Archive for the ‘Empire’ Category

Rihanna, Education, Administration, Empire

July 26, 2017

Rihanna is another miracle on legs similarly to the hyper blonde Colombian Shakira, or Beyonce a very pretty package who incorporated tricks invented in places such as 1950s strip bars, all over. I must recognize she seems to have more brains and more advanced, more intelligent and controversial passions.   

63 million of children are known to not go to school in developing countries But the delightful future billionaire exhibitionist Rihanna, expert in sideways glances, eyelids down, wants to help.

Rihanna‏Verified account @rihanna  Jun 23   bonjour @EmmanuelMacron, will France commit to #FundEducation?

Glad to see Rihanna cares about getting educated, this site is all about education. Rihanna has pretty violent videos out there, which meet, of course, my approbation, as thoroughly educative programs. I approve of showing violence, because violence there is, and it festers more if it can stay stealthy. Making it obvious deprives it of stealth, hence surprise, half of a successful aggression.

Rihanna has sold more than 250 million records, and was named the 2017 Harvard University Humanitarian of the Year (so, apparently Harvard doesn’t mind so much the violence anymore…). Intriguingly, Rihanna’s latest boyfriend, Hasan Jameel, is a wealthy plutocrat (two billion dollars plus), a Saudi heir. No doubt she can improve his education, open new perspectives on the worth of woman.

So the pulpy Caribbean native may get money for education, but the problem of poorly-developing countries do not arise because not enough money has been thrown at education. One problem is that throwing money at developing countries just enrich plutocrats, local or global. If a country is headed by plutocrats, feeding them is like feeding crocodiles in a crocodile farm. 

Rihanna, here in Paris, July 25th 2017, to feed Macron fleshy perspectives top pop to pop top.

Poorly developing countries have fundamentally the same two problems:1. bad administration arising from dictatorship and, or wrong ideology. 2. Not being part of an empire. It goes without saying that self-described good people will view such views with a jaundiced eye, because their own “good” logic tells them developing countries are good and empires are bad.

Take Islam, where women are legislatively, half of men, cloistered and forbidden the freedom human ethology gives them. They end up somewhat stupid and acculturated. As women are frontlines for educating children, the next generation of Islamist children will be more  stupid and uneducated than they would be otherwise.Hence a vicious circle.  

When Lebanon and Syria were administered by France, they were doing well. They didn’t do good before that, under the Caliphate, or after that, under the dictatorships.

National education without appropriate administration to make it sustainable is a non sequitur. One can’t have an appropriate administration without proper command and control. In other words, an appropriate empire.

When thinking of empire, people tend to think of malevolent empires on military rampages; the invasive Caliphates, the Mongols, Napoleon, etc. But the greatest civilizations were, and are, empires. China formed giant empires and owe its persistence to empires (as its brush with annihilation when Genghis Khan conquered it shows). The Greco-Roman world defined an empire which in turn defines today’s civilization, when properly extended to its roots (Egypt, Phoenicia, Crete) and its successors (the Franks who created the “Occident” in which we all bathe now).

Right now, whether we like it or not, we are in a world empire. It’s called the United Nations, and it’s not a democracy. And that’s very good as some nations proved culturally unable to distinguish between civilization and genocide (of Japan, Germany, Italy and their allies we think).

The UN is composed essentially of two components: the West, and China. (Russia and the USA are two colonies of the West; Russia, from the Vikings, plus back influence from the Greeks mostly; the USA is the double descendant of France, as England herself was a Franco-Frankish creation.)

The UN empire has not been extended in all corners. Actually “decolonization” was more of a de-administrationalization substituting often a republican form to more dictatorial variants. For example, under the french, Algeria was arguably under the (defective and unjust) administration of various (French) parties, some on the right, some on the left. Since “independence”, Algeria has been under the administration of just one party. Actually, the present president of Algeria, Bouteflika, was one of the principals of the Algerian “revolution”, so he has been in power personally for nearly 70 years…  Yes, he is in a wheelchair, and gets repaired periodically in France.

Now the empire needs to be re-extended in all corners. It is in these distant corners not under direct imperial control that war and lack of education, rule. An example is the confines of Congo where an unsavory interaction between Rwanda military, and plutocratic corporations anxious for minerals, brought five million dead, let alone poor education.

Other muscular interventions are needed. Interpretations of Islam which subjugate women more than men need to be discouraged much more (although with Saudi Arabia in charge of enforcing this at the UN, the situation has become surrealistic…)

It’s a violent world. The violence is supported by, and supports, a violent lack of advanced, all-encompassing education. Unfortunately impositions of mass violence are nearly never solved pacifically, contrarily to legend(those who are already rolling out Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as they read this, are rolling out people who didn’t make the main effort: the Brits were pulling out of India, anyway, Gandhi arguably made things worse; MLK came long after military force was used massively to end racism in the USA, by president Lincoln, and Eisenhower…)

Lack of education is an imposition of mass violence (teaching is not very costly, so the obstacle to education is not cost, but will, will to impose brutishness). Thus it has to be solved with massive power, the power of proper administration, on the heels of imperial intervention (imperial intervention does not necessarily start with special forces, it can start with judges and accountants).

I don’t doubt Rihanna’s sincerity, which is more than eleven years old. I don’t doubt that micro and local humanitarian help is important. However, it’s little relative to the big picture. When France decolonized itself out of Africa, there was a hospital every one hundred kilometer. France left, the hospitals are mostly gone. In a related phenomenon, the growth of literal Islamist schools directed to very small children, at the detriment of real, secular education, has been all over. Consequence? Islamist invasion and military counter-offensives from the French Republic. Some will whine: leave them alone. But then they contradict themselves. Children don’t chose to die and be uneducated: it’s imposed on them by local potentates, symbiotic with global plutocracy (to which they extent access to resources). Once again, the framework already exists: the UN, with its mighty Security Council. 

Want a correct, massive world educational system? Impose a correct, appropriate world empire!

Let Rihanna sing about that!
Patrice Ayme’


Long Live The Euro: 2) Friedman Ignorant Anti-Euro Rant

December 27, 2015

Is Europe an “optimum currency area”? Milton Friedman believed it was not, and he gave apparently cogent, and now much repeated reasons, why it was not. However one should remember that appearances are deceiving, the most venomous snakes look like pretty leaves. Some people do not know how to add, but they claim they can multiply.

American economist have been lying, they are paid to lie, because their lies in economy give justification to otherwise unjustifiable policies. The policies of the USA have been, overall comfortable: having eliminated the Natives, American and Canadians, like the Australians, enjoy entire continents for themselves, far removed from the rest of the world, and its often crowed, overwhelmed realities.

Whereas France is in a different situation. French major policies have not been comfortable, since 360 CE (when the elite Parisian legions revolted, refused to leave France, and proclaimed the Caesar Julian, Augustus; the central government in Constantinople was not happy, and those in-between, distinctly uncomfortable).

France did not just declare war to the Nazis in the 1930s, when the USA was busy doing profitable business with them. France has been fighting Islamists since 721 CE (before that the Franks’ James Bonds were spying on said Islamists in the Middle East).

The war with the Islamists requires much power and determination. Here is a picture from April 2015, taken at night, with a high resolution radar. The famous Second Foreign Parachute Regiment (2 REP) is dropping at night on the Salvador Pass, in the middle of the Sahara, at the Libya-Niger border. It then engaged Islamists in combat:

Reality Check: Economics Serves War. Combat In More Than Half A Dozen Countries Costs France Beaucoup Euros

Reality Check: Economics Serves War. Combat In More Than Half A Dozen Countries Costs France Beaucoup Euros

[The dots are French soldiers, and equipment, not trees. The area is the most barren desert on Earth.]

