Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

This Alone Validates Clinton’s Loss

December 31, 2016

I was poking around the definition of “national debt”, by consulting various online entities, some of them governmental. “National debt” varies according to what one considers. I was looking to see whether “Quantitative Easing” (the buying by the central banks of depleted assets to the wealthiest to make them wealthy again — the way it was done by our unforgivable leaders).

The smallest interpretation of “national debt” in the case of the USA is around $13 trillions, 80% of US GDP. That smallest notion of debt considers only the FEDERAL debt held by the PUBLIC… After excluding all sorts of obligations (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, real estates entities held by the US government)… or what the US government owes to future Social Security recipients (most of the US population). The smallest number is what the Demoncrats love to brandish. However, it will not affect the stunning discovery I made (below).

This Is The Smallest Interpretation Of Debt, The One Held By The Public, After EXCLUDING All Sorts Of Gigantic Obligations, Bankrupt Governmental Entiries, And Inter-Governmental Debt, And Also After Excluding the "Fed Balance Sheet"

This Is The Smallest Interpretation Of Debt, The One Held By The Public, After EXCLUDING All Sorts Of Gigantic Obligations, Bankrupt Governmental entities, And Inter-Governmental Debt, And Also After Excluding the “Fed Balance Sheet”

Obama augmented enormously the US National Debt. What for?

The OECD considers that US government debt, including state and local government, is 125% of US GDP. By comparison, the OECD considers that the “general government debt” of socialist France is a bit less, 120% of GDP (same link).

The maximal interpretation of the US National Debt is well above 50 trillion dollars, more than 300% of GDP. Similar numbers, in terms of percentage of GDP, are true for comparable countries (such as France, UK, etc.)

The US government seizes some revenues, like the Social Security tax and consumes it right away (instead of putting the money in the Social Security Trust Fund). The result of this sort of maneuvers is “intergovernmental debt”, which is around 6 trillion dollars. I knew this. This “borrowing” from Social Security has to be absolutely incorporated in the notion of National Debt, because it represents borrowing from the Public by other (unwilling) means. Fair accounting requires to do this.

By this reckoning, the internationally recognized US Federal debt, in December 2015, a year ago,  was 101% of US GDP (a number comparable to that of socialist France… I don’t mean that as an insult: the present presidency of France is held by the French Socialist Party, and so is the Parliament and Senate! They will be thrown out of power in five months.)

But then I learned something new, which jumped at me. The US National Debt reached 106% of GDP in July 2016, six months later. That is an annual rate of augmentation of roughly 10% a year. In a way, it makes sense: when Obama was inaugurated, the US National Debt was just 68%. So, in seven years, Obama increased the US debt by 33%, a rate of augmentation of nearly 5% a year. So Obama just doubled his rate of augmentation of US debt in 2016.

After I pointed out this enormous jump of the debt on Tweeter, I got the following reaction (from which I borrowed the title of this essay):

Philip N. Beam Sr.@PhilipBeamSr

@Tyranosopher @CraigRBrittain @wikileaks Just this alone should be enough to validate Hillary’s loss.


And this debt catastrophe is not going to improve: the cost of Obamacare is up 25% from 2016 to 2017. The New York Times and the Reaganite Paul Krugman (the fellow Nobel of Obama and self-aggrandizing, self-described as “the conscience of a liberal”) swooned that this 25% jump in Obamacare cost, was just a one-time augmentation.

However, as there are no serious cost controls in Obamacare, this is highly unlikely: taxpayers will have to pay increasingly plutocrats such as Warren buffet, who made many billions out of US health care, to better lecture the losers down there who don’t know how to invest or work, and, moreover, vote for Trump.  

One may wonder how, mechanically dear leader Obama generated so much debt. The following graph explains it all: Obama lowered the taxes on the wealthy, while showering the poor with gold, and various services, to make them stupidly favorable. This is a very old method, invented and practiced industrially, by Roman emperors (it did not end well).

Under Obama Tax Receipts, Which Come Mostly From Taxing The Rich, Were Kept Artificially, Unsustainably Low. No Wonder the Hyper Rich Were Mostly All For Obama, And Against The (For Them Frighteningly) Unpredictable Trump.

Under Obama Tax Receipts, Which Come Mostly From Taxing The Rich, Were Kept Artificially, Unsustainably Low. No Wonder the Hyper Rich Were Mostly All For Obama, And Against The (For Them Frighteningly) Unpredictable Trump.

So Obama was a Progressive In Name Only (PINO), or DINO (Democrat In Name Only). He built up a giant deficit, and thus National Debt, so that his friends would stay rich.

Yes, indeed. During the 2008 crisis, part of the wealthiest lost most of their wealth to fellow wealthy people (thanks to a lot of leveraging, as organized by Clinton, Bill). Obama could have let the entities in difficulty go bankrupt, as Reagan and Bush Sr. did in the 1980s. And then buy them on the cheap. Instead he went a different route, using TARP and paying TARP with Quantitative Easing. A route which made the wealthiest, wealthier. (He probably does not understand this, to this day!)

A related matter is the striking improvement of some US socioeconomic metrics in the last couple of months before the US presidential election.

For example, the US median family income rocketed up in the last few weeks before the elections.. I was very surprised by this, and suspicious. Indeed, the US median family income peaked, in real dollars, in 1998, when it succumbed to Bill Clinton’s pro-wealth policies of the Goldman Sachs government. Ever since it has been down, as Democrat and Republican leadership followed the sort of Reagan, trickle down policies which got great demoncratic leaders such as Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Paul Krugman launched (Rubin was CEO of Goldman Sachs, while Summers and Krugman were at the White House, telling Reagan what to do).

In Brazil, president Dilma Rousseff did a similar trick: she cooked the numbers to make the economy look better than it really was. She was re-elected, thanks to those numbers, but when the cooking surfaced, and started to smell bad, she was impeached. It turns out that the Brazilian sociopolitical leadership is thoroughly corrupt. All the way to socialist icons and ex-guerillas (such as Dilma; by the way, Dilma did not profit personally materially from the cooking of the numbers… except that she got, however fleetingly, re-elected).

Some will say that the USA is not Brazil. Indeed, the USA is much more corrupt, so the institutionalization of the corruption in the USA is hard to even point out, lest one is ready to be called a lunatic.

It is not just financial corruption, it’s also media, even mental corruption, which is more extensive in the USA: when Brazilian leaders lose an election, they don’t accuse Russia.

So did Obama’s underlings cook the numbers? In light of the stupendous augmentation of the debt in the months prior to the presidential election, one can only be suspicious.

Augmenting the US National Debt, my dear Obama, at a ten percent annual rate, was trying to buy the presidential election. That’s how history will remember it. History will also remember that you tried to lower the American Republic to the status of vulgar Banana Republic, by claiming it was all Russia’s fault.

For years, the USA crowed that it was the world’s hacking master, even making Iranian nuclear equipment spin out of control (Stuxnet virus). Vast arms of the government masquerading as private entities, among them Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, were hacking the world, and it was fine.

