PLUTOCRACY IS MASS MASTER CRIME

American Racism & Slavery Originated With The Rule of Greed. This Is Just A Particular Case Of Plutocracy:

Atrocious pictures on TV: suffering infants with microcephaly in Brazil, victim of Zika. Most of their heads are missing. Below those nearly inexistent skulls, are eyes full of pain. They experience paralysis… This calamity was avoidable, with enough fundamental research, early enough. The governance of this biosphere tottering under our blows, is cruising to the apocalypse. The Zika virus was detected 2 years ago in French Polynesia, and now it’s all over. It is carried by an omnipresent mosquito which has learned to live in water-friendly human garbage. There is no vaccine. The immune system reaction often provokes paralysis (from the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS))

The world is turning satanic. Pluto power, all over. This can be directly traced to the fact the worst are allowed to rule (directly, or through their teleprompter reading servants). The worst people (from the CIA, G. H. Bush, or KGB, V. Putin), the most glaringly corrupt (Clintons), the worst moods (the market, that is, greed, as an ubiquitous guide for what’s good), the worst lies (plutocrats are philanthropists), etc…

Some who support the plutocratic Clintons claim that electing a female will subdue an evil, sexism, which is as bad as plutocracy (Krugman). This is ill-informed, naive, unobservant, silly and erroneous in many ways. What is needed is the instructive perspective of history. First of all, there were many female rulers before. Even several “Muslim” countries elected female Prime Ministers (and those countries are still legally sexist). China, Rome, Russia, Britain, and especially France, had female rulers, at crucial points of their history.

Hatshepsut Was A Great Pharaoh. She Ruled From 1479 BCE To 1458 BCE. One Of Several Great Female Pharaohs. However, Just Being Female Does Not Make Someone Great. Some Female Rulers, From China, To France, To Yucatan, Were Nasty Civilization-Destroying Plutocrats

[Hatshepsut, chief wife of Thutmose II, mother, when she came to rule, of one year old, Thutmose III, is generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs. Hatshepsut ruled as the fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Let it be said in passing that the famous Nefertiti apparently ruled on her own right. We know exactly what she looked like, as we have many detailed pictures of her.]

Egypt, the first massive civilization, had female rulers since the First Dynasty, 5,000 years ago. Queen Meryt-Neith or Merytneith or Merneith First Dynasty (~3000 BC) was listed among other, and her tomb is with the tombs of other Pharaohs. She was the wife of Djet, and the Mother of Den. Some of these queens played major roles: one founded the Fifth Dynasty.

Racism, sexism, religious intolerance are mass moods (which can be partly legislated, as in some so-called “Muslim” countries). Plutocracy is something else: a political regime. By controlling, and ruling society, plutocracy turns it into its own image: the rule of evil. Here is an example:

THE PLUTOCRATIC TEMPTATION BROUGHT SLAVERY TO AMERICA:

Take the case of slavery: the Franks made slavery unlawful in their vast empire, which comprised Gaul and most of Germany, in 655 CE. The situation was made even clearer in 800 CE: the Franks proclaimed the  “RENOVATION” (“RENOVATIO”) of the Roman Empire. And Constantinople agreed (Charlemagne, Carlus Magnus found himself sole emperor of the… Roman empire!)

How was the empire “RENOVATED”? Well, the one and only difference with the Roman Empire just prior was… SLAVERY. The Roman empire had been renovated by outlawing slavery! This is what the Franks said, and it caused a virtuous circle, as fundamental technology went where the Roman emperors had forbidden to go (Roman emperors, as good plutocrats, naturally detested change, and the Will to Knowledge which fosters it).

Four centuries later, in 1066 CE the Franks, led by the Duke of Normandy, re-conquered Britannia (England to start with), and outlawed slavery there too.

The American colons re-invented slavery in New England, starting in 1620 CE. Those colons were richer, by far, than European peasants (as evidence and letters from Pilgrims, flaunting their riches, show).The colons’ motivation in re-establishing slavery was not survival, but greed. Tobacco agriculture expanded greatly, very soon after, thanks to the import of massive numbers of slaves from Africa. Some American states were 90% African slaves.

Jesus Christ also thought that money was the root of much evil. Jesus did not mention racism as an evil (simply because the Greco-Roman empire was not racist: some emperors came from Africa, and at least one, from Arabia). In the USA racism appeared to justify slavery: it was OK to enslaves Africans, because they were just apes, or halfway there. (Sexism evolved along similar lines, thousands of years before; sexism cannot be found in small human groups, because it would make them dysfunctional.)

Paul Krugman pretends that sexism and racism are independent from plutocracy. Krugman claims sexism and racism stand on their own. It may be true in a sense, but they both originated from plutocracy, historically speaking. In a way, this is a debate about what the word “Pluto” means. “Pluto” was the new word for “Hades”, god of hell, after “Hades” got such a bad reputation, no decent Greek would dare evoke Him.