Here is Milton Friedman, that supposedly great economist, as we will see a great liar, a little man, a European war lover, in the conclusion of his famous essay supposedly demolishing the Euro. That essay is oft-repeated with glee since, by pseudo-”liberal” luminaries such as Paul Krugman, and, in general, all faithful, one should even say, obsequious, servants of Uncle Sam:

“The European Commission based in Brussels, indeed, spends a small fraction of the total spent by governments in the member countries. They, not the European Union’s bureaucracies, are the important political entities. Moreover, regulation of industrial and employment practices is more extensive than in the United States, and differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state. As a result, wages and prices in Europe are more rigid, and labor less mobile. In those circumstances, flexible exchange rates provide an extremely useful adjustment mechanism.

If one country is affected by negative shocks that call for, say, lower wages relative to other countries, that can be achieved by a change in one price, the exchange rate, rather than by requiring changes in thousands on thousands of separate wage rates, or the emigration of labor. The hardships imposed on France by its “franc fort” policy illustrate the cost of a politically inspired determination not to use the exchange rate to adjust to the impact of German unification. Britain’s economic growth after it abandoned the European Exchange Rate Mechanism a few years ago to refloat the pound illustrates the effectiveness of the exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism.”

This sounds all very smart, but, it’s mostly poorly informed BS. When one knows enough, and when one is in a mood favorable to European Unification, Milton Friedman just sound like a highly paid prostitute. What he sells is lies.

Examples of Friedman ignorance, or deliberate lying:

  1. The member countries are more important, true, but only to some extent.Even France and Germany are tied up by the various European institutions, because the latter are part of the member countries national laws (that’s called the Single European Act). So France, for example, cannot contradict the European Court of Justice, without contradicting the FRENCH Constitution.
  2. Member countries are of three types: great powers (France, Germany, Britain), middle powers (Spain, Italy, Poland; Italy is a middle power because its north is more Franco-German than Sicilian, so it’s de facto divided; Spain has the same problem: Catalonia historically is more French, or Roman, than Spanish). And then small powers. Small powers can stand in the way, but not for long (Greece being the best example).
  3. That “regulation of industrial and employment practices… differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state” is simply, a lie. A lie disguised as a truth. European regulations are extremely similar to each other, and very far from the American ones. The exception is Great Britain, which asked for an exemption, and got it.
  4. Labor is less mobile in Europe, because Europe is made of different nations talking different versions of English.
  5. If one country is affected with negative shocks”: the entire idea of Europe, Friedman, is to have no more “negative shocks”.
  6. When Friedman talks of France, he brays like an ass. The strong Franc policy is an atavism of France. France invented the strong currency thing, like 12 centuries ago. Those who did not believe in it, were boiled in wine. Alive. France applied it in the 1920s and 1930s, when the USA, the UK, Germany, and other critters tried to devaluate themselves to health (some got mad in the process). The strong Franc is a case of Germany coming to think like France, not conversely. (True France devalued in the 1960s, but then Germany wrote off more than half of its debt, with the benediction of its allies, in the 1950s.)
  7. The United Kingdom has been highly successful with its currency policies in the 1990s, and after 2008. However that is, first of all, because enough money was provided to run the economy. Although having a national currency allowed it to do so, currency independence is neither necessary, nor sufficient.
  8. Wages, prices, regulations, national laws are under convergence in Europe. Recently Germany finally imitated France and introduced a high minimum wage. German workers are now for the first time as expensive as French workers.
  9. Friedman ignores ways in which European countries are more similar to each other, than to American states: no death penalty, universal health care, strong privacy laws, labor protection are examples.
  10. The important political entities in the Eurozone are France and Germany. United, they form a superpower, especially when adding their automatic influence zone (Austria, The Benelux, Northern Spain, including Catalonia, Northern Italy, and yes, Switzerland). Since May 8, 1945, France and Germany did not have ONE serious differences, and have pursued a steady program of “ever closer union” (to use the language of the European de facto constitution). The heads of France and Germany sit together at the European Parliament, during important events. I believe, and French and German leaders believed

All right, so Friedman does not know what he is talking about.

Friedman also asserts what is well-known, that the Euro is a political project (what he does not say is that it is a French political project, because he is not anxious to spoil his hidden bias with obvious francophobia). Notice that, if some project is mostly driven by politics, that does not mean that it cannot turn out to be economical. Says Friedman:

“The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe.”

Of course a USE, a United States of Europe, would be a formidable rival to the USA, and probably less friendly to the people who paid Friedman for his flood of BS venom. Then Friedman, in his conclusion, slips into psycho-politics, a domain which mixes psychology and politics, for which, considering the long list of erroneous ideas I exposed above, he has no expertise whatsoever. Friedman is like somebody who does not know how to add, and now he wants to multiply:

”I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.”

The truth? Milton Friedman, the economist does not the history of economics. Let me give him a F. F for “Failed”. The Thaler/Tollar, functioned as a currency in Europe for centuries without any political unification.

The truth? France and Germany are unifying ever more. The last divergence was about Libya: France decided to overthrow the dictator there, and Germany did not help. However in Syria, Germany, and Britain are now helping France. Germany is presently sending troops for occupation and control in Mali, because and while France is getting its shock troops for attacks in Syria and Libya.

The truth? When Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s president, decided to switch to the Euro for international transaction, thus exiting Washington’s orbit, Washington decided to make Iraq an example for those who switch to the Euro. The Washington strategists wanted a murderous mess for those who switch to the Euro, and now they have it, and one must them chuckling at night, far from prying eyes. (People like Paul Krugman absolutely refuse to understand any of the preceding, as it would murder their careers to do so. At the very least.)

The truth? In the 1940s, the Nazis and the French resistance, the Free French and the French Republic agreed that “divisive political issues” and “exacerbated tensions” came from “converting divergent shocks”. To eliminate divergent shocks, eliminate differences. In this respect, the Euro is helping France and Germany achieve an ever closer union. (Notwithstanding the sea of lies American economists swim in.)

And it’s all that matter. American Jews such as Friedman, Krugman, and all these other “mans”, should remember that, when “Francia”, the Renovated Roman empire, Franco-Germania, extended from Barcelona to Berlin and beyond, there was no discrimination against the Jews.

Why? Because the very nature of a sustainable, vast empire, is tolerance. So let a common European currency be, it will be more comfortable to divergences, hence ideas.

Patrice Ayme’

No Assimilation: Racism & Destruction

November 29, 2015

We have to be guided by history. The present ecological, plutocratic, immigration and Islamist crises (in order of importance) are informed by history. However neither our delusional “leaders” nor the herds they guide know enough history to inform decisively the present crises. Verily, history is the best teacher.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were also guided by history, but we are in a much more advantageous position than they were: history in Greco-Roman times was at most 1,000 year old. Now the history we know of, much of it from increasingly detailed archeological work, is more than 10,000 years old.

An example: detailed archeology, recently done, revealed that the Late Roman empire was much richer than previously believed. There was no evidence of economic decay, far from it. So the catastrophes which struck it in the Sixth Century were of a different nature than Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Small Surviving Portion of Diocletian Baths (Circa 300 CE). Christian Hated Bathing, So They Destroyed Baths.

Diocletian Baths

The Ancient Greeks, Romans, and Franks were stuck by the story of Troy, which was the limit of what they thought they knew for sure (modern archeology has not decisively determined the exact events of Troy’s adventures: it’s a work in progress). But they did not really know the truth: soon thereafter the “Greek Dark Ages” nearly obliterated history.

Something was learned though: the Franks (barely) avoided the total collapse which had struck the Greeks 15 centuries earlier. The Franks (like the Romans before them) claimed they descended from Troy. Whether that’s true or not, what they meant is that they knew how to avoid catastrophe.

And they did.

How did the Franks do it? By NOT doing what the Romans had done. Or, more exactly, by doing civilization in the spirit of Ancient Republican Rome, not the degenerated  self-obsessed imperial fascism of emperor Commodus and his successors.

I am a bit unfair to the successors here: Commodus perpetuated a mood actually launched by Augustus himself: Augustus, differently from his great uncle, Julius Caesar, had not understood the necessity to expand the empire. Augustus explicitly advised his successors to NOT conquer Germany. The advice was respected, and therein all the problems of Rome.

