Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Emptying The Core Through Unemployment: the Plutocratic Way

May 30, 2019

There is no democracy, without an economy flush with employment. A society which doesn’t employ people disempowers them: they can’t even go on strike. Thus those who don’t want democracy, can destroy the economy first. That’s sneaky, and most efficient,  

This is exactly what has been happening in the last three decades, as employment and economy has been sent increasingly from the wealthiest countries to developing countries… This brought decreasing employment in those wealthiest countries. Thus it disempowered workers while empowering the investors, owners and managers who employed dirt poor workers overseas unprotected by social laws… basically slaves. The more the owners and the international elite were empowered, by this displacement of the economy overseas, the more they manipulated the ruling ideology which they controlled through the media they own and the universities they finance.

This is not the graph I was looking for, which was world trade versus inequality. However, that’s a good proxy, as patents tended to be deployed in places like China… as the economy was displaced there!

…Actually the US Supreme Court, starting in 2006, and boosted by Obama after 2008, gutted the US Patent System: it’s always the same idea: favor the giant monopolies (patents are micro, temporally limited monopolies…) and overseas production… Disempower normal US citizens…

We saw it all before, with the Roman Republic. It disappeared when its elite escaped the absolute wealth limit taxation by going overseas, and sending the economy there, while controlling the political process. This voided Rome, and later Italy, of employment, thus power. They remembered that, early in the Roman Republic, to protest the elite, the Plebs had gone on strike… forcing more equalitarian laws.

Beijing just accused Washington of “economic terrorism”. China can self develop now. Time to bring jobs back to the USA, the EU. That will bring back not just employment, but democracy.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

This was a comment to the NYT, which was approved so fast, they couldn’t possibly have read it (do I have friends?) Here is the beginning of the article:

“Trade War Starts Changing Manufacturers in Hard-to-Reverse Ways
ControlTek, which makes circuit boards in Vancouver, Wash., has begun shifting supply chains out of China and designing products that don’t require Chinese parts.

The New York Times
By Ben Casselman
May 30, 2019

PORTLAND, Ore. — When the Trump administration first imposed tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese imports in July, Andy LaFrazia figured it was just another curveball for his company.

“Everyone was saying: ‘Oh, it’s a negotiating tactic. It won’t last long,’” Mr. LaFrazia recalled.

But nearly a year later, the trade war shows no sign of cooling off. So ControlTek, the electronics manufacturer that Mr. LaFrazia runs near Portland, is taking steps to protect itself, a strategic shift that has been repeated in boardrooms and executive suites around the world in recent weeks.

ControlTek is rewriting contract language to make it easier to pass the cost of tariffs on to its customers. It is shifting supply chains out of China where possible, and redesigning products to avoid Chinese components where it isn’t. And as a tiny player in an enormous global industry, it is discovering that there is only so much it can do.

“We’re very much at the end of the whip getting thrown around,” Mr. LaFrazia said.

Despite dire warnings from economists, Mr. Trump’s trade war has so far done little to derail the decade-long recovery from the Great Recession. Economic growth has remained strong, and the unemployment rate last month hit a 50-year low.”

 

 

Debt As Tax Deferred, Or Why Public Debt For Public Interest Works Boosts The Economy

January 17, 2019

In A Way No Private Spending can replace

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BOOSTED BY PUBLIC SPENDING FROM GOVERNMENT DEBT:

IN THE LAST decade, the US has happily run massive deficits. Under Obama, deficits were often around 10% of GDP, or more. Obama deficits peaked at 15% of US GDP. Meanwhile, the US economy grew so much, it overtook the entire, growing, European GDP output (UK included). In 2017 US nominal GDP was 19 trillion dollars, just above the EU GDP (which is still higher at PPP, $23 T). US yearly GDP, charging ahead at a Chinese like clip, has passed $20 trillions as these lines are written.

The Obama spirit of deficit was happily pursued by Trump… And now the new Democratic controlled Congress, wisely enough, has not uttered a peep about this (it prefers to distract its audience with the notion of billionaire Trump as an agent of Putin).

Each three months of 2018 America’s federal government borrowed nearly $320 billion, or about 6% of quarterly GDP. The deficit was 1.5 percentage points higher than in the same quarter the year earlier, despite the fact that unemployment fell below 4% in the intervening period (and thus borrowing more was just because the Trump government is embarked on increasing spending).

The USA borrowed as much in a single quarter as it did in all of 2006, towards the peak of the previous economic cycle.

That debt Graph would look very different if one incorporated EXTINGUISHED debt

Orthodox economists have traditionally been self-assured, arrogant, and idiotic about debt. “Government spending must be paid for now or later,” wrote Robert Barro, of Harvard University, in a seminal paper published in 1989. “A cut in today’s taxes must be matched by a corresponding increase in the present value of future taxes.”

“Must”? Why? How much more idiotic can one get? Governments can default on debt, and can do it soft, or hard. They can even make default look like an act of God: consider the Russian default when the Soviets took power, in 1917, leaving millions of French investors the poorer for it (yet also leaving Russia with a much improved industrial basis and better trains).

The USA also defaulted twice during the Twentieth Century (under presidents FDR and Nixon). A way to default is devaluation of the currency, another way to sneakily default is inflation.

The late 1920s bull mania was a deliberate attempt by the US Fed and the bank of England, to extinguish debt from World War One. So was the inflation of the 1930s (Paris, against it, argued with Washington, for it; the US was right, France wrong; of course Hitler inflated beyond reason, encouraged by Washington…)

Once again, a traditional, but misleading graph: it contains violently extinguished debt

Inflation is not just a way to extinguish excessive debt: I have argued that it is a way to accelerate the economy, making it more technological.

So why would a Harvard professor say such a stupid thing? Do I need to ask? Even rhetorically? Because it pleased the US plutocratic class at the time, which probably rewarded him handsomely.

Looking around history, one can see big differences between the economy of the last four decades, and the period 1935-1975. The first period was characterized by massive expansion of economy and education (in spite of the 100 million directly killed by generalized fascism). For example air travel, universal higher education and universal health care appeared and became dominant. After that, pretty much stagnation… except for the increase of inequality.

And what do we also see since the Glorious Thirties (the 1945-1975 period when Western economies saw a wealth expansion of the 90%; after that, all the growth in income went to the 1%…)? Public spending on infrastructure, educational, or industrial, collapsed, throughout the West, thanks to the Trickle-Down plutocratic ideology.  

Reciprocally, a return to massive public spending might raise the activity, hence the returns to private investment, generating more the latter. (Calling that “populism” worked for a while as an insult, but should be now backfiring… as We The People realizes that there is nothing wrong with We The People… contrarily to what the insulting elite keeps on claiming…)

Eurocrats and their masters, the Europlutocrats, brandish the scare of public debt. However, japan with a more elderly population, is roaring back thanks to Abenomics… And a 230% of GDP public debt.

Economists out France or Germany say that Japanese public debt is a terrible thing. Why? If worse came to worst, the Japanese government would have to tell those who bought Japanese debt: ’Sorry, we can’t pay you back. At all.’ What would then have happened? A tax! Like in Europe! In other words, should the Japanese government 100% default, those wealthy enough to have lend to the Japanese government would then have to pay… a tax! They would be reduced to the status of French taxpayers, horror of all horrors!

Except, of course, in France, taxes, being mostly indirect, strike the poor and the poorest of the poor… whereas a Japanese default (which will not happen) would strike the wealthy (including a few wealthy foreigners…). The same is a fortiori true for US debt.

If the US defaulted on its debt (and it will not happen), lots of wealthy foreigners may cry… Meanwhile the US economy will have roared ahead… thanks to foreign money. What will the foreigners do, if the USA default, to get even? Invade? (No, the US military, paid by aforesaid foreigners, is too strong…) Refuse to lend some more? Not necessarily: when you can’t beat up the strong, you may as well join it. That’s exactly what happened when the US defaulted… and the USA defaults all the time…

There are many ways to default: first one can default on the interest only, or part of it.

Inflation also extinguishes debt. The CPI (the inflation measurement) in the San Francisco Bay Area, the biggest tech engine of the US and world economy, reached nearly 5% last year (2017). Such a healthy dose of inflation will absorbs lots of debt. Meanwhile, among many other things, said Bay Area fabricated for more than twelve billion dollars of electric cars in 2018…. While Apple Inc. based a few miles away, generated more than 200 billions in revenue…  

So the SF Bay Area is a perfect illustration that a roaring economy goes well with roaring inflation, thus roaring debt, etc. Looking in detail within the machinery of some major tech companies (say Oracle) show lots of debt at major points of development…

When the pace of economic (GDP) growth exceeds the rate of interest on a country’s public debt, managing indebtedness is a shrinking business: debt incurred in the past shrinks steadily as a share of GDP without any new taxes needing to be levied.