Whether one should fight plutocracy, or just say that just being ruled by a woman would dispel evil, is a debate about how evil works.

Anybody who knows a bit of history knows that such a debate is stupid: the last ruler of imperial China was an empress who ruled decades, and made a bad situation way worse… The mother of Louis XIV, a ruling queen, prevented, by a five-year civil war, the rise of a Parliamentary Republic in France. She was a significant malefactor of historical proportion. She also made her son all the devil he could be. She taught him, by example, that nastiness should rule (that’s another way to say “plutocracy”). Sure enough: Louis XIV threw the Protestants out of France, after mass torturing them for decades (the jerk is still respected in France, because he did a few good things, go figure this masochism in a boudoir… Naturally, Louis XIV established slavery overseas…)

“Pluto” is the god of the underground, thus Pluto is the god of hell, and fire, but also the god of gold, silver, precious stones, riches. The modern usage keeps only in mind the latter part, but Jesus disagreed (and so do I). “Pluto” has many of the characteristics we see in today’s plutocracy: for example, he could make itself invisible (like Dark Money, invisible to tax authorities and gullible voters alike).

Money it ultimately power, and ultimate money corrupts ultimately. And ultimate corruption means the affected individual becomes satanic, or, using the root of the concept of satan, plutocratic. Yes, plutocratic means satanic, it’s as simple as that.

Slavery, racism, sexism, are all consequences of plutocracy. Plutocracy is the master cause. Periodically, plutocracy runs out of control, and takes over. At best, it’s stopped by revolution (Britain, France and the USA had revolutions, and the former two, several, starting in 360 CE!) At worst, plutocracy brings annihilation of a civilization (as happened to the Mayas, or the Baghdad Caliphate, destroyed by a Mongol-Christian coalition in the Thirteenth Century).

A world is led by devils is intrinsically evil. Time to get rid of the whole idea.

Patrice Ayme’

Great Cities A Must, So Tax Superrich Hard, Everywhere.

Shallowness of thinking is a sin. Many view it as a creature’s comfort., though (“Thus spoke the Tyranosopher”). OK, not a sin in the Bible (otherwise the Bible would have put itself out of business!). But it’s a dangerous consequence, and temptation from the Internet and “multitasking”. For shallow thinking one of my reference is Paul Krugman, the most respected “liberal” (USA) or “progressive” (anywhere else) in America and Europe.

Krugman wrote “Inequality and the City” an editorial, where he depicted the success of New York, and pointed, all too moderately, and somewhat disingenuously to its features. Here he goes, with a striking disinformation hook at the end:

“New York, New York, a helluva town. The rents are up, but the crime rate is down. The food is better than ever, and the cultural scene is vibrant. Truly, it’s a golden age for the town I recently moved to — if you can afford the housing. But more and more people can’t.

Rich Gets Into More Expensive Housing, Low Lives Sleep Outside

And it’s not just New York. The days when dystopian images of urban decline were pervasive in popular culture — remember the movie “Escape from New York”? — are long past. The story for many of our iconic cities is, instead, one of gentrification, a process that’s obvious to the naked eye, and increasingly visible in the data.

Specifically, urban America reached an inflection point around 15 years ago: after decades of decline, central cities began getting richer, more educated, and, yes, whiter. Today our urban cores are providing ever more amenities, but largely to a very affluent minority.

But why is this happening? And is there any way to spread the benefits of our urban renaissance more widely?

Let’s start by admitting that one important factor has surely been the dramatic decline in crime rates. For those of us who remember the 1970s, New York in 2015 is so safe it’s surreal. And the truth is that nobody really knows why that happened.”

Did he really say that? “Nobody really knows why” New York became safer? Really? Never heard of Mayor Giuliani? (Giuliani was several times presidential candidate.) He was tough on crime, strong on “profiling”.

The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world (with the Seychelles islands). Eight million people are under justice supervision. Police brutality helped. This may be why nobody Politically Correct knows why New York is so much safer; nobody wants to know why. Hard thinking is always uncomfortable.

As soon as plenty of police brutality videos surfaced, and the police was reined in, crime rates exploded. That was in 2015. That is, a few months ago.

Paul Krugman does not want to praise the virtues of daily fascism as far as direct repression is concerned. Not PC. However, he dares to be a little bit, very delicately, NON PC:

“But there have been other drivers of the change: above all, the national-level surge in inequality.

It’s a familiar fact (even if the usual suspects still deny it) that the concentration of income in the hands of a small minority has soared over the past 35 years. This concentration is even higher in big metropolitan areas like New York, because those areas are both where high-skill, high-pay industries tend to locate, and where the very affluent often want to live. In general, this high-income elite gets what it wants, and what it has wanted, since 2000, has been to live near the center of big cities.”