Had the Romans made a determined effort to conquer Germany, they would have had to reinstitute the Republic in full. If the Republic had been reconstituted, in full, Roman governance would have been much smarter, and capable of solving the problems thrown at Rome.

Thus, when speaking of war, and whining about it, the herd forgets that democracies make war best (as the Athenians demonstrated at Marathon, when they charged irresistibly the immense multitude of fascist imperial Persian storm troopers).

Thus, to push things a bit, to make war better, one has to make democracy better. Thus the army was an important factor of de-segregation in the USA.

Speaking of segregation, that was the problem which killed Rome the most. The Romans had basically renounced ASSIMILATING the Germans. Germans were viewed as hopeless, yet too strong, barbarians.

The analogy with what is going on today is total. The Germans came in with their own legal systems, their own Sharias. The Romans respected that. So states within the state grew (a bit as has been observed in France and especially Belgium, where at least one city should be de-Islamized).

And why were the Germans so strong? Because the state had grown weak, from not taxing the hyper-rich enough. Just like now. Lack of taxation of the hyper-rich has made Europe weak. Military weak. Germany is going to send 650 soldiers in Mali, to relieve the French Army there (which then will be able to attack the Islamist State). One is talking about pathetically small numbers here, for a country as large as today’s Germany. Meanwhile the French don’t have enough air refueling capacity to bomb as much as they could (Germany there is speaking to provide air refueling for the French Air Force).

When the Roman state decomposed in the “Occident”, very small numbers of warriors were involved, roughly equivalent to those the Islamist State and its various faction have.

Verdict: one has to forcefully assimilate, and make the Republic stronger, as needed to do so. Both phenomena are entangled.

And don’t try to assimilate Islam instead: that was tried before. Not just with Islam, but Christianism itself: to convert Germans to the empire, the Roman leaders (Constantine and his successors) used Christianism. Christianism is a sort of superstitious republicanism claiming all men are equal, under fascist god, etc…  Well, it did not work: Christianism devoured civilization, and did so, in particular, in the Orient. The Orient was suddenly destroyed, within a generation by the wars, and the weakness, physical, intellectual and moral, which fanatical Christianism brought. In particular it brought Islam (just read the Qur’an, Muhammad himself explains it very well!)

I am perfectly aware that the ignorant view assimilation as racism. This mentality was launched by a herd of European pseudo-philosophers who loved fascism (either Kaiser, see the deluded Bertrand Russell, Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin style). Loving fascism provided them with perks, including from American pluto-imperialism (which was delighted to see proper critique replaced by non-sense).

That assimilation was racism has been the main driving force to create racism and segregation in French society (against the very people those who denounced assimilation pretended to protect!) Same, and worse in Belgium, a state representing well the sort of degeneracy which affected Rome. Actually Belgium’s only justification, as I have explained many times, was to weaken France, by cutting off from it the fiercest part of Gaul (“Gallia”; reference on that: Julius Caesar). It’s working splendidly: France nearly lost the two world wars against fascist Germany thanks to the existence of Belgium as a mentally, and militarily tiny independent kingdom.

(For those who do not understand the preceding paragraph: all the recent terrorism in France was planned in Belgium, by pseudo, unassimilated “Belgians”, who were simply barbarians educated by the Sharia.)

Hollande seems to be taking his war against the Islamist State seriously; that’s a political U-turn: just as Rome needed to conquer Germany, the empire needs to reconquer the Orient . Because, indeed, before it got subjugated by Islam, with the results presently observed, the Orient was to Rome, and before that to the Macedonio-Greeks, and, even before, to the Zoroastrians (I don’t expect the admirers of the late Edward Said to understand any of this).

Philosophy has to guide. Philosophy which knows history, and thought about it, that is. But force is to observe that most so-called philosophers of the Twentieth Century knew no history, or then so little, that they could use it to justify their madness (this is an attack against Michel Foucault, Althusser, etc.). Simone de Beauvoir, who knew enough history to teach it to all of France under the fascist Vichy regime, was rightly infuriated by Foucault’s distortions of history. Now all these obnoxious, and cruel, self-obsessed dwarves are viewed as pinnacles of wisdom. No wonder our politicians went mad. Now they have to quit the Fourth Century Roman political line they have been repeating.

And be happy! Or the strength will not be found. One has to learn to be happy through the worst. Especially when it’s only bad news affecting others.

Patrice Ayme’   

IMF: NSA Trojan Horse?

July 1, 2015

It is known the German government spied France, and her state of the art industries, on the behalf of the NSA (even the New York Times mentions it in “Germany, Too, Is Accused Of Spying On Friends“, “Another Spying Scandal In Germany…”). Gregor Gysi, a prominent German from the opposition Left party, accused Ms. Merkel of “treason.”Is Merkel’s government betraying some more? Such as deliberately sabotaging the Euro?

I am not making all of this up out of thin air, in a sudden attack of crazed conspiracy fever. Please consult that other leftist institution, the Wall Street Journal:

“What is the IMF doing in this Greek mess? Wonders Jacques Attali, Jul 1, 2015. My thesis is simple:

Sarko l'Americain & Merkel, NSA Spy, Offer IMF Trojan Horse To Greeks

Sarko l’Americain & Merkel, NSA Spy, Offer IMF Trojan Horse To Greeks

The National Security Agency American spy, Angela Merkel, and the USA obsessed Sarkozy (Sarkozy’s brother worked for the Carlyle Group, a shadowy organization specializing in satanic investment in military procurement at the time; heading the Carlyle Group is the sort of dream job Obama can only dream of, when he graduates from the drone dispatching center he heads in a White House)

Attali observes:

“The Greek situation, in all its dimensions, has become more grotesque with every passing day, and more specifically in the last year, by the very negative and preposterous role the International Monetary Fund plays in this.

An observer from Mars landing on Earth this week would ask in astonishment how Europeans had allowed three non-European economists working for an institution dominated by the US, we have no idea who appointed them, to decide the fate of the euro!?”

Jacques Attali is an important European, because of the judiciousness of his advice to many a European leader, and his heading various institutions and commissions (including one suggesting many reforms in France, few of which have been applied so far). Attali is also a classical symphonic conductor of international renown and practice. Attali was founding head of the European Investment Bank, a EU institution based in London, and close adviser to presidents Mitterrand, and Sarkozy.

Says Attali: …”the Eurogroup political leaders have allowed the IMF to creep in among the negotiators of all Greek debt… Attali notice that, whereas the Greek debt was strictly between Greece, the EU and the ECB, European leaders after a while decided they would not do anything without the IMF’s agreement.

Attali: “…when European experts came to realize that it was not by destroying the last resorts of Greek growth that their debt would be reduced, the so-called experts from the IMF, power crazy, continued to seek to impose suicidal savings on that country, without seeing that it will never be able to repay a debt that must be canceled urgently and in a formal way….

The only thing one would have hoped from the IMF, in this debacle, is that the Americans, on which it heavily depends upon, find a way to explain… the major geostrategic importance of Greek stability, and thus Greece continued participation in the eurozone. No, the Americans could not, or would not, do more than call the Greeks every day to ask them to surrender to the diktat of the IMF.

Attali thinks the IMF ought to be destroyed:

At a time when Asians are challenging the very existence of the Bretton Woods institutions, because they are not given their rightful place there, it is time for Europeans to question the sustainability of an institution that will be, if circumstances turn for the worse, really responsible for the tragedy that would follow a Greek default.

The solution, though, is simple, and the Europeans would have probably applied it a long time ago if the intellectual terrorism of the so-called IMF experts was not present: a reasonable savings plan, socially just, without requiring further assistance, but also with a reduction of the Greek debt to below 100% of GDP, through the cancellation of a significant part of public, bilateral and multilateral debts, that they all know cannot be reimbursed, and that some continue to claim, to save face. And for that, create urgently a genuinely European Monetary Fund, precursor of a Euro Treasury, and a Eurozone Ministry of Finance.”

