I was six, this cousin explained to me all the bad things which happened to Germany were just caused by one bad man, Hitler.

 

No. Would something like the rule of Nazism have happened without the individual Hitler? I don’t know. But there were Freikrops before Hitler became noticeable and many extremely German hyper nationalistic nasty politics violating the Versailles Treaty (including rearming Germany, with the help of Stalin, Portugal) were launched when the Nazis were not politically important. The idea that the Versailles Treaty was “revenge” because it freed Eastern Europe from German domination, was rampant… And is prominent in Keynes’ work (so all the plutocrats loved that theme.

 

Hitler was animated by an ideology. Much, if not most of it, is still alive and well, in all too many places…

In the most general sense of the term, Nazism, and more generally Intellectual Fascism are servants and thus friends of plutocracy. Thus plutocracy love hard core Islam: question that set of (mostly) idiocies, some of them admittedly very beautiful, and you will die. Be suspected of questioning same set, die just the same. Be viewed as having disparaged the Rophet, die, and so on. Thus thinking, under hard core Islam is a difficult, not to say lethal, thing, and this is why it didn’t happen (most Islamist thinkers were just glorified parrots: the real iconoclasts were in Western Europe, suggesting as early as the 11 C, as Berengar did, that god was just reason…)

As we live in times of increasing plutocracy (not just from accumulated wealth, but also from accumulated evil: consider the ongoing mass extinction), having only a few thoughts and feelings aggressively bound around the ax of violence, is exactly what works best, as far as our masters are concerned.

And that is why stupidities kept on being repeated about World War One and the Versailles Treaty… Thus France. By attacking France the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen gets attacked… and thus the core of the World Republic and Empire of Goodness the United Nations is supposed to foster… is getting attack, to the benefit of global plutocracy.

One must crush infamy, but one should first know what it is. Voltaire had not figured it out completely, or persuaded himself it didn’t matter. We have to do better.

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: Voltaire finished his letters with “Il faut écraser l’infame” (One must crush infamy). By this he mostly meant the Catholic church, an excellent idea, but plutocracy in general is infamy, not just the superstitious religions, not just abusive kings…   

***

[1] During their occupation of north-east France, the Germans turned the formidable Coucy castle into a military outpost and a residence of German dignitaries, including fascist world aggressor Emperor Wilhelm II himself. In March 1917 the retreating German army, on order of the unpunished war criminal General Erich Ludendorff, future principal of the Nazi Party, destroyed the keep (donjon) and four of the giant towers. This wanton destruction caused so much public outrage in France that in April 1917 the ruins were declared “a memorial to barbarity“. Although Germans of the Nazi type always whine about the tiny reparations they made for the enormous destruction they committed in 1914-1918 (meaning truly that they would still want the Slavs as slaves, and the Jews as Untermenschen), we don’t see them offer to rebuild Coucy. On the positive side, the French can contemplate its ruins, and see what happens when not enough smart effort is made to defend the Republic…