Archive for the ‘civilization.’ Category

Dispelling Lies Exalting 1776 To Smear 1789.

July 5, 2019

It’s traditional among Anglo-Saxon historians and pundits of the sort who get on the payrolls of the “best” (that is, wealthiest, most plutocratic) universities, and top media, to spite the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, and propagandize against it…

While celebrating the US Declaration of Independence of 1776. It’s condemning apples to celebrate death caps. 1776 was anti-plutocratic, right, yet tribal: it didn’t free the slaves. 1789 is universal, and did free the slaves. Ironically, the US Constitution also appeared in 1789… but was not as universal as the French constitution, so that US ersatz has been hardly mentioned ever since as a competitor to France 1789… Most US citizens, pundits and propagandists don’t realize the French and US Constitutions were elaborated simultaneously in 1789… And everybody knows about the French one, because of its universal claims.  

Typical of the plutocratically inspired spite for 1789, is this from the New York Times, July 4, 2019: Robespierre’s America

We need to reclaim the spirit of 1776, not the certitudes of 1789.

You mean we should forget the certitudes of the United Nations’ charter? And the New York Times to insist: 

“Armed with the ‘truth,’ Jacobins could brand any individuals who dared to disagree with them traitors or fanatics,” historian Susan Dunn wrote of the French Revolution. “Any distinction between their own political adversaries and the people’s ‘enemies’ was obliterated.” 

Amusing, if said in elementary school, by an exalted toddler, but not funny if considered to be serious scholarship. And even less so when it is used, as it is, to smear the entire French Revolution. When one speaks of the Terror one speaks of a period during which the French Republic was at war with the rest of Europe, which was controlled by bloody plutocrats threatening to kill millions, and boasting of it, to further their rule of terror. The counter-terror of the Republic festered only during a short period in 1793, and part of 1794… and it arose for reasons exterior to France. The word “Jacobin” was initially an insult, and was invented well after 1789.[2]

Pseudo-humanists can say whatever catches their fancy, completely irrelevant to any sort of reality: this is how the United Nations Charter was born, at Valmy, September 20, 1792… Thanks to superior French explosives… And the Republican élan…

The French Revolution of 1789 was such an excellent thing that the Charter of the present day United Nations is founded on it. However, in their will to hatred, and plutocracy, many smear the Human Rights and Citizen Rights Proclamation of 1789 with what happened in 1793: total war, invasions by several monarchies, the Jacobins tearing each other up, the Terror, 17,000 executed. They also omit to say that, in the meantime, all of Europe monarchies had attacked France in 1792, promising Paris “military execution”, and that the king and queen had betrayed the country, France, that they had been put in charge of leading. [1]

Smearing 1789 with 1793, omitting 1792, is conducive to… hatred. Hatred for progress, human rights, etc.. Thus smearing 1789 is to embrace the love of plutocracy, inequality, fracking, excess CO2, over-exploitation of resources, disregard for human rights, or even human lives (see US life expectancy going down, ever since the latter rule of Obama the Great), etc. Exactly the agenda the English North American colony leaders tended to exhibit and cherish since 1610 CE.

Patrice Ayme



[1] On the Valmy Battle, September 20, 1792: After threatening Paris with “military execution”, the coalition plutocratic army invaded France. France was still a monarchy, and France was still led by the king who launched the revolution, Louis XVI, who had been king for EIGHTEEN (18) years.  

The military execution threat was made in July 1792, raising the stakes of the total war of plutocracy against the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

Just over half of the French infantry were regulars of the old Royal Army, as were nearly all of the cavalry and, most importantly, the artillery,[3][5] which were widely regarded as the best in Europe at the time.[6][7] These veterans provided a professional core to steady the enthusiastic volunteer battalions.[8]Combined, Dumouriez’ Army of the North and Kellermann’s Army of the Centre totalled approximately 54,000 troops.[9] Heading towards them was the Duke of Brunswick’s coalition army of about 84,000, all veteran Prussian and Austrian troops augmented by large complements of Hessians and the French royalist Army of Condé.[9]


The invading fasco-plutocratic army of proto-Nazis handily captured Longwy on 23 August and Verdun on 2 September, then moved on toward Paris through the defiles of the Forest of Argonne.[6] In response, Dumouriez halted his advance to the Netherlands and reversed course, approaching the enemy army from its rear.[3] From Metz, Kellermann moved to his assistance, joining him at the village of Sainte-Menehould on 19 September.[6] The French forces were now EAST of the Prussians, behind their lines. Theoretically the Prussians could have marched straight towards Paris unopposed, but this course was never seriously considered: the threat to their lines of supply and communication was too great to be ignored. With few other options available, Brunswick turned back and prepared to do battle.


When the Prussian manœuvre was nearly completed, Kellermann advanced his left wing and took up a position on the slopes between Sainte-Menehould and Valmy.[6] He centered his command around an old windmill, which he quickly razed to prevent enemy artillery spotters from using it as a sighting location.[11] His veteran artillerists were well-placed upon its accommodating ridge to begin the so-called “Cannonade of Valmy“.[3] Brunswick moved toward them with about 34,000 of his troops.[9] As they emerged from the woods, a long-range gunnery duel ensued and the French batteries proved superior. The Prussian infantry made a cautious, and fruitless, effort to advance under fire across the open ground.[3]

The French troops sang “La Marseillaise” and “Ça Ira“, and a cheer went up from the French line.[12] Confronted to this discouraging and thoroughly unexpected élan, to the surprise of nearly everyone, Brunswick broke off the action and retired from the field. The Prussians rounded the French positions at a great distance and commenced a rapid retreat eastward.

Never doubt the efficiency of the Marseillaise…

The First French Republic was proclaimed the next day in Paris, as the news of the victory arrived.

French troops soon struck forward into Germany, taking Mainz in October. Dumouriez once again moved against the Austrian Netherlands and Kellermann ably secured the front at Metz…


[2] I studied on the exact street from which the word “Jacobin”, initially a put-down, comes from. There was an old Catholic institution partisans of the secular Republic took over, to work from. It was on rue Saint Jacques… So the enemies of the Republic called the secularists that way, to make fun of them, as if they had embraced Saint Jacques (now, as in 1789, French topmost high school and the Sorbonne bracket the rue Saint Jacques).. 

French, Mandarin, Indo-European Languages; Why Multilingualism Brings Higher Wisdom

June 14, 2019

Multilingualism is a basic human capability, long honed by biological evolution. It may be necessary to achieve the highest mental capabilities, as multilingual speakers learn to adjudicate between modes of expression, the most advanced form of thinking.

So which languages? Excellent article by my frenemy Mehdi Lazar, summarizing well most of the situation with French:”The New Dynamic of French In The World.”. To point out that French and Mandarin are the most important languages (with English, de facto lingua franca) is crucial. Indeed, French is basically the core language of Europe: it is grammatically impoverished Latin bastardized with German prepositions, where many words have been phonetically and alphabetically simplified from the Latin originals. English was an afterthought. French is a fast evolving language (hopefully to go with fast minds).

This understates reality: for example North Africa spoke Latin for 900 years before the Arab invasion. Modern Latin, that is French, is widely understood, practiced and spoken in the Maghreb (in spite of efforts by local dictators of Islamist inspiration to kill it). Africa, light green, has to speak Latin derived languages (including English), because there are way too many native languages (or slave derived languages like Swahili)

Compare say the French “opital” from the original Latin “hospitalis”… English, which is actually more conservative than French, is in between with “HoSpital”: the H and S are still pronounced in English, not in French. The french found that the aspired H in the beginning, the S in the middle, and the “IS” at the end, were all useless, so they dropped them!

English, although technically classified as a “Germanic” language is mostly poorly pronounced French, and the more so, the more sophisticated the vocabulary is (85% + of words in common). Naturally, per its central position in Western Europe, French is then a happy medium between English and the other “romance” languages.

Now the baby elephant in the porcelain shop is that unruly child of Great Britain and France, the USA. Ironically enough, the dreaded “Anglo-Saxons” contribute to French by often going back to the Latin, that is, the original French, and creating words that way.

Here is an example: impact. The word appeared in English circa 1600, for “press closely into something,” from Latin impactus, past participle of impingere “to push into, drive into, strike against”. The word appears in French science and technological vocabulary only in 1824. But not just that, it’s an extremely important word, as it expresses the transmission of force (= how things act upon each other). Thus, in US English it has come to be used, since the 1990s as a… verb. As in: this essay impacts linguistics hard.

Thus it’s only a matter of time before the French verb “impacter” appears… and it would be a very useful verb… created as words should be created in French, going to the original Latin.

Another view: this time more of Africa shows up. Erroneously, but it’s a traditional error, English is not viewed as a Greco-Roman language (although it is fundamentally Greco-Roman, with more than 85% sophisticated words basically French…

Multilingualism is natural, humanity evolved as multilingual: our brains are made to learn several languages, and it enables us to better learn to adjudicate thoughts and forms of expression.

How so? Transportation was extremely difficult in the world of the past, except in those few places with steppe (like the Eurasian steppe, which goes from Hungary to Korea, that enormous freeway in the middle of Eurasia). Thus people evolved many languages even over very short distances. An example is Senegal: in this small countries, seven languages evolved, and some are tonal (Serer) and others not (Wolof). This is typical of the past, so human beings had to be multilingual.

However, there are only that many languages one can learn: French and Mandarin are the great linguistic anchors of the world, a continent apart.

But not just this: except for deplorable episodes such as the ephemeral collapses of the Greco-Roman and Chinese states under the invasions of various savages, Western Europe and China have long been at the forefront of civilization, spearheading progress. Learning basic Chinese arithmetic is fascinating: the Chinese found more rational ways to do it.