A real democratic republic and open society should never underestimate others’ propensity to mimic anti-democratic, anti-republican and vicious means!

This happened before: the Athenian empire behaved several times in terrible ways. And that was probably why Athens lost the Penopolesian war (Athens had stolen the Delian League treasury, and destroyed the island state of Melos, both for no good reason, among other exploits of demented cruelty unbound). Later, other Greek states imitated the Athenian ways, and Athens lost the war, and half of her population. She survived only thanks to Sparta (the ultimate ignominy!)

Behaving badly feels good, until on is found out by the public. Happy new year Obama and your sycophantic pro-plutocratic media!

Patrice Ayme’

Free Speech Versus Islamist Fellow Travelers

May 6, 2015

Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical weekly, was given the American PEN Freedom of Expression Courage Award. Nice and courageous for PEN to do this. During the attack against Charlie Hebdo in January, 12 victims were killed, including two practicing Muslims (one of these Muslims was the Charlie Hebdo “correcteur“, a supervisory editor; the other was a police officer who had come to the rescue).

The gunmen were killed later, but an accomplice of those two  killed (in the back) a (black) police woman, and then a number of patrons in a Jewish supermarket he held hostage (before being killed by police).

Love Stronger Than Hatred: "Cultural Arrogance of the French Nation?"

Love Stronger Than Hatred: “Cultural Arrogance of the French Nation?”

The PEN gala came two days after two Jihadist gunmen opened fire at a Texas competition to draw cartoons inspired by Islam. Hard core Islam does not tolerate drawing the creatures of Allah, be they beasts, or men. A fortiori, prophets.

Accepting the award, Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief Gerard Biard said that the magazine’s shocking and sometimes (gently) offensive content helped combat extremists angry against free speech. “Fear is the most powerful weapon they have,” he said. “Being here tonight we contribute to disarming them.”

Secularism was not the enemy of religion; it simply said that the state had no religion, Biard persevered. “Being shocked is part of the democratic debate. Being shot is not,” he said.

Honoring Charlie Hebdo bitterly divides the literary community of the USA: 200 members of PEN signed a letter claiming: “there is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression.”

This is hogwash. Show me, literary men of little merit,  just ONE cartoon of Charlie Hebdo which is “not acceptable”. Just ONE. Or are you upset about guys kissing guys? And let’s talk about it. Insulting without explicit example to back it up, is just hate speech.

Those literary buffoons of the vicious type, also accused Charlie Hebdo of “cultural intolerance… All this is complicated by PEN’s seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation“.

A really hilarious charge for anybody familiar with French and USA societies (the French are much more tolerant: homosexuality was legal in France, in the Sixteenth Century already, and Senegalese were French citizens, under Louis XIV; moreover, slavery became illegal in the Frankish empire, at the time when the Qur’an, which mandates slavery, was written for the first time! There was never any legal racism in France, whereas racism is still official in the USA: just look at the census bureau’s methodology! Among other “racially” aware tweaks… Some racist ways which are perfectly legal in the USA, to this day, are punishable in France with prison!)

Notice also that francophobia (obvious in their denunciation of “cultural arrogance of the French…”) is not racist, according to those fellow travelers of the most violent form of Islamism.

Satire is more than 5 centuries old in France. Satire is viewed as central to civilization. Some French regimes fell, just because of satire, even centuries ago, before the USA was constituted. Charlie Hebdo is just one of several French satirical publications. They have no equivalent in the USA, as they are too “shocking” for the USA, where the respect for authority (including tax-free superstitions) is highly ingrained.

Humor is central to intelligence formation.

To become more intelligent, we have to envision more of all the possibilities imaginable (within the boundaries set to free speech by the law). This is all what cartoons are about.

The irony is that Charlie Hebdo is fanatically anti-racist. It was made, to be fanatically anti-racist. Biard and Congolese author Alain Mabanckou told the PEN audience that Charlie Hebdo was and always had been “anti-racist”, a reply to the criticism that the magazine portrayed French racial and religious minorities in a stereotypical way. “Charlie Hebdo has fought all forms of racism since its inception,” Biard said.

Jean-Baptiste Thoret, who received the prize with his colleague Briard, told Charlie Rose that Charlie Hebdo is “absolutely not the same” as the Texas contest because the magazine does not specifically target Islam. It is true, that, over the years, Catholicism has been more of a target. Overall, Charlie Hebdo is focused on politics, not religion, so politicians are the first victims of Charlie Hebdo’s harassment.

I am personally of the opinion that the empire of Islam upon vast parts of the world, is the MAIN cause of their poverty and on-going mayhem, just as Christianism was in Europe, in the Middle-Ages. Same problem.

And it has the same solution: just as Christianism was domesticated by civilization, and this is called secularism, Islamism too, has to be domesticated.

Those who claim to refuse to understand secularism is better than Islamism are actually closet racists. What else? They want Muslims to keep on being oppressed, subjugated, victimized, mutilated, humiliated and decerebrated by the ideology of Islamism. And especially the women (whom the Qur’an views legally as a fraction of the worth of men, at best).

Salman Rushdie lived under a fatwa from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini for a decade for writing the supposedly blasphemous Satanic Verses. This means that Salman Rushdie, for mentioning a part of the Qur’an, was condemned to death, by Ayatollah Khomeini, who ordered all and any Muslim in good standing to go, and kill Mr. Rusdie, so that they could be rewarded by Allah.

My opinion is that this was an International Crime, as Khomeini was then the dictator, the head of state, of Iran. A warrant ought to have written for Khomeini’s arrest.

Mr. Rushdie described those who opposed the PEN’s award to Charlie Hebdo as fellow travelers” of the Islamic extremists who murdered the Charlie Hebdo staff, and argued on Facebook: “I fear some old friendships will break on this wheel.”

Let me repeat slowly: those who claim that there is everything good to be living under an Islamist dictatorship are racist. (Living under Islam is supposed to be living under an Islamist dictatorship , according to the Qur’an itself). The Qur’an is one of the most violent books anywhere: see “Violence in the Holy Qur’an”. I don’t have anything against violence, if and only if, it is fully justified, and the only solution. But ordering to kill ill-defined “unbelievers,” as the Qur’an has it pages after pages, is not acceptable. To me. And that’s true for Catholicism, Protestantism, or Islamism.

It’s not acceptable to Islamists themselves, as it drives them lethally crazy: millions of them spend most of their time wanting to kill each other, and acting on it. That may have been OK in the Middle -Ages, but nowadays, with Weapons of Mass Destruction easy to make, this attitude is not compatible with the continuation of civilization. Thus we cannot afford indifference to it.

We are at war, whether we want it, or not. Those who do not understand this are traitors to civilization, just as those who did not understand the danger of Nazism, and that tolerating Nazism was intolerable, were traitors to civilization, in a very similar vein. And this is not just an accidental analogy: Hitler was a loud supporter of Islamism (the Nazi dictator loudly admired Islam’s violence and war-mongering, while despising the softness of Christianism).