I already mentioned this: the new young elite is less dumb and wasteful that the one which preceded it. Krugman, correctly playing psychologist:

“Still, why do high-income Americans now want to live in inner cities, as opposed to in sprawling suburban estates? Here we need to pay attention to the changing lives of the affluent — in particular, their work habits.

To get a sense of how it used to be, let me quote from a classic 1955 Fortune article titled “How Top Executives Live.” According to that article, the typical executive “gets up early — about 7 a.m.. — eats a large breakfast, and rushes to his office by train or auto. It is not unusual for him, after spending from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. in his office, to hurry home, eat dinner, and crawl into bed with a briefcase full of homework.” Well, by the standards of today’s business elite, that’s actually a very relaxed lifestyle.

And as several recent papers have argued, the modern high earner, with his or her long hours — and, more often than not, a working partner rather than a stay-at-home wife — is willing to pay a lot more than the executives of yore for a central location that cuts commuting time. Hence gentrification. And this is a process that feeds on itself: as more high earners move into urban centers, these centers begin offering amenities: — restaurants, shopping, entertainment — that make them even more attractive.”

Notice Krugman does not mention the Darkest Side: having the rich living only among the rich… Let alone correctly colored. I have observed this many times: entire neighborhoods, cities, islands, secluded enclaves of the 1%.

On this Krugman is a bit naive:

“We’re not just talking about the superrich here, or even the 1 percent. At a guess, we might be talking about the top 10 percent. And for these people, it’s a happy story. But what about all the people, surely a large majority, who are being priced out of America’s urban revival? Does it have to be that way?

The answer, surely, is no, at least not to the extent we’re seeing now. Rising demand for urban living by the elite could be met largely by increasing supply. There’s still room to build, even in New York, especially upward. Yet while there is something of a building boom in the city, it’s far smaller than the soaring prices warrant, mainly because land use restrictions are in the way.”

It is true that land use restrictions are a huge problem (in the San Francisco Bay Area, cities which want to build skyscrapers next to train stations, have been blocked… Mostly by the superrich, who do not want the poor, mediocre and thoroughly medium to rise up in the sky. The result has been the greatest gridlock in the USA).

Here is how Krugman concludes: “But will that understanding lead to any action? That’s a subject I’ll have to return to another day. For now, let’s just say that in this age of gentrification, housing policy has become much more important than most people realize.”

Trust Krugman to be as hard as a soft-boiled egg. Krugman, or why moderation is a sin. All what Krugman said was true, but it is “non-controversial“, namely everybody knew it already. Is that what the top thinking on the left can be? With moderates like that, who needs Republicans?

Something Krugman does not say:

NO HIGH TAXES ON SUPERRICH, NO GOOD CITIES:

Housing policy, thus the built-up of infrastructure, is crucial for the economy… and for comfort: infrastructure deteriorates, and has to be worked on continuously. Let alone modernized.

Private infrastructure in a city, depends upon PUBLIC infrastructure (water, electricity, basic transportation, basic police, justice, schools, government).. Thus, because of the necessary involvement of public infrastructure, PRIVATE infrastructure requires more PUBLIC spending.

Hence a thriving PRIVATE economy requires more PUBLIC economy, hence more taxes on the wealthy (Canada’s Trudeau, the new PM, advocates just this).

An example is schools: they can be made profitable, thus private, as long as they cater to the top 10% To cater to everybody, thus make a sustainable city, taxes will have to be augmented and redistributed to public schools. So sustainable cities will require a change in the philosophy of the socio-economy.

Ah, something else: taxes cannot just be restricted to the cities, as then the superrich will escape again. So they have to be national. And even international. And “Dark Pools”, “Shadow Banking”, Tax Havens, Delaware, have to disappear.

Building thriving cities is about not destroying the planet: cities are more efficient. Most of humanity lives now in cities, and the proportion will have to go up.

Don’t trust the superrich, don’t let them call themselves “philanthropists”, as if they could tax themselves. Latest clown here is the Facebook founder, who got free advertising everywhere, for his pledge to “give 99% of his fortune away“. Meanwhile he will keep on enjoying it, while claiming he does not, before he can convert it into tax-free vehicle, for himself, his wife, and child, Bill Gates’ style. It is rather sad to see so many applauding some clowns whom I do not find funny.

Politics is named after cities, so is civilization. Cities can, and will have, to save the biosphere, as they can be made more efficient, and smarter, than any alternative. And what is cities’ greatest historical enemy? Plutocracy.

One must crush infamy, and thus plutocracy, and it’s exactly why taxes were (mostly) invented.

Patrice Ayme’