The state of Qin and the contemporaneous Roman Republic were remarkably based on the same principles of law, reason and technological progress… and that’s why they founded great empires (alive and well to this day, as descendant regimes). Actually the present inchoate world government embodied by the United Nations rests on Roman Republican legal principles, or even the letter of the Roman law (that’s similar to the Qin obsession with law… which was even applied to one of its most ardent proponent, a famous Qin PM who finished quartered by horses, as the law prescribed for the sort of corruption he had unfortunately engaged in…)

China understood the importance of intellectualism (the “Mandarin” examination system) and science… And that is why China was so successful, and the anchor civilization of East Asia (Japan and Vietnam used to employ Chinese character… Although the French switched Vietnam, and japan evolved a bit on its own…) Thus, from all this will to advanced thinking, China invented many technologies the world uses now. Even in the Nineteenth Century, Chinese drilling for natural gas, one kilometer down, or more, was the world’s most advanced.

The Frankish empire, both Merovingian and Carolingian, soon renamed itself “Renovatio Imperium Romanum”. Indeed, it “renovated” Rome on way better principles: no more terrorizing, stupidifying, sordid Christian fanaticism… and, soon enough, no more slavery: Saint Queen Bathilde outlawed the slave trade in 655 CE… Throughout much of Western Europe. So when the Franks invaded England in 1066, they freed the 20% of slaves there. These philosophical changes had huge economic, social and military impacts… 

Thus learning French and Mandarin is not just about speaking what many speak, and will speak. It’s about learning what made civilization what it has become… including learning the grave errors which made it so much better.

The “mission civilisatrice” is not over, it’s just starting. It’s not just a matter of feeling, and being, superior, it’s a matter of surviving. And not just for this species, but for the entire biosphere. You all will learn to think better, or you will learn to die, sordid. Go multilingual!

Patrice Ayme

Trump Was A Warning To Plutocracy. Warren Is What Is Really Needed!

May 5, 2019

EINOs: Elite In Name Only. This is the entire problem. No more than 10,000 people decide of the fate of the USA, the West, Civilization, eight billion people, and even the fate of the biosphere. 10,000 have captured the planet. Who are these experts in heist? Who are these gods? Mostly a self-nominated elite. OK, not all from the same place: after all, Putin was nominated by the KGB, and Xi Jinping is the son of Xi Zhongxun, nominated by the Politburo.

Yet certainly China’s elite became part of global plutocracy. Here is an example: corrupt armies ransacked Congo for rare earths enabling China to make phones for Apple, which “optimized” its own taxes into quasi-nothingness, by a combination of Caribbean tax havens and an EU-illegal deal with Ireland.   

It is this global plutocracy which rules the world. It talks one way… precisely to be able to act the opposite. Biden is the centerfold of this, even more than the transparent Obama, and the blatant Clinton. In the 1990s, time and time again, Biden fostered the plutocratic coup against civilization, the crux being the destruction of the Banking Act of 1933, thus giving free reins to the world financial plutocracy.

All is tied up: Obama fostered a fracking rampage thus the US produces twice more fossil fuels than Russia or Saudis, poisoning Earth… But 1% of US CO2 is from US subsidized private jets.

Only one way out: as the Roman Republic did. Put an ABSOLUTE limit on wealth. As Warren suggests to do (de facto). Warren’s revolution can defeat Trump’s revolt.


The preceding commented on the New York Times Joe Biden and the Party of Davos

As a pillar of the ancien régime, Biden is ill-placed to overturn Trump’s revolution, opined Roger Cohen in the New York Times.

My, my, my… How the Times they are changing. Just a little while ago, Trump was reviled, and not hating him, a grave moral failure, let alone a revolution. Calling Biden and the revered Obama ancien régime was a sin. Biden was arguably the most prominent engineer of plutocratic legislative installment in the 1990s: he reversed women rights, instituted mass imprisonment, demolished the Banking Act of 1933. [1]


Obama: “Can you believe those idiots? They really think we are not on the same side! I just smile, and they believe me!” Trump:”yeah, well, we better give those losers a bit of slack!”

Truth is Trump is not that bad, especially considering what the ancien régime has done, and not done. The US unemployment rate just reached (May 2019) a 50 years’ low. Trump brought tariff on 200 billion dollars worth of Chinese goods to 25%. Seeing those facts, global plutocracy screams high treason. I say: why doesn’t the European Union not do the same? Because it’s neither European, nor an Union?

Cohen goes on:

“Is Donald Trump an aberration? If he is, Joe Biden is the perfect Democratic candidate to defeat him next year, the steady hand that can restore decency, steer a middle course between Wall Street and Main Street, and reinvigorate the shaken liberal democratic order.

I don’t think Trump is an aberration. On the contrary, he’s the face, however duplicitous, of a revolution against the Party of Davos, the network of elites whose economic and cultural prescriptions came to be seen by myriad voters across the United States and Europe as camouflage for a self-serving heist. Biden has been a regular attendee at Davos.”

The present economic expansion is the longest ever. Trump has argued with the Fed about letting the economy run; the Fed has argued it “wants to take the punchbowl away”. The Fed is clearly wrong in a globalized economy… Now, of course, Trump has been de-globalizing more than a bit… As needed…Now here is Cohen going on with more of what I have been saying for a few years. Actually I said it, years before Obama enraged Trump enough, and made him realize anybody could become president, as long as they lied big enough, deep enough, and frequently enough, that Trump decided to run for president. As I pointed out in August 2016:

USA As A Police State

Many rage against Donald Trump, while singing the praises of Obama. They overlook that the Donald duck is what the Obama cat dragged home.”

Therein the graph of the incarceration rate in the USA, much of it having to do with Biden’s work, as the head of the relevant Senatorial committee in the 1990s:

Thanks to Biden’s reforms, incarceration doubled. Under Reagan, it’s the Democrats who passed the laws to incarcerate, as all the end all, be all laws needed…

Here is Roger Cohen again: [Trump] “could say the unsayable. He could disrupt. He could restore violence to a wan political stage of PowerPoint slides. He could take on the China that had put millions of people to work on the cheap in its factories and so, from the Midwest to the British Midlands, de-industrialized much of the West.

If people felt like nobodies, felt abandoned, felt there was not only growing inequality in wealth but inequality of recognition, felt their very language had been anesthetized by all-knowing elites more at home in global capitals than in the provinces of their own countries, then somebody could speak for liberalism’s disappeared — and maybe even win. Steve Bannon saw this. Trump grasped this and did win, not as the creator of a movement but as the media-savvy messenger of a groundswell.”

This revolution is not an American phenomenon. It is much wider…”

Roger Cohen observes the obvious:

There’s been a movement in people’s minds, a radical change in the way people live, perceive and conduct their politics. The old paradigm won’t work… whatever Biden’s early lead in polls. He’s ill-placed, as a pillar of the ancien régime, to overturn the revolution. This is not personal. It’s societal.

For all his Scranton blue-collar beginnings, Biden will be pilloried as a faithful servant of the Party of Davos that secured impunity for the financiers behind the 2008 meltdown, a heady growth in inequality, China appeasement and the arrogance of money-wooed Democrats estranged from their working-class constituency. Unfiltered politics, technology’s dubious gift, will hurt him. These politics prize agility more than honor. The world has moved on. Whither I’m not sure, but it has. Things shift. That’s the way of the world — inexorable as biology.

One of the most significant exchanges so far of the fight for the 2020 Democratic nomination came in the last few days when Biden said of China: “I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.” To which Bernie Sanders shot back that the United States had lost three million manufacturing jobs to the 2000 China trade deal. “It’s wrong,” he tweeted, “to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic competitors.”

Not only economic, I would add. China is set on an implacable course to run the world in the second half of this century. If that is not precisely what you want for your children, thinking that “they’re not competition for us” is precisely the wrong place to start. It’s lazy thinking

Cohen then evokes Macron, who went one carbon tax too far. Macron was preoccupied by the end of the world. The Gilets Jaunes replied they were preoccupied by the end of the month. Cohen, optimistically said that Macron learned. Our banker learned? Of course not really. All Macron learned was to fly, one burning cathedral at a time, just dumping enough Pluto baggage, to get over the next hill.

And finally Cohen draw the conclusion I have drawn in the past:

“…among Democratic contenders, Elizabeth Warren is listening most closely. Her proposed tax on the super wealthy reflects that — while billionaires, like China, get a pass from Biden. Trump is not an aberration. Only the innovative will beat him.


From Repression To Barbarization:

Other opinion makers at the New York Times are also condemning Biden, even if they don’t say it aloud, but use euphemisms. In “Imprisoned for Trying to Save His Son. Mass incarceration was America’s biggest mistake over the last half-century.” Nicholas Kristof, Opinion Columnist, on May 4, 2019,

America’s biggest mistake over the last half-century arguably had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam or Iraq, or with Watergate or Donald Trump. Rather, I’d say that it was mass incarceration, fueled by the war on drugs.

The United States used to have incarceration rates similar to those of Europe — and then, beginning in about 1970, we increased the number of people behind bars sevenfold. About as many Americans now have a criminal record as have a college degree. Mass incarceration shattered America’s family structure, magnified race gaps, left millions of people marginalized — and has been brutally unfair.

Years ago I wrote about a case that still haunts me. Dicky Joe Jackson was a Texas trucker whose 2-year-old son, Cole, needed a bone-marrow transplant to save his life. The family raised $50,000 through community fund-raisers, but this wasn’t enough — so Jackson tried to earn the remainder by transporting meth in his truck for a distributor. He was caught and sentenced to life in prison.

The prosecutor himself thought the sentence unjust, saying of Jackson: “He didn’t know of any other way to take care of his kid.”


Mass incarceration was itself a manifestation of a much deeper disease: the control of the USA by its wealthiest class, even when civilization was. and is, at stake. Those who know too little history will say the USA declared war TO Hitler. No. Hitler declared war TO the US (Dec 11, 1941). The USA had the plan to NOT go to war in 1942. Fortunately, the stupid fascists couldn’t resist.

USA’s worst lie, and worst mistake, for those who care about lives, humanity,  and its standards: not to recognize the value system which led it to fight too late against Nazism, or even more basic, that the deepest flaws of US society, still in power today, led it to not declare war to Hitler. Obscuring this vile story hides US Pluto power (US plutocracy!