Those who love Islamism, just as those who loved Hitlerism, are not just cowards, but ill-informed, and not very smart.

Patrice Ayme’

God Here, Dog There

March 12, 2015

A big difference between the USA and Western Europe, is that the USA is obsessed by god. Just like Europe used to be, at least, officially speaking. (According to Rabelais, it was all a lie; peasants did not believe in the official obsession with god. That’s why his books on Gargantua and company ignored Christianism.)

A researcher applied Bayesian analysis to what we know of the writings on Jesus, and various alleged witnesses at the time. The probability that Jesus was a real person was found to be as low as .08%. Oops.

Jesus Killed Philosophers, Now Philosophers Kill Jesus. Any Question?

Jesus Killed Philosophers, Now Philosophers Kill Jesus. Any Question?

[Statue of philosopher Etienne Dolet, place Maubert, where he was tortured, strangled, and burned. The monument was torn down by Hitlerian fascists during the Nazi occupation of World War Two: Nazis hated the enemies of Jesus’ god. Wake up, people: when do we replace Dolet’s memorial?]

Bayes’ and Laplace style “inverse probability” does not replace what I would call “inverse axiomatics”. If the probability of the existence of the goulougoulou is just .08%, it may as well be zero. And the axioms ought to be changed: believing in Jesus, son of god (not dog, let me point out), is as likely as believing in the Hummingbird God of the Aztecs.

All right, more people got killed in the name of Jesus than were devoured in the name of the Humming Bird God, so Jesus is a more serious problem, all the more as Abraham crazies are still around, whereas the Humming Bird crazies are so finished, they don’t even have a website.



That Jesus did not exist is completely obvious to anyone who, as I did, read all the Roman literature (that was the reward for learning Latin). The Roman texts are clear: the first Christian, historically speaking, Saint Paul, wrote around 66 CE, that “Jesus was all and only in my head.” [Paraphrasing.] And so on.

Prominent Jews who did not agree with Roman rule, to the point of deadly strife, were prominently tried and executed. All, but for Jesus… And Saint Paul!

(The case of Saint Paul was that the Jews wanted him executed, as blasphemer, and the Romans were trying to save him, as a prosecutor, and Roman citizen. Brought back to Rome, from Jerusalem, he wrote there, from prison, about Jesus in his head; then, he was made to disappear, probably to save him from the nasty rabis.)

In Europe, nearly nobody believes in the Jesus-Abraham stuff. Not anymore. Even out of the six million Muslims of relatively recent immigration in France, a small fraction of the two million who are somewhat superficially Muslim, really believe in the Abrahamist mythology.

Jesus himself, Jesus the myth, that is, was a first class terrorist: he made clear all the Old Testament was true, as far as he was concerned. And the only positive thing one can clearly say about Bible god, is that his terror was strong. (On the love side, god-the-dad was rather weak. God the dad was not just about whips and chains, but outright extermination in the flames… As reminded to us in the Qur’an and Hadith…)



Why no more belief in Europe? Well, take the central case of France and consider the history of religious strife there: first one million Cathars got exterminated, and the south of France taken over by the north (under Philippe-Auguste, and a crazed Pope). In a single crusade.

That was just a warm-up.

Then the Jews got kicked out. And again, under Saint Louis, and again, under whomever tyrant was in need of cash again.

By the fifteenth century, the Protestants were hunted in the Alps, by mentally deranged Jesus lovers, and Louis XI had to send the military to remind fanatical Catholics that French Protestants were free to exert their cult.

Louis XI was rather a Catholic fanatic, he banned Buridan’s works (this is why people believe Copernic, yet to be born, invented the heliocentric system!). But, as king, Louis XI had to respect the law, and the law of France was fundamentally secular (coming, as it did, from the Salian Law, and the secular part of Roman law).

In the sixteenth century, Francois I, advanced in many ways, under the influence of the fanatically Catholic Sorbonne, burned, alive, three philosophers, for insulting Jesus (or something like that).

The sixteenth century ends with seven religious wars in quick succession, secret intervention of Spanish Catholic fascism in France affairs an episode that was part of the Gran Armada attack on England, and the war in the Netherlands). The emperor of Spain and the Holly Roman German Empire, sent an armada to kill down to the last baby of those French colonists in the Carolinas: all too many were Protestants, so they had to be eradicated.

The horrors of the religions wars which wrecked Europe for more than 5 centuries, and then merged into “nationalist” struggles are indescribable. They were similar, but went beyond what is now done in Syria (where ten year old children were recently made to execute prisoners).

In the following century, Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, weakening France and creating the germs of war, for centuries to come.

The revolution of 1789 reinstated Jews and Protestants, and cracked down on the Catholic church. So the French intellectual tradition, say, at 90% has become very anti-Christian in general, and especially anti-Catholic.

Thus French philosophers have looked without mercy at what Christianism brought. The verdict? Not much.



In the USA, it’s different: Christianism, and its Bible was the backbone which justified the holocaust of the Natives. The Bible is indeed full of notions such as “elected people”, “promised land”, “heathens”, and entire population to massacre, just because God said so (and if you don’t obey god, god will torture your son, as god did to the disobedient King David).

The Bible was also the fundamental cement of American ideology. Thus the American establishment views any attack against the religions of Abraham as attacks against its very foundations.

If the Bible goes, and Baseball, and American football, there would be nothing left. What would happen then? Would Americans start to think and debate like the French, and be prone to revolutions?



Étienne Dolet was a personal friend of Rabelais. As Rabelais was giving a lecture in anatomy (he was a medical science professor), Dolet intervened during a questions and answers session, with some smart remarks, that’s how they met.

Dolet was burned, alive, at the age of 37.

But his story does not stop there.

From 1660 to 1750, no less than eight hundred sixty-nine (869) authors, printers, librarians, and merchants of pictures were thrown to the Bastille, hanged, or, and, burned, because they published works contradicting good behavior, religion, or the King. (Never mind that King Louis XIV was a certified thief, tyrant, mass murderer, criminal against humanity, and religious persecutor.)

As recently as 30 September 1865, the canton d’Uri’s Criminal Tribunal condemned “J.-J. Ryniker, typographe,” for having published a booklet offensive to god and Christian teaching, and the Catholic church and its chief, and against Holy Script (“brochure offensante envers Dieu et l’enseignement chrétien en général, ainsi qu’envers l’Eglise catholique et son chef, et envers l’Ecriture sainte), to be lashed twenty times by the cat with nine tails (“vingt coups de verges”), jail with water and bread on lternate days, perpetual banishment from the canton, and various other punishments.

In World War Two the unconstitutional regime of Marshall Petain, operating in collaboration with Adolf Hitler, demolished the statue of Dolet which throned over place Maubert in Paris, where he was martyrized.


Because Petain’s regime rested on fascism, and there is no better justification in the West for fascism, than the Christian god. This is what Constantine found out, and why he replaced the cult of Sol Invictus by Jesus.