All excellent observations, Jacques. The IMF is located less than half a mile from the White House. Christine Lagarde was already the head of one the world’s largest law firms, an American law firm, based in Chicago, long ago. She seems to be a professional figurehead, French looking, but actually simply an agent of the empire of the USA. Much of the European leadership seems to be in debt to the USA.

Consider the head of the European Central Bank: PhD MIT, vice-chairman at Goldman Sachs (as Mario Monti, an Italian PM). So what is the IMF doing inside the Eurozone governance? Making sure that individuals employed in and by Washington DC are in command. Of Europe: The empire of the USA does not have any interest in a strong and independent Europe: healthy is what it wishes, yet dependent is what it requires. Dependence means submission, a lower status, fewer riches, more work, less comfort, no control of one’s destiny. It’s about making sure structures, institutions, which favor and select for the power and wealth of the USA are in place.


Europe Is Under Plutocratic Attack, Hence The Need For Union:

Some suggest that one cannot have a monetary union without a political union. That’s not correct. The Dollar is named after a currency, the “Thaler”, or “Tolar” (it has other names). The Tolar existed for centuries over much of Central Europe, without any political union. It was so famous that the currency of the USA is named after it.

So what is going on now? Why can’t the Eurozone survive without political union? The reason is simple: the USA’s establishment is hostile to the Euro (it’s trying its best, and succeeding, to hide its immense anger at the uppity Europeans, with their arrogant currency).

It looks like economics, but it’s all politics. Before Greece got in the European Union, Greece was controlled by colonels controlled by the USA. Many operators in the USA, those of the “Deep State”, the Wolvowitzs of the USA, would love to see Greece revert to full control of the USA. And that was probably the entire idea of putting the IMF inside the Eurozone.

Who asked for controlling Europe with the IMF? Germany, in 2010. At the same time, we learn that Germany acted like a spy on the French government, on behalf of the NSA (French and German governments are in very close, permanent contact).

So just like the NSA asked Germany to spy on France, did the NSA ask Germany to bring the IMF Trojan Horse inside Europe?

Americans have been programmed to say that “conspiracy theorists” are insane. Indeed. One has to be insane to expose the various conspiracies which insure USA dominance. USA plutocracy makes sure that it is dangerous, and not profitable.

Europe has a social model that the owners of the USA, those who pay for American universities, find unbearable. That’s why they want to destroy it.

More prosaically and cautiously, Attali concludes that:

“Europeans, solve your problems among yourselves. Rely on your own forces alone. Do not give in to pressures or ways of thinking that came from across the Atlantic or the Pacific. Give yourself a project and take action. It really is about time you did.”

As the European elite has been put in place, or in power, or made rich, by American plutocracy, independence is not so easy to implement (Africa has long known this problem, the problem of the elite controlled by greater forces, a perfect illustration of which is Barack Obama himself).

Patrice Ayme’

Europe Immigration Massacre

April 24, 2015


Something went wrong in the general picture of Europe as the den of horrendous colonialists, projecting force worldwide: the previously allegedly exploited masses swim across the Mediterranean like lemmings, in their apparent desire to be exploited some more.

And they drown like lemmings.

Greece and Italy suffer the brunt of the “invasion” (which should be properly viewed as an opportunity). Just last year Italy imprisoned 171,000 refugees from Africa, and more than 50,000 from the Middle East.

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

Amnesty International condemned the very latest European measures as “Mesurettes” (little measures in French). I agree. Maybe to compensate for the appearances of measurettes, France and Britain speak about going to the United Nations to get the authorization to sink the boats of the enemy (apparently, the enemy  would be all fishers, trawlers and commercial boats from Algeria to Turkey?)

It reminds one of Obama’s drone policy (now “under review“, after killing Western hostages, announced a contrite Obama yesterday). Hey what could go wrong with bombing civilians one has observed, doing stuff? If bombing civilians is good for Obama, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, why is it not good for France and Britain? Eternal peace beckons…

In truth, the immigration problem to Europe forces a complete revision of what it means to be a “progressive”, dismantling 70 years of “anti-colonialist” hare-brained self-glorification discourse by pseudo-intellectuals of great renown.

Europe wants the advantages of empire to persist, such as material wealth, health, lack of risk taking, social laziness, and philosophical comfort. While Europe does not want to endure the costs of empire.

Europe is an empire which wants fate to provide, but does not want to contribute to fate with an enlightened vision.

The cost of empire means, first to master one’s vital space (Lebensraum in German). An empire masters its environment through military force, used, threatened, or implicit. Military means are viewed as primitive by (most) Europeans. So are demographic means. Overall, Europe has a timid, not to say senile, approach to the world, a mix of greed, fear, and laziness, physical and philosophical.

The case of Libya is typical: France and Britain finally finished the war France had been engaged with the Libyan dictator, on and off, for decades. However, they were mostly alone in Europe. Strong support came only from Obama’s USA. Any follow-up was no of the advantage of China, Russia, and, generally, all the countries in the world, which do not want to see Europe behave as if it were an empire.

It is OK for Russia, China, the USA, Indonesia, and even Australia, to behave like empires, ravaging the planetary environment, imposing their ways and means, but, for Europe to do so, the Europeans agree that it should not be.

Thus Libya, long part of Europe, as part of its ancestral civilizations of Phoenicia, Greece and Rome, was left to its own instruments, after having been decapitated.

This European self-flagellation and mortification is all for the better, as it fits the mood of dolce vita which Europeans are very much attached to.

In particular, it was self-congratulatory, rather than analytical, for European intellectuals to rant against colonialism. So now here we are: tens of millions of people are trying to get into Europe, thousands are dying, trying to do so.

This is not without similarities with the crisis that put an end to the Roman empire. Rome was depopulating, and increasingly senile. Various barbarians were trying to get in, by force. Rome accepted refugees, but, often without integrating them well.

So here we are again.

Rome ought to have projected force, mental and physical. But plutocracy is fundamentally idiotic, so Rome became ever more stupid. All the moral force provided was Christianism (and thank god for that). So, when the barbarians more or less conquered the empire, at least they were philosophically compatible with Rome.

So what to do?

Fix Africa, fix the Middle-East, by projecting the mental and physical force necessary for the continuation of the advantages of the European empire. Yes, it means American sized military budgets. It also means a strong immigration policy, a chosen immigration and integration policy (as Canada and the USA use).

If this path is not chosen, actors unfriendly to Europe, such as Daesh, the USA, China, will extend their empire in Africa and the Middle East, Europe’s doorstep, and the door will soon give way.

The number one problem of Europe is demographic and cultural depopulation. Poorly managed immigration and empire make it worse. In a way the migrants are saying that it is empire (of law and goodness), or death. Let’s listen, and learn.

Patrice Ayme’

Not With Putin As With Hitler

December 16, 2014

Things Are Getting Serious:

Krugman was in Dubai, in a conference, plutocratizing, I presume. Wrote he:

“A lot of the conference was actually about geopolitics, and I don’t want to think about the quite grim stuff from that end.”

Yes, things are getting interesting. In Lima 196 countries decided that Global Warming was a problem, and all and any country had to present a plan to reduce CO2 emissions within 6 months.

Global temperatures seem ready for a significant jump-up, the exact thing I have been saying, for more than a decade, that it would happen someday. Amusingly, at this rate, in ten years, temperature would jump as high as the worst predictions… for a century from now.

The gigantic Gulf of Maine has already warmed up. It was the stronghold of cod, ever since Europeans, more than 5 centuries ago, started to massively fish there. From Boston to the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of Maine has become too hot for cods, and they vote with their fins to go somewhere fresher. At the rate we are going, cods may run out of planet within twenty years.

Back to Krugman: “Venezuela-with-nukes (Russia) keeps looking more vulnerable to crisis. Long-term interest rates at almost 13 percent, a plunging currency, and a lot of private-sector institutions with large foreign-currency debts. You might imagine that large foreign exchange reserves would allow the government to bail out those in trouble, but the markets evidently don’t think so. This is starting to look very serious.