It’s all tied up together into an all too evil mood…

No more than 10,000 people decide of the fate of the USA, the West, Civilization, eight billion people, and even the fate of the biosphere. 10,000 have captured the planet. Some could argue that they are busy destroying the planet, precisely to hide their heist, by fostering great destruction, making it impossible to understand who, what, started the holocaust, the burning of everything…

Anyway, good to see the Times they are changing…

Patrice Ayme



[1] Relative to Biden, Obama was just a poser: his Obamacare, however helpful it has been to the healthcare plutocracy, pales in insignificance relative to Biden’s hellish reforms of the 1990s…

Of course TARP was very much in the spirit of Biden’s finance reforms of the 1990s:

European Union Should Extent Brexit (Article 50) Two Years. Without UK European Parliament Privileges!

March 29, 2019

Indeed, as I will explain more below, the European Parliament doesn’t create laws, just approve them. Great Britain is already out ot the European Council (which launches laws).

The House of Commons, the UK Parliament, rejected the UK government’s “Withdrawal Agreement from the European Union“, for the third time. According to the EU’s ultimatum to Great Britain, the UK will be thrown out of the EU on April 12, in 14 days. This expulsion is unwise, and no civilized way to proceed. I will thereafter suggest a different course: extending massively Article 50, putting Brexit on the European backburner, a slow simmer in the background, leaving time for Great Britain to figure out its existential issues, its Brexistential issues… Shile Europe is allowed to reconsider the future, the planet, civilization, progress, democracy, and other things which have disappeared from the Brexit debate…

The interminable Brexit process is paralyzing Europe (both UK and EU). The temptation is to expedite it, in the hope of being done with it. That will not work: instead, it will make the situation way worse. If Brexit happened on April 12, 2019, in two weeks, ten years of divisive negotiations would ensue. How to avoid that? Forget about it! Forget about Brexit, send it to the purgatory of the House of Commons, under the good care of its weaker, the excellent right honorable gentleman, Speaker John Bercow.

Another new NO, the ninth, was added on Friday. The Third No on the withdrawal agreement.


How And Why LEGALLY EXCLUDE the UK From The EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (Until the UK Decides to Revoke Article 50, & Remain In the EU):

Europeans have to let the British Parliament find a solution and have it ratified by the British People, in a referendum. That will take at least a year. Meanwhile, the rest of the European Union has to protect itself from the pathology known as Brexit. That means that Great Britain should be EXCLUDED from taking part in the next European Parliament.

I don’t care what the legalistically minded come up with, mumbling that EU member nations have to be represented in Parliament, that we can’t have a precedent, bla bla bla. Right, the EU is very legally minded, a French characteristic, now permeating the EU. However, sticking to the law causes rigidities which, in turn can only be removed by those periodic revolutions shaking France.

The spirit of the law always beats the letter of the law. The letter of the law has already been broken: Article 50 extended only until tomorrow, March 29, 2019, the appartenunce of the UK in the EU.  Hence the letter of the law (24 months!) has been broken. Yet the spirit survives.

So, in a way, the UK is (sort of) out: the European Council, after one meeting with UK PM Cameron, four days after the fateful Brexit, never met as 28 members again: the UK got excluded. So the new spirit of the law is that the UK is partly out of the EU. The European Council is really the government of the EU (the European Commission just implements what the EC wants).

The European Council is more important than the European Parliament (European Parliament vote laws, but doesn’t suggest them). So, no EU Parliament for the UK. Instead UK in an indefinite Article 50: all rights and duties of membership, except for voting. In many democracies, convicts don’t vote for a while. Hey, Britain self-convicted.

The solution above, extending Article 50 by two years, but no Parliament for the UK, will free the EU from Brexit. The EU will be free to progress, pass laws mitigating plutocracy, climate change, foster research, education, etc. In particular financing of UK science and advanced tech by EU budgets will proceed. Also Eurosceptics will be informed that leaving the EU, and activating Article 50, has a democratic cost, and gives a forerun of what it means to be out of the EU: no more European legislating possible.  


And what will happen to Great Britain? Polls show the UK would vote for Remain at this point. Within two years, the British People will come to its senses, in spite of the shrill shrieking propaganda of its plutocratic media (the EU should pass laws to limit plutocratic propaganda). So We the British People will vote to stay in the EU. Then a special EU Parliament UK election can be held.

The non-participation of the UK in the EU Parliament will prevent Parliamentary sabotage, which would otherwise paralyze Europe some more. However, if legal minds of the stupid kind insist on having that… the fact is that Article 50 should be extended 2 years, while Speaker Bercow and the House of Commons figure Brexit out.

Why? No bad feelings, looking forward… In the end no Brexit.


Enough, children, who go by the self-glorifying name of “leaders”! Learn from history!

The British Parliament voted No No No No No No No No, No, on all the possibilities of Brexit, a wide spectrum selected by the very interesting Speaker Bercow. A European ultimatum expires April 12. On that date, Great Britain is supposed to have decided to leave, and how. (If if with a deal then the effective day will be in May.)

You may not know this, you children who are called leaders, because you studied just what was Politically Correct, but war is a serious thing, and a seriously sneaky thing. Apparently innocuous indifference and turning-away can turn into alienation, and war. The personal history of my family has helped me know these emotional truths. I was graced by a family which harbred resistance fighters, more than 100 Jews, which was chased by the Gestapo, while my dad arrived in France in combat, fighting Nazis… In my lifetime, I have known what it feels like to be bombed by fascist racists, and to have a young uncle who was an elder brother to me, killed by Islamist  terrorists (crucially helped by a double dealing French government).

Also I spent decades studying history, in particular of the European kind. It is not as simplistic as usually depicted. The first battle of Fontenoy (around 50,000 killed by arrows, lances, swords, and axes, in a few hours of hand to hand combat) was an enormous butchery, Franks against Franks. There was a second, even more famous battle, in the same place of Fontenoy, 1,000 years, a millennium, later, this time English against French. As one can see, French military history is rich, unparalleled… These two battles of Fontenoy were pretty much brothers against brothers, not civilization against savagery, and should never have happened.

Yes, Europe had plenty of civilization against savagery battles. France was involved in all of them (the Mongols gave up their conquest of Europe, when the top Mongol generals argued that the heavy losses they had suffered in Hungary were a foretaste of suffering again the same fate as their ancestors the Huns in France). In the Eight Century, the Franks repelled three invasions of Europe by the savage Arab Islamists, over a period of thirty years. Of course, Islam would never have happened if Catholic fascism had been defeated at the Battle of the Cold River, three centuries before Muhammad’s birth.  At the Cold River, the Western Emperor, Eugenius, a secular professor promoted by the head of the Occidental Roman army, Arbogast, confronted the catholic bigot, Oriental emperor Theodosius (originally a Spaniard). Arbogast, a Frank, controlled, for many years, a Roman army full of Romanized Franks. Theodosius was allied with the Goths. Theodosius and his goons had invented the notion of “heresy”, and laws, decrees, making “heresy” punishable at the pleasure of the government.

There is a direct line between this, and the government of Brunei establishing the death penalty for homosexuality in 2019, according to Sharia. Indeed, at the Cold River, the Frigidus river, unexpectedly, Arbogast was defeated and those who wanted heresy to be punishable by death, and Catholicism to pursue its reign of terror, won. Not only that, but, left without an army, the Occidental Roman empire promptly fell to the invading barbarian hordes, 14 years later (406 CE).

The millennium of European wars started when the French of West Francia turned their backs on the rest of the “Roman” empire (actually the west of present France, the most occidental third of the “Francia” of the Franks from 500 CE to 950 CE, including Paris had very good reasons to reject the empire… which had failed to protect them against the Viking; instead the count of Paris, soon to be duke, did the work, battling back from the ramparts, with 200 men, 10,000 bloody Vikings… while the Roman/Carolingian emperors prefered negotiations with the Viking). That turning of all French backs was, to some extent, justified. However it caused alienation between Europeans. By 1200, all of Europe was united against the French-Paris monarchy (and lost the battle and war against the “French” king Philippe Auguste, at Bouvines).


Treat The British Well, They Don’t Have To Be Too Punished, This Is Not Versailles:

The interminable Brexit is paralyzing Europe. The temptation is to expedite it. That would be a mistake for the British: once they inspect the situation in all details, they will come to the conclusion, except for a few vested interests, like plutocrats and media moguls, and the odd deluded fisher, that staying in the EU is the less bad of all bad possibilities.

I am of the opinion that Germany was treated very well by the Versailles Treaty (contrarily to common opinion). That’s because I studied the situation in details, and I didn’t buy the Nazi opinion about Versailles. However, there is definitively a risk of mistreating a deluded Britain about Brexit. OK, the British have the wrong mentality about the European Union. This is a particular bad case of “fake news”. Just like Islamophilia is a particularly bad case of “fake news”.

So yes, there is “fake news” problem. But does that mean that British or Muslims should be mistreated? As individuals? No. The problem is that Brexit would hurt most british and European citizens, So the rest of the European Union has to be patient.

Not having the UK NOT sit in the EU Parliament will have the advantage that a lot of laws of the pro-plutocratic, anti-federal, and unequal laws, in particular the monstrous British rebate, and the even more monstrous Swiss rebate, can be legislated out.

Yes, president Macron is understandably viewing this Brexit tragicomedy as something to flush down the toilet, ASAP. However, apparently innocuous and inconsequential acts in history have resulted in immense tragedies.

Don’t forget the present system in Britain was mostly created by a succession of French adventurers, warriors, magnates and plutocrats, with a few queens and duchesses in the mix (William of Normandy, the barons of Magna Carta, Eleanor d’Aquitaine, Yolande of Aragon, Isabelle de France, Edouard III/Edward III, Lancaster/Lancastre, de Montfort come to mind; the House of Normandy was succeeded by the House of Anjou). The estrangement between England and France was the fruit of personalities more than anything else. A striking example is Yolande of Aragon, who financed Joan of Arc’s army and the illegal kinglet (the “Dolphin”) connected to them, who got the “100 Years War” relaunched all by themselves. (Yes, now there is a lamentable cult of Joan of Arc amplifying that idiotic nationalism and bigotry.)

