Fight Burkinis With Monokinis

Burkini, Bikini,  Monokini, Naked Truth!

For at least 2,000 years, and contrary to “postmodernist” repute, France has been at the mental helm of civilization. Francia pretty much invented the legal system which “renovated” (as the Franks themselves proclaimed in 800 CE) the Greco-Roman globalization, under a more sustainable form (no more slavery, replace it with education, science and tech). This is why today’s basic world globalization is along French lines through and through (a vague feeling that it may well be so infuriates American neo-imperialists, who are partial to slavery, in their own time-honored tradition, and feel, rightly, that the French equalitarian approach is the natural enemy of their own oligarchic drive… thus explaining their friendliness to Islam).

The term “bikini” and the two piece garment named accordingly, was the invention of a French engineer, and (concurrently!) a French fashion designer. “Bikini” was an allusion to the new, explosive world made manifest at the Bikini atoll (where nuclear fission bombs were tested). It used, craftily, the prefix “bi”, for “two”, as the bikini was indeed in two pieces.

The bikini was not really new: bikini representations are around 8,000 years old (the mother goddess, Cybele, appeared that way, sometimes). The bikini was a natural technology to invent. 

Roman Bikini Babes Frolicking In Gym, Centuries Before the Famous Sexist, Murderous Rophet Married a Six Year Old, Breeding With Her, When She Was Nine!

13 centuries ago, though, the fanatical, anti-civilizational ideology known as Islam, having been irrigated by Persia and the Greco-Romans, brutally arose in the desert. A key to its sudden military success against Greeks, Romans and Persians, was to treat women as breeders, rabidly, one should say, rabbitly, breeding immense hordes of fanaticized warriors, to make Arab armies large, numerous and completely relentless. To breed a fanaticized warrior, it helps that his mother knows little, and aspire only to obey… religiously. So the future warrior will not know enough to second guess his superiors when they order him to die for the “faith”.  

To keep women subjugated, those breeding machines have to learn to enjoy obeying absurd orders, and the more absurd, and the more gleefully obedient those culture deprived morons are, the better. Naturally, breeding machines will transmit the same love for absurd orders, and lack of critical culture, to their children. Don’t laugh: this is how Islam became the world’s top war ideology (this is so obvious that even Adolf Hitler understood this, and basically said it). In one generation, Arabia was overflowing with single-minded warriors, ready to take on the world (until they met terminally with Grecian fire and Frankish steel).

Thus, many Islamist sub-ideologies (or sects, as one should call them), decided that the bodies of women should be fully covered, all the time. The absurdity was irresistible, precisely because it was so absurd.

The “burkini” (contraction of burka-bikini) was created 12 years ago, by a Lebanese Australian who had watched her niece bathing in a burka. The burkini covers the entire (presumably) shameful body of the Muslim woman, except for her feet and face, sparing beach goers of this (presumably) awful exhibition. Thirty French communes forbade the burkinis, on the ground that it broke the principle of equality of genders. Islamists were delighted. Unsurprisingly, the French State Counsel (“Conseil d’ Etat”), the highest administrative court and legal adviser of the state, found those interdictions unlawful. Today, 8/26.16.

The New York Times, of course, was delighted to jump into the fray, and it concocted an anti-French, pro-Islamist piece written by an alleged pre-college teen (actually it sounds exactly like the sort of article written by the usual committee at the new York Times). The way the USA looks at Europe, for a century, is that the more divided, and confused, the better. I sent the following comment, it was immediately censored:

‘There is no “modesty” in the burkini. Quite the opposite: it’s insolence to believe one can improve on god’s perfection, by putting a garment over a body, especially when it makes no sense, as it imprisons a body in straps, ligatures, smothering adhesion, and dripping water.

Moreover, the psychological imposition of the burkini is a desire to impose on women the feeling that their bodies are horrible, so incredibly horrible, that one should absolutely hide them. Is not that a form of psychological abuse? And as this psycho abuse is imposed only on women, assuredly, it is blatantly sexist. How can one expect women so abused to think and feel straight?

No wonder the propagandist feels insecure while writing her anti-French piece. She has been made insecure by Islamist propaganda, which insists a female body is one of the world’s great horrors, to be hidden at all and any cost.’

My position on the burkini is subtle: the garment itself is ludicrous, as the piece in the New York Times itself illustrates. But being covered up in the sun is not. 