It is called war. War with Putin. War is serious. It’s better done early, on one’s own agenda. Cratering the price of oil is part of it.

Russia’s central bank, in a bid to prevent the Ruble to turn into ruble, raised its key interest rate Tuesday, Dec. 15 2014, to 17% from 10.5%. The repo rate went up to 18%.

War with Putin, is better than the alternative, namely peace with the dictator. Fortunately, we are not following the script from January 1933 (election of Hitler) to December 1941 (Hitler declares war to the USA).


Hitler Blossomed Because As Assad And Putin, He Had Western Plutocratic Allies:

War with Hitler started in 1933, as far as the French Republic was concerned (and the French economy got seriously affected by the war preparations: enormous fortifications, and being ready to field more than 100 divisions).

However, all of France’s potential allies signed deals, official or not, with Hitler. Poland inaugurated this with a January “Non-Aggression Treaty with Hitler.

Great Britain signed a so-called “Naval Treaty” with Hitler in 1935, with the understanding that Hitler could invade the East as he pleased. The Treaty allowed Hitler to re-arm as much as he pleased, in violation of the Versailles Treaty.

Meanwhile American plutocrats invested massively in the Reich. Texaco provided Hitler with all the oil he needed to transport a fascist army from Africa into Spain, and wage war there. Standard Oil (Exxon) provided secretly the Nazis with synfuel technology (not to be shared with the Anglo-Saxon militaries), IBM was given the monopoly of computing in the Reich, Ford (Hitler’s first sponsor) build thousands of military vehicles, and so on ad nauseam: the Reich had turned into an Eldorado for American plutocrats.

When France (1936) declared her intention to give weapons to the Spanish Republic, she was opposed on the world scene & had to back-off. France could not afford to antagonize the Anglo-Saxons, so the Spanish Republic got no weapon, and was progressively devoured in the next three years by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and their goons.

Spain fell in 1939. Millions more Spaniards would be eliminated by the fascists in the next few years. Great Britain had not supported the French-Czech alliance, and Czechoslovakia had been invaded. Finally the UK understood how serious the situation was, and agreed to support the French-Polish Alliance’s fine print.

Hitler supported German minorities, he said, and gave an ultimatum to Poland. This time France declared her intent to declare war. So Hitler allied himself with Stalin, and invaded Poland. But France, now joined by Britain, which had no army to speak of, declared war. The British Commonwealth soon followed (Canada, Australia, India, etc.)

What did the USA do? The President of the USA, acting on the “Neutrality Act” signed a law making it unlawful for American citizens to support France or Britain, or even set a foot on their ships. Why? France and Britain were viewed as “belligerent”.

Meanwhile, American plutocratic support for Hitler augmented.


Hitler Got Lucky In May 1940:

The rest is well known: the Nazis’ 150 divisions got lucky against the 100 French divisions in May 1940, however the French made it so that the small British army escaped at Dunkirk, and that prevented Hitler to establish a bridgehead in Britain.

Less well known is the fact that the top German generals asked Britain and the USA to simply say that they would support France. Then the generals were to get rid of the Nazis to save Germany. Instead, the British and Americans told Hitler that his generals were plotting against him (this happened in 1937-1939).

Lesson of all this?

The Anglo-Saxon support of Hitler was crucial in allowing Hitler to pursue his apocalypse

And even encouraged it: Hitler made countless discourses about the democracies having no will.

Is Putin Hitler?

Not exactly, but Putin has nukes. And the foundations of their ideologies have a lot in common. Hitler thought that, to develop economically, Germany needed a greater “vital space” (Lebensraum). Putin has made it clear that he had to reconstitute a greater empire, the USSR

If we do not want to renew the mistakes of the 1930s, the lessons are clear:

France, Britain and the USA have to be united, and promote civilization. They are now joined by Germany, and the rest of Western Europe. The traitors of 1939, among them Sweden and Switzerland, are now firmly on the side of (greater) democracy and against blatant dictatorship (with which they had collaborated in 1939).

When the French Republic went to war against the awful troika from hell, Hitler, Stalin and American plutocrats, the odds were long. Right now, the odds are excellent: the GDP of Russia is less much less than that of France. The Russian economy is in free fall.

United We Have To Stand:

The difference with the 1930s is that, this time, the West is united. Hitler would have been killed by his own generals if the USA and Britain had been solidly behind the French Republic in the 1930s (instead the USA and Britain informed dictator-president-Kanzler Hitler that his own generals were plotting against him).

A non-difference with the present plutocracy in the West is that Moscow has the greatest number of billionaires in residence. Putin was encouraged by what plutocracy got away with in the West, and tried to go a bit further… big mistake.

Now the West has to grimly pursue the job.

In the 1930s, the war of democracy against fascism, by proxy, was in Spain. Democracy lost, fascism was encouraged. Now the show by proxy is in Syria. It’s an enormously complicated situation.

But, as I said, the (representative) democracies had to get involved. They all are: Australia is bombing Iraq. Great. All right, the mentally unbalanced supports of Islamism come out, and fire their weapons in Sydney’s harbor. Not surprising… except to those who did not read the Qur’an.

Mayhem comes from two sources: bad guys, and bad situations. They are entangled: bad guys create bad situations, bad situations create bad guys.

The ultimate bad situation is the CO2 crisis. There too the lesson is that the West has to be united (it was not united in the last two decades, as the USA pursued its own selfish CO2 splurging, namely 20 tons per person per year of CO2, more than double the EU’s; fortunately, Kerry went to Lima).

Hitler was encouraged by his Anglo-Saxon plutocrat friends to get ever worse, until the bad situation he had created escaped his control, September 3, 1939, when France and Britain declared war.

Putin had a bad situation, namely the kleptocratic plutocracy he created led Ukraine to break formally away by associating itself with the European Union. He tried to stop that with threats, and then, prisoner of its own rhetoric, and his thirst for oil, by invading Crimea, and annexing it.

It was the first unilateral annexation in Europe since Hitler annexed parts of France in 1940.

It will not stand, it cannot stand.

Patrice Ayme’

American Energy Conspiracies

December 12, 2014

Science is about what we know, for sure. Philosophy is about what we can guess.

History has been fruitful to the USA, so it should be repeated. Again and again, and again. Historians are viewed with suspicion, as soon as they don’t stick to the official, fruitful version of history. Indeed, not repeating history is viewed as counterproductive, in highly successful empires.

Conspiracies is what the most impactful part of history is made of. The USA started as a conspiracy, mostly conducted in Paris. It was so conspiratorial that the King of France had the budget for the war of liberation of America written in secret ledgers.

Many A Conspiracy Explain This Weird Oil Price Graph

Many A Conspiracy Explain This Weird Oil Price Graph

No wonder that the concept of “conspiracy theorist”, is a well-known demeaning expression, in the USA, among those who, in the best universities, aspire to make a career from supporting the established order. The fox hides its trail, with its tail.

Conspiracy is in the genes of the American institutional psyche.

To understand human evolution, especially in the last ten million years, one has to understand energy. Our distant ancestors decided to venture in the Savannah to grab the food, that is, the energy, there. They were immigrants in search of a better world.

The rise of European civilization in the Middle Ages was caused by the outlawing of slavery in 655 CE by the Merovingian Frankish Empire: it forced society to develop mechanical and animal advantage. That turned out to produce a lot of energy. By the year 1000 CE, Europeans commanded more energy, per person, than anybody else, leaving behind China.

In 1939, the dictator-president, Kanzler Adolf Hitler, wanted Poland absolutely, one reason being that Poland had oil (whereas the oil Hitler was getting was from the Americans, or a synthetic oil process, also a, secret, courtesy of American plutocrats). Ironically, Hitler’s ally Stalin got to Polish oil first, thanks to his conspiracy with the Nazi dictator.