Another factor in god’s ignominy was Nazism. First, the churches did nothing, but really absolutely nothing to stop the Nazis. Not only that, but the Vatican helped dozens of thousands of Nazis to escape to the Americas.

Worse: philosopher Hannah Arendt (Prussian, Jewish, Higher Class, German, and Heidegger’s lover), correctly accused the Jewish Councils (“Judenraten”) to have collaborated with Hitler, making a bad situation worse. She was right. But the crimes of god, of Abraham’s god, do not stop here.

Most Jews submitted to god’s will or Amor Fati (Abrahamism without god), instead of revolting against Adolf’s will.

God’s aura came out so diminished from his lack of guts when confronted to the total evil of Nazism, that some learned Jews in an extermination camp conducted a “trial of god”.

And thus Israel got founded on the secular socialism of the Kibbutz, not around the Torah.

So out with god, better get a dog.

Patrice Ayme’

Banks, MSM, Censorship, Times, & Other Lies

February 15, 2015

Yes, Putinofascists and Islamofascists will be mentioned:

Everywhere people have power, they want more. I sent two comments which could not be viewed as friendly to banks this week; the New York Times censored both of them. I protested stridently: they ignored me, totally. I asked them to point out to me where my errors were, with what I said about the banks. So that I could stop misleading the public. Silence. All they told me is that I was under surveillance.

The New York Times banks on the best possible banks it all wants us to bank on. Pointing out how banks work, is viewed as blasphemy. Pointing out that the Greek crisis was a bank crisis, is viewed as blasphemy. Observing that banks, and the banksters who led them, escaped not just the expropriation of their personal property, that they richly deserved, but even critique, is viewed as blasphemy.

The New York Times has established that blasphemy is a crime, or, at least, immoral, by loudly refusing to publish cartoons that could be interpreted by some fanatics as such… And the New York Times made that refusal into a moral principle.

Having established that meta-principle of blasphemy under the pretext of protecting Islam, the New York Times can then apply it by protecting its readers from blasphemy about banks. The human mind is a contrived thing, but the New York Times has figured enough of it, to manipulate its naïve readers’ minds.

Truth Emerging About Islam, But Not About Banks

Truth Emerging About Islam, But Not About Banks

[In the standard interpretation of Islam, anybody viewed as having left Islam is to be killed. The Qur’an says in many places that those who leave Islam shall be “grievously punished”. The Hadith specifies what the penalty is: death.

Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.“— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17]

The latest censorship event I was a victim of from the New York Times was Saturday (2/14/15). Krugman wrote a piece: “Greece Excess Burden“. It starts this way. Krugman speaking: “What’s the state of the Greek crisis? I have no idea, or at any rate no idea beyond what any diligent reader of press reports might glean.”

One of the problems with people such as Krugman is that they read the press, that is, themselves, and all the press does is to say what its owners want to hear. Those owners are plutocrats, hence the censorship against people such as me (I have noticed that some excellent, yet critical, commenters have disappeared from the New York Times recently).

Krugman then drinks the cool-aid, and invites us all to drink it too:

I do, however, have a pretty good idea of what Greece is asking for on the fiscal side, and it might be useful to talk about the arithmetic behind that position.

Here’s the basic point: Greece has, through incredible sacrifice, managed to achieve a primary budget surplus — a surplus excluding interest payments — despite a depression-level slump. That surplus is believed to be currently running at about 1.5 percent of GDP.”

Krugman is drowning the fish in the water. It is not that what he says is false. It is that it is shallow. Krugman does not have special knowledge about the Greek debt: anybody listening to the leather clad Greek finance minister knows this. Varoufakis lived a quarter of a century between London and Australia: his English is perfect. Krugman’s job ought to be to go further than the Greek Finance  minister,

And the truth is, it’s not useful to rehash the numbers. Nor is it useful to accuse the Euro, as Krugman does periodically, and disingenuously, or Pluto knows what.

The present Greek crisis was a banking crisis enabled by non-Greek individuals and institutions. Just like Nazism, or Putinism, was not just about Germany, or Russia, but worse.

For example, Greek plutocrats put the money they stole in French and German banks. Do the French and German banks inform the Greek Treasury? No. Not at all.

So I sent the following comment to the New York Times (I sent another, less nice, half a day later, after it became obvious I had been censored). The New York Times is protecting the principle of banking as we have it now. Here is what I sent and was censored:

The whole Greek debt crisis is beyond outrageous. The innocent are paying for the thieves.

In Greece, as everywhere, some hyper rich bankers made the bets with other hyper rich bankers, and lent huge sums to plutocrats claiming to do business in Greece. All this lending went wrong, and some banks lost a lot of money (shortly after their managers got giant bonuses).

Countries such as Greece were called to re-capitalize those banks that were in danger of getting broke. Also the IMF, the ECB, and a specially created European institution contributed, with contracts ordering Greece to reimburse them.

So the private banks were saved, and they, and their managers were free to return to their games with derivatives, and other non-linear, self-dealing activities.

The bankers are laughing, bathing in Champagne, eating caviar in their mansions, graciously offered by their friend Putin.

France and Germany’s banking institutions have been milking the Greek People. They craftily went off the gravy train, letting the Public reimburse them, and now the Non-Greek Public is asking the Greek Public for money.

So the question is this:

Why are the bankers, the banks, their managers, shareholders and so on, all those who profited from financial business in Greece in the last ten years not asked to pay? They are rich, they can pay. They are culprit, they should be punished: they ought to pay.  

What is in question here is the power bankers have. Without any accountability. Who elected those people? And how come they can give money to each other, and their partners in crime, and laugh all their way to the banks?

Meanwhile some Islam fanatic(s) shot at a cartoonist and the French ambassador in Denmark, in an event about freedom of expression. The police was in force, and returned fire. The assailant(s) fled, and, remarkably, although some were wounded and one dead, the freedom event was re-started. The Islam fanatic(s) then went to the largest Synagogue in Copenhagen, opened fire, the police returned it, an innocent got killed, etc.

What does that have to do with banksters?

When one removes the nice propaganda on the surface, and one digs, both Islam and Banking are discovered to contain extremely nefarious traits.

The usual retort, is that they have good sides. Well, so did Nazism. So did actually all and any ideology: otherwise they would not be around.

An ideology is to be judged by its worse elements, its worst thoughts, its worst potential consequences, not its best ones. If the pilot may want to kill, or starve you, why would you go on that plane? All the more if he thinks that’s his religion, or his best business practice.

Another thing banksters and the professional of Islam have in common: they are self selected, to the point they do as they please. Imams can interpret Islam as they wish, and bankers can decide upon whatever they want in matter of finance, to the point they have strictly no idea what they, and the colleagues they depend upon, are doing.

So starving and killing the Greeks is just sadism, and not to talk about what truly happen, let alone censor those who talk about it, as Krugman and the new York times do, well, is criminal.

The so-called rebels in Eastern Ukraine announced that they will not respect the cease-fire, at least around a crucial city and a long a 50 kilometer corridor that are trying to break through.