Small things can have big consequences: models supposedly show weather systems can be created by a butterfly flapping its wings, three weeks earlier.

Macron, the French president, doesn’t want to become that butterfly of doom, flapping Europe into division and thus oblivion. Macron doesn’t want to flap all wrong. Let Macron beat on French Yellow Jackets, if that’s his won, he does that well, the French love to be beaten up, so they can beat back. Revolutions make French law progress. But Macron shouldn’t beat on the British. That could lead to war.  

The European Union will be optimal if it acts as an empire of the highest aspirations. That includes, first of all, bending over backwards not to mistreat European Peoples or nations. Europe should focus its energy on thermonuclear fusion and the space race now engaged between the USA, China, India, maybe Russia to be first (back) on the Moon. (The European thermonuclear reactor JET is based in the UK, it’s crucial to ITER, and its financing has been compromised by Brexit.)

Oh, by the way, Boris Johnson, ex-mayor of London and co-leader of the Leave (the EU) campaign, voted for the EU Withdrawal Agreement of May, today (his colleague had adopted the same position a week ago). Why? Because for the UK to leave the EU without a deal is an unfathomable catastrophe.

So, question, if the Leave campaign leaders can be that reasonable, surely the European leaders should be? Or are the leaders of the European Council truly that childish that they risk European strategic disaster, medium term? Jut on the basis of legalistically justified resentment? 

Taking away Parliament from a EU country which has left the European Council, which originates European laws, only makes sense. Beating the Brits when they are down doesn’t. Give Great Britain time to rethink Europe. Two years. No Parliament.

Patrice Ayme



The opinion of the British on Brexit has already changed a bit. It will change some more. Hey, even the New York Times is realizing it had Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here is a New York Times editorial on Trump today:, operating a U-turn on its opinion of Trump:


“Maybe the president brilliantly played the media. Or maybe we just played ourselves.

By Bret Stephens,  Opinion Columnist

“Maybe we’ve had this all wrong.

Maybe Donald Trump isn’t just some two-bit con artist who lucked his way into the White House thanks to an overconfident opponent. Or a second-rate demagogue with a rat-like instinct for arousing his base’s baser emotions and his enemies’ knee-jerk reactions. Or a dimwit mistaken for an oracle, like some malignant version of Chauncey Gardiner from “Being There.”

Thanks to Robert Mueller, we know he isn’t Russia’s man inside, awaiting coded instruction from his handler in the Kremlin.

Maybe, in fact, Trump is the genius he claims to be, possessed — as he likes to boast — of a “very good brain.”


Here is the full statement from the European commissionfollowing the vote in the Commons.

The commission regrets the negative vote in the House of Commons today. As per the European council (article 50) decision on 22 March, the period provided for in article 50(3) is extended to 12 April. It will be for the UK to indicate the way forward before that date, for consideration by the European council.

A “no-deal” scenario on 12 April is now a likely scenario. The EU has been preparing for this since December 2017 and is now fully prepared for a “no-deal” scenario at midnight on 12 April. The EU will remain united. The benefits of the withdrawal agreement, including a transition period, will in no circumstances be replicated in a “no-deal” scenario. Sectoral mini-deals are not an option.

The final two sentences refer to a claim often made by Brexiters at Westminster that, in the event of a no-deal departure, the UK and the EU would in practice negotiate a series of mini-agreements to mitigate the worst consequences. This is sometimes referred to as a managed no deal.

One Yellow Jacket In Paris. Just One

December 18, 2018

One learns by experimenting. In physics as in its foundation, human psychology. So here I was in Paris, with my Yellow Jacket. Two of them, to make sure, one on top of the other. Parisians weren’t too happy to see me. They were getting nervous, just seeing me cruise by the boarded banks… Hey, banks create money, for everybody, by lending to the wealthiest, who, as everyone knows since Reagan, are the friends of everybody, due in part to their providing of healthcare and crumbs for the We The People of Pigeonhood.

Shine A Light On Millennia Of Civilization

Paris is a huge city, subsidized in part by the losers of rural France. The peasants just can go to Paris, and take the subway, if they want to enjoy the subsidies too. OK, they won’t be able to approach the imperial palace of the Elysee, where the presidential monarch is busy with his program of demolition of the French social model… lest it somehow contaminates other countries, worse of the USA, that would be the end of global plutocracy.

French varied heritage and contradictions: the tower, the moon, and the Greek citizen warrior helmet. In the past, France would have been first on the Moon. What happened? And why would citizen warriors fight for the Representative Oligarchy (aka Rep Dem…)? In 1793, the Republic (already proclaimed) was voted by referendum…

Fortunately Yellow Jackets are rising… Mercure in the forefront, He used to be the Old Celtic god (yes, I’m not getting confused: Gaul was rich in tech and ideas, and adopted Greek gods, centuries before the Romans came around… Massilia is the oldest French city, it was a Phocean, that is Greek, colony….

French Senate Behind Mercury…

Funny, I was talking my head off with family about the RIC (Referendum Initiative Citoyenne referendums at will). A Senator came to shake my hand to say we were like family as he got to listen to me for an hour… He went back to his Senate, a guy just as tall and good looking as Obama, a perfect specimen to represent the oligarchy, and make it look good on TV, networks (most important). Well, enjoy while it lasts, guy… Some have proposed to elect Senators by lot (that was done in Ancient Greece for some institutions in some cities, sometimes…)

People Power, Demos Kratia, is not a choice: it’s the only way to survive, because it is the only way to rise the intelligence, not just of the Commons, but of civilization itself…

Patrice Ayme

We Are Scared, Thus We Are British Versus We Are French, And Why We Are Revolutionaries

December 9, 2018


And Why Islands Such As England, Are More Peaceful, Thus More Tyrannical:

Afraid of their own establishment, all too established, the British are. That made them obedient, sometimes even obsequiously, to their plutocratic masters (hence the polite goofing off below and around “Royals”). Hence the British world empire, now a world empire of the English language, a form of poorly pronounced French, and Anglo-Saxonia (understand plutocracy friendly, or more, precisely, the spirit of the West Country Men, see below, for this ignominy which has metastasized, worldwide). 

The right way to make Brexit: change the EU, tearing it out of the clutches of a corrupt establishment, using force . To riot or not to riot? French violence, over the last millennium was the icebreaker English trade and society meekly followed behind… To great profit. English tyranny, more stealthy and efficient, tended to use what worked best to exploit better. See the note about Philippe IV with Henry VIII as consequence…

This is exactly why the Revolution of Human Rights of 1789 happened in France, not Great Britain. In France, peasants owned their land (however small). In Britain plutocrats, the top ones elected to Parliament, owned all the land, and controlled the country so thoroughly, including the legal and justice system, revolution was impossible.

Thus plutocrats made the laws in Britain. In practice, it meant that landless, unemployed rural denizens flocking to cities could be arrested, and condemned to death for vagrancy… Except, of course, if they asked the judge to be deported as slave to North America (exact title was “endured servant”) Hence England was able to stuff North America with colonists, and make the colonies profitable (especially adding slaves and tobacco).

By the 18th century, a British admiral was famously hanged “to encourage the others” as Voltaire put it. He had been culprit of lacking enthusiasm in battle. Only a deeply inhuman, fascist system ruled by mighty Plutos could engage in such violence.

Revolutions in France: they started by the 12th century with the Cathars, and arguably even earlier by 1026 CE, when the Vatican used the first mass burning of revolutionaries to repress the nascent rebellion against Catholic fascism! When the French army got to England in 1066 CE, it outlawed slavery, as per Frankish law, seducing the 20% of the English population which was enslaved.

One may wonder why France was always that icebreaker, jumping from revolution to revolution… of all these revolutions, the only pacific one was that of “Amour Courtois”, in the middle of the Middle Ages, when influential ladies started, successfully, a “me too” movement for the times…

The answer is simple: England is an island. England suffered only one invasion since 1066 CE (and that one was pretty much an insider affair, the so-called “Glorious Revolution” when Orange took power… “Orange” itself being revealing of his true origin, Orange, in France…)

Whereas France, in the Middle Of Western Europe, was always a war country, exposed to invasions, and keen to engage in counterattacks… all the way to Algiers or Moscow… Being armed to the teeth, and culturally friendly to war, the French apply those principles inside. All the more as the military leadership of France had to depend upon We The People to engage in all these wars, so We The People of France is always more or less on a war footing.

So both the French leadership and the French people have always been bellicose, and being bellicose is a fundamental property of France which enables the existence of France as a polity. Thus bellicosity is perceived deep down inside in French mentality, as a positive.

War also had a huge scientific effect. The “100 year war” (part of the nearly 5 centuries war) between France and England finished when French engineers, the Bureau brothers, introduced field guns, a world first. At the battle of Castillon, French guns obliterated the English army (which suffered 4,000 killed, while the French had only one hundred dead).

Gallic military engineering supremacy dated all the way back to the Roman Republic, when the Celts provided superior metallic military equipment to… the Roman army.

An example is the Grenade GLI F4, an instantaneously explosive tear gas which makes an explosion of 170 decibels to render We The People deaf (Grenade lacrymogène instantanée) fabricated by SAE Alsetex (groupe Étienne Lacroix). The grenade contains a TNT charge, and explodes so violently, it has torn hands of French gilet jaune demonstrators, more than a meter away.

The World Financial Order explodes contradictors, because violence works, always had. Here a French demonstrator torn, one of many, in 2018, by explosive TNT grenade , made in France (not China!) Even Foreigners and Belgians get exploded.

While the plutocratic French monarchy is busy exploding and terrifying French contradictors of the established Rothschild order…

… the People Republic of China launched a rover to the Far Side of the Moon, a world first. (It required to put in orbit another satellite around the Moon, first, for communications.)