***

Public Debt Helps The Public In General, and the Poor First of All:

Some are sure to whine that debt might nonetheless rise if annual deficits are sufficiently gigantic, as they are in US America now. Even so, at prevailing interest rates and growth rates, and with deficits continuing at 5% of GDP, it would take more than a century for America’s ratio of gross public debt to GDP to reach the current Japanese level…. And then, as I pointed out, so what? A tax? A 2018 French-like situation? Overtaxation? No, not really: remember, only the wealthy lend. So debt will reduce inequality. Actually MASSIVE debt reduces inequality in two ways:  it potentially taxes the wealthy, in the future, and, in the meantime, it feeds countries and the poor (who are the first to profit from public infrastructure)…

Hypocrites will come, and suggest inflation hurts the poor… However, although inflation extinguishes debt, there are other ways to extinguish debt, and thus rampant debt doesn’t mean rampant inflation…

Olivier Blanchard, long chief economist of the IMF, pointed out that since 1870, the average nominal interest rate on one-year US government debt has been 4.6%, though the average annual growth rate of nominal GDP has been 5.3%. Growth rates have surpassed interest rates in every decade since 1950, except the 1980s…. And guess what happened in the 1980s? Plutocratization! (Much admired by all too many “democrats”, including Barry Obama…)

***

The Rise Of Evil Power, aka, Plutocracy was tied in to debt extinction:

(Perhaps unwittingly, and hopefully witlessly) Evil US president Carter launched a secret war in Afghanistan, using Muslim Fundamentalist and the Muslim Fundamentalist ISI of Pakistan… On July 3, 1979, and immediately afterwards, Reagan, helped by the evil Democratic Congress, led by fellow Irishman Tip O’Neil, launched officially trickle-down economics: instead of making everybody wealthier through public debt, Reagan and his “democratic” little helpers claimed that, the economy would do better by making the wealthiest wealthier…

Nicholas Crafts of the University of Warwick observed that the difference between growth and interest rates did more to reduce British debt loads in the 20th century than budget surpluses. Indeed, austerity-induced deflation in the 1920s frustrated attempts to pay down war debts (that was followed by the attempt of inflating out, which was too brutal, and helped bring the 1929 crash…)

Inflating out of debt was successful after World War Two. At the same time, the uppermost margin rates were pushed by Republican president Eisenhower up to 93% (nobody has accused Eisenhower to be a socialist… yet) Similar rates applied in Britain and high taxes on the wealthy also applied in throughout Europe…

In the past decade our great leaders have listened to their future benefactors, and sponsors, the wealthiest. The wealthiest want the poor ever poorer, so that wealth, power, can be worth having, ever more. So our great leaders, who are great servants of the wealthier, have done as ordered, and have stimulated public economies too little. (To make the lowest people feel good enough about themselves, while they undermined them, they have paid them with PC speech, and “identity politics”, that is, racism…)

Result? Rich countries have spent ever more time below their productive capacity than above it—at grave economic cost: while French, German, British and US  politicians explained to We The people that they cost too much, China, India and their satellites (population three billions) roared ahead, spending on the public as needed by the public. This is how Europe, its colonies and the US did it in the Nineteenth Century (and even in centuries prior, following the dominant economic theory known as “Mercantilism”)

An overdeveloped fear of public debt, invented by plutocrats, nurtured by prostituted economists, is to blame. But now a new class of “populist” leaders have appeared, who call a lot of it, for what it is. So some government economists have been ordered to acquaint themselves with reality.

***

The 3% Deficit Limit Is Killing the European Union:

And guess what? Experience suggests that governments face much looser budget constraints than once was claimed on every rooftop. So governments enjoy more freedom to support struggling economies than previously believed. Economists, happy to get orders less debasing to themselves, are taking note, that, indeed, yes, governments can borrow more…..

“Neoliberalism” is fundamentally a lie. “Neoliberalism” is a creed, a faith, and a conspiracy for the gullible. “Neoliberalism” asserts that the economy does best, when left to private enterprise. This is a lie, just there, and propaganda. Indeed it always omits a detail: how money is created.

In the “Neoliberal” creed, the (private) banks create money by lending. To whom do they lend? The wealthiest. So the wealthiest privates get more and more money, and the poor, less and less, augmenting inequality, year after year, as observed: the color of the skin of the president has nothing to do with it.

The only way to cut that vicious circle is having the Treasury create money and use said created money for public work. The Treasury can do this by creating bonds. That will spur the economy.

Should a crisis arise, a sovereign government can grab the debt and extinguish it.

In 1790, Secretary of the US Treasury Alexander Hamilton did just that: he took all the debt, from all the states, and extinguished it, by making it into Federal Debt (hint to the European Union… do the same…).

***

When Not Sovereign Debt To Foreigners Means Loss of Independence: the Case of Dauphiné

The French Crown had done exactly the same extinction of debt with the state of Dauphiné in 1349 CE. Long an independent republic in the Roman empire, that region, named after an altruistic sea mammal, found itself with crushing debts in the Fourteenth Century. In exchange Dauphiné lost its independence inside the Roman Empire, becoming instead subject to the kingdom of France, “empire in its own kingdom” (don’t ask: a consequence of the Frexit of the Tenth Century; France by then had discovered that it would be better to make one with the region east of the Rhone-Saône).

Dauphiné has a very long independent history, all the way back to before Hannibal. The Dolphin was selected as a symbol of the altruism of that Alpine quasi-republic. Differently from fellow Switzerland, debt enslaved it… But France was the superpower of the time… Switzerland solved the ownership problem by fighting its owners, the Habsburg, to death…

The kingdom of France, empire onto itself had debts, of course, but when it so pleased. Otherwise, it could always send the army to visit lenders with too much of an inappropriate attitude (as the soon to be ex-Republic of Florence found out…)

Sovereignty and debts are bound together. The EU should do as the US did in 1790 CE. Meanwhile, the present European situation is not sustainable: whereas the USA can grow debt as big as it wants, and the notion of debt doesn’t even exist in China, Europe is reducing its economic activity to profit its plutocrats.  

At least US politicians are not so treacherously corrupt, that they will stoop that low. 

***

Conclusion: Debt is tax deferred. Public debt for public interest works boosts the economy, in a way no private spending can replace. Indeed, private spending is motivated by profit, but serving the public is serving the public, not profiting from the public.

The “Neoliberal” creed, truly the power of evil, has insisted human beings know just one motivation: greed. But humanity, in full, know many other motivations, including that of serving public good. Servicing public good is more deeply anchored in human psychobiology, because, prehistorically speaking, the individual couldn’t exist without the collective (the tribe).

We need more public spending, thus, to not overtax the economy, more debt.  

Patrice Ayme

***
***

Even “The Economist” has noticed. Consider: Economists reconsider how much governments can borrowThe profession is becoming less debt-averse”

***

Dauphiné lost its independence to Paris in 1349 CE… But not its Parliament. However, in 1788 CE, one year before well known events in Paris, the French Revolution started, for real, south of Grenoble in the city of Vizille, encircled by mighty mountains. A consequence of the Revolution would be the loss of regional parliaments, including that of Grenoble…

 

Politically Correct Famous Democratic Economist Admits To Treachery of Political Leaders After 2007. Good. Yet, Why Just 2007? To Laud Plutocratic Clintonism?

November 6, 2018

It seems obvious to me that the official economic doctrine is the theoretical justification of plutocracy. Roman emperor Constantine used what he called Catholicism, his invention, to justify his increasing plutocracy. Nowadays, plutocracy is haughtily brandishing the philosophy of “economic science”. Now a famous economist looks at that, and blames everybody else. Mr. Delong is a friend and colleague of Krugman, and their ilk. We are talking here of the mainstream ideology of the self-declared “left”… Which is just stealth plutocracy: a definition of plutocracy is inequality. Inequality increased under Obama, when it reached its highest level ever (as measured by looking at the top 1%, or top .1%, etc.) Right, it’s probably getting worse under Trump… But Trump never claimed to be “left”.

***

Inequality augmented under Obama. Here is the slice 2013 until 2016. This was caused by the fact Obama helped most the bankers, hence the wealthiest…

Blame the Economists?

Nov 1, 2018 J. Bradford Delong

Ever since the 2008 financial crash and subsequent recession, economists have been pilloried for failing to foresee the crisis, and for not convincing policymakers of what needed to be done to address it. But the upheavals of the past decade were more a product of historical contingency than technocratic failure.

BERKELEY – Now that we are witnessing what looks like the historic decline of the West, it is worth asking what role economists might have played in the disasters of the past decade.”

Unsurprisingly, famous economists protect Clinton from any blame. When, in truth, Clinton demolished the New Deal most effectively. Learning from Goldman Sachs, even before he was elected president, that, if he wanted to be re-elected he would have to do as he was ordered to, by the wealthiest men, Clinton told Robert Rubin Goldman CEO:”You are telling me by reelection depends upon fuckin bnd traders?” (Nowadays, the once famous quote has disappeared from search engines: no accident.)

Brad Delong: “From the end of World War II until 2007, Western political leaders at least acted as if they were interested in achieving full employment, price stability, an acceptably fair distribution of income and wealth, and an open international order in which all countries would benefit from trade and finance”

Patrice Ayme: Not true: Clinton, a so-called “Democrat” ruined the separation of banking and speculation (installed by president Roosevelt and Congress in 1933). Instead of serving all, banks were reset to serve mostly the wealthiest. Moreover Clinton enabled so-called “financial derivatives” with total free rein. Even more serving of the wealthiest, enabling them to leverage themselves tremendously. That led to the 2008 crisis, when a bank dealing mostly in US Treasury Bonds and an insurer, AIG, got acutely bankrupt from derivatives… with nearly all other major banks, just as bad. Bush, in accord with Obama, and then Obama alone sent to the banks all the money they needed and some.

Brad De Long: “Then came 2008, when everything changed. The goal of full employment dropped off Western leaders’ radar, even though there was neither a threat of inflation nor additional benefits to be gained from increased openness. Likewise, the goal of creating an international order that serves everyone was summarily abandoned. Both objectives were sacrificed in the interest of restoring the fortunes of the super-rich, perhaps with a distant hope that the wealth would “trickle down” someday.”

PA: Right. So why do we still call individuals like Obama, “Democrat”, and act as if they were,  when all they did was to serve the wealthiest, the plutocrats (feeding them ever since)?

De Long: “Others, like me, understood that expansionary monetary policies would not be enough; but, because we had looked at global imbalances the wrong way, we missed the principal source of risk – US financial mis-regulation.”

PA: One reform is necessary: banks are there to serve We The People and the real economy serving We The People. Banks should not serve speculation to make the wealthiest wealthier. Plutocrats hate it, so so-called “economists” can’t understand its utility (to themselves!)

De Long: “Between the financial crisis of 2008 and the political crisis of 2016 came the presidency of Barack Obama. In 2004, when he was still a rising star in the Senate, Obama had warned that failing to build a “purple America” that supports the working and middle classes would lead to nativism and political breakdown.