Before World War Two, the British and the French controlled the Middle East (which they had freed from the Turks). In particular, Britain controlled Iraq directly (wrestled from Germany in WWI), and Saudi Arabia, indirectly. Thus European democracies had their own oil supply.

After WWII, the USA took control of the Middle East. That was done with an irresistible cocktail of implicit military force (against France and Britain, which culminated when the USA allied itself with Soviet Russia during the Hungary-Suez Canal week of 1956), and debt (when Britain and France were under threat of invasion by the Nazis, the USA exchanged military equipment for debt, or cash).

In the Orient, the USA was not keen to see European influence re-establishing itself. So the USA allied itself with the Vietnamese Communists against the French (and even, for a while, de facto, with Mao). The USA provided the Vietminh with weapons to fight the French, and would not rest until the French got kicked out of North Africa.

Thus the worldwide empire of the USA grew. (No, the Ukrainian situation is not the same, contrarily to what Putin propaganda has been claiming.)

The end result? The Chinese and Arabian plutocracies are doing great. Thanks to the Big Brother plutocracy based in the USA.

The USA give the feudal oil regimes the military backbone they need to stay in place. The USA gave China the capital, technology and companies to establish itself as the number one factory in the world. This has been excellent for American plutocrats. If built in the USA, Apple’s iphone would cost three times more (that is $2,000! For the cheapest model.) Mostly due to higher labor cost. Fortunately Apple’s management has been able to cut out all these greedy American workers (who can now wait on the tables of Apple executives, or clean their luxury electric cars). Geeks and wealthy teenagers are forever in the debt of American plutocrats.

But let’s go back to energy.

Jesus has obviously been conspiring with the USA by providing it with vast quantities of oil, all over, from Pennsylvania to California, and Texas to North Dakota. Without oil, the USA may just have been a larger version of Argentina (Argentine has some oil, but not as much, and not as easy to get; in places in the USA, such as Los Angeles, oil literally makes lakes on the surface).

American plutocrats then conspired with their servant, Adolf Hitler, to provide those-who-wanted-to-kill a lot of people, the Nazis, with all the oil they needed to invade countries, starting with Spain (when their oil got cut-off, the Nazis found their war toys could not be used; but, by then, Nazis were not useful to American plutocrats).

The price of oil stagnated around twenty dollars a barrel for the longest time. The USA was the world’s main producer of oil, but then its production peaked at around ten million barrels a day, and went down. It was the end of cheap oil, at least in the USA.

The world’s main producers, real and potential, became the feudal regimes of the Middle East: Arabia, Iraq, Iran. Iran, in a plot helped by Iraq and France, rebelled from under the American lordship, and went its own way: it got punished. Iraq thought it could be independent from Washington: a series of plots, wars and embargoes, subdued it.

Iraq had the greatest, or second greatest, reserves of oil. The subjugation of Iraq took it out of the oil market. Hence the price of oil took off, helped by financial futures market conspirators.

But sometimes there is too much of a good thing: oil became so expensive that many Americans walked off their mortgages (housing is mostly borrowed from banks in the USA, not properly owned). That was something the whizz kids in American banking had not expected, and the whole, highly leveraged house of cards collapsed.

Thus so did demand for anything, the economy collapsed, and the price of oil went from $140 down to $40.

However, even with that hiccup, the price of oil, thanks from the Washington conspiracy to take out of the oil market both Iran and Iraq, stayed high.

Thus the USA was able to develop TIGHT OIL.

The USA was past CONVENTIONAL, CHEAP OIL, but a new technology was able to get at the oil tightly embedded in rock by fracturing said rock. Actually the technology was not new, but to deploy it massively, using wells which bent and went horizontal, was new.

This technique, called FRACKING, is expensive. Not just expensive on the environment, and deleterious for water supplies. It is intrinsically expensive: instead of just digging a hole and having oil gushing out, one needs to dig deep and massage the rock hundreds of times with water laden with corrosive chemicals and sand. Then one needs to go make another hole close by and start all over again, after having thrown away the humongously disgusting water, now laden with all sorts of poisons, toxic minerals, and, often, radioactivity, somewhere discrete.

Fracking needs an oil price around $60 a barrel to be profitable.

The oil price just broke below $60 on December 11, 2014.


The short of it is that Saudi Arabia is producing massively, and has announced it decided to target $60 a barrel for the price of oil. It is like an official conspiracy.

How come? Well, Vlad the Invader, having ravaged his country’s economic prospects, like Hitler, is reduced to oppress other nationalities, and minorities (Tatars), to imprint on his followers that he is worth following blindly, being a great chief.

The total fossil fuel (oil and gas) production of Russia is 22 million barrels a day, and was just equaled this year by the USA, making these two empires the largest fossil fuel producers in the world. Russia makes all its money that way.

To squeeze Russia, squeeze the oil price. To squeeze oil, just ask the Saudis, and make oil futures guys understand that it is in the national interest that the oil price go down.

Here we are.

Is that a problem for fracking? Not really. Not only has fracking a lot of inertia, but several of the aims of the fracking movement, such as the repatriation of the chemical industry, or the lowering of the price of energy in the USA, and energy independence thereof, have been achieved (never mind that the poles are melting).

One of the problems with Europe, is that it cannot generate plots at this scale: European national governments and administrations are all too independent. A strength of the USA is that it can conspire on a gigantic national, and worldwide basis. Top American leaders come from very few elite schools, the plutocratic universities. Where they are taught exactly what to know, what to not know, and how to listen.

Then they implement.

Patrice Ayme’

“American” Way Of What?

November 9, 2014

New Zealand’s Ian Miller, an esteemed commenter, says:

“Patrice, you seem to be against the American way of life. Horrors! It has always been like this… Now you cannot get anywhere near power without the expenditure of massive amounts of money, so your friendly plutocrats are a necessity. As an aside, I do not admire this way of doing things at all, and I feel that America would do better by cleaning up its own system than trying to impose “democracy” on others. As for the “progressives”, in that system of entrenched interests, how could they possibly change anything?”

Let me answer Ian’s main points. First a graph and a question: if Americans own nothing are they still Americans?

No Wealth, No Power, No Democracy

No Wealth, No Power, No Democracy

[If the graph was extended to the left, in earlier times, one would observe the richest Americans used to be not even half as rich, for the first 130 years of the USA. The wealthiest European 2%, in feudal times, that is the aristocracy, used to be about as rich as they are now, relatively speaking! Under Obama, the lines have strongly crossed the .1%, the very wealthiest, are richest than ever. No wonder even the “blacks” refused to vote for Obabla this time!]


“Patrice, you seem to be against the American way of life”:

I don’t know what the American way of life is. In 1940, the population of the USA was around 120 million. In 1980, it was around 250 million, and now it is around 330 million (there are 11 million Obama wants to make official; some objects).

Since I got to California, the population more than doubled. So what is California? Many of the recent immigrants are desperate to exhibit their Americaness, and are more American than the (“real”) Americans. So they go around, barely speaking English, and exhibiting the flags of the local “Baseball” team. They just arrived from Cuba, and the nine year old son spends (wastes) his weekend in “Baseball” practice.

“Baseball”, being a completely uninteresting activity, is perfect to judge the dedication of overseas self-propelled slaves at becoming thoroughly “American”…

There are many American way of lives, and American ways of thinking and feeling. . Many Americans, even in California, even born there, are dirt poor. Then you can meet people who immigrated from Germany or France to Silicon Valley, made a small fortune, and are now dejected, because they complain there are too many Asians, too many too rich Asians, competitive too much, educated too much, Asian too much…

The Silicon Valley, the USA’s main engine, is, first of all, an international phenomenon. I would even say a post-national phenomenon. The USA is a world-country.

However, simultaneously, plutocracy is growing, and Obama is its prophet (now past expiration date).


“Horrors! It has always been like this.”

Yes and no. True, Washington was from a prestigious colonial family (an ancestor had been general, etc). However, English America, after the “Barbarian Years” of endured servitude, did not present the sort of gigantic gap in wealth observed today.