French TV crews, coming from within the “Rebel” side, filmed line-ups of heavy guns firing, behind Russian flags floating in the breeze.

In Minsk, Putin recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, so what are his guns and his flags doing one kilometers within Ukraine? Lying is all about hiding the reality of one’s power.

Ultimately, bad moods propagate. Western Main Stream Media (MSM) protects the root of the banking ideology, which is that a few individuals decide who gets all the money in the world. That’s fundamentally unfair. Islamic ideology (following Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Century Christianity at its worst) decide who is a believer, and gets the greatest gift, life. It’s the same basic idea: a few individual decide of life and death.

Corrupt intellectuals, fascinated by themselves and their own little careers, told us, forever, that Islam was a civilization, much admired (it’s not a civilization, any more than the Aztecs’ cannibalistic religion was a civilization; the Aztecs had a remarkable civilization, but their bloody religion contributed to kill it, as it gave the Conquistadores and their allies all the pretext they needed).

Putin sees this simmering miasma, and the inability of the commoners in the West to connect the dots. He feels, like Hitler, that one man alone, with lots of smarts and will, like Hitler, can forge ahead a justification for his dictatorship, like Hitler, by constant war.

A lot of the inability to connect the dots is caused by deliberate censorship of the Western MSM. Krugman, great advocate of Quantitative Easing or: Let’s give trillions to the world’s most powerful people, the banksters. Krugman feels that to disparage the banks is adverse to his mission (whatever that is).

Even good willed people such as Piketty are part of it, by being wishy-washy about inequality (do plutocrats create jobs? Not sure, Piketty says; in truth plutocrats create basically nothing, and exploit everything). And by ignoring the banks. As far as I can tell, the New York Times censors 100% of my blasts against banks. Talk about an organized conspiracy.

Hey, remove the banks, what’s left of New York? A few empty skyscrapers?

Patrice Ayme’

Islamist State Phobia Is Civilized

December 21, 2014

Two police officers assassinated in New York, just because they sat in their cars, in uniform. The assassin had expressed his plan on the Internet (“They killed one of us, we will kill two of them”).

Simultaneously, in Tours, France, where the second invasion of France by the Islamist State was stopped in 732 CE, an agitated youth screaming “Alluha Akbar” entered a police station and stabbed gravely two officers. A third, also stabbed, shot four times, and killed the assailant, who found out that bullets are greater than his god.

The next day, a driver in djellaba, screaming “Alluha Akbar” plowed into French crowds, in four places of the city of Dijon, injuring thirteen, some grievously. He was arrested, his passengers fled. A similar attack happened in Nantes the day after into a Christmas, making eleven wounded, including 5 grievously.

In case people don’t know, these attacks are recommended by the Islamist State.

Civilization is about systems of thought. Civilization progresses in power and understanding, as it elaborates more and more sophisticated systems of thought.
What about old systems of thought, like, say, the Bible?

There are sick, demented, obsolete, idiotic, wrong, criminal, systems of thought. Actually, pretty much any system of thought practiced anywhere to guide any society, anywhere, more than a few centuries ago, is sick, demented, obsolete, idiotic, wrong and criminal.

So is the case of the original Christianism. Rabbi Jesus said that he “did not come to contradict the Law“. The Law, the Old Testament, approves of God torturing to death King David’s son, because David had refused to make a genocide that God had ordered.

The Fundamental Principle of the Abrahamic religions is that, whenever “God” (whatever that is), or when you feel that “God”, is ordering you to bind up your son, and slit his throat, it is immoral to object.

In other words, the fundamental principle of Abrahamism is that criminal insanity of the worst type (slitting the throat of an innocent, bound child, say) is of the essence, whenever “God” orders you to.

To this day the throat of animals is cut while they are fully conscious, by the Muslims, to celebrate the idea that Abraham was going to cut the throat of his live and conscious son. And meat can only be consumed, which was killed that way (does that mean Abraham was a cannibal? The mind reels with intriguing possibilities; in a slightly more distant past, cannibalism was ubiquitous; it went on, on a massive scale, in Pacific Islands, until the Nineteenth Century; just ask the ominously named Captain Cook, who got cooked, indeed).

Abrahamic religions are as violent as one can get. What is more violent, indeed, than celebrating the will to slit the throat of one’s bound, yet, conscious son? I am just asking a question, please don’t get offended, oh, you, primitives. We respect you, and especially in light of your obsession with throat slitting.

Does it really matter what the Abrahamists say to justify their will to slit children’s throats? Do they say anything? They say they have to obey “The Lord”.

This is an obvious reasoning to hold, if one comes from non-Abrahamist background, say, from a Zoroastrian background (much older by at least a millennium than Judaism; thrice the age of Islam). To counter this sort of critique, the Islamists call Yazidis “Devil Worshippers”, and have engaged in their systematic genocide.

Nobody in the West takes the calls to violence, or violent indifference, of Jesus Christ, Saint Louis, or Saint Thomas seriously anymore. Nobody is advocating anymore the hatred for Jews that Martin Luther advocated, and the indefinite torture of Jewish families he depicted with relish. Hitler’s bold endeavor to do as Luther said, brought universal condemnation.

The case of Islam is similar to that of the raw Bible. Within the 83,000 words of the Qur’an, the following compilation found around 10,000 words of calls to violence, some of it of the worst type.

Nazism was clearly a criminal system of thought. Its Bible, “Mein Kampf”, however lethal it proved to be, and full of lies, including the apology of lying itself (which is also found in the Qur’an), is, on the face of it, much less violent. “Mein Kampf” does not have explicit death threats, whereas the Qur’an (like the New Testament) has them (and crawls with dozens of them, differently from the NT).

Around 400 CE, the Founding Fathers of the Christian Church got together, and decided that the Bible was allegorical, metaphorical, not to be taken literally. The Caliph, in 850 CE took the exact opposite decision. Ever since, what used to be the world’s most advanced region, has got ever more degenerate.

And now in the West, while being a bigot was an insult philosophers used to hurl at Christians, Politically Correct naïve and dishonest pseudo-intellectuals, accuse free thinkers of bigotry, when they suffer from so-called “Islamophobia“. It is the world upside down, the inversion of all values.

Imagine a free thinker from the Enlightenment accused of “Christianophobia”. She, or he, would have laughed to no end, pointing out that was the whole point. Voltaire used Islamophobia against Christianism in his “Mahomet”. This theater was played in Europe, 250 years ago. Now, it is forbidden, even where it was written, Switzerland.

Enlightenment has turned to darkness, in all too many minds. Do the Islamophiles want to turn the West into Afghanistan? Or back to Saint Louis’ Middle Ages, with that holy Christian writing how much he would love to stab unbelievers in the belly?

The Crusade against the Albigienses (=Cathars) killed, officially, one million, the victorious Christians said.