Thus, thanks to Manu the First and Last of His Name, unpopular King of France, allied to the plutocratic globalocracy, and the most repugnant philosophy, French military technology against We The People of France, is progressing by leaps and bounds… While several other nations plan to further technology in more productive ways, by establishing bases on the Moon.

We don’t need solitary, arrogant clown brainwashed by Heideggerian (that is, Nazi) philosophers, programmed by the French Republic Inspectorate of Finance and its sponsor, Banque Rothschild, to lead us into oblivion, so as the present version of the “West Country Men” can profit so much, they will forget. their own ignominy. What we need is progress, that is, revolution. It starts with more equality.

There is no steady state. Never was, but now, less than ever. Civilization is an ongoing revolution. The Ship of Civilization is propelled by revolutions. And it better be right away, or the humanely sustainable biosphere will die.

Patrice Ayme



England, institutionally speaking, was mostly created by Frenchmen:

starting with the Franco-Norman colonization. According to Frankish law, slavery was immediately outlawed (so 20% of the population loved William). William then introduced the sort of oath and direct relationship between king and people characteristic of that between Roman imperator and soldier. Clovis had done the same, but only in the Frankish army, as it was, after all, a Roman army (this was enforced by the famous Soissons Vase incident, where Clovis executed a Frankish warrior, for disobedience, as if he were a vulgar Roman soldier… which he was… unbeknownst to him).

Frenchmen launched reforms kept on coming: the Magna Carta, the puffed-up role of Parliament (Duke of Lancastre/Lancaster).


French Revolt Against Papacy Led To The English One:

Around 1300 CE, Philippe IV Le Bel, “emperor in his own kingdom”, in concert with his English vassal, the King of England, waged war against the Pope. The Pope surrendered, agreeing to taxation. Still Philippe got him arrested, and dead.

After that, it was easy to do what Henry VIII did, 240 years later, creating a reformed church in England.


Then came the “West Country Men”… Top English investors who terrorized Ireland, before establishing a highly profitable, slave driven colony in America… When evil works, nothing else can do as well:

The Revolution in France is a revolt against the West Country Men spirit (which amusingly was best exploited by German Jews, the immigrants who adopted the name “Rothschild”…)

Physics Needs Strong Philosophy More Than Ever: Scandal of the 5%!

October 1, 2018

And it has to do with the rule of the 1%! 

Philosophy is often dominated by weaklings. Sometimes, centuries of weaklings. Let’s avert our eyes from the Nazi Heidegger: fools love Heidegger, because fools love Nazi style of thinking. So does those who favor the rule of the few, because Nazi style thinking has to do with fascist thinking, thinking according to a few ideas and a few men (“Jesus”, Constantine, Saint Augustine, Muhammad, etc.)

Perhaps the most prominent example mixing barbarity, philosophy and stupidity is the Christianized Middle Ages: Epicurus wrote 300 books. All were meticulously destroyed by Christians. Only three letters of Epicurus survived… What was Epicurus writing about, why did Christians hated him so much? Atomic theory. The Greeks considered it highly probable, they thought they had experimental proof. They also had mechanical computers and very advanced elements of mathematics and physics which the Christians also eradicated. It requires some effort to go back to barbarity!

The Christians hated atomic theory, which denied the whole transmutation of bread and wine into body and blood of Christ: Christians “thinkers” wrote millions of pages on the divine transmutation, using Plato and Aristotle’s fishy onanistic theories of the universe. (For Plato that there was a realm of pure “forms”, nothing real, and for Aristotle that there were ten categories, including “essence”; Middle Age philosophers used those heavily… ironically my own SQPR re-institute Dark Matter as essence: my DM interacts with matter some, by causing “spontaneous collapse”… but let’s not deviate from the subject at hand…)

The first thing a decadent civilization does, is to spite philosophy, spite the lovers of wisdom: decadence springs from brute force, not wisdom.

Real, deepest physicists were, and are all philosophers:

Inventing new ideas enables to discover the intricate logic of the world. Invention starts with being a friend of wisdom: why is it that I think, what is it that they think they know and take for granted, and why? Is there a more precise, better informed way?

Anti-philosophy of pop scientists is partly a consequence of the success thus domination of the “shut up & calculate” school. Top physicist Feynman, despised the philosophers he knew. But he, himself, was a philosopher, and it showed up even in what he considered a valid reasoning to be (Feynman had a peculiar way of reasoning; same with Einstein, De Broglie, etc.) Feynman’s son became a philosopher. Physics describes no more than 5% world, it needs strong philosophy!

The other reason why pop philosophers and pop scientists are also anti-philosophy? Because their masters, those who pay them and advance their careers, are themselves in the employ of plutocrats and their organizations, who hate wisdom… as it would be lethal to them, and their organizations…

And physics needs stronger, more subtle logic!

It has always been clear to me that, on a cosmic scale, Quantum Theory makes no sense: basically physics as we affect to know it, is local. However, Quantum Theory speaks as it the world was global. This leads to a contradiction, which has surfaced in the prestigious journal Nature for all to see:

“Nature News 18 SEPTEMBER 2018
Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists
In a multi-‘cat’ experiment, the textbook interpretation of quantum theory seems to lead to contradictory pictures of reality, physicists claim.”

Logic is ever more subtle. Consider the following cartoon from “Philosophy Matters“, a consortium of US academic philosophers (which at some point told me my smarts made me insufferably obnoxious, or words to this effect):

Cute, first order correct, but subtly wrong!

Actually, if people are already dead, they can’t die anymore. People who don’t breathe could be already dead, thus can’t die. Because one doesn’t die again. Hence the second cartoon should read: people who stop breathing, die. Context: not everything, but most of the thing!

The same goes for partisanship: people love the frenzy of the herd they belong to, and the simplistic logic it leads to.

Actually Trump has ordered the FBI to make a full inquiry. But an investigation, except for the grossest things (crime against humanity), can’t be made correctly 36 years later… Defense is automatically at a disadvantage against false memories. (BTW, Republican Senator Flake, a blonde, after been cornered in an elevator by irate women, called for the FBI inquiry, saying he would vote against Kavanaugh otherwise.)

Cute cartoon. Indeed, Justice has got to be a blonde with pink skin: always was, always will. However cute, not the whole truth, which is much more tragic. Namely it’s far from being only the so-called “Republicans” who smother justice. “Partisanship” is not the solution. The entire legislative system needs a re-think. Towards direct democracy.

“Donald J. Trump‏
Verified account
NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!”

Right. Let’s seriously investigate the fashion, and age old tradition, in the USA, of getting drunk, especially among young people, damaging their brains, and using alcoholism to get away with the basest behaviors, and habits. This goes both for the accuser and the accused here! (By the way, frazzled by his elder brother dying of alcoholism, Donald Trump does not do drugs, including alcohol.)

One can’t have the better, and progressive civilization needed for planetary survival, when too many brains of the leadership are damaged by drugs. It’s not just a question that their performances are inferior to have they could be, or should be. The mood that drug addiction gives a sense to life brings forth the tendency, the overall mentality, that the mind should be overwhelmed by out-of-this-world modes of operations, which enable the brain to forget reality as it is. And what are the greatest out-of-this-world neurohormonal regimes? All these having to do with violence, fight or flight, and will to power.

OK, those can be correct to use, but only if one knows what one is playing around, and in the full knowledge of the associated causations. And what of those 5%? They relate to the proverbial 1% who own the world. Both are able to do so because common people are tolerant of theories which explain very little, and are impossible to understand: why is gigantic economic equality necessary, how can it be deemed to be compatible with democracy? Well, look at physics: there a theory is called Theory Of Everything, and it explains not even 5%. Similarly modern economics sustains mostly 1% and is just as impossible to understand. They are made to each other, sustain the same mood of mystification!

In the Middle Ages, persons with lots of character, knew all too well that many of the official (Christian) theories were wrong: Beranger de Tour, a church authority, held that reason was god, and thus that the church should obey to reason. The pope was not amused, councils were organized to castigate Berenger, excommunicate him and deprive him of authority. But Berenger held his ground, in spite of the fact heresy could bring the death penalty, until the natural end of his life, in no small part because he was discreetly supported by the ultra powerful Duke of Normandy, a superman in more ways than one.

William the Conqueror was known to hold that the Earth turned around the sun, and mention it during banquets. Heliocentrism, even with the empirical science of the time, was pretty obvious (the small thing, the Earth should turn around the big thing, the Sun, plus, obviously, the Sun didn’t turn around the Moon, thus the Earth-Moon system; the ancient Greeks knew how to measure those distances, using shadows…) William was not afraid to mention it: once, in combat, he vanquished 15 knights. Alone. Mental courage and physical courage are two faces of the same coin.

We need stronger philosophy, the medicine of civilization. Failure of enough of a meta-critical mentality allowed the rule of ideologies which brought us the 1%, thanks to modern economics, and the 5%, thanks to the “shut up and calculate” ideology in physics. “Shut up and calculate” is exactly the ideology defended by Barack Obama in his pseudo-autobiographies, in the service of what he called “navigation” (or how to get to the top). 

Just as genes can go across species, moods can go across fields of mental activity. The overall mood of Ionian and Greater Greece and Athens before they got broken by the Peloponnesian War, was one of inquiry, that means, maximum criticism. After that, and while, and because the great fascist regimes of Rome, Carthage and Macedonia grew in power, the spirit of inquiry shrank: Greek mathematics forgot about NON-Euclidean geometry, and concentrated upon Euclidean geometry, which is much more fascist (it has stronger axioms… restricting mental freedom). Amazingly, although Pytheas of Marseilles had computed (accurately!) the size of the Earth, 23 centuries ago, after the great fascism of Macedonia and then Christianized Rome, arose, the very possibility of spherical geometry became a scientific impossibility, so intellectually fascist the minds became, for 2,000 years…

The Aztecs were defeated because, instead of being legalistic like Qin China. they were into mass cannibalism, and Cortes’ 450 men found hundreds of thousands of local allies who were strongly motivated by their desire to escape barbecues. When the Qin empire collapsed, the Han took over, and repeated Qin mentality in detail, this time to last centuries as a giant empire. And much of Qin mentality survives to this day. (All too much, come to think of it… And yes, amazingly, this essay will be read in China’s People Republic… Qin famously practiced censorship of bad philosophy, ordering the destruction of the “100 schools” (it failed), but spared what was viewed as scientifically, legally and historically significant…)

Each civilization has one mood, it pervades all. It evolves in time, not always for the best.