Yet, after the crash, the Obama administration had little stomach for the medicine that former President Franklin D. Roosevelt had prescribed to address problems of such magnitude. “The country needs…bold persistent experimentation,” Roosevelt said in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression. “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

The fact that Obama failed to take aggressive action… With policymaking having been subjected to the malign influence of a rising plutocracy, economists calling for “bold persistent experimentation” were swimming against the tide – even though well-founded economic theories justified precisely that course of action.”

PA: Need one say more? Delong congratulates himself with the present state of affairs. But actually US society became much more unequal under Obama. Rising inequality brings the collapse of civilization: such is the lesson of history. One can’t get a worse result than collapse. Time to redefine “left” in light of increasing potential collapse..

That collapse didn’t happen yet is why we can still talk about it.

But never, in the history of humanity, has collapse seemed more likely, long-term. In no small measure, because of the cecity of official economy, which is more focused in increasing inequality than in realizing that this is another name for rising plutocracy.

Economists, like most of those working in the media, are just employees of the world’s wealthiest men. Directly, or indirectly through plutocratic universities. Plutocratic universities are not universal.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/plutocratic-universities-are-not-universal/

Nor is the present economic theory resting on a universal foundation: it rests only on pleasing plutocracy. Economy will become universal when it rests on energy itself, more exactly, Absolute Worth Energy.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/energy-is-the-fundamental-unit-of-economics/

Meanwhile, let those who managed the increase of inequality under Clinton, Bush and Obama blame others: that’s what they do best.

Patrice Ayme

Must A Reserve Currency Explode The Trade Balance? No! Just Look! Also: Avoiding Slavery Is No Socialism!

July 3, 2018

Established economists say that Trump doesn’t understand the nature of the dollar: its status as world reserve currency causes a trade deficit for the USA. Really? It takes one look at one graph, while knowing the USA conspired to make the dollar official world currency in 1944. (And when the French Dominique Strauss Kahn tried otherwise, as head of IMF, he soon fell to a huge sex prosecution, out of which nothing came, except the destruction of his career. That would teach all those who, like DSK, pretend to follow the exact same idea Lord Keynes had in 1944… when Keynes chaired the Bretton Woods conference!) WTF? 

I have a Facebook friend who is a fanatical anti-Trump, she retweets anti-Trump material frequently. 2 days ago she put out 2 posts (retweeting from overseas oversea junk) which were deeply offensive. One extolled a woman cop killer; the young mom he had killed was unarmed; the other compared Trump to Hitler, and emanated from Germany, supporting whom I call Merkler (for her economic war against the Greeks and others… which has killed many).

My friend didn’t know her (French) jailbreaker hero was an unarmed-woman-officer killer (because my friend doesn’t know much about Europe). Neither did my friend, who has socialist pretentions, know Merkel was a fascist exploiter hiding under a “left” immigration policy (importing slaves to better exploit the working class). My friend took down both posts (and my smart comments, unfortunately!). We are still friends. Some of the political hysteria is just misunderstanding. For example, do conventional economists misunderstand what causes the deficit? If we can’t learn to live with (some) intolerance, we aren’t tolerant.

Another friend, an economist objected to my playing dumb in economic matters. I had asserted there was no connection between reserve status and deficit (contrarily to what self-declared “liberal” economists say). To the price of starting a squirmish with dropping a thermonuclear warhead on the opposition, here is the proof:

Those Who Brought You Reagan, Brought You the Trade Deficit. Economists of the Clinton-Obama persuasion say the dollar as reserve caused the deficit. This is obviously false: the dollar has been a reserve currency for about a century, and officially since 1944. However, there was no sizable deficit before Reagan. Reagan was a tool of global plutocrats, so the deficit exploded under him, right away. He was succeeded by G. Bush, who knew all too well where real power was an re-established the balance. But then came the stooges of plutocracy, and they let the deficit fly, as their masters told them to. The idea was to weaken American US unions, workers, and citizenry.

Eugen Roden wrote:

“Even if it is hard to believe, that you Patrice don’t understand how reserve currency will necessarily create deficit, I will do my best to explain to you and to your followers in a very easy way, why [the status of the dollar as] reserve currency necessarily creates deficit in US.

Reserve currency means,  that the currency is saved in other countries, than [the] country of its origin. It can be done by private corporations or public entities,  or even private individuals, who prefer to hold the reserve currency, as media of savings, because of the trust [they have] in it, compared to the local currency.  By doing so, they create demand for the money itself, as if it would be commodity or item of value by itself. And the truth is the reserve currency is an item of value, because of the trust people all over the world put in it. This trust is result of long history of reserve currency origin country’s military dominance,  democratic political system, free competitive market economy and unchallenged right for private property and wealth. China, even with its size of economy, (a bigger economy than that of US, not in nominal but real terms) doesn’t have a reserve currency, because it couldn’t create the trust in its sincerity in most of the above mentioned issues.  Europe succeeded only partly in making the Euro a reserve currency, because of its history of because of the world wars it initiated, and their economic consequences on Europe. Even 70 years of peace was not enough to create enough trust in Europe, to make from its currency a reserve currency comparable to US dollar, which has a history of continuous respect for the values mentioned above, since its declaration of independence.

The need for reserve currency exists,  to create trust in local currencies, based on these reserves. Just as in the past precious metal reserves, like gold or silver, made the currencies trustworthy, today holding of US dollars makes local currencies trustworthy.

But then if there is demand for reserve currency,  not as media of exchange, but as value holding item, its price, or exchange value will be influenced by this demand, without the question if exists enough additional production capacity to satisfy the value of potential demand that reserve currency promises. But then the relative prices in the country of origin of reserve currency,  have to be higher than in countries who accumulate the reserve currency, that has to create surplus in trade with reserve currency origin country, to be capable to accumulate these reserves. Such a surplus can be created only if the local currency value is undervalued compared to the reserve currency. Then the other side of this surplus has to be the deficit of the reserve currency origin country.”

***

Too Much Reserve Makes You Deficient?

The argument seems partially to be that, to create a store of dollars overseas, one needs to send said dollars there, to start with: a deficit. The graph of the deficit from the Federal Reserve which I put on top shows this is not correct: a continual flow of dollars is not needed to entertain a stash. A stash is a stash, it’s not a current.

OK, so we need X amount of dollars to create an overseas dollars stash. Say that stash is $10 trillion (a large overestimate). That’s 25 years at the present rate of deficit with China alone. And the stash existed before, it started before 1945. And also 4 trillion dollars of the stash is unpaid taxes by US corporations…

Moreover, consider, say, Argentina. It has a dollar stash. However the US has long exported cars to Argentina, so how did the stash develop? Through plutocratic mechanisms involving either tax cheating (laundered Argentine currency) or US plutocrats buying vast tracts of the country (also done in Chili).

In any case, the fact that the US dollar is considered reserve doesn’t mean one needs to have a deficit! And the fact is the US has been reserve since 1944 (after cheating Lord Keynes who didn’t want the $ as reserve, and headed Bretton Woods, but documents were switched!) There was no deficit for decades! And the fact is the massive deficit with China and Germany, or Ireland are recent. And the fact is, Germany has used its bankrupt small banks to self-finance its massive export machine, even within Europe…

And the fact is, the industrial core of the USA in the Middle West, got gutted, although it had a large educated population, and lots of fossil fuel energy. I say it got gutted precisely because it was educated (and thus a risk). Unions used to be hyper powerful in the USA, now they are near nothing…

Trade is good, exporting work, exporting ALL work, is bad… Yes, Merkler, 44% unemployment in Greece thanks to YOUR policies, was a terrible thing. Yes, the Greek government was an accomplice, an accomplice of you and your ilk. But We The People of Greece was innocent.

There are legal incentives to exporting job overseas, because corporate plutocrats told politicians to pass such friendly laws: watch how wealthy the Clintons are. And now the Bamas. Bahamas Bamas: a jungle rhythm. Main offenders in trade should be punished, until they cease and desist:

  • China/Hong Kong exported to the US 3 times as much as it imported from the US.
  • Japan exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Germany exported to the US 2.2 times as much as it imported.
  • Ireland “exported” to the US 32 times as much as France, per capita, all of it being tax evasion by US corporations.

Notice that the French Republic should not save Merkler’s skin: whereas Europe didn’t have the muster to correct the exporting and exploiting ways of Merkler’s Germany, Trump does, and Southern Europe (that includes France, which is both northern and southern…) should enjoy the shooting down of the Merkler vulture by Trump, hopefully ending the austerity which has, and is destroying Europe (see Brexit).

***

Krugman, Smelling Blood In Global Plutocratic Waters, Turning “Socialist”?

Krugman blocked and banned my comments for years, presumably because they were “socialist” (what else? I supported Sanders, Krugman dined with the devils, including Obama and Clinton, and took systematically anti-“socialist” position). But now he is changing. Suddenly, “Radical Democrats Are Pretty Reasonable“, opines Paul.

A “Socialist” newcomer young woman defeated the fourth ranking democrat in Congress in New York.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset primary victory has produced a huge amount of punditry about the supposed radicalization of the Democratic party, how it’s going to hurt the party because her positions won’t sell in the Midwest… But I haven’t seen much about the substance of the policies she advocates, which on economics are mainly Medicare for All and a federal job guarantee.

So here’s what you should know: the policy ideas are definitely bold, and you can make some substantive arguments against them. But they aren’t crazy. By contrast, the ideas of Tea Party Republicans are crazy…

Ocasio-Cortez’s positions: Medicare for all is a deliberately ambiguous phrase, but in practice probably wouldn’t mean pushing everyone into a single-payer system. Instead, it would mean allowing individuals and employers to buy into Medicare – basically a big public option. That’s really not radical at all.”