I am in a weird position: as a young child in Africa, I covered up most of the time (against sun, heat, mosquitoes, tse-tse flies…). That was from observation, and was criticized, even ridiculed, by quite a number of adults. Of course, I was right. So I am a friend of getting dressed in the sun, and view reddening Germanoid lobsters self-cooking on the beach, with undisguised contempt.

Still I consider hard-core Salafist Islam as a plutocratic ideology friendly to military dictators, an enemy of (most) progress. And I hate gender inequality, whenever not forced by genetics (in other words, I hate sexism, be it only because it makes humanity stupid).  

So what’s the way out?

The monokini. To start with.

Yes. Don’t fight fire with fire. Fight fire with water. If wherever burkinis are found, so are naked female chests, interest for burkinis will fade away. Burkinis don’t jiggle the right way.

Amusing? Not just that. You see, Islam and its Judeo-Christian inspiration are unnatural superstition (whereas a republic is as natural as possible). A burkini, on the face of it, is as unnatural as possible. To embrace the burkini is rather a contradiction for a religion which let beards grow, and refuses to depict reality, such as painting human beings or animals, on the ground that both are perfect works of god, that one cannot improve upon!

Whereas a monokini is much closer to god. Indeed, a bikini is much more natural, much closer to god’s perfection. A burkini is an ungodly artefact, Botticelli’s Venus, a better representation of reality, as god intended it to be.

One may want to go even further, and fight the unnatural ideology of Islam with full nudity. The Islamist emperor may be clothed, but it has no brains. Fight him with the naked truth. That’s what he fears most.

Patrice Ayme’

Only Massive Imperial Force Will Save The Children

Learn From The Refugee Crisis Better, & Faster, Than In the 1930s.

Abstract: The refugees from Syria have to be let in. Simultaneously, the root of the problem has to be dealt with. And it can only be dealt with war, a war which is, first of all, to be fought on philosophical ground.

Most countries ignored the refugees in the 1930s. So doing, those countries not only condemned millions of innocents to death, they failed to learn about, and prepare the war with, the ideology of death, which was on a collision course with civilization.

***

A father, his wife and two sons, aged 3 and 5, fled war in Kobane. Kobane, a city in Kurdish Syria, was destroyed by strict followers of the Islamist ideology. Relative of these Kurds had made it to Canada, a gigantic expanse of rich, temperate land up north. The two little boys ended drowned, and so did their 27 year old mother.

Enough. Time To Eradicate The Cause

Chancellor Merkel and president Hollande had talked before about obligatory quotas of acceptation of refugees among European nations. Now they are making a formal proposition. The Hungarian PM, Orban, objected that accepting all these refugees would destroy the “Christian identity” of Europe. However, millions of Christians are trying to flee the Islamists (so one cannot accused these to not be “Christians”).

The war refugees reached the Anatolian coast, 23 kilometers away from the European island of Kos, in Greece. Canada had refused them peaceful admission (they had family there). So the war refugees had to flee for their lives, in an “unlawful” manner (how can it be “unlawful” to save one’s family?) They boarded a small boat at night, manned by a local Turk. The sea was bad. Two nasty waves, and panic on board, threw the family in the sea. Only the father survived. Aylan, three years old, ended on a beach, face down, drowned to death. Here he is, in the picture above. But cameramen were there.

In the present crisis, Germany has been the most accepting country of all for war refugees. That’s quite wise in many ways, and a significative change from German atavism. In 2015, Germany will admit 800,000 refugees, from the Middle East, much more than any European country.

In the long run, if the refugees are well integrated, they should help the German economy, which is short in workers. (That’s an important “if”; it passes by destroying first Islamist ideology, fundamental version.)

Daech (“Islamist State”) bought, sold women and young Yazidi girls calling them “cattle”. A trick women and girls used was not to wash, and smell as bad as possible, “Sara” testified in a book just published “Ils Nous Traitaient Comme Des Betes” (“they treated us as beasts”). Yazidis follow a religion several times older than Islam. So Islam hates them: as Yazidis are not “people of the book“, but “idolaters“, according to the Qur’an, they have to be killed. Hey, don’t look at me funny, just be respectful, and go read the Qur’an. Culture is nurture.).

Not that this is all about Daech: the horrendous dictatorship in Syria, that of the scion Bachar El Assad, has killed at this point around 250,000 people, displaced eight millions, and kills at a rate seven times that of Daech (according to the Syrian Human Right Watch (UK)).