Patrice Ayme

MARX: For Tyranny All Along. Why Fighting Plutocracy Is Better.

May 4, 2018

Abstract: Little, yet maximally pernicious philosopher Karl Marx was born two centuries ago. He has to be taken seriously, because of the gigantic, awful and awesome consequences that his musing had. Marx claimed that “Hitherto, philosophers have sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it“. Yet his angry philosophy changed it largely for the worst: the 40% of humanity who lived under Marxist regimes for a lot of the 20th century endured famines, gulags,  dictatorships, and even holocausts (under Marxist dictators Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot).

Marx claimed that his “dialectical” “science” predicted a rosy “communism”. Wrong, nothing of the sort happened. Instead, the sort of welfare his enemy Proudhon promoted won the Twentieth Century, while fascism, red and black, can be directly raced back to Marx’s hysteria.

Marx’s influence keeps on going. By misunderstanding capital, Marx condemned civilization itself. By wishing for “dictatorship”, under a pseudo-scientific varnish, Marx endowed the worst plutocratic horrors with respectability, including all variants of fascism.  By recommending “terror”, Marx paved the “left” tolerance for all tyrannical fun and games, including the worst Jihadism.

Arguably, civilization has been handicapped in its necessary fight against plutocracy, by the omnipresence of vengeful, tyranny and terror friendly “Marxism” and its ilk, as an object of reverence. Actually, one can argue that the collapse of the Roman Republic under the “Second Triumvirate” of Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Caesar Augustus), Marcus Antonius (“Mark Antony), and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, formed on 27 November 43 BCE, that this Second Triumvirate was the mother of all “Marxist” like revolutions, yes, revolutions, with the usual consequence: tyranny, increased plutocracy. A Marxist revolution more than 20 centuries ago: who would have thought (you read it here first!) The collapse of the Roman Republic inspired Marx (whether he realized it, or not) And if not Marx directly, certainly the French lawyers who engineered the “Terror” of 1793-1704 (nearly 16,000 executed)… And that sure inspired Marx in turn.

Marxism is so bad for the “left” that it is no wonder that, during World War One, the fascists and German financiers around the Kaiser, and not only around the Kaiser, got the smart idea to help Lenin, and his entourage, be all they could be, ferrying them, under German military escort, from Switzerland to Russia in a special train…. Spending even a night in Frankfurt! The top fascists in Germany knew very well they were spiritual brothers (the alliance went all the way until June 1941, when Hitler treacherously attacked his colleague Stalin… (Lenin made numerous allusions that he was funded by top “capitalists”… )

The so-called “left” will stay a toy of plutocracy, as long as it does not free itself of the poisonous ideas of plutocrat Engels, and his bushy beard employee, Karl Marx


Garbage In, Marxist garbage out:

“Capital”, “Bourgeois”, “Class Struggle”, these are terms all know and all use, yet, those basic concepts of Marx are ill-defined, self-contradictory, outrageous, or hypocritical . Worse, in the end, those terms, because they bring in very deep contradictions weakened considerably the discourse of progress (that is rather ironical as Marx himself was keen to point out the “contradictions” of “Capitalism”).

There are many problems with Marx’s basic thesis — that capitalism is driven by a deeply divisive class struggle in which the ruling-class minority appropriates the surplus labor of the working-class majority as profit.

It is not that the Marxist thesis is completely absurd. But close to it. Marx sometimes makes any sense… but then he is not original.


Karl Marx: “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Really? Whereas God Doesn’t exist, Capital is everywhere:

First, Marx talks of “capitalism” all the time… like I talk about “plutocracy” all the time. However, “plutocracy”, the power of evil, in my book, is a well-defined concept. Evil can be objectively defined: atom-bombing Hiroshima was evil…. Yet, if not necessary, given the initial conditions, optimal. “Evil” can be defined by acts… or neurohormones, and other brain activities. 

I use “plutocracy” in a maximally broadened sense (broadest sense often enables mathematicians to go to the essence of a logic… where the logic is the simplest!) 

Capital though, is a much broader concept than evil. Basically, all social animals have capital, namely their own society. A worker bee is not evil, yet it contributes to the capital of the hive, which is not restricted to the honey, but also includes the beehive, the honeycomb structure and even the queen bee herself! If capital happens pretty much in all societies, why should we focus on “Capitalism” alone? If “capitalism” is the ideology enabling the possession of “capital”, “capitalism” pretty much identifies with civilization: no capital, no civilization. Think of it: cities, agricultural systems, constitute capital. No capital, not even a society is to be had, because all and any society requires a territory.

The other day, I followed, for a very long time, two magnificent sea otters, payfully swimming along the Californian shore. All sorts of sea birds got very alarmed, screamed shrilly, and faked dive bombing when the otters came up on various rocks. Even crows joined in, flying over the sea, something they are not known to do, to help various sea birds try to bother the otters (who ignored superbly that impromptu air force, apparently playing dumb, in the hope of suddenly grabbing one of the insolent volatiles). So even the sea and recifes are viewed as vital territory. (I have seen many documentaries about otters; they omitted the undeniable fact those long and sinuous sea mammals  obviously raid birds’ nests…)

Land, a territory, a volume of sea, or air, constitute capital… do they make us wealthy? Or do they just enable us to survive, as thousands of invertebrate and vertebrate species more or less instinctively believe, when they defend their territory? If property theft, as Proudhon said, all social animals are thieves… And that is why tribes of social animals are so prone to fight each other to death(Proudhon later said he didn’t really mean it.)

Marx’s superficial little theory. However, the robots are coming. Thus, not only will common people be deprived of profits, capital, but even of… work. Just as happened in Rome.

Indeed what is “capital”? Property we own which makes us wealthy? Caves, houses, cities, dams, roads, sewers… Roman roads and sewers ,built more than 2,000 years ago are still, properly modernized, still in use? That’s capital! Even entire landscapes have been manufactured, and not just in the bocage of Normandy. A lot of the steppe was engineered, worldwide, for herding… thus the steppe itself is capital. Africans burn entire landscapes to cultivate on them…

Astute observers will argue that what Marx MEANT was “excess capital”. Yes, maybe Karl Marx meant that, making him as smart as that Fourth Century Italian, Saint Jerome (see notes). However, that’s not what he said. And Marx is not interpreted to be a sort of excited poet, like Sade, Nietzsche or Victor Hugo. Instead he is viewed by his admirers as a kind of dead serious “scientist” of sort, because, as Freud would later do he pretends to speak “scientifically”. The fact Marx used self-contradictory concepts

Can Marx please define wealthy? Wealthy like his friend Engels, who made Karl Marx possible? Engels, a wealthy member of the bourgeoisie, eldest son of his textile manufacturing father, provided, for nearly 40 years, the financial support that kept his collaborator Karl Marx at work on world-changing books… On the face of it, that’s rather suspicious. Engels was severely multinational, preferring “Irish stew” to all other meals. Nowadays, Engels would have been a member of the global plutocracy, jet setting in Davos.

If we restrict property to human artefacts, or the know-how to make them, and define capital that way, then, pretty much there would be no civilization without capital, and reciprocally.

Marx has a tendency to speak a lot, to say nothing intelligent. He claimed: “capitalism has an inbuilt tendency to destroy itself”. Where is an example?

In the “Communist Manifesto,” Marx and Engels wrote: “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.”

Karl Marx and company, would you please define “Bourgeois”? The concept and word “bourgeois” arose in the Eleventh Century in the wealthiest parts of France, such as Normandy. It comes from the Frankish word “burg”, meaning a city. “Bourgeois” were free of the staus of serf (30 days did it!) The word “bourgeois” came into general usage around 1700 CE to designate the city dwelling middle class (whose descendants, typically lawyers, and doctors, engineered the Revolution of 1789).

Marx and Engels mumbo-jumbo above is erroneous: those professions above were not “converted”. How do Marx and Engels thought they earned a living earlier? Nor did they become despised. 

Proudhon was the first (and self-declared) “anarchist. Marx and Engels appropriated to themselves Proudhon’s intellectual capital, and, to make sure naive readers would not suspect their theft, insulted Proudhon in the process for good measure. However, the influence of Proudhon’s writing on events in the mid-Nineteenth Century, and its drift towards “socialism” was enormous.

The problem with inequality is not “Capital”, or “Capitalism”, per se (except for the fact capital tends to grow exponentially, as I have explained so many times, so those who have more capital grows it ever faster than those who have less). All civilizations knew this, except for the ridiculous tyranny Lenin imposed on Russia. However, that doesn’t mean the distribution of Capital shouldn’t be controlled. Quite the opposite. All societies redistributed capital, as needed; even Neolithic societies did this: when a great Plains Indian chief died, his thousands of horses would be redistributed. Vikings and Indians too did redistribution, including sending girlfriends of the chief, up in smoke.

The Roman republic, for centuries, had found an elegant way to insure capital was not just in a few hands:


Relative to the subtleties of authors such as Sade, Saint Ambrose, etc (see note)…  Karl Marx is just a brute. Therein his influence.

Marx, 1948, wrote in a newspaper: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary TERROR.”. (Soon after, shirking destructive terror, the much more famous Proudhon was constructively elected to the National Assembly of France… Thus earning Marx’s hatred…) 

A (justly, but all too irritated) Karl Marx in the final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung reacting to the suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (18 May 1849)”Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, Vol. VI, p. 503. Background: Yosemite.

Another example: …Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction.”

— Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League”, 1850. This sort of writing in Marx is ubiquitous:

“Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”

— Karl Marx, 1852

(At the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev declared an end to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the establishment of the “all people’s government“…)

[To tell the entire truth, Dr. Karl Marx’s republican writings were violently opposed by the Prussian Dictatorship (which had been in hoc with the Czarist government, and established a racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Slav government, after the defeat of France…]

Marx’s advocacy of violence, even “terror“, made him popular with tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu… & that’s why we are stuck with Marx: he is an echo of horror, a muddy thinking, which, by saying nothing clear, enabled everything murky… the power of the Dark Side.

Marx has polluted, not just social leaning individuals, worldwide, but the left, the “progressive” ideology. It’s not just that Marxism-Leninism brought us the USSR, and its ilk, and the thirty million dead or so, that, a drunk Stalin, chuckling, attributed to himself to a stunned Churchill. And Mao did the same.

Karl Marx taught first, in the widest, most ethereal way: ideologies promoting “terror” are good. Thus fascism, ultra-violent, terrifying fascism is good. Actually Marxism is a form of fascism in a generalization of the original, Romans, sense of the term: all We The People, united like fragile reeds in a bundle, a fasces, around the axe of justice.  

Hence the mood of Marxism was conducive to the mood of all other fascisms…. Because he had broken the ultimate official taboo: terror, yes terror, is good, “terror is the way”. Mussolini was, first, a professional Socialist. Hitler deliberately came out with a number of tricks to attract Marxists and “Communists”, from the red in the flag he invented, to the term “Socialist” in National-Socialism, to his party’s name, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, to, of course, the entire basic ideology of Marx, serving the “German Workers”, including raging against… “plutocrats”. Nazism was all about “the People” (Volk; from mass paid vacations, people car (“Volkswagen”), to mass public works, to the suppression of luxury clubs, etc,)

ADOLF HITLER said: “From the camp of bourgeois tradition, [Nazism] takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism“… Including the Marxist idea of imposing terror, massively: more than 10,000 enemies of Nazism assassinated in the streets of Germany in 1932 (just before the elections the NSDAP won, enabling Hitler to become Chancellor)


And the poverty Marxism brought was not accidental, but deliberate:

In Marx, one finds plenty of quotes such as this:

“Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital or when we directly possess, eat, drink, wear, inhabit it, etc., in short, when we use it. Although private property conceives all these immediate realizations of possession only as means of life; and the life they serve is the life of private property, labor, and capitalization. Therefore all the physical and intellectual senses have been replaced by the simple estrangement of all these senses – the sense of having. So that it might give birth to its inner wealth, human nature had to be reduced to this absolute poverty.Yes, poverty. Stalin would implement that for dozens of millions in the USSR.


Why We should be fighting plutocracy, not just “classes” and “means of production”, and especially not “capital”; the example of Russia, Macedonia, Athens, Rome:

To discern what to do, one should look at history. Greco-Roman antiquity originated, and collapsed, in tyranny. Marx believed, stupidly, that tyranny was the solution, whereas it was the problem. Marx wanted to cure appendicitis with tyranny.

The point is that violence has enormous inertia, including mental inertia, precisely because it is the employment of force, including not just physical, but mental force.

[Force, F = ma means acceleration a which leads to high-speed v, and energy, E = 1/2 mvv. That energy E can in turn only be brought to zero by another force f exerted on a length l; that’s pure physics, but it translates into mental force and mental inertia, because, after all, neurology is all physics.]

Thus, once violence is launched, more violence is not necessarily the solution, as Marx believed, but can make the problem worse. A perfect example was the Czar’s regime: it was bad, violent, disgusting… however, it was also getting better, more democratic, and was making the Russian empire wealthier, and more modern at an accelerating pace (urged and financed by France, and her little investors and savers). Lenin and Stalin, clearly, made an improving country into something way worse (the details are complex as World War One was a crucial factor).

Another example is the Roman Republic: in its last 120 years, it became a plutocracy. After their leader, Caesar, got killed, the gigantic, best trained army Rome ever had, turned against that plutocracy, and imposed terror under the triumvirs, Antonius, Octavius and Lepidus. The Roman soldiers, led by their centurions imposed the sort of terror Marx dreamed of. Ultimately, though, this led to the stupidity of military dictatorship, thus mental dictatorship, thus collapse of intelligence and imagination, and, in turn, the collapse of the Roman State, in the West, five centuries later, and near collapse in the East, 650 years later.

It would have been better if Caesar’s army had not turned against Roman plutocracy, unleashing further, and more extravagant evil ways… But it went “Marxist”, and exerted terror (OK, it’s the other way around: Karl Marx duplicated the mindset of Caesar’s soldiers… although he posed it as the example to follow, whereas, what happened with Caesar’s army was mostly an accident, the unforeseen consequence of Caesar’s treacherous assassination!)

Macedonia, especially the dictatorship of Antipater, launched the Hellenistic regimes, all about tyrannies and terror… All sorts of progress faltered: in the Late Empire, stupidity was exploding, intellectual imagination, collapsing. What came to be the essence of the Soviet Union. In the end, looking at Russia nowadays, we see a dearth of intellectual capability, relative what could, and should have been… just like what happened with Greco-Roman antiquity, as tyrannies progressed.

We have seen Marxism before.


Understanding plutocracy enough to steer it:

Musk and Bezos, are both engineers and multibillonaires (Bezos’s personal wealth, 16% of Amazon, is greater than the yearly GDP of 130 countries already, and growing). They are total plutocrats according to the usual definition of the word (and I have complained about the support SpaceX got from NASA). However they both believe that the conquest of space is vital…. And they are doing an excellent job, because they had the imagination to realize that re-usability was the key to space conquest, and the knowhow to implement it. So plutocracy can be a good thing, if steered well (yes they don’t treat their employees super… but don’t insist on that too much, because robots are in the wings…)

And the fact is, under all Marxist inspired regimes much more tyrants and mini-tyrants, without checks and balances did way worse, from having way more power. At least Musk and Bezos have to abide by Labor Laws…

So if Marxism is so bad, a self-defeating, lethal distraction, advertising against civilizational progress,  what to replace it with?

The theory of plutocracy, and how to limit the latter.

The theory of limiting plutocracy is not restricted to capital and its means of production, or pre-existing social classes. It aims at limiting all abuses of power that a combination of the Dark Side and civilization can bring. Including abuses from the judicial system. 

This is not new: already, more than 25 centuries ago, the semi-informal constitutions of Rome and Athens tried to limit the powers of magistrates in crushing citizens… Roman tribunes, who were sacrosanct, sometimes interposed themselves between citizen and magistrate! However, in Marxism, the magistrate, namely Marx, is supposed to exert “dictatorship”… as Stalin demonstrated!

For a better and more advanced revolutionary spirit we should get rid of the terror and mass murdering credo found in Marxism, which keeps haunting the minds of all too many “progressives”. Second, we should get rid of the tyrannical credo (no more dictatorship of the proletariat). Third, having observed that capitalism, or, at least, capital, is unavoidable, one should focus on preventing its excesses: prevent the accumulation of wealth, when it becomes tyrannical, per se, by concentrating too much power within too few hands.

There again the Roman Res Publica had found the way!

All of this to dispel the dangerous, and, ultimately, ineffective spirit Marx wrought, and embrace a more sustainable, and fairer way.

Fairness is something all social primates understand. Marxism does not. And that makes it an ideology too primitive for primates. And an intoxication for civilization: Jihadism, without God. Fifty years ago exactly, the best thinkers of May 1968 in France understood this, that Marxism had been a delicious, yet lethal poison, for progress, fairness and civilization. But that deep mindfulness was driven underground by arrivistes and opportunists, let alone Thatcher, Reagan and their spiritual children…

Now the “market” rules, in other words, how much we can sell you, or. at least your soul, since those who have all the money & power know everything about it. The stupid crime of believing that Marxism was clever came fully around, injecting poison in the tail that wags the dog.

Marx, prodigiously financed by hereditary plutocrat Engels, did socioeconomics and politics the way Ptolemy did astronomy: a fake, stupid theory to please his simplistic and cruel masters… which sets understanding back for 14 centuries (in the case of Ptolemy)…

Patrice Aymé  



Notes: 0) Make no mistake, I am not saying Marx is bad all over. He believed that the way people lived made up their minds. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. [Es ist nicht das Bewußtsein der Menschen, das ihr Sein, sondern umgekehrt ihr gesellschaftliches Sein, das ihr Bewusstsein bestimmt… Physiocrats, for example Adam Smith had a more general, thus more correct, notion of “mode of production”]

1) Marx condemned inequality, rightly so, but that doesn’t exculpate him from his grotesque, criminal, deviant and hopelessly distracting excesses, those very excesses which made his fame, his uses, and, besides, hundreds of millions, including most prominently the Roman Republic, Buddha and Christ had done so before: “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery at the opposite pole.

2) Marx had no deep understanding of banking (he complained just of the monopoly of “banks”). Arguably less than his contemporary, president Jackson of the USA, who did his utmost to keep European style financial plutocracy out of the US. He said it was his proudest achievement. Jackson hated Rothschild, who boasted publicly that he was the power behind the throne.

2)  In 1797 the Marquis de Sade’s in his novel L’Histoire de Juliette: “Tracing the right of property back to its source, one infallibly arrives at usurpation. However, theft is only punished because it violates the right of property; but this right is itself nothing in origin but theft”. (That was famously parroted by Proudhon:”Property is theft!”. Later Proudhon tried to explain: “I took care to speak out against any communist conclusionProperty is freedom. … In respect of property, as for all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself….”

To appreciate Marx as one appreciates Sade, or Nietzsche, or Rabelais, or Machiavelli, is fine: but most “Marxists” appreciated Marx as if he were Muhammad, and there were Wahhabis… And that’s not OK. Actually serious Marxism proved much deadly than Jihadism, in the last few centuries (and includes the Armenian Holocaust).