***

A hefty minimum wage is not a question of having it more social, it’s a question of avoiding a slave society:

Medicare for all was proposed by yours truly, more than a decade ago: the idea is to open Medicare to all… As long as they pay the cost of insuring themselves. As Medicare is not for profit and is huge (economies of scale), it would be cheaper than ANY private health plan. So Medicare for All would quickly devour for profit healthcare gouging. My friend Obama meekly proposed it to his cabinet, which unanimously rejected it in favor of giving subsidies to healthcare billionaires, their sponsors (“Romneycare aka, Obamacare”).

Employment for all, as presently done in the USA is a good thing… Except if people work for free, in which case that’s called slavery. Thus, to avoid slavery, a hefty minimum wage insuring minimum living standards, in particular the capability of affording a home. In places like Oakland, California, or cities around, with all those jobs, a minimum one bedroom is $3,000 a month. That’s 36K a year. Cities around Oakland are instituting a minimum wage of $15. That boils down to 30K a year, working full-time, 2,000 hours a year: not enough to afford a roof! Thus college professors in San Jose have been observed, sleeping in cars….

$15 an hour is not socialism, it’s not even, a realistic minimum wage in the most booming part of the US. It is just an effort to avoid a slave society.

We are all socialist, just as we are all progressive. Just as we have to be somewhat conservative (to save the planet). The only question is how much. Not whether. 
Patrice Ayme

FAKE THINKING: That FAKE “FRENCH THEORY”, Now Complete With Highly Honored Fascist Spy!

July 1, 2018

Ironically labelled “French Theory” has always been connected to fascism. It’s basically fascism with a Latin Quarter face (it started with fascination for, and duplication of, the famous Nazi with a pensive face, Martin Heidegger… went on with Stalin, Mao, etc… while secretly enthralled by, and working for, Uncle Sam…).

Anyway, just when you thought things couldn’t get more ridiculous in the highest circles, new developments surface, in the same line of connection of “French Theory”, aka “Postmodernism” with political fascism and tyranny…

***

Worse Than FAKE NEWS: FAKE THINKING!

The worst problem with fake news is that it leads to erroneous thinking… and erroneous emotions. And then vicious tribalization.

Rousseau famously claimed everywhere he looked, people were in chains. Well, not really in literal chains, it’s worse. Instead people willingly, proudly, and comfortably, wear minds which subjugate them. Minds addicted to the power of fake thinking! The most fundamental form of fakery in establishing erroneous thinking takes real facts, but makes the logic whatever it wants, by selecting said facts carefully (an example is much of the theories about WWI). Now we have way worse.

Yes, there is also fake emoting, as in the “unboxing” of brainless corrupt “YOUtubers”, generally involving parents prostituting their children (should be unlawful).(Yes YOUTube is part of the Google “no-evil” empire.) As mercantilism has invaded all behaviors, the spectrum of mental diversity has shrunk below a shrinkwrap of overwhelming greed.

Fake thinking is devouring the world: see (in the notes below) the tribal attacks against Senator Sanders by pseudo-progressives, or the demand, in France by similar pseudo-progressives to have the “white persons” separate from the alleged victims.

A main mechanism of fake thinking, going back to Herder (18C), claims that it is not reasoning which matters to certify truth, but which tribe you identify with. (Or get forcefully identified with.) This was one of the main underlying principles of Nazism, but it also underlays any totalitarianism: any totalitarian regime embraces minds totally as tribes do, so it’s inherently harnessing all the tribal instincts.

The inclination to be seduced by that sort of incorrect thinking, its entanglement with tribalism, had a huge impact on the Twentieth Century; it is the root of all its ills.

***

300 hundred pages showing one of the most celebrated French Theory intellectual was just a butcher of a dictatorship. It’s not just politicians like Clinton or Obama (Netflix!) who get paid to express thoughts conducive to the domestication and subjugation of “We The People”. Most prominent intellectuals are in payments situations: they are paid to play. Many of the most officially respected intellectuals of the Twentieth Century were worthless scums, and worse: Consider Heidegger, Brasillach, and an entire herd of German. Julia Kristeva, who has been showered with honors for her thinkerism was an agent of the Bulgaria’s State Security services, the Darjavna Sigournost, the Bulgarian KGB, a criminal organization organizing assassinations of human rights activists on foreign soil, while Kristeva was doing the bed of French intellectuals. A meta analysis of her conceptology shows her to be mad, abject and totalitarian… BTW, she denies being a spy although the evidence is overwhelming, and online, nearly 300 pages of it. Of course, Harvard supports Kristeva the liar. Will the French take away her title of “Commandeur de la Légion d’Horreur”? That’s the honorable thing to do! Otherwise the horror becomes blatant!

(There is a long tradition of intellectuals paid to influence the public, and, or leaders. Plato was exhibit number one, as he entangled himself so deeply with two successive tyrants of Syracuse, the first one ended up selling him as a slave. Aristotle was even worse: he may single-handedly have launched two millennia of monarchy. Socrates was executed for having been the teacher, influencer, lover

***

FAKE Thinking Made The Germans Criminally Insane In World War One & Two:

Indeed, much of the conventional version of many a history is fake, because ultra significant dimensions have been omitted. Deliberately. By malevolent actors. This enables malevolent actrs to seize, or keep power. And soon the reality that these other crucial factors existed gets forgotten.

 

The history of World War One and World War Two are full of those. Fake versions of what really happened, alleged histories before, during and after World War One were the main logics which enabled the Nazis to be elected to power.

A particularly spectacular instance occured when a British general talked to Ludendorff, the effective head of the German army, in a cafe in Germany, around a table, after the German defeat. Ludendorff explained to his British colleague why he would have, for sure, won the war, but for the betrayal by German Commies and other saboteurs. The British officer, not believing one word of it, sneered back:”So you would have won, if you had not been stabbed in the back?” Ludendorff, delighted, opined. Ludendorff would soon help found the Nazi Party around a couple of ideas like that. He was the basic founder of Nazism, even before Hitler was sent to spy on it (and named it!).

So Ludendorff turned around an idea which was originally meant to be a scathing critique, and made it in one the sacrosanct Nazi myths: Germany lost WWI only because it had been stabbed in the back by bad actors, including, but not limited to Communists and Jews. So eliminating those would make Germany win, next time. (That was obviously false: the two Battles of the Marne which the French military won in September 1914 and July 1918 are the proximal causes of German defeat. And there is a whole cortege of causes after that, of a purely military nature: had not the US helped Germany in 1914-1917, the German defeat under Franco-German blockade would have been much earlier!)

Most Germans ended up believing that, indeed, they had been stabbed in the back… by other Germans: therein a key element of the so-called Holocaust (actually not everything burned!)

***

Yesterday’s Lies Still Animating The World:

This is not just history. A similar flawed idea, launched this time by Lord Keynes, a key architect of the present, flawed world order, hated the Versailles Treaty… and especially the Poles. Thus was born the theory that the Versailles Treaty caused the Great Depression (a ridiculous idea, but basically written down inside Keynes’ work) and legitimate German gripes (entirely valid, if one believes, as Keynes did, that Germany should be the owner and sole proprietor of Eastern Europe!

To this day, the lie that the Versailles Treaty, and thus France, caused Nazism is learned, by rote in US schools. The next step is that Americans believe that France collaborated with Hitler (whereas the French empire declared war to the Axis, suffering in the process 2 million dead!).

France should sue about such lies. This is not a far fetched notion: Poland tried to pass a law that Auschwitz shouldn’t be depicted as a “Polish” camp. Global plutocrats, mostly in the US and Israel, just forced the Poles to withdraw their law! Thus proving that such laws, punishing lies, are indeed very dangerous for the established order! (I support laws against holocaust denials, but please notice the plural I use…)

***

French Theory Accompanied, Chronologically US Plutocratization, No Accident:

Starting in the 1950s, great US plutocratic universities’ “Humanities” departments fell in love with a galaxy of French thinkers.

Some say “deconstruction” is “French Theory” main axis… As if all thinkers thinking creatively didn’t have to deconstruct, ever since there are primates and they create!

So forget that. The main axis of “French Theory” has been the claim that all systems of thought are tribal. Yes, the tribe is what makes the thought.

The French Theory’s main authors were many: Louis Althusser, Jean Baudrillard, Simone de Beauvoir, Hélène Cixous, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Félix Guattari, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Rancière, Monique Wittig et Pierre Bourdieu.

Some US thinkers duplicating French theory were: Judith Butler, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Stanley Fish, Edward Said, Richard Rorty, Fredric Jameson, Avital Ronell, Donna Haraway

De Beauvoir was a Nazi propagandist, Kristeva an agent of criminal mafia of assassins…

Well known nice charming little philosopher Martha Nussbaum from the University of Chicago suggested that the abstruseness is calculated to awe the naive (and as I will repeatedly explain below, not only, there is a much greater plutocratic scheme at work):

“Some precincts of the continental philosophical tradition, though surely not all of them, have an unfortunate tendency to regard the philosopher as a star who fascinates, and frequently by obscurity, rather than as an arguer among equals. When ideas are stated clearly, after all, they may be detached from their author: one can take them away and pursue them on one’s own. When they remain mysterious (indeed, when they are not quite asserted), one remains dependent on the originating authority. The thinker is heeded only for his or her turgid charisma.”

Here is an excerpt from an interview in which Noam Chomsky (something of a famous obscurantist himself, linguistically speaking) excoriates the unreadable Jacques Derrida and misogynistic Jacques Lacan, along with Lacan’s superstar disciple, Slovenian fashionable murky “Marxist” theorist Slavoj Žižek, for covering up intentionally below obscure, inflated, misleading language to make trivial “theories” seem profound. Chomsky  (himself prone to all too easy, inflated claims) calls Lacan a “total charlatan.”And indeed.