Colonel, and then rebel and president Washington was pretty demoniac, and a plutocrat in that sense. Washington finished as maybe the richest man in the USA. However, he owned only 200 slaves or so, and his fortune paled, and was even insignificant, relative to the richest Europeans. Tolstoy was probably richer. The Tsar owned things all the way to America.

The first American billionaire was Carnegie, and he was to the left of the entire Democratic Party. Actually he was so much left, and persuasive, that the first generation of American plutocrat was genuinely philanthropic.

One can say that, for half of its life, the USA was strongly democratic (barring racial slavery, and religious, sexual discriminations).

The USA had, initially, a very strong unionized workforce.

Plutocracy became powerful in the USA, after the USA flew to the rescue of victory in 1918. I have explained this in detail in the distant past (I should have written a book from these essays, but did not find the time!) Basically the sacred union between politics and plutocrats allowed to first confiscate, and then control, Germany. The result was Nazism, which, fortunately, but not accidentally, for the USA, and its plutocrats, ran out of control, devastating Europe, and allowing them to control the entire world. For a while, a succession of presidents (FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson) was able to shield the USA from its own plutocracy.

But Nixon changed all that, as he remade the healthcare system and put plutocrats such as his friend Kaiser (well named!) in charge, thanks to subsidies. After that, it was all the way down.


“Now you cannot get anywhere near power without the expenditure of massive amounts of money, so your friendly plutocrats are a necessity.”

That was Obama’s trite excuse. That’s why he spent his presidency begging the wealthy. Actually it’s a stratagem, so he will be rich thereafter, like Clintons. (And very differently from Truman, an ex-Senator, who lived extremely modestly after his presidency. When asked why he did not cash on his career, he replied that it was a question of dignity of the office.)

When Obama got to power, everything could be done, the situation was ideal. However, the head of the “Democratic” Party was 100% rotten. All they could say, was that they needed the Republicans to agree. At that point, progressives ought to have gone in the streets, and protest. But they did not, because they had not enough education to know what was wrong, and not enough passion to care.


“…I feel that America would do better by cleaning up its own system than trying to impose “democracy” on others.”

Yes and no. If one had not intervened in Syria, or Ukraine, one would have encouraged Putin to become Hitler some more. In Libya, it was important to take the mad Khadafy down. (I know it’s a mess, but I have explained for years, one has to get rid of Islam as a political force, and this is part of it; the Punic and Berber civilization that is 3,000 years old, has more rights than the Islamists, whom I detest as much as Middle Age Catholics.)

Earth is a very small planet, not one of these aqueous giant Neptunes just discovered. We are all neighbors. Although I am pro-Iranian, I am against Iran getting nukes, because it would be nuke state too far. Many Iranians, even in the government, probably feel this, and they are delighted the P5 + 1 group is contracting the Iranian government on this (the We The People of Iran, ill-informed, want nukes, not reflecting that just one nuke can take Teheran out, killing ten millions).


“As for the “progressives”, in that system of entrenched interests, how could they possibly change anything?”

As I have said many times, the “Progressive Movement” has to think, and feel right, first. The problem of “progressives” all around the world (not just the EU and the USA), is that they do not have a clear, logical wish list.

Many “progressives” are fanatically anti-nuclear. But there is no solution to the CO2 Armageddon without nukes: known nukes… for example Thorium, or Fusion. Armageddon is around the corner, and it will not be progress (at least, not the easy way). OK, we are incredibly lucky that the Sun is getting quiet. See my 2009 essay:

Many “progressives” are completely unaware of the fabulous heist of 2008=2009. They are like babes, and their meal was stolen by financial plutocrats, and they do not have enough knowledge of even know that!

“Austerity”, truly more and more theft by the richest, is stealing their jobs, their futures, their hopes, and soon, everything else.

I made hard changes myself. When I discovered Obama had turned to the Dark Side (for help, advice, hope and shelter), I got literally depressed (fortunately I am a mountain runner, and that can be even more depressing, when the night comes, and the cold, and thunder).

It’s enlightening to follow Paul Krugman’s evolving thinking; the more time goes, the more he comes my way, away from plutocrats, towards “Synthesis Found: Governmentalism”(hence Krugman’s recent apology to Japan)… but he still has a long way to go!

A logical, futuristic wish logic is what I am trying to suggest.

I say: The first thing “Progressives” have to change, is their minds. The world will follow.

Meanwhile, for relaxation, and physical exercise, let me suggest that European “progressives” go down in the streets, and get rid of the Thief In Chief, Jean-Claude Junker, just elected head of the European Commission. That is also a problem for the USA: we pay more and more taxes precisely because the greatest fortunes in the world do not pay any tax (or get subsidies!). Some of the stealing goes through that den of thieves Luxembourg, one of several (including Great Britain and the USA: see my old: USA, Den Of Thieves:

All they got to know is the boss, same as the old boss, because they don’t know what hurts them.

Pain is not just a feeling, it is a knowledge.

Patrice Ayme’

Save Kobani, Remember Ibn Khaldun

October 8, 2014

Before the Syrian civil war, 400,000 people lived in, and around the Kurdish city of Kobani. The region is now mostly under Islamic State, aka “Caliphate”, ISIL, Daech, control. Hundreds of villages around have been evacuated. The Turkish border is along the city, just to the north. An estimated 180,000 from the region fled to Turkey in recent weeks. But many civilians are still stuck inside Kobani.

Defenders have only light weapons. The Islamists used bigger and better weapons, such as infantry hiding behind and around modern tanks.

Turkish tanks have been staying just outside, but have not intervened yet.

Erdogan, the new Turkish president (and strongman of Turkey) knows that its Western Allies, in Europe and NATO, wants him to order its tanks to roll inside Syria, and kill the Islamists.

Kurds inside Turkey have been furious against Erdogan’s inaction and demonstrated violently. More than a dozen died, just in one night. The Kurds know that Ankara fears and dislikes them: naturally Armenia and Kurdistan, nations which are several times older than Ottoman Turkey, ought to be made into free states recognized by the United Nations. Ankara, in that way, is similar to Putin’s Kremlin.

Thus Erdogan, all too happy to find an excuse to let a lot of Kurds die, does not want to intervene, he says, as long as its Western Allies do not formally establish a “No Fly” zone over Northern Syria. He claims to be afraid that Assad’s Air Force will intervene (Turkey has only heavy F16s not necessarily capable against more recent Russian fighters).

Hypocritically the USA claims that Erdogan is an hypocrite, because he should have noticed there is a de facto “No Fly” zone over Northern Syria. But, of course, Erdogan wins that one: he wants a FORMAL declaration, just to MAKE SURE.

For Erdogan to decide to use his army to help the Kurds is a huge decision, smacking of a near contradiction. For Washington, “No Fly” is just a signature on an order.

Erdogan is also peeved that he is asked to send ground forces officially and massively, into combat, while its Allies crow that they would not do such a thing, on a matter of principle (although the Western Allies do officially have “advisers” on the ground).

The question is this: If the USA and company are proud of refusing to fight on the ground, claiming that’s Politically Correct, why would they expect Turkey to do any differently?

The latest airstrikes were spectacular, they looked like mini nukes. And they may well work. And Kobani, were many Kurdish civilians are apparently still stuck, maybe saved. And it better be (although Erdogan announced it will fall, and so did some of its Allies).

However, moral superiority is where winning a war is at.

Moral superiority starts with moral coherence. So don’t ask the Turkish army to do the dirty work, while claiming urbi et orbi, that it is not Politically Correct, to do said dirty work.

The Tunisian born historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 CE), comes to the rescue here, to explain what is going on. Khaldun was from an upper class political and judicial Arab family who had just been expelled from Andalusia by the Reconquista.

This to say that his cultural background was rich, as is often the case with superior thinkers.

Ibn Khaldun explained his way, and correctly the growth of plutocracy (he nearly said what I said). He also disserted at length on the nature of (some) empires.