Interestingly, Saint Ambrose (circa 400 CE) taught that superfluum quod tenes tu furaris (the superfluous property which you hold you have stolen).… (Yes, we see everything in these writings of mine, even Saint Ambrose, usually reviled, quoted with deep approbation! That Saint Ambrose got it right, and Karl Marx didn’t is telling…)

The point here, that inequality is the problem, not capital itself, was well-known in the Roman Republic: wealth of families was capped absolutely. Such laws were passed in the Fourth Century Before Common Era, that is 24 centuries ago. (Why can’t we do it, now?)

I have written about this many times before; the so-called Roman sumptuary laws failed because of (Roman) globalization: see the link I gave above.

Globalization? … One of the exact same problem we are afflicted with.

However we have several advantages now: first the sorry example of Rome collapsing from Republic to Tyranny (“Principate” then “Dominate”). This example has been increasingly explored by recent historians… And lessons can be drawn. Those lessons were already drawn, to some extent many times before, by the Franks, the Normands, the Middle Ages… But now we have a much more detailed and thorough picture of what it takes to collapse civilization. Not to say the risks are not higher than ever: they are, especially from nukes

Second we pretty much have a world empire now (the UN, led by the Security Council), so we don’t have to worry about the wars which distracted Rome and served as a pretext to be led by generals, thus military and political fascism, facilitating economic fascism (the 1%!), and then all sorts of fascisms all over.  

3) Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, said “I hope we shall crush […] in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country” Notice Jefferson’s precision: he is not attacking “capital” in general, but wealthy corporations. So were the early founders of the USA. Times have changed…

Seneca’s New Order Of “Security & Tranquility” (Fall of Rome XII)

April 15, 2018

I accuse the philosophy of Stoicism to be fascist compatible (and that is why it flourished under the fascist imperial Roman regime, ultimately morphing, after three centuries, into Christianism). This is not just about what happened two millennia ago. Some of us are making the same mistake, all over again.

Stoicism is making a come-back, and strangely, among those opposing (they self-allege) right wings policies. Whereas I claim Stoicism was a philosophy invented to thrive in symbiosis with hard-core fascism. A total hero of Stoicism is Marcus Aurelius… However that emperor was a disaster for Rome (Common Wisdom claims the opposite!)… Marcus started an imbecilitic drive against Christianism, protected the wealthiest, promoted his ridiculous, ill-minded biological son… Those following Seneca and Marcus Aurelius are not suspicious enough, they remind me of sheep going to the slaughter, happily bleating all the way…

Seneca, Nero’s teacher and adviser is highly esteemed by would-be modern Stoics (Claudius gave Seneca to Nero at age eleven, to teach him the ways of the world; the result of Seneca’s teaching speaks for itself). Instead of admiring Seneca, I view him as a liar (that Seneca has some excellent quotes is a fact, but it can be said about any author, any author whatsoever). An engineer of huge lies, one of them being that he wanted to “perceive the truth in all its completeness” (dictators are prone to preach the exact opposite of what they do; thus Hitler was a protector of peace and minorities… At least so he screamed for two decades… And was believed by most Germans, so they voted for him).

Seneca said: “The happy life consists solely in perfecting our rationality … What is a happy life? It is security and lasting tranquility, the sources of which are a great spirit and a steady determination…” Security and tranquility are a must, once one belongs to the .001% as Seneca did: one enjoys power and property, thanks to industrial crime, the perpetuation of which rests on imposing “security and tranquility” on the oppressed masses. (Seneca once joked (?) that he didn’t even know how many large properties he owned on all the continents.)

So We The People imagined that they were suffering under the dictatorship of Seneca and Nero, when, in truth, they were not…

The definition of happiness was certainly different for the 99% under the Principate led by Seneca and his pupil. The 99% couldn’t not enjoy “security” (the secret police and its informants watched their every breath), nor “tranquility” (they knew they were one bad idea away from providing free entertainment at the Circus…) Actually emperor Domitian (a few years after Seneca) executed systematically all philosophers who didn’t exhibit “great spirit”. Not an anecdote in the history of ideas: it means that the philosophies which survived Domitian were those compatible with the Principate.

Result? Increasingly deficient thinking among those advising the leadership of the empire. This is why the Principate turned away, deliberately, loud and clear, from technological innovation (which had fostered the rise of the Roman Republic). Just when innovation was a matter of survival for civilization itself.

The Decline and Fall of Rome was first philosophical and started as soon as the New Order of “security and lasting tranquility” was imposed on all minds. Mental creativity of the highest sort is antagonist to “security and lasting tranquility” (even Christ spoke of this, and shared this observation). One can’t understand the world ever more, without going through periodic turmoil of the greatest kind.

Periods and places of great mental creativity, like Normandy, or Italy, starting in the Eleventh Century, the true start of the so-called “Renaissance”, were places of enormous turmoil.

As the eleventh Century enfolded, most cities were basically in revolt. Higher authorities like popes, kings and emperors were often completely disobeyed, so they had to go to war, which they often lost; clerics like Archdeacon Berengar of Tours preached that Christianism was all about rationalism, not blind submission to simplistic interpretations of sacred texts (and had to fight them all, during his entire life, all the way to the Pope). William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, king of England, is on the record for evoking heliocentrism as a possibility.

The extreme political and philosophical turmoil in Europe, starting in the Eleventh Century, is no coincidence: the regrowing of grassroot power (consider Italian republics), was a regrowing of ideas. Technology blossomed, another ecological crisis (circa 1300 CE) was avoided.

As imperial Rome was suffering from a unique party (the plutocratic party leading Rome: until emperor Septimius Severus from Libya, the throne was passing among only a few families), and from ecological collapse, a sober assessment of what reality was made of, was in order. However, that meant great mental, even civilizational, turmoil (as happened every few year during the Roman Republic), the exact opposite of the “mental security and lasting tranquility” imposed by those few families who ruled. 

Patrice Aymé

Note 1: Some may say my depiction as the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) as among the few Roman families which ruled is off . But that’s correct, as Vespasian’s family rose in 4 generations under the Julio-Claudian dynasty and was entangled with it (the great-grandfather was a tax collector for Augustus, thus becoming immensely rich…)

Note 2: Roman emperors would pay inventors for not exploiting their inventions and even for not making their inventions public.

Open Society & Open Minds Start With An Open Economy

March 27, 2018

A friend of mine made a panegyric to Apple, Inc. Many of his followers applauded. Some expect Apple to become the first trillion-dollar corporation (in market value), and are thrilled by the notion. Others say that Amazon will get there first…

Kudos to the giant tech monopolies! say those whose (materially winning) morality is just the win. Most people can’t be winners, so they settle for applauding, and “supporting” winners (even when the winners win to their own detriment!) Do I have to be the first to decry this form of emotional fascism? Supporting winners because they win, is defeating to the self, and others! That hysterical behavior should be handled with extreme caution!

Moreover, and indeed, winners can profit from self-feeding exponential effects, the phenomenon at the root of plutocracy: the more power one has, the easier it is, to get even more. However, too much power in too few hands is intrinsically inhuman. Indeed, prehistoric humans didn’t live, and thus didn’t evolve, that way. And too much inhumanity is intrinsically evil.

I believe that open products, such as the open source model is superior than being dependent upon a particular corporation. The open-source model is a decentralized software-development model that encourages open collaboration. A main principle of open-source software development is peer production, with products such as source code, blueprints, and documentation freely available to the public.

Open societies are better than too much power in too few hands, as Pericles and philosophers around him pointed out, 25 centuries ago.

Be it only because too much power in too few hands kills innovation, democracy, justice, equality, hope, civilization, the climate and coast lines.

These are the stock values, BUT they are roughly proportional to the revenues of the companies in question, and the explosion of the latter has everything to do with the monopolistic positions they were allowed to acquire by the US government (it may have to do with their spying potential, direct inquiries to the NSA). GAFA (Google Apple Facebook Amazon) has three times the revenue of IBM + Microsoft + Intel (or so). Google and Facebook monopolize 75% of US media income from advertising!

The monopolistic tech economy which has developed in recent years is a disaster for innovation, democracy, morality or even cognition. I still own an old Mac, and when Steve Jobs had his own computer company (after being fired from Apple, and before being re-hired!) I bought one of his (very expensive) state of the art computers. Still have it. Also owned ipads… So I am not anti-Jobs or anti-Apple, by any means.

But I practice the open economy, open tech, with a  way better laptop than any Apple sells presently, etc. Please excuse my negativity, but I have seen a Fed judge pass an outrageously biased, pro-monopolistic tech judgment at 11 am, resign at noon, and accept a 5 million dollars payment from Facebook at 2 pm… (I can hear the powers that be, applauding in the distance…)

While an ex-president goes from super yacht to private island, to super yacht, a plutocrat reigns in the White House, while the National Rifle Association gives millions to key US politicians. Each. Meanwhile the European Union has proclaimed there are no tax havens in Europe (thus, by that token of measure, none anywhere in the world). And Vlad Putin insists to show his might, from forbidden military neurological chemical weapons, to nuclear powered nuclear armed cruise missiles, perpetually flying around the world, or, at least, South America.

But there is worse: an entire generation is molded by Zuck’s conception of relationship, a gooey notion of search, and willingly offering all of one’s privacy, so the wealthiest can get wealthier and more powerful, while they pay back the “innocents“, in the Medieval sense of the term, with a sense of tribal rage to soothe their simple minds

Open society brings open, thus stronger minds, as Aspasia told her husband Pericles, 25 centuries ago (and Pericles needed to be told, because, as he himself recognized later, he was not as smart as the circumstances required, by a very long shot; his banning of immigration, and his little plans about how to fight the Peloponnesian War backfired dramatically, with extreme prejudice to civilization: his sons were considered non-citizens, thanks to their dad, and his war plans brought the “plague”, devastating Athens!)

As the fate of Athens, and thereafter, of Greek democracy and even civilization, clearly demonstrated, stronger minds are not just a luxury, they are key to the survival of the noblest aspects of the human spirit (the Roman Republic made a similar demonstration, itself partially a consequence of the preceding one). We think, thus we survive…

Patrice Aymé