The “French Theory” is fascist (any follower of Marx is, by definition a fascist, as Marx advocated “dictatorship”… a concept on the face of it way worse than the original Roman concept of fascism). The “French Theorists” lined up against the, student led, genuine thinking led May 68 uprising. They pretended it was “insufficiently proletarian”. The problem here is that the “Proletariat” notion was the lowest of the low, originally (the concept goes back to Rome, once again). Why should the lowest of the low lead? They are genetically (modern science shows) unable to do so. Indeed Marx was from a very wealthy family, and he got angry when Prussia undercut the family vineyard side business. Hardly a member of the “proletariat”. His colleague, friend and sponsor Engels was outright a plutocratic heir.

Sollers, Kristeva’s lover, chief editor of “Tel Quel” hailed from a family of very wealthy Bordeaux industrialists, pontificated during May 1968: “All revolution can only be Marxist-Leninist!” Lenin, a co-conspirator of the German Kaiser who launched WWI, instituted Marxist terror, extermination camps, assassinate the Czar entire family, and entrusted the giant empire to Stalin, a reconverted seminarist turned gangster…

Then, as the appeal of Soviet degenerated terror faded away, the “French Theorists” embraced Maoist China. Kristeva celebrated traditional upper class Chinese foot binding as “empowering”… just as killing Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich in 1972 was “necessary”. Sollers later wrote an article “Why I was Chinese“. No, he was not “Chinese”, he was pro-dictatorship oppressing China and killing millions of Chinese…

***

Why did all this “French Theory” happen, and why did it become so popular?

Because it replaced The Enlightenment by Obscurantism. Idiotic theories were born, as from Edward Said, claiming one can’t talk about the “Orient” if one is not from there, otherwise one is an “Orientalist” (notice the analogy with “racist”). Instead I say it as it is: The Levant, and North Africa have been occupied, for 13 centuries by a succession of dictatorships hiding behind a fascist, militaristic religion, the ultimate metaphysical excuse, enforced by lethal threats within the religion.

Who profits from replacing Enlightenment by Obscurantism? Well, those who prosper from the Dark Side, that’s why it is called the Dark Side: its workings, emotions, logics are all obscure, many have to go unsaid. In particular plutocrats, and, more prosaically monopolistic technology exploiters such as Google and its YouTube channel, which prostitute children by the thousands… And instituted the global trade system which is boosting their already enormous powers, quickly!

***

“FRENCH THEORY” IS FAKE, And We Already Saw that Sort Of Fake “Thinkery” In Athens, 24 Centuries Ago:

“Thinkery” is an excellent concept originated by Aristophanes, a conspiracy of those determined to drag thinking in the mud. I believe that much intellectual activity in France in the Twentieth Century, among the most renown so-called “intellectuals” was fake. It was even worse than the works of “new philosopher” Bernard Henri Levy, a poster boy of the reaction against “French Theory” (and thus little appreciated in academe, but with his even more powerful networks; ultimately they served the same master, global plutocracy!)

“French Theory” was all about self-promotion, self-dealing… just like BHL who got huge subventions for French governments, as part of “France-Afrique”, making him a billionaire. Such was the corruption in French “intellectual” circlesu

The “philosophers” had sometimes the right idea, or two just like broken clocks do. But, mostly they were themselves engaged in a vast conspiracy which pretended that all systems of thought had no more validity than any other conspiracy organized by any other tribes. Pivotal to “French Theory” was something called “structuralism”. An idiotic notion: mental structures are everywhere. Speaking of “Structuralism” is as smart as thinking of “Thinkerism”.

Actually, when Aristophanes made fun of that other self-promoting idiot, Socrates, in “The Clouds” he made Socrates founder of the “Thinkery”….  

  1. What’s the difference between a Mafioso and a structuralist?
  2. The latter makes you an offer that you can’t understand.

The Clouds was a comedy of ideas, but it is also deadly, lethal stuff. Socrates undermined Athens. “French Theory” undermined more than civilization, thinking itself. Aristophanes exposes the idiotic theories of Socrates and his plutocratic accomplices, and observes they are so asmart, they make people believe in the most aburd notions, even about physical reality.

And this is exactly what happened: Aristotle, the philosophical grandson of socrates invented his thoroughly idiotic physics, which ruled until Buridan in Paris, a towering genius, demolished it around 1350 CE, seventeen centuries later (Aristotle had forgotten about friction; Buridan re-established it, and simplified all by discovering what is now called Newton’s First and Second law, in his impetus theory).

Plato considered The Clouds a significant contribution to Socrates’ trial and execution in 399 BCE. Well, indeed, and for very good reasons… One can’t just spend all of one’s time as Socrates did, riling against democracy (and science) teaching viciousness to the youth, when the democracy is close to extinction, to the point they lead a dictatorship against it. It is no coincidence that plutocrats and their schools have loved Socrates and his spiritual descendants, Plato and Aristotle. My logic is more historically informed than is usual among philosophers whose expertise is generally restricted to quoting dead people, not the fact which explain them. Aristotle gave, in his attack against democracy the arch example of self-dealing fake thinking. He should be repudiated:ARISTOTLE DESTROYED DEMOCRACY

Athenian civilization was killed by plutocrats, first Macedonian plutocrats, then Republican Roman plutocrats , then, another six centuries later, by Roman Catholic theo-fascist plutocrats… In the latter case the Athenian “thinkeries” were outright closed, because they displeased Christ (admittedly a susceptible moron).

***

“French Theory” became a Trojan Horse against civilization, and even thinking in general:

This attack against humanity, thus We The Peoples” of France and the West, in particular, left the field to global, tax free, working class free, law and regulations free plutocrats. That was the use of this apparently arcane and useless exercise, that was why “French Theory” became popular in the top (most plutocratic) universities.

Just as Socrates “Thinkery” undermined Athens, with his absurd theories, the “French Theory” thinkery undermined thinking itself.

How did “French Theory” do that? By barking up wrong trees frantically, “French Theory” prevented mental activity to be directed where it should have been. Thus French Theory hid the real problems. Most “French Theorists” were in love with fascist dictatorships (Kristeva being a perfect example, first a Bulgarian agent, then a Maoist propagandist, like  the ridiculous Sartre and his ilk. That made them rather similar to Aristotle, the lover, or teacher of Macedonian tyrants (Philippe, Alexander, Antipater, etc.)

***

Shooting De Beauvoir:  

The big mistake of the Versailles Conference of 1919 was not to have shot the top 1,000 leaders of Germany. Those monsters had caused an enormous world war which killed dozens of millions (including the epidemics and other health disasters they caused, like the “Spanish” flu and famines; concentration of armies lead to epidemics, that was well known, even 25 centuries ago). As they escaped punishment, they got ready to do it again, even worse. Hence not executing those 1,000 German traitors against civilization led straight to Nazism. And the head had to be punished. Nietzsche saw that clearly by 1880 CE.

The mood of love of dictatorship was central to “French Theory”. Marx and the Kaiser and Lenin, partook in the same mentality of the love of violence, terror, dictatorship, and “French Theory” extolled it. (The Kaiser used Lenin and his top accomplices to sabotage Russia, in a most striking conspiracy.)

This love for horror and tyranny should be viewed as turning most of the famous, publicity greedy practitioners of “French Theory” into obvious traitors, not just Simone De Beauvoir. De Beauvoir was a high level Nazi propagandist working at Radio Vichy as late as 1944!  Never mind. If you point that out at Harvard, they probably feel you are unworthy to be on a campus, on any university campus.

Simone De Beauvoir could have been shot in 1944, for having worked as a Nazi propagandist at a very high level earlier that year (As a teacher, she shouldn’t have needed the money). That she wasn’t shot, or even judged, tells volume about high level corruption in French intellectual circles! (France executed 40,000 Nazi collaborators, and  thousands did less than De Beauvoir!)

This is not so far fetched: the famous writer Brasillach was condemned to death (for Nazi propaganda). To spare himself penetration by red hot bullets, he sent De Gaulle (then president) a sob story to spare him that pain and indignity. De Gaulle refused: an example had to be made, a bit as one was made in Athens with Socrates in roughly similar circumstances. So Brasillach was executed. Much later, photographs showing he observed the massacre of innocent people by the Nazis, surfaced. In that particular case, De Gaulle acted well, rejecting the sob story appeal Brasillach wrote to him directly.

***

Today’s Plutocracy Arose directly From French Theory:

The  nefarious work of many other experts of “French Theory” was more destructive: by making fun of thinking itself to the point of annihilating it, they worked against civilization, and for the great empires, those of Stalin and Nixon/McCarthy, and Mao… And now their successors. The mission of these fake intellectuals, whether they realized it, or not, unwittingly or not, the reason why they were so rewarded. was to make fake thinking fashionable.

Fundamentally, the fakery of the obscurantist thinkery known as “French Theory” destroyed the Enlightenment in France, and the USA, hence the world. Preparing thus the mindset for ever greater inequalities, by abrading the very sense of what it meant to think critically.
This is also why so many intellectuals embraced  too much tolerance for Islamism, a terroristic system of thought Voltaire himself had condemned as stridently as he condemned Catholicism, for the same reasons (Voltaire’s critique of Islam is now censored in Europe, something which goes hand in hand with “French Theory”)

Those fake intellectuals succeeded in imposing their fake pursuits as all the truth we could aspire to. So now what is officially viewed as higher philosophy is pretty such a lie that it diverts any efficient critique against the established order.

That one of the most obvious fakers in the world was viewed as a a top, most honored, philosopher for so long, is revealing of the heights fake thinking reached. Yes, Julia Kristeva, was just a Bulgarian spy sent by a terrible dictatorship. She embraced tyrants, worked for them, she is an enemy of thought, her followers are despicable, that pretty much sums it up.

