Archive for the ‘France’ Category

Brexit Vote Killing Brexit Mood

June 28, 2016

It took 13 years for the Germans of old to realize that the Nazis had lied about all too many things. It took 13 hours for the British to realize that the strident anti-Europeans produced an ocean of lies. And in that ocean Brexiteers swam, claiming they were not really lies, but something else, more substantial. But one can see them, confusing sinking and thinking. Here below will be found a sample of the sort of debate. But first:

Patrice Ayme: Brexit will NOT happen. Keep calm and carry on.

Paul Handover: “Easy to write but impossible to accurately predict. If I were to make a bet it would be that Article 50 is going to happen.”

[Article 50  can be invoked by any European State at any moment, for any reason. It starts a 24 month process at the end of which said State is not a member of the European Union anymore, come what may.]

Patrice Ayme’:  It is so incredibly obvious that there will be another vote. That’s why Labor is in a rush to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, a notorious Europhobe from 43 years ago. The European Union did not extinguish one person, one vote. Just the opposite. Britain has been made rich, because it was the payment organized mostly by Germany to please Britain and its American owners. Now Germany feels strong enough to follow the more egalitarian French Republic rather than Wall Street and its London pet. The aim was always to construct a Union so strong that it could be not be undone by war, ever again. Those who stand in the way of that ought to be extirpated of all and any decision-making. Let England be the new Norway (Norway pays twice per capita, but had to accept Schengen! It learns of European Union policy through press release, as a common minnow would). 

The French Republic Will Be Delighted To Brexit The English Plutocracy. Break Shit All Over, Right On, Guys!

The French Republic Will Be Delighted To Brexit The English Plutocracy. Break Shit All Over, Right On, Guys!

Article 50 of the European Union Constitution, Lisbon Treaty:

1 Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2 A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3 The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council[…]

4 For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council… in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject… Patrice: As if it never had been a member (Article 49).

Article 238 (b): “(b) ….”the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.”

Practically, in the case of Great Britain, it means that at least 23 European Nation-States representing at least 330 million people have to agree with the exit treaty.

Of course the preceding may as well be Quantum Field Theory for Brexiteers. They know very little beyond the minds plutocratically owned tabloids endowed them with.  They probably don’t know what the “European Council” is. Let me help among Brexiteers those of good will who can read beyond tabloids:

The European Council … is not one of the EU’s legislating institutions, so does not negotiate or adopt EU laws. Instead it sets the EU’s policy agenda, traditionally by adopting ‘conclusions‘ during European Council meetings which identify issues of concern and actions to take.

The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.

The European Council defines the EU’s overall political direction and priorities

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also takes part in European Council meetings when foreign affairs issues are discussed.

Decision-making process: The European Council mostly takes its decisions by consensus. However, in certain specific cases outlined in the EU treaties, it decides by unanimity or by qualified majority.

The number for France is an under-estimate. Many places in France have local English newspapers.

The number for France is an under-estimate. Many places in France have local English newspapers.

The European Institutions are as follows:
Section 1 – The European Parliament (Articles 223-234)
Section 2 – The European Council (Articles 235-236)
Section 3 – The Council (Articles 237-243)
Section 4 – The Commission (Articles 244-250)
Section 5 – The Court of Justice of the European Union (Articles 251-281)
Section 6 – The European Central Bank (Articles 282-284)
Section 7 – The Court of Auditors (Articles 285-287)

Here is a typical opinion of a Brexiteer in response to me.  Nick Brackenbury says: “The British Tabloids don’t get a vote. Her Majesty’s Subjects do. Patrice, the vote produced a majority to leave the European Union. We shall remain as part of Europe and possibly carry on buying French wine, cheese and motor vehicles (we have two Renault). But now none-British people are no longer able to pass Laws that govern British people. Fini!”

French made helicopters and planes will also come in handy, with most of the electronic equipment of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (it’s made by Thales), not to talk of nuclear power plants on order…

Notice in passing how proud some of the British are to be “subjects”. What’s the difference between a subject and a slave? For the slave, one needs a whip, whereas for the subject one needs only a debased perverted sense of pride? Happy to live on one’s knees, in front of a man-made deity? I wrote the following rejoinder:

Her Majesty’s slaves got their minds made up by tabloids owned by global plutocrats, for example the liar Murdoch and his lying papers. Non-British people have NEVER passed British laws. Learn. Please try to stop reading tabloids and, or listening to tabloid puppets.

Some will chuckle that the term “slave” may be a bit strong, that I do not appreciate the pride of being owned by