Basically Khaldun said empires were about peace (this is certainly true for the large empires which lasted long. Here is an example: before the Goths stormed the core of the Greco-Roman empire, around 250 CE, the region had known 300 years of Pax Romana).

Thus, says Ibn Khaldun, the empire becomes so peaceful inside, that it is forced to recruit barbarians, outside, to defend it. Certainly, the Greco-Roman empire switched to that model after Princeps Augustus decided he was best defended by devoted, and very well paid, German troops.

Ibn Khaldun no doubt had the vivid example of the Muslim plutocrats in Spain calling to the rescue savages from Africa such as the Almoravides; I mentioned in “Walls Of Common Lies” that the ferocity of the Almoravides explains much of the bad moods that arose later in Europe, against, well, Islamists.

Ibn Khaldun thought that the high point of a civilization entails a period of decay (from the growth of a luxury economy, something I rephrase as the growth of plutocracy). The next cohesive group that conquers the diminishing civilization comes from the barbarians who were asked to defend it.

Then Khaldun says the barbarians then become refined, repeating the cycle; this is no doubt the story of the Muslim empire.

However, Khaldun’s cycles do not apply to Europe. Yes, indeed, the Franks became more refined: some Roman lawyers wrote in Latin a law for the Franks, a Lex Sallica, and Roman generals (starting with Constantine), incorporated them as the elite of the Roman army.

Yet, the Franks did not repeat the cycle… As they have clung to power ever since: all the present Western regimes descend from the Frankish empire (except for Russia’s Putin, and it shows; right, he is not really Western).

How did the Franks not repeat the cycle? By staying sufficiently barbarian; by cutting regularly, by force, the growth of plutocracy (hence the French passion for revolution). Equality under inheritance and near-equality in gender (and thus near equality in the inheritance of women… Although not as much as in Sparta), led to constant wars among factions, and wealthy, powerful families, thus preventing the growth of full blown plutocracy (that took nearly a millennium to blossom… And was soon under threat of multiple revolutions).

By the Fourth Century, the Franks fought their wars by themselves, and for themselves (although the French used a majority of German and Polish forces in the ill fated attack on Moscow in 1812, and then again, more successfully, massive amounts of African troops in the Twentieth Century against Prussian racist fascism… Including my own dad).

What Ibn Khaldun did not say was that the peace inside a vast empire is not just a benefit (as it sure was in Rome, or China, or India). Torpor inside was also a plutocratic trick to put to sleep an increasingly subjugated population.

When the West asks Turkey to send ground troops while refusing to send its own, it is therefore engaged in a plutocratic trick so old, that Ibn Khaldun already had described it, black on white, more than 6 centuries ago. It’s already bad enough that the Kurds are asked to fight with inferior weapons.

There is nothing wrong, but everything good, to fight the Islamists to death. And if it causes dormant cells and sympathizers to engage in terrorism, so much the better: being terrorized of irking terrorists is exactly how terrorism works.

And if fighting plutocrats in the Middle Earth makes Western youth impatient to fight those plutocrats who rule at home, that will be an even more striking progress.

Wanting to crush infamy, is an absolute good. Infamous is the belief that it does not matter what happens to children who live a few hours away. Protecting children is an absolute good. Protecting children, even other people’s children, carries  primordial moral weight.

Patrice Ayme’

Localism, Democracy, Empire: Hand In Hand

September 21, 2014

Local Minds Are Weak, and Will Be Decapitated in Solitude

France and the USA are conducting airstrikes against the terror organization Daech (= “Caliphate”, ISIS, ISIL). France had soldiers on the ground for weeks in Kurdistan, in a desperate attempt to stop Daech (it worked; superior guns helped).

Three notions, related, yet different: localism, democracy, empire. Did they reign together before? Yes, they cohabitated, for centuries, in the Roman state. They are the essence, the secret, of why Rome worked. And worked it did: most of the world GDP was Roman, for centuries. And peaked just as Augustus established his fascizing, plutocratic republic (not a coincidence).

Greek Democracies, United, Defeated Persian Plutocracy

Greek Democracies, United, Defeated Persian Plutocracy

At that time, the other great power was Carthage. Although Carthage paled relative to the 50 million (?) Persian empire. Rome was just a city-state under a constitution similar to Athens (but evolved independently).

Verily, Athenian Roman cities had a great degree of autonomy (and their status varied, depending whether they were colonies or not, for example). That sort of autonomy reappeared during the millennium of the Middle Ages.

Alex Jones: “I consider all powers should be devolved down to localities, so that even issues of tax would be decided at the local level with no structure above it such as Californian governors or the European Union voting it out. The idea of localism as I see it is that the state or nation or entities like the EU or UN would be abolished.”

Dominique Deux disagreed icily. So, as I said, did Rome.

The Persian Achaemenid empire (“Parsa”), under Darius, although fascist and plutocratic, practiced a great extent of localism: it was pretty much an union of Greece sized plutocracies (the satrapies).

The Achaemenid empire was not democratic at all: it was all about leaders of armies making deals among each other, when not killing each other. Still, it was powerful: it nearly made it all over the Mediterranean. But the Athenian phalanx charged at Marathon before the Persians could get well organized, and that was the undoing of the empire.

Democracy means the power of the We The People. We clearly don’t have it now. Of course, there are graduations. The system we have now is closer to the Achaemenid empire than to the Athenian democracy.

It can even be measured (as I have explained).

So how was Persia defeated? By creating the GU, the Greek Union. The 200 or so Greek city-states got united. The point is that, to defeat an empire led by one man, one needed a more powerful union.

Thus the EU, to confront Putin, and Xi. Xi is the absolute chief of 1.3 billion, Puttin reigns over 17 million square kilometers… And wants much more, he says.

Notice that Alex Jones does not suggest to dismantle the USA. It’s not really a choice. A proposed referendum to split California in six states of six million each did not gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Who proposed that? A plutocrat, of course. He spent millions to buy the signatures. Now he is going to court.

Plutocrats like it small, because they are big, and the weaker We The People, the stronger the satanic impulses.

The UN, the United Nations, is the implementation of the Enlightenment, of the ultimate rights of man. Maybe “UN” ought to stand for “Ultimate Naturality”.

And what of the Greeks? After uniting against Persia, Greece dealt Persia three crushing defeats. Emperor Xerxes, son of Darius, barely escaped with his life (he was afraid his bridge above the Bosphorus was going to be cut by the Greek fleet after Salamis). Persian plutocracy then changed tactic and paid Sparta to cause trouble (offering Sparta a fleet to beat Athens with!) In the fray, Athens got nearly destroyed. Half of the Athenian population died. Sparta saved Athens at the last moment from vengeful other cities.

In the dizzy period that followed, Thebes beat Sparta. At this point, Greece ought to have got united. But it did not. The philosopher Demosthenes saw the truth. He screamed on every rooftop how dangerous the fascists in the north were, thanks to their gold mines, who made them filthy rich enough to raise a dangerous army. In vain. Small Greek city states kept refusing to unite against Philippe of Macedonia, the Putin of his times. The Xi of Greece.

Philippe then moved, Alexander annihilated Thebes. Demosthenes committed suicide at the last moment. Democracy was only brought back to Greece, 23 centuries later, thanks to the European Union. Does Alex Jones understand this? Why would one prefer NSA/CIA supported Greek colonels, worshipping at Goldman Sachs, to a European Union?

Right, the battle against Goldman Sachs is not finished: one of its partners, from Portugal, was just named at the European Commission (EC). Sadly, the battle against the fractional reserve system, the collusion between state employees and private bankers, has not even started. Why? Because people  minds which are all too local can barely see beyond their garden. Burning kittens make them vibrate, five million Africans killed for cheaper smartphones are not even on their radar. You want local, and you want local to be fair? Then you need a just empire. be it only to tell you what’s up (as Obama has been doing about the self-declared “Caliphate“)

A just empire is how democracy and localism are protected.

Patrice Ayme’