Cathars were exterminated to the last, all their books destroyed. And this Crusade, the most murderous of them all, happened in France, under the order of the Pope and his mass murdering, genocidal associates. To this day, monsters such as Saint Louis, or Thomas, or Luther, are admired, yet, their ideas, once implemented, killed millions and terrorized the West for six centuries.

Such was the second genocidal eruption of Christianism. The first one had put an end to the Roman state (reconstituted by the Franks later, under a tolerant, secular LEX).

Many underestimate the horror that Christianism, the founder of Islamism. Why? Because “The Lord” is right. “The Lord” being the plutocrat in chief, and his subordinates, those who decide what one should believe in.

On the same matter of principle, horrors of Islam are underestimated.

Why is “The Lord” so anxious about us admiring Islam?

We got rid of Islamism Senior (= Christianism). Is it not racist that people in the Middle East ought to be living under a criminal system of thought, whereas we can do without?

A system of thought saying the following is indeed criminal:

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

There are hundreds more verses like that in the Qur’an, and some are even worse, as they describe horrific tortures in details (making unbelievers swallow molten metal, or skinning them alive, etc…).

Why do authorities such as “The Economist” censor the Qur’an? It is an educative story by itself.

And it proves my point: plutocrats in the West use respect for Islam as a way to subjugate the Natives (and extract their oil). Subjugation by decerebration: the ultimate.

Our civilization is not Christian. It’s much older, much wiser, knowledgeable, charitable and tolerant than that. Let’s extent the courtesy of civilization to other peoples, instead of encouraging their minds to live in a small superstitious jail.

Patrice Ayme’

Censoring “Electrocoal”, Violating Democracy

November 26, 2014

“Scientific American” Censors “Electrocoal”, Violating Free Speech, the Status of the Internet as Public Utility, And, More Generally, Democracy:

President Obama declared last week that the Internet was a Public Utility. Rightly so. Say you build up a bridge. Does that give you the right to do whatever you want with the bridge when people use it? Not so, especially if the bridge has become a Public Utility.

Any media using the Internet is, to some extent, a Public Utility, because the Internet is a Public Utility.

Expression on the Internet is what Free Speech has become now.

A fundamental democratic right in Athens was that of addressing the Assembly.

There should be a right of free speech answer, especially when a site allows public comments.

More generally, the Internet is in need of laws, with the core aim of enabling Free Speech, and disallowing Hate Speech. Commercial, For-Profit Speech ought to be regulated: commerce is always regulated.

As it is, the Internet is the Wild West, and those with the biggest guns rule. Comments, rankings, private information and access are manipulated all over. Some companies’ business is actually to write fake comments and reviews, while passing for non-profit oriented free speech individuals: this ought to be considered consumer fraud, and the appropriate laws ought to be passed to criminalize the activity.

Scientific American is in the habit of censoring comments: “deciding what material is displayed on our website is our right”. They have censored strict scientific comments from me (without explanation).

A law ought to be passed forbidding public utilities to censor comments without some excellent reason. (Journalists are above the law in the sense that they do not have to reveal their sources, nor can be tried for opinion; so journalism always has a public utility aspect at its root.)

Take the example of Free Speech in the street: it is a right of democracy. Yet it can be curtailed by the police if, and only if, it “disrupts the peace”, or violates other laws. In practice, the police rarely intervenes (in democracy, it would have to justify its intervention!)

Scientific American censors, and others, such as Facebook, have argued that their website is their own property, they can do what they want. Well, not really. The problem is that they are in position of monopoly (or more exactly, oligarchy). Then, to empower their oligarchy, they use, and need to use, a Public Utility. That means they are financed by the citizenry in general. Moreover, they got a fiduciary duty: informing and debating in a non grossly misleading, non injurious way.

I related that The Economist censored me for quoting the Qur’an (no, I did not join the Jihad; my aim was to show that, at face value, the Qur’an calls for violent acts, and, thus, the need for Imams to inform believers that this is all allegorical, and outlawing interpretations that are stricto sensu).

In an article on fuel cell cars, the SA Master allowed dozens of comments from (taxpayer financed) Elon Musk’s minions, calling fuel cell cars “fool cars”. That was not censored. I replied in kind.

Scientific American censored me for calling electric cars, ELECTROCOAL. So doing, I claim that Scientific American violated the notion of PUBLIC UTILITY.

Scientific American sent me the following email:

“This comment has been deleted. Scientific American reserves the right to delete comments and revoke commenting privileges without notice. A subscription does not exempt you from our rules, and deciding what material is displayed on our website is our right, not censorship. You can create your own website for your own opinions and views, to share with the world. Scientific American does not owe anyone a platform – anyone may create a website of their own.

This comment is off-topic. Further violations will result in the loss of your commenting privileges, so please review our guidelines carefully. This help desk will not provide another warning.


SA Webmaster”

[Notice the contradictions and the weasel words, Big Brother speech: censorship desk is called “help desk”, and “further violations…no other warning”.] “Webmaster” is an interesting Freudian slip: in a free society, the Internet should have laws, not “masters”.

Calling Tesla Electric Cars “electrocoal” is an allusion to the fact that electric cars in the USA are loaded with electricity that is half produced in coal thermal plants. So their global efficiency is that of a coal burning installation (more on this in another essay).

The Masters at Scientific American don’t like “electrocoal”. So they censor it, and call me a “violator”. And threaten to unilaterally cancel a contract with me, while still taking my money. No law prevents them to indulge in all these abuses of power.

Just as no law prevents Uber, an Internet based car-rental company, to use the private information it gathers on its clients, tracking them, selling the data.

Uber has apologized. But there should be a law, and employees, and owners, who have violated that law ought to go to jail. Yes, shareholders ought to be punished, as those who owned shares in companies that make money from slaves, ought to be punished; believe or not, those are still around!

Laws are not censorship, they are the common rules which apply equally. Private censorship, though, while using the Public Utility of the Internet, is a violation of said equality, which is the essence of democracy. Violation of democracy ought to be unlawful, just as the equally vaguely defined “hate speech”, or “genocide” are unlawful.

The problem is the same as when plutocrats use publicly financed research to increase their wealth or power (thus scientific publishing ought to be open source, and subsidies from the likes of NASA to private enterprises subject to serious examination… same as subsidies to big banks).

The ultimate reason for democracy, is not fairness, but intelligence. That makes even dictators long for democracy. Democracy allows the group to reach higher intelligence than any other society. The Internet is a tool to further the debate of ideas (ideas which do not violate the law, including hate speech, that is).

Violating the free debate of ideas ought to be left to dictators, and other “Masters”. It ought to be illegal in democracy.

The right of reply ought to be enshrined in democracy. The manipulations of commentary, and censorship for profit or bullies’ sake, or for perverting the minds of the public or children (see Islamism) ought to be illegal, even if done under the cover of higher morality, or hypocrisy.

Internet policing will not solve all the problems of vicious thinking, but it will allow to threaten to address the most egregious of them.

Patrice Ayme’

Plutocrats Want You To Love Putin’s Nipples, & Hate Yours.

November 2, 2014


Sexism can provide with comic relief, when it goes over the top. I went to a gym where guys would flaunt their naked chests, mighty muscles rippling. Women trying the same trick would be promptly arrested.

Getting “stopped” by the police, or, better, arrested, in the USA, is a serious thing. It is a test everybody undergoes, to see how you respect the Authority Principle. The slightest non-strict observance of police officers’ orders results in much higher charges… If one does not get terminated outright.

By age 23, 41% of USA citizens have been arrested at least once. Black guys tend to fail the test, and get addicted to incarceration. Strange? Things are getting stranger quickly: We now have a sort of plutocratic corporate moral police emerging. It determines what is “safe”, and what is not. Ravenous, ever more powerful billionaires are in the lead. They decide that their friend Putin’s chest is glorious, while female chests are “unsafe”.

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

[On left, showing a real man, maybe gay, and certainly evil, but that’s alright. On right “unsafe” female according to great philosopher Zuckerberg, owner Facebook, NSA collaborator. Glorious dictators, OK, unsafe females, not OK.]

The gym finally decided everybody would wear a shirt. The old practice, naked men, veiled women was discontinued.

Truly, any time a group is allowed to do something others are not allowed to, is a discrimination. It better have a good justification. (Justified discrimination exists: forbidding drunk people to drive is justified, for example.)

Chelsea Handler (an actress I never heard of before), poked fun at the photo of Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin, by posting the topless photo of herself on a horse above. Handler warned, alongside her photo: “Taking this down is sexist. I have every right to prove I have a better body than Putin.”

Female nudity goes against the Facebook-owned Instagram posting rules: the picture was removed. Silicon Valley’s silicon men have no problems with “gays”, but mammals are something else entirely.

“If a man posts a photo of his nipples, it’s ok, but not a woman? Are we in 1825?” Handler responded. Instagram removed the picture again, with the consummate hypocrisy of plutocratic mind control: “Please read our Community Guidelines to learn what kinds of posts are allowed and how you can help keep Instagram safe.

Keep Facebook safe from female skin! Safety is big in the USA ever since Bush flew bin Ladens around the USA in 2011. Presumably to keep safe, Bush flew dozens of feudal relative of bin Laden out of the USA. Plutocrats’ safety comes first, in the USA. Somehow, female breasts threaten it.

Why to keep the USA safe from female breasts? Are we not named after those? “Mammal” comes from the Latin mammalis “of the breast”. (In Latin, breast is “mamma”.)

In truth, safety is not the paramount consideration. As we will see, quite the opposite. One plutocratic principle consists in creating fake problems, so that nobody has ever enough energy to address the real ones.

That’s why, when the financial sector exploded from plutocratic abuse, we were told that the problem came from We The People spending too (although real salaries have not augmented for a generation in most of the West).

That’s also why, confronted to an exponentiating CO2 density curve, the plutocrats tell us the weather has always changed, and our uneducated paranoia is making us attach unwarranted importance to insignificant problems, such as seas rising in level and acidity, 2014 being the warmest year ever, while permafrost starts to explode on a titanic scale in Siberia.

That’s why Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg wants to keep the world safe from female breasts, but not from his Chinese (his wife and her mother are Chinese).

Both subjects, Zuckerberg’s obsession with breasts, and himself as a person, are insignificant, but brandishing them presumptuously is highly significant: it preoccupies minds with crushing insignificance. Exactly as planned by those masters of pettiness, the plutocrats.

And Putin is their hero, the brazen way he seizes whatever he can grab, from Crimea, half of the Black Sea, and the entire educational industry of Russia, as the New York Times exposes in a gigantic, detailed “Special Report”, November 1, 2014. “Putin’s Way. Putin’s Friend Profits in Purge of Schoolbooks.”

I am sure Mark Zuckerberg is drooling about Putin’s power, and manly ways.

Chelsea Handler did not quit, and rightly so: “If Instagram takes this down again, you’re saying Vladimir Putin has more 1st amendment rights than me. Talk to your bosses.”

Talking to Mark Zuckerberg is like talking to a NSA robot: it will go nowhere. (The head of the NSA was recently saying yes and no all over about the Snowden divulgations, making sure nobody could get a handle on his mind.)

The so-called “media service” removed the photo again. Handler left Instagram (she went to Twitter, which does not censor what is lawful). Hopefully her 994,000 Instagram followers will follow.

Instagram is owned by Facebook, the firm owned by a number of major plutocrats, some of them looking like total robots, others singing about how good they are (“Bono”)… And all of them giving dozens of millions to charity (to show they are good robots).

If I were the new Caesar, I would make them pay billions of dollars in taxes, instead (but then they would have me assassinated, just like they did Julius: can’t win). American plutocrats in general paid at most 15% tax, for more than a decade (now they pay nominally a bit more, but they cheat thoroughly through Dark Pools and “charities”).

The ever greater power of plutocrats to tell us what is “safe” to see, or think, is entirely due to them paying not enough taxes, and getting ever more monstrous, from their gathering power (a typical exponential: it feeds on its own growth).

My take? “Social media”, when large enough, ought to respect existing laws, and not impose their own rules. I am not aware of a USA Federal Law against female torso nudity.

Am I discriminating against large media outfit? Yes, I am. But I have a justification. Big is different. Any time that a company becomes huge (and it could be Facebook, Amazon, Google, TOTAL, BP, whatever), it becomes an institution.

Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook is treated like a king: wherever he goes he meets with heads of state (all knowing the CIA, NSA, and the likes of Lawrence Summers, Clinton and Obama administrations, and the entire American plutocratic machine is behind him).

In a democracy all institutions ought to be democratic institutions. That means they ought to respect the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law. They cannot invent their own laws. Because, if when they do, they are imposed on a vast part of the world.

Zuckerberg and his kind are closer to the Saudi religious “police” than the futuristic do-gooders they pose as. They have banned authors from Facebook, just on the ground that they believed the obvious, namely that there were no direct historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. As I explained above, this sort of behavior, on Facebook part, ought to be unlawful.

In the second part of this essay, I will show that discriminating against females is extremely unsafe for civilization.

So the anti-female propaganda of Facebook (“female flesh is not safe”) is not just distasteful, borderline hate speech, but also outright a threat for life on this planet. Because life on this planet is what is presently threatened by the rise of the uncontrolled chain reaction of plutocracy untaxed.

I deliberately cut the essay in two, because the second part is actually more important than the preceding one. Experience shows that the scattered brains we are all becoming nowadays, have not enough attention span to go through what is even more important after already reading 1333 words.