When millions flee, leaving behind how they lived, risking their lives, it is an unmistakable symptom of evil rising.

On the face of it, the Islamist ideology, fundamental version, is worse than whatever was written in “Mein Kampf”. In Hitler’s book, one has to read between the lines, between the lies, and extrapolate. In the Qur’an, no need to read in between, or extrapolate anything: all sorts of categories of people, including highly speculative and non-objective ones, such as “apostates”, are condemned to all sorts of horrible death (with a preference for burning alive).

And now is Islam, fundamental version, in action: more than four million refugees, in Syria alone (OK, the dictator, Assad Junior, is officially not an Islamist, but he has the Islamist mentality, by opposition to the democratic mentality, and he is losing the war to the Islamists, whom he had craftily, or so he thought, released himself from jail!)

Yes, Islamism, like Nazism, was manipulated by an even greater force, international plutocracy gravitating around the highly leveraged banking system. But that makes the rising of war even more ominous, as it means that its causes are very deep, they have two stratigraphic layers, completely different in nature. One a form of banditry turned into a religion, the other, in the West, even worse, a form of banditry which nobody is aware of, a sort of transparency of crime.

So let’s accept the refugees from Syria, millions of them. That will be wonderful for European demography. At the same time, that can only be done by cracking down on the Islamist ideology. All and any preacher of Islam sent from overseas ought to be sent to jail for a very long time, and all and any Islamist teaching fundamentalist Islam should also do a long and hard time. This is the philosophical part: treat fundamental Islamism just like Nazism is treated in France and Germany: a criminal thought system.

At the same time, let’s not forget that, when million of refugees flee, it’s just a tripwire for infamy rising. And infamy needs to be crushed (said Voltaire).

In the 1930s, millions of Jews, and opponents of fascism, tried to flee central and southern Europe, where fascism had, using force, taken power in Italy, Germany, Spain, Hungary, etc… The USA was singularly uncooperative in helping them, accepting only a few celebrity refugees such as Einstein, Enrico Fermi (soon to direct the Manhattan project), Marlene Dietrich, etc. Cruise ships were turned around, and sent back to the Nazi Reich, and all passengers were grabbed back by the Nazis, and annihilated.

Meanwhile, France, with a territory smaller than Texas, accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees. (Compare with the 1,800 refugees from the Middle East the USA plans to admit in 2015.)

The usual “explanation” for the USA’s inhuman policy relative to the Jews and other enemies of Nazism in the 1930s, is that the USA is that the USA was “isolationist”. Sorry if I let you die along the road, or drown in the sea without throwing you a buoy, I’m isolationist.

In France, “non-assistance to person in danger” has long been a crime, very prominent in the law. A law, as applied to individuals, changes the mood of an entire society. Much difference between the USA & France comes precisely from the effect that this law, or lack thereof, has on the average person’s mind. (From health care, to incarceration madness, to fracking, etc.)

However, the more likely explanation was not “isolationism”. Instead, it is quite the opposite. The USA authorities, entangled with USA plutocracy, which was itself deeply entangled with European fascisms (in particular, Stalin’s Reich), was anxious to not have the American people guess the truth. The USA’s deep state knew the truth, and it suited it just fine: Europe was rotting, with a little help from the plutocracy of the USA, to the world’s worst dictators (Stalin, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Ho Chi Minh, etc.).

The solution, of course, as history revealed, was not to just accept the refugees from Nazism, but to go to war, something that the French Republic had understood first, yet could only do, once the United Kingdom had aligned itself behind France (this happened after the fall of Spain in winter 1939).

Eternal Return of the Same? Police officer talks to a Jewish person outside the kosher grocery where Amedy Coulibaly killed four people earlier in a terror attack, in Paris, Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015.

[For those who want to know, Judaism is the oldest religion practiced today in France. By a few centuries.]

The situation is the same now: first the refugees have to be accepted, now, and massively. But, although Europe can gladly accept maybe ten or twenty million refugees (as long as they get cleansed from lethal ideologies such as Islamism), Europe cannot accept all of Africa and the Middle East. Africa and the Middle East need to be fixed.