***

As Corrupt As It Gets:

When the Nazis came to power, young punk, pseudo-philosopher Heidegger, an ex-seminarist (like Stalin) cow splattering proto-Nazi BS, put a Nazi uniform, became chief of his university, and proceeded to fire all Jews and dissidents. What “French Theorists” did was even worse, because they had much more influence.

When the Soviet tanks invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, to crush democracy there, the foremost media of the “French Theory” celebrated that. The criminal idiot Sollers said it was to celebrate “his love for Kristeva” (the Bulgarian agent above, one of Europe, doomed Europe, most honored “intellectuals”, just referred to). One is talking as bad as intellectual corruption can go here. And make no mistake: such “intellectuals” are as, or more rotten than the worst “Big Capitalists”. They can be much worse, because they have more mind binding impact on the people at large. Certainly Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism were intellectual phenomena first: and they were inspired by… Marxism (a fact about Nazism that is little known, although Hitler wrote it explicitly!)

“Oh, I tried the Left Bank. At university I used to go with people who walked around with issues of Tel Quel under their arms. I know all that rubbish. You can’t even read it.”

— Philip Roth, The Counterlife

I did more than ‘try the Left Bank‘. I actually lived and studied there. But I lived and studied the real thing, all the way back, melding in spirit with the ruins of the Roman City still visible there.

The history of Western Civilization had ups and down, when Paris, for centuries, was the West’s largest city and the center of its intellectual life, it was considered an obvious notion known by all, that the “translatio imperii”, the translation of command, of intellectual command, had gone from Athens (not Rome) to Paris. When Athens had confronted, and fought to death Persia, and nearly two centuries later, Macedonia, moving Athens to Italy was considered, or even to move her further west with the help of Massalia (the Etruscans, 9 centuries earlier had moved from the Levant to Tuscany, to grab the iron mines)… Marseilles, which was the Greek city which stayed independent from Rome the longest (succumbing to Julius Caesar)… And which was first to measure the Earth (and very accurately), was ready to help.  

The Macedonian fascists found several treacherous Athenian intellectuals (cum politicians) of tremendous influence such as Aeschines to help them out in their war against Athenian democracy. The Nazis could have been stopped easily, had the US Republic lined up with its parents and creator, France, as it should have. But guess what, US intellectuals, supposing they exist, failed completely that way. And to this day, they fail: they are still making excuses for not having fought the Nazis, dropping the french Republic, the Jews, humanity and German generals, in one fell swoop…

***

You Want Nice? Then Start Thinking so hard that you get it right! 

Real thinking requires humility and clarity, and, above all, realism. In particular having the courage of calling thugs, thugs, and idiots, idiots. Not polite? Not the point! Not everything is positive: there are no peaks without abysses at their feet!

One can’t have democracy without much more power than potential opponents, as Athens found the hard way, taking 2,300 years to recover (partially). Many good willing progressives don’t understand this. A dependance of Enlightenment, goodness upon the Dark Side is not comfortable! However, the story doesn’t stop here.

Indeed, if democracy, civilization, human existence and thinking can’t survive without the Dark Side, the Dark Side has to be managed well. That is both unavoidable, and at the core of progress, and even viability. The “French Theory”, following the most prominent parts of Marx’s mood, made such an advocacy of evil for evil’s sake, that they durably poisoned progressivism… to the point Islamism came to be viewed as progressist… just as Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascismo, Maoism, Castrism, even Chavism came to be viewed as good and true.

In the end, that served only the forces of plutocracy, and this is why “French Theory” is so popular in the wealthiest, most plutocratic universities, where they teach spectacular lies such that the French Republic caused Nazism by insisting (with the US, truth be told) that countries such as Poland or Czechoslovakia, or Hungary should be free of German hegemony and occupation and racism and exploitation. Or that the US let Nazism happen because it was “isolationist” (when in truth it was actively pro-Nazi and acted AGAINST the German military when the German military basically asked them for authorization to make a coup against the Nazis), or that the USA didn’t nothing against the Holocaust because they didn’t know (French and Polish governments knew, in details and informed the US ), or that, another great lie, that the US government gave half of europe to the butcher Stalin because there was no choice (Patton could have been in Moscow within months, or Berlin in days, had he been given the go-ahead). And so on.

So many lies, and they call it history. So many absurdities, and they call it “French Theory”. It’s no theory, just something to make us all stupid and discouraged, so we can be better exploited.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1 Sanders as anti-progress, because he is for content, not tribe, is itself an example of fake thinking.

Once Bernie Sanders said in a famous statement that it’s not enough for somebody to say, “I’m a Latina, vote for me… What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry. For this Sanders was hated by loud pseudo-feminists and pseudo-transgenders (some people have considered me transgender too, and I am certainly feminist, thus, I feel very relaxed about denouncing the exploiters of these notions, having been called pejoratively everything).

(Attack against Sanders by pseudo-left look divisive, and of course they are. Such people are paid for division… by the powers which profit from division.)

***

Note 2: Consider World War One inception. What’s the real truth (according to me)?  As I have explained, six men at the top of Germany planned a world war.

***

Note 3:  The betrayal of progress by all too many French intellectuals is an ongoing process: watch French mathematician and Fields Medal Villani, a self-obsessed villain who spends lots of time being taken in pictures, posing this way and that, playing special, singing the praises of the hyper terrorist Algerian Front National de Liberation, FNL, an Islamizing terrorist mafia holding Algeria in its grip since De Gaulle, himself a double dealing racist, gave the country to them (so they better destroy it? That 47 years of iron grip dictatorship hundreds of thousands of Algerians killed (official reckoning)… and Villani loves it, in the great tradition of “French Theory”, where, the higher the body count, the greater the truth…

Villani is a Macron MP, who, fundamentally, spits on France by insisting that those who helped explode bombs, against innocent french civilians, are, fundamentally hero. Villani’s logic of horror and terror is of greatest help to the Islamists, Said Salah Abdeslam, sole survivor of the assassins who killed and wounded 500 innocent civilians in Paris, November 13, 2015: “Muslims defend themselves against those who attack them. Put aside your anger, and reason for a few moments, you are victims of the errors of your leaders.” (Original French: “les musulmans se défendent contre ceux qui les attaquent. Mettez votre colère de côté et raisonnez quelques instants, vous ne subissez que les erreurs de vos dirigeants.”)

This is exactly vilain Villani’s logic. Villani goes even further, as he wants to honor the terrorists… In Villani’s academic circles, this is well considered, and they pluff themselves with their importance and humanity, not understanding for a second that they serve those who control power, worldwide…

***

Note 4: When one crushes infamy, politeness shouldn’t be a consideration, indeed! See: “White America’s Age-Old, Misguided Obsession With Civility.”

(By Thomas J. Sugrue, a professor of history and social and cultural analysis and author who correctly holds that “those who say that the civil rights movement prevailed because of civil dialogue misunderstand protest and political change.)

***

Note 5: Bourdieu and Foucault said to a number of people (including yours truly, or Berkeley’s all too famous Searle) that if they wrote clearly, they would not be taken seriously in France. Why is this? Because of what is the main idea of this essay: the “French Theory” philosophers are esteemed by the global plutocratic establishment (which finances the world’s top universities, in particular the US ones) precisely because they obscure everything, and foster an adulation for obscurity, in contrast to one for Enlightenment. That’s their raison d’etre. (They also have interest to not make too obvious who their dark thinkery profits… Same problem as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle…)

Trade Is Not Just About Bananas, But Mental Capability

June 9, 2018

Europe conquered the world, and the world of minds: the United Nations is little more than the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789, writ large. How did Europe do that? By building superior intelligence, superior culture, superior mentality.

All things the Politically Correct Perfect Cretins claim don’t exist. Call them PC square.  

When a country C (for China) invests into another country U, U, for USA), C doesn’t just put money at the disposal of We The People of U.

That is what a ridiculous article in the New York Times, by a five-star economist from the Plutocratic Corruption claims, and exclusively focuses on… forgetting the most important point. (Politically Correct Perfect Cretins Perfect Corruption: PC Cube!)

And the point is military. I will develop it further in a companion essay (of an even more robust nature!)

This Trade Deficit is NOT just about money, far from it! It is about who is smarter in the future, it’s about who is a slave, in the future, it’s about who sells only bananas in the future, it’s about who has a future in the land of the free!

Reminder: battles decide the world. On the battlefield, or in the mental field. And trade is not just about money. The most important trading is about ideas, sentiments, culture, moods, mentalities.

Trade deficits can be good or bad, yes (as standard, Perfectly Corrupt economists, correctly observe). However, not all trades are equal. Selling bananas is not selling cars. A car has much more “added value” than a banana. Some of this “added value” involves knowledge. If one loses the ability of making high-tech products, one loses cognition and know-how. Selling bananas will not compensate for this dearth of mind and intellect brought by an imbalance in added value trade: one will become, irresistibly, the proverbial banana Republic.

For 6,000 years China has been the “Central State” (as China called itself), because of superior Chinese know-how (even in the Nineteenth Century, all what Britain could sell to China in exchange for advanced Chinese products was opium).

A deficit in added-value jobs will lead to a deficit in know-how. Ultimately, this becomes a question of national security deficit. The converse is true. This is why China maintains an enormous trade surplus in added value job products with the rest of the world. China was not born yesterday. The Perfectly Corrupt Political Cretins, though, were, and now relish their slavery at the hands of their masters, who have one foot in China, one foot on their faces, and they don’t get it yet.

The enormous trade imbalance with China enables major companies in the West to escape local Western laws, taxes and regulations by offshoring the work to China. This makes the owners of these companies, which are entangled with ownership of Western media, keen to defend that trade imbalance which makes them ever wealthier, and more influential politically, thus anchoring their domination. This fits China’s strategic purpose just fine.

A civilization which doesn’t maintain mental added value in the trade of ideas is doomed (by internal decomposition or external invasion, or both). So beware the nature of trade!

Patrice Ayme

“Philanthropy”: Propaganda For Plutocracy. No Less!

May 9, 2018

The concept of “Philanthropy” is a disguise, & an insult. Of course we all love (phil) man (anthropos). It’s not just the hyper wealthy who “love man”. But they are that vain and stupid, and semantically challenged, that they don’t even know that they insult us all, the 99%, while gorging themselves on their moral superiority, being, that way, like all ridiculous tyrants of old…Or then maybe as the main dish? Verily, the word “philanthropy” hides the reality of the .1% preying on the rest of the planet!

From the World Economic Forum, in other words, “Davos”, today:
World Economic Forum‏ Verified account @wef
The impact that the global age of #philanthropy is expected to have on the world https://wef.ch/2G0lndz 

This is an amazing graph, but the comment of the WEF, not perceiving that they implicitly and unwittingly identify “philanthropy” and gross inequality, is even more priceless!Something has to be done to stop the evil philanthropists: Global Laws

Quoting from the WEF:

As the rich get richer, the world has entered an “age of philanthropy”, with education the most popular focus of some 260,000 foundations globally, researchers said on April 26.

Increasing numbers of rich individuals, families and corporations are setting up foundations for social investment amid persistent inequality, said study author Paula Johnson of Harvard University’s Hauser Institute for Civil Society.

“(Due to) the rapid growth of wealth around the world, more individuals and families (have) the ability to create philanthropic capital,” she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The richest 1 percent of the world’s population owns half of its wealth, up from 43 percent in 2008, propelled in part by gains in financial assets, like stocks and bonds.

Many super rich Americans have set up foundations which run their own programmes or give grants, including Bill Gates of Microsoft, Warren Buffett, who heads the Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate, and the industrialist Koch brothers.

There are more than 15 million millionaires and close to 2,000 billionaires in the world, while 10 percent of the population live on less than $1.90 a day, said the report, which was funded by the Swiss bank UBS.

Globally, foundations have combined assets of $1.5 trillion – slightly more than the U.S. federal government’s 2018 budget – the report found in an assessment of 39 countries around the world, including in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

The sector is notable for its youth and recent growth. Almost three-quarters of 80,000 foundations that gave their age were started in the last 25 years, the report said.

“We indeed live in a ‘global age of philanthropy’,” it said.

“If this trajectory continues, philanthropy will be poised to have an increasingly significant social and economic impact.”

What could go wrong? When what is already wrong is viewed as the ultimate friendliness to the human genus?

Foundations pay no taxes. Does that ring a bell? The definition of super rich, nowadays means: little taxes paid, plenty of wealth and power (like free travel for “business”).

Want to fight inequality?

North Korea, Iran, Trump: time to get global! Time to enforce civilization globally. France arrested one of her most famous plutocrats, for violating, corrupting, bleeding dry, two African countries. A good first step towards the refugee crisis! All plutocrats violate. If not local laws, or their spirit, then decency and civilization.

Meanwhile, Trump nominated Gina Haspel a 33 year veteran of the CIA, to head the agency (she was second in command under Mike Pompeo, now Secretary of State, visiting Pyongyang, North Korea), Gina is a woman, first of her gender nominated as head of CIA. “Democrats” are giving her a hard time, especially the billionairess Feinstein (yes, billionairess, with a b, although she pretends she is not, by committing her husband fortune, acquired when she negotiated with China, while he traded there…)

Kamala Harris, Verified account a young chick who is the ever cute “junior” Senator of California now endowed with gigantic powers, is proud of her own moral cluelessness:  

@KamalaHarris:  “Earlier today I asked CIA director nominee Gina Haspel if she believed enhanced interrogation tactics like waterboarding were immoral. It was a yes or no question. She refused to answer.”

I made an effort to educate unsophisticated Kamala… Although I don’t think gigantically powerful people, such as our elected and selected “representatives” can be educated, they are too full of themselves, they are too unequal in powers to ours, and they are there because they are ambitious for the sort of money political power can bring… And when to live the high life, as Obama does! So I wrote:

Was 9/11 moral or not? Why not ask CIA Haspel that? For Sheikh Mohammed, who planned 9/11, 9/11 was moral. CIA “waterboarded” him. Real question is not whether “enhancement” was “moral”, but whether it was smart. Middle Ages stopped using torture because it was very ineffective!

No doubt Ms. Haspel is the most qualified nominee to the CIA in ages. And she is a woman! Quit the sexism, and confirm!

Patrice Ayme

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model

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

Trade Wars, Divisions, War War: It Happened Before, In The 1930s

March 10, 2018

Stupid Is Depressing:

Trump plans to institute tariffs which have made the European Union angry. Jean-Claude Juncker is the head of the European Commission, the part of the European executive which heads the European administration, 32,000 strong, of 500 million souls. Juncker retorted to Trump: ”This is stupid. We can do stupid too.” Juncker has been around: he is quadrilingual French, English, German, and Luxembourgeois. Also, as PM of Luxembourg for two decades, he masterminded the transformation from its bovine economy to onshore tax haven. In any case, Europe is drawing a list of symbolic US products to be struck with tariffs too, from motorcycles to liquor. Let’s backtrack a moment here. This sort of madness is how the crash of Wall Street in 1929 and the Great Depression were engineered.

***

Crash of Wall Street & Great Depression:

A massive, and deliberate overheating of the economy happened in 1920s. The Anglo-Saxon elite had decided to inflate out of the British World War One debt. US car production reached level in 1928 it won’t see again until 1948. When overheating became blatant, the US central bank decided to raise interest rates, the economy started to falter, and the US Congress decide to get real smart, the way idiots do it. Simply, Washington reasoned, why don’t we reduce imports? When investors with a modicum of real economics heard this, they understood an economic war was pointing its ugly snout, and they pulled out.  

After the markets crashed, they recovered, as the US Senate hesitated. However, the situation became catastrophic in 1930. Then the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were finally imposed, and Europe retaliated in kind. It would have been better to keep European production in Europe, buying the cars from government money , and selling them at a loss. That would have been socialist, and only the USA would have suffered. European tariffs made US exports collapse, companies went bankrupt, banks followed, and people lost all they had, as bank deposits were not insured either privately, collectively, or by the government itself. The economy greatly depressed.    

***

The questions are: what is China doing right, and what are we doing wrong? Of these sorts of graphs, world wars are made. Notice that, in a few years, China got the world top GDP. Our crafty leaders say China has built too much! It’s going to crash! I say: go look at the homeless in US streets, it’s sickening. I say: contemplate that Paris didn’t build one skyscraper in… forty-four (44) years. They say: it’s to keep Paris pretty! I say: they deliberately don’t build, and it’s like that all over the West, more or less… Why? Keep it expensive, elitist. That “austerity” extends to activities such as scientific research (where China spends enormously). Actually Trump just wants to eliminate the world’s main existing thermonuclear research facility, and even European scientists are screaming that’s an outrage. 

***

The Great Depression Brought The Mood Of War:

In Germany, the Great Depression brought Hitler to power. In the USA, Roosevelt. Both decided to reflate their economies at all costs, using similar methods (following Keynes all too much; Keynes had advocated make-belief work, if need be). The much richer USA for example decided to build 24 “Fleet Aircraft Carriers”. For comparison, and giving an idea how expensive fleet carriers were, Germany planned to have two such carriers by 1945. The US carriers, were helped by an enormous fleet of more than 200 “fleet submarines” (each nearly 100 meters long). The US subs sank 60% of the Japanese merchant navy, and eight “Jap” aircraft carriers.

Roosevelt put also millions to work, employed by the government. Hitler tried similar tricks, forgetting small details, like that Germany had no oil, and that much of its miracle economy was actually the province of US plutocracy. All the more self-contradictory as the Nazis officially hated so much those plutocrats they were the humble pigeons of.

Meanwhile the French Republic didn’t like the Hitler circus, seeing world war painted all over it, and went to Washington to protest the collusion of US plutocrats and Nazi demoncrats.That didn’t sit very well with old family plutocrat Roosevelt, who hated France anyway, as he saw in France both a juicy prey, and a threat to the plutocratic order, especially of the US sort. In any case, the relationship between France and the USA became execrable in 1934, and would stay that way for the duration, until 1945, and much beyond.

From the French point of view, the easy money, frantic spending on the military of the Anglo-Saxons and the Nazis was wrong in all ways. So the French economy relatively shrank, as France grimly prepared for world war. Sure enough, by 1937, the German economy was in deep trouble, and Hitler had no choice but rob Jews and others to create an appearance of wealth to his millions of increasingly rabid supporters.

Thus we see that the Great Depression did more than depress economies and psychologies: it put the French Republic on a collision course with the USA and the UK. The UK realized its mistake by 1936, and threw out its young Nazi king. By 1939, the UK, having seen Spain fall to Hitler, aligned itself with France, but the USA kept aligning itself, de facto, through its plutocrats and a diplomatic service helping them, with Hitler. (By 1944, though, the top US generals, whom Roosevelt couldn’t control, allied themselves with the French military, because they saw the valor, and had the need. Besides they were in palatial arrangements at the Versailles castle…The relationship stayed tumultuous, though…)

So question: does Trump want to renew with the mistakes of the past? Germany is now solidly allied to France and is a republic too. The only “oiseau de mauvaise augure”, actually a well-defined vulture, is Putin… However recently US forces in Syria eliminated 50% of a force of Russian “volunteers”…

***.

Divided We Can’t Stand:

The trade wars of the 1930s brought division to Europe. Nazism and the “Axis” would never have happened as they did, complete with holocausts and world wars, had the three big representative democracies of the West stayed united. (But of course, Roosevelt, like Hitler, wanted to grab the world; he was just much more crafty about it! Thus much more successful.)

For example Belgium would have built the segment of the Maginot line it was supposed to build, and that would have blocked, or slowed down the Panzers long enough for the superior French forces to regroup where needed (US influence pushed Belgium to suddenly become “neutral”, thus betray France, following that way the pernicious queen of the Netherlands, who digged the grave of her own country, with her love for Kaiser and Germany…)

More prosaically, German generals wanted a pretext to kill the Nazis. Instead Hitler showed them an isolated France… The US attitude was to play all sides, until the American Century got firmly established.

Nowadays, France and the USA are solidly allied. They are fighting side by side in Africa, something which started long ago, in 1978, when the French paras dropped on Kolwezi (the US provided some airlift, and the go-ahead). The war against the Islamists in Africa is long, intense, unforgiving. The Trump administration rightly denounced China’s maneuvers in Africa (suck all the juice, and ever more encroach…)

***

And the Truth Is That The US and EU Elites Are Lying:

The US deficit is fundamentally caused by the exportations to China, Mexico, etc, of US production. So the slaves overseas are doing the work, while the higher class in the USA does not have to deal with pesky, expensive US unionized workers. Increase profit, decrease labor, grow plutocracy. What isn’t there for plutocrats, our lords and masters, to like?

Otherwise Trump is bluffing. Trump is trying to cut a deal about NAFTA/ALENA. To threaten tariffs is Trump’s dangerous and silly negotiation mode. Europe should ignore his craziness, but Europe, like Trump, is trying to make the peons believe it is doing something, when actually it’s doing even less.

So both the EU and the US elites are having a disingenuous argument. They play for the gallery of the naive out there, while the play is getting a life of its own. The right way out is to implement, throughout the West, a version of what Roosevelt did in the 1930s which was right: not the fight with France, that was wrong, not the support of overseas US plutocrats machinations, that was even worse. What was right was the rearmament program (developing and deploying more advanced weapons), and putting people to work, while cleaning up finance. And going to school, more than ever (as French president Macron just promoted in India). But schools all over, and everybody going to them is not enough: we need to put intelligence to work. And work, in the incoming age of robots, especially talking robots, of the sleek type I had on the phone today, means research. Nowadays scientific research should be promoted to the max. If not for us, and our children, for the planet… Can we please, believe in something, for a change?

Patrice Aymé

Let Greed Save The Elephants

November 19, 2017

SAVE SPECIES With “NEOLIBERAL” Derangement ECONOMY

Only by making species economically valuable can they be saved. In the present psycho-economic order of the world. Sad, but that’s it:

Trump enabled the return of “trophies” from hunts conducted in two African countries. In some of these countries, the permit to assassinate a bull elephant can cost as much as $50,000, not far from the US yearly family income. Trump’s sons enjoy assassinating large animals, taking picture of their deed, then have some African servants obsequiously cut parts of their victims, and bring back said gory body parts to impress their friends and their plutocratic ilk, on how manly and sadistic they are.

The Politically Correct crowd has retorted with its predictably hypocritical chorus that Trump was killing the elephants. In recent years, under the obscure leadership of the hypocrite in chief, “leading” from behind, it had become fashionable to burn mountains of African elephant tusks. According to the PC crowd, that supposedly would make illicit trade in ivory less profitable.

We kill magnificent animals, thus demonstrating to us that we are magnificent people. Real men, as long as many African servants serve us in our killing rampage!

The activity of burning trophies pretends to use economics to fight illegal behavior, yet it obviously contradicts the basic law of greed doing so. Consider the “Savior of the World” painting of Leonardo da Vinci (and his students) sold for 450 million dollars. Why so dear? Because the artist plus physicist, anatomist, and close friend of Francois I made only 16 paintings: rarity confers worth. If one really wanted to lower the price of elephant tusks, to make their trade unprofitable, one should flood the market with them, not burn them. (There are innovative ways to do that, innocuous for the species, for example by half cutting wild elephants’ tusks; the same has started to be applied to rhinoceroses, by cutting their horns; the horn SHOULD then be sold, be it only to pay for the operation.)

I don’t hunt live prey (only ideas, dead or alive). I think that, as practiced with modern weapons, hunting is unfair and exhibits such an alienating and cruel relationship with the world that it is somewhat demented, considering the present circumstances, when the biosphere is dying. It’s a bit like kicking around a terminally ill patient. I have used force against dangerous animals only in self-defense, or to give them a life-saving lesson, and that involved stones, the truly time-honored weapon of the genus Homo (I have been attacked by bears more than once, but bears hate stones; giving lessons to potentially lethal snakes may sound silly, but it works, they are smart enough to flee in a timely manner, upon next encounter; those who didn’t learn fast enough, got the chop).   

Elephant numbers are sharply declining, officially due to poaching and a reduction in their territory. However, in places in Africa, to this day, children have to go to school in fear of being trampled by a wild elephant (the good news is that recently two white trophy hunters got crushed by elephants exacting revenge, and one of them slowly). Farmers, in Africa and India, rightly fear the irascible and highly intelligent pachyderms. Considering the danger and economic hardship, it is clear that elephants pay for much more than their upkeep. Selling their tusks, feet and tails is the price to pay to keep the species around.

The PC crowd, per its simple nature, may howl to the wind, reading this. Indeed, it’s unfair to have just Africans protect the megafauna, or harbor on the continent some of the greatest CO2 sinks (like primary forests, peat and muds). So why don’t we reintroduce in Europe and America wild herds of thousands of elephants. They used to be there. We may even be able to modify their genes to make them more like those who used to roam the temperate zone.

We live in the so-called “neoliberal” economic order. Said order is overstretched to areas, such as health, where it should clearly not apply (the whole idea of Obamacare was to make profitable for private insurers and wealthy “non-profits” to insure everybody). Weirdly, though, some of the PC crowd doesn’t push to apply neoliberalism where it could help people: an example is housing. Not enough decent housing is built. And the reason is not Trump and his ilk (they would be delighted to build), but the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) syndrome.

Biodiversity won’t survive, if it’s not profitable. Same for CO2 emissions: to be abated, they have to be made unprofitable.

In a society where greed is the ultimate motivation, the so-called “neoliberal” order, survival itself has to be made profitable, in a way greedsters can see, or extinction is our future.  

Lofty sentence, but what does it mean? It means that species threatened with extinction should be made profitable. For example the Siberian tiger could be installed in vast preserve where it would be allowed to multiply, and then hunted (photographically or with paleolithic bow and arrows say, to make it glorious). For example, the Amur leopard could be introduced in the Yukon, and applied the same treatment. One could do this on a large-scale, because there used to be megafauna everywhere, and it survives in large,numbers only in pockets of Africa (and even fewer in Asia).

Actually several species of European megafauna were saved just that way, in preserves where they had been kept for the enjoyment of the plutocrats. An obvious tactic is to establish total marine reserves (no fishing whatsoever), and then allow tourist to visit them (that’s already done on a small-scale; such reserve repopulate areas where fishing is allowed, so they have proven popular with fishermen).

The COP 23, the UN climate conference, was a total failure: nothing was decided. A vague consensus arose that the planet is cruising towards a three degrees Celsius rise. Here, there and everywhere the terminal failure of what used to be called “the left”, is glaring: it’s sinking in contradictions, many of them arising from the intrinsic corrupt nature of the “representative” system. This is also true in the media. Not just the plutocratically owned media. Intrinsically, when too few have power, they exert it “unwisely”. Because what evolution knows that wisdom itself, in immoderate amounts, is unwise.

Judokas learn to use their adversary’s momentum to get them where they want them to be. With the political system we have, worldwide (it’s roughly the same everywhere), it’s important to remember this. The Trump sons are keen to show they can kill big animals. That put them in a lesser circle of hell, than those who want all large animals to disappear. Or even those who don’t mind that all large animals disappear, and only Africans can still be eaten by leopards, trampled by elephants.

Those who are concerned are often superior, morally and effectively, to those who don’t want to watch, or know. Even when their solutions look mean. Especially if their solutions look mean. This applies directly to the immigrant crisis, by the way: the PC crowd howled for decolonization, but most of what this “decolonization” did was to put the power of exploiting less developed countries in the now unrestrained hands of plutocrats.  PC has turned out to also be the abbreviation for Perfectly Cretinous, of course… And the seven million democrats in the four “blue” states of the “Blue” Wall who voted for Obama in 2012, and for Trump in 2016, giving him the presidency, figured that one out.

The case of Bernard Henri Levy (“BHL”) is the paradigm that way. BHL’s rather shallow philosophy hides well the usual Pluto tricks (government support or complicity being number one). Although physically courageous, BHL is a billionaire with a wealth not far from Trump’s, who cynically used his influence on a corrupt French leadership to get enormous amounts of money then leveraged by destroying African forests in a torrid exploitation of both Africans, their forests, and “decolonization”. All right, that has allowed him to refurbish one of the largest palaces in Morocco (once owned by US plutocrat Paul Getty).

Readers may not see the connection with the young Trumps’ penchant for assassinating noble animals. The common thread is the hypocrisy of the PC crowd: to give itself good conscience, it decries the obvious (bad Trumps assassinate animals, go around flaunting the remnants of their deeds), BHL’s philosophy stinks, but it does not try to deepen what is really going on, and, thus, how to get out of it.

Hypocrisy was initially a Greek word and concept for playing a part, pretending, from (hupo, under, and krinein, to judge, decide). Hypocrisy, in general, is the under-critique of the real, is what lays under the incapability of solving the problems which are gathering as the ultimate tsunami, in full view.

Disappearing species is one the problems. Let the PC crowd foster sharing the planet with the fauna, mega, or not. And if that means spending lots of money to kill species sustainably, it’s better than the alternative, namely, no more species.

We can’t always get what we want,

As we want.

But if we try sometimes,

We may get what we need,

Through less savory means,

Paid with pride, prejudice, lots of imagination.

To save our souls, we shouldn’t hesitate to twist our minds

When nothing else will do. 

So let the small minded cretins hunt, and boast of their malevolence, if it is is what it takes to save the biosphere.

Patrice Ayme’