Patrice Ayme’

“The Economist” Hates The Qur’an

October 26, 2014
To Comment Moderator, The Economist:
You said the four verses I quoted from the Qur’an broke your comment policy, and you removed them, with all the comments they brought. May I know why? To my knowledge, the Qur’an is not considered to “contain any form of hate speech“. (As you implicitly asserted.)
I am completely baffled…
It is not exactly the first time I detect censorship at The Economist regarding delicate subjects. Mistreating your long time subscribers may not be to your advantage.
Sincerely yours,
Patrice Ayme
On Oct 22, 2014, at 11:48 PM, wrote:
Dear patrice ayme,
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Tyranosopher, has been deleted from The Economist online.  The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy: We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
Tough questions? Maybe someone does not understand tough love?Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.
Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

The Economist has also blocked inconvenient observations of mine about connections between bankers and the Nazis, and, more generally non-conventional remarks on World War Two (they sent me a whole package of past comments of mine censored in this area, I guess as an implicit threat; I was unaware I had been censored).
This shows the extent, and delicacy of propaganda. All the material The Economist censored were strictly historical facts (as the Qur’an above is: it’s 13 centuries old!)
Maybe I should do like my friend Paul Handover, condemn the propaganda, and cancel my subscription to TE?
More philosophically, I would say this. The Qur’an, obviously needs to be officially re-interpreted (as the Bible was). Just censoring it in The Economist will not help, quite the opposite. The two young “white” Canadian-born deranged young men who attacked and killed Canadian soldiers last week, obviously heard verses as those above, and took them literally. The verses above encourage converts to Islam to have recourse to ultimate violence.
I long held the opinion that many political and intellectual leaders in the West refuse to attract attention to the problem that the Qur’an causes, precisely because they want to keep exploiting those they encourage to live according to unreconstructed Koranic principles. This is pretty much in evidence in the relationship with feudal regimes in the Middle East (but one can argue that this exploitation through “Orientalist” stupidification is 150 years old).
By refusing to broach the subject of what the Qur’an seems to say, in a public forum, The Economist encourages the furthering of a literal interpretation of Koranic verses. Thus The Economist encourages lethal and hateful activities. But maybe it is what many of the plutocrats who love The Economist truly want?  Nothing like a jolly war, here, there, and everywhere?
Patrice Ayme’

Book Hypocrisy @ Face Value

September 20, 2014

Sue is so pleased she never joined Facebook. I guess she does not particularly fancy the Arab revolutions. What about a geo-historical perspective, ladies and gentlemen?

The present essay tries to depict better my position on the burning issue of burning kittens. Should people of outstanding moral values condemn Facebook for them, burning kittens, and hide the face of those who burn?

As Alex Jones (who supported Scottish Independence, as Paul Handover did) puts it in “The question of liberty, control and censorship”:

“Because Facebook is happy to host content involving the torture of animals I closed my Facebook account, a subject I wrote about on Liberated Way here and here.  Paul Handover of Learning from Dogs indicated he was closing his Facebook account over the content on animal torture on Facebook, and said why in his own article, suggesting readers might consider doing the same thing. Patrice Ayme in his WordPress article condemned me and Paul Handover as supporting censorship by closing our accounts with Facebook, which brings me to my views on censorship, liberty and control… Censorship is a tool, it is neither good or bad…”

Well, I believe censorship is always bad.

In the Roman civilization, all the latter censors were emperors. And I do believe that, from this intellectual fascism, the decay of civilization, and, in particular Rome’s incapacity to adapt to a sustainable economy, and its horrendous dictatorial theocracy, proceeded.

I joined Facebook early on, but then I observed it seemed to be more about sex, narcissism, and various obsessive-compulsive disorders in slightly deranged people who believed that a picture of their pet canary drinking was world news. So I long ignored it, in spite of entreaties by some individuals who said I should advertise my work on Facebook.

But I spited the FB mania, all the more when I saw celebrities, or plutocrats connected to IT get 60,000 “friends” on their first day on FB. And then cashing on that (literally making huge amounts of money).

Then there were a number of local revolutions, culminating with the “Arab Spring”. That definitively changed my mind. If “social networks” could be used for revolutions, they were good.

What did the Social Networks do? They disseminated information. In other words, the truth. That’s good.

Some will say that could be done through other tribunes. Indeed, I sent articles, or comments to more established electronic media: the Huffington Post blocked me after 6 (completely innocuous) comments. It probably read my site, found I detested plutocracy, and barred me.

The “European Tribune” was even more blatant. I was actually physically threatened there, and banned the same day… for alleging that some big bankers had supported Hitler. The site manager told me many bankers were reading the site, and he was told to shut me down.

For similar economico-political reasons, the New York Times has censored more than 1,000 of my comments, and ponders every single one, sometimes for more than 12 hours, before publishing them (thus insuring no one reads them, while claiming they did not censor).

At least on Facebook, I am free to rant about plutocracy, and was never blocked.

Of course FB is despicable. If one publishes a picture there of a bare breasted statue, 2,000 year old, like the Venus de Milo, they will close the account.

Yet, by closing it for puny reasons, you close information, even revolution.

1.3 BILLION people are on facebook. How many people are on my site? Well, not enough. How many people are on Paul’s plus Alex’s? 2,700.

Puny reasons? Of course. It’s even worse. It’s hypocritical. Not just ineffectual. I was watching a line of people around city blocks, 5 abreast, at 7 am, anxiously waiting for the latest iphone.

Thousands of people. Some had spent the night, waiting for the latest gimmick. All on Facebook. How does the iphone, or, in general, smartphones work?

With Coltan. Where does much Coltan come from, keeping the prices low? Congo. Illegally. Thank the dictator of Rwanda, Kagame, and his Anglo-Saxon puppet masters. Never heard of him? Indeed, not a kitten.

Five million burned kittens? Will you close the smartphone account? Vote with your pocketbook?

No, stand reassured, good people. Only 5 million dead Africans, and counting (although Obama has started squeezing Kagame, out of Congo, under French and UN pressure). With the full complicity of Susan Rice, national Security Adviser (and a long story all by herself). Too complicated, too dreadful to consider? Back to kittens.

And let’s not forget to protect the kitten burning maniacs, by protesting the showing of their pictures in the social media.

Hypo-Crisy means criticizing less than it deserves. Yes, FB is terrible, yes they are hypocrites, yes, the plutocrats associated to Facebook ought to be in the 99% tax bracket. Yes, indeed. But the average guy who lives off the cell phone like a leech, to save ten bucks, has collaborated with the death of millions.

And how did the collaboration start? By refusing to get the information. All burning kittens, 99%, and then making sure the perpetrators prosper on the burning kitten channel, as long as the good people persuaded of their own goodness avert their eyes, and then fork out cash for the world’s richest company, which pays only 2% tax, whereas the local bookstore, soon to burn down, from all the burning kittens running around, and the 35% tax the pro-plutocratic government insists the bookstore ought to be paying.

Before we get brains, we need eyes. And how could those who cannot even book the world at face value, think about it fairly? Plus, direct, real democracy, where all laws get voted by the people, and only the people, is only possible if, and only if, We The People get all, and the best, information.

Hence, those who advocate censorship reject real democracy. Instead they believe that higher human beings, the Big Brothers (let’s give them a name), have the right, and even the duty, to determine who and what, we, the Plebs, can be allowed to look at.

Ban censorship. In democracy We The People are free, free to know all.

Patrice Ayme’