So what to do? War. And imposing an ideology that will overwhelm Islam (it has been done before, say with Christianism,  or, in most of these places, in the… 1930s: then Islam was viewed as the Middle Ages, ignored and despised. In the 1930s, Egyptian women in bikini crowed the beaches. Not coincidentally that was before the Nazi inspired, and Nazi allied, Muslim Brotherhood was created! One could argue the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be made illegal, for the exact same reason as the related Nazism is illegal… Yes, I know, some will argue Nazism is legal in the USA; yet, not really: one can hang a Nazi flag, and that’s OK, yet, one cannot indulge in ANY Nazi act: those are called “hate crimes” and are illegal, in the USA, France, Germany, etc.),

In other words, it’s high time to re-establish and expand over much of Africa and the Middle East, the Greco-Roman empire Muhammad had explicitly planned to destroy (and made an excellent job of it). What goes around, comes around.

A fundamental aside: “Greco-Roman” is a mislabel. The “Greco-Roman” empire was Greek and Roman in language, but local languages flourished too. Moreover, the empire was also British, German, Punic, Spanish, Syrian, Libyan, North African, Illyrian, even Arab, etc. Not that the Sassanid (Iranian) empire next door was not another mighty civilization.

Some will scoff that this vision is too violent, too primitive. However, violence, that is force, works, and the more hinged on basic instincts, the more it works. This is why plutocracy, and its related tools, Nazism, Islamism, Sovietism, Maoism, etc. tend to work (only plutocracy and Maoism are thriving, at this point, but the others had their time of domination). The force, and seduction, of Islam is mostly in its primitive force.

Houellebecq published his book called “Submission” (that is, Islam). Coincidentally with the Charlie-Hebdo attack. Now the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal is publishing “2084, La Fin Du Monde”, also about the takeover of the world by Islam. Houellebecq just stated that he would now have written a version of his “Submission” much more critical of Islam.

Sansal talking to Haaretz: “I identify with all those who fight for freedom, and I believe that overall freedom is meaningless unless each of us is free. Those who are enslaved to a murderous ideology like radical Islam, who are presumably fighting for the freedom of the nation, are not coherent. They want to liberate their people in order to enslave them.”

Sansal writes in French, a language mostly derived from Latin, the language spoken in Algeria 2,000 years ago. Sansal wants French to be the official language of Algeria (instead it’s the language of the genocidal invaders, Arabic, which has been adopted as official language rather than of the three pre-existing languages… which still exist! Kabyle has not yet been made an official language.)

Daech, the Islamist State, knows, as Muhammad and his successors knew, that the facts which matter most are military facts. Indeed Islam rests on only two battles. In one of these battles, the small (40,000 men) Arab army annihilated the much larger Persian field army. In the other battle, the same Arab army defeated the enormous Roman field army. In both cases the Arabs were quick to follow their victories with unprecedented massacres (to eradicate any possible resistance).

So accept the refugees: it’s the human thing to do. But prepare to eradicate the cause of the exodus. That, too, is the human thing to do. And also the wisest.

To be more human is to be intelligent enough to use the greater force. Not just an opinion. A fact. A striking fact of human evolution.

Humanity is a force which goes, ever stronger. And morality is how it’s managed.

Germany is behaving correctly, wisely by accepting 800,000 war refugees this year. But that is unsustainable, and that is not enough (the USA is accepting maybe 1,800; yes, less than two thousands).

The German Republic needs to go where Merkel did not dare to go in Mali and Libya: support militarily, massively, the French Republic, reconstituting what made the Frankish Empire into Western Civilization properly reborn in a sustainable way. And the French need to project more force at the root. However not as Obama has been doing with his war of the drones. This is a philosophical war, not a war of assassinations. Assassinations-as-policy makes it worse.

Yes it means military budgets in Europe have to shoot up. In pertticular the German one.

The unwillingness of Europe, the richest continent, to use force to re-establish a modicum of security, order and civilization in Africa and the Middle East, is entangled with its unwillingness to use force to re-establish a modicum of security, order and civilization all over, when the future is threatened, from any cause.

In Eritrea, the dictator there has been filling up the boats in Libya fleeing for Europe. Meanwhile, he lives very well from a payment system he set up for himself among the Eritrean diaspora. This has been going on for ten years. Clearly, the Eritrean dictator ought to be removed by force, because only force will work.

Fundamentally, the cause of these wars sprouting all over, is the lack of vision in the definition of civilization in the West. Both Houellebecq and Sansal have been saying this recently, and so I have, from my obscure corner. As Salman Rushdie just added, the greatest thinkers on the Internet are Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian, and that can only leave deep thinkers with a feeling of madness and discouragement. The presidents probably consult with them, and they proudly wear the Legion of Honor (if not already, pretty soon).

Those little children drowned on beaches are there, because it’s Kim Kardashian desire which rules the minds in the West. And the more horrifying the reality, the more the Twitter generation follows Kim Kardashian’s buns obsessively.

As long as people confuse thinking and spiritual masturbation, what passes for smarts will keep on degenerating. This has moral, even military, consequences. And so it will, until war drowns everything. Yet, don’t assume the good, smarter, better equipped, and more powerful armies of civilization, always win: just ask the French generals on May 20, 1940…

Or then contemplate what happened in Syria, at the battle of Yarmouk, from August 15th, to August 20th, 636. That’s when the main Roman field army, four times larger and better trained and equipped, was annihilated by the Arab army. Why? How? Just because the Romans had been overconfident, and then impatient. Next, as a forerunner of the Islamist State they were going to establish, the Arab warriors scoured quickly all over Syria and adjoining regions to kill all and any male in age of bearing arms.

Yes, we have seen it all before. And the Romans came to believe it, only when it was too late. A century later, thrice in a row, three enormous Arab field armies would be annihilated in France (721 CE-748 CE). And then, defenseless from the annihilation of its armed forces, the Arab Caliphate in Damascus fell, never to be seen again. There is hope, but it better be clever and strong.

Force, ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing like it, and it starts with the civilized mind. And, first, to establish it.

Patrice Ayme’

Who Needs Spanking? France, or Europe?

There is, in the Anglosphere, a systematic bias against the French Republic. The latest: an English organization “APPROACH” got France condemned by the “Council of Europe“ for the tortures allegedly inflicted in France on French children by sadistic French parents.

France, presently at war in several countries, just scoffed: the mood in France at this point is that there was not enough discipline, and too much laxity. No other country in the world is as obsessed by its own children as France. (France spends the most of all countries in the world on care and education of her children, until the age of 12, very clearly.)

Then I read a long article in Nature on the connection between corruption and the lack of innovation (the more corrupt a country is, the less innovative). That was also an Anglosphere based article. What struck me was that the article considered France half corrupt, so to speak. Half-way between the most corrupt European countries, and the less corrupt (Sweden). That was in contradiction with official European statistics:

Truth: France Less Corrupt That Sweden

Now this lie, that France is half-corrupt, is in a major article in Nature, the most famous peer reviewed journal, in 2015! Anglosphere anti-French propaganda never rests, and no lie is big enough?

On a philosophical-historical level, it is clear that France is much less corrupt than Sweden. France is a Republic, Sweden a monarchy founded by Napoleon (!), Sweden was Hitler’s most useful collaborator in World War Two, second only to American plutocrats viewed as a set. Sweden gave Hitler all the high quality iron he needed to make his weapons. In Spring 1940, France and Britain decided to act, and, invading through invaded Norway, were in the process of preparing to cut Sweden in two (to stop the flow of iron to Hitler), when France got invaded. So the French army, which had routed elite Nazi troops in Norway, was recalled.

Now, of course, Sweden is cooperating with the worst aspect of the USA, in the Snowden affair. And not just that, but a Swedish-American fighter plane is used as a Trojan Horse against the usual suspect, France.

The problem with Sweden is not enough spanking: the country collaborated with the Nazis like crazy, but never even examined, let alone punish itself (in France, 40,000 collaborators were executed, 200,000 condemned; however the collaboration of Sweden with Hitler was voluntary, and greed propelled, whereas France was defeated first, and then the Nazis were able to find criminals to help them; the fact that, to this day, Sweden did not self-spank about the whole affair, is abysmal; is it because spanking is outlawed in Sweden?)

But back to our British “Charity”: The “Association for the Protection of All Children” (APPROACH), a “Charity” in the UK, has the “right to register a collective complaint”. Charity to whom? Plutocrats?

“The aims and objects of APPROACH Ltd are “To prevent cruelty and maltreatment of children and advance public knowledge in the United Kingdom and abroad in all matters concerning the protection of children and young people from physical punishment and all other injurious, humiliating and/or degrading treatment whether inside or outside the home”.

There are, of course, laws in France against mistreating children. There is even a mighty state agency specifically in charge of this.

So this makes the following complaint irrelevant:

“The complaint alleges that France is in violation of Article 17 of the Charter because of the lack of explicit and effective prohibition of all corporal punishment of children, in the family, schools and other settings, and because France has failed to act with due diligence to eliminate such punishment in practice…. Millions of children are thus suffering violations of their right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.”

That’s purely defamatory: there is no evidence of corporal punishment of children in France anymore, than say, Britain. Actually there is evidence that British youth is exposed to more violence than French youth.

My own nephew, who lives in a tough part of France, where youth are pretty violent by French standards (Aix-Marseilles), lived in England as a teenager, and was astounded by the level of violence in South-East and East England where he resided. A particular problem in Britain is binge drinking among students:

At Least three Binge Drinking In The Last 30 Days For Students Is Very Violent Abuse

So what is going on?

We have seen it before: the plutocrats in the Anglosphere (those who provide funds for “charities”) do not miss an occasion to attack France.

This is nothing new. France is generally accused of the “Terror” of 1793, but those who do this always “forget” to mention that the coalition which started to invaded France in Spring 1792 (that is, well before) threatened officially to “inflict an ever memorable vengeance by delivering over the CITY OF PARIS TO MILITARY EXECUTION and COMPLETE DESTRUCTION…”

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/how-genocide-starts/

So the “Terror” and Holocaust habit was actually started by plutocrats, many of them, if not most of them, based in England (and certainly England got the ball rolling against revolutionary France).

Ever since, France and her “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” has been in the crosshairs of plutocratic “charities”.

Thus French cheese was declared dangerous (hey, French bacteria inside!), and the European Union tried to outlaw it, for years. Wonder why the French National front is becoming the party the French prefer? The first thing the National Front wants to do is “get out of Europe“. Whatever “getting out of Europe” means. But it may mean, in practice, that Europe stop getting its orders from people who, like Draghi (Economics PhD MIT, 1979) or J-C Juncker, have made their entire careers, serving USA plutocrats. And reserving European edicts to absurd orders about the details of daily lives, while giant plutocratic institutions (corporations, individuals) are financed to the tune of hundreds of billions of Euros every few months.

More generally, why would plutocrats want the French not to touch their children anymore? Because plutocrats want human beings infeodated to them to be as inhuman and robotic as possible: one is better served by well programmed automatons. The casual, down to earth, natural and life loving attitude of the French is the symbol of the rebellious spirit plutocrats fear: what do these French think, believing they can interact with their children without the “Council of Europe” watching their every move?

“APPROACH” wants to protect young people from injurious, humiliating and/or degrading treatment… So what about paying enormous tuition for going to school? This is now the case in England (where, under Cameron the plutocrat, university tuition has reached USA levels). Is not paying much of a family income to attend school injurious? Let alone degrading and humiliating (as most youth cannot afford it)?

Canada forbids spanking, but in just a small part of Canada, 3,000 young women disappeared in recent years (only one culprit was found so far, a pig farmer, who fed girls to his animals; but he killed only a few dozens; Canada denied for years that there was a problem). Sweden also, loud and clear, has outlawed spanking, but has alarming levels of violence against women (not overall, but for rape).

Overall Violence Against Women Worldwide: Less In France, Italy, Spain

In countries not France, I have seen parents terrified apparently to touch their children in any way. What they do generally is play ball with them, in a sort of semi-formal way (“Hey buddy, here is the ball…”). That’s officially safe. But is it really so?

Once people are afraid to interact with their children, they leave free access to the propaganda of real malfeasance against children. For example contact sports (American football, rugby, hockey, even soccer…) with their concussions: plutocrats prefer their slaves decerebrated. Many of the thugs employed in High Finance have a past in very violent sports: it goes together. By playing “American Football” or Hockey, they have learned to abuse others, and they justify that by letting themselves be abused.

One ends with creatures obsessed by scoring, winning, while looking superficially correct, and, their brains being fracked all over by concussions and their scars, unable to think of anything much. Thus, perfect servants of the established High Financial order.

Nobody has died of spanking, ever, that I have heard of. But in just one week in the USA, hundreds of youth suffer concussions, and several die. From American Football alone. Clearly a case of lethal, or morbid, child abuse. But nothing that “APPROACH” will ever approach, as that would be reproached by its sponsors.

American children with marmalade brains, dying all over from football? Ah, but, they are not French! Thus, who cares? Is that the logic? It is flattering in a devious way…

Patrice Ayme’

MOST CRUEL COUNTRY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so.

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

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

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

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

MY COMMENT ON CHILDREN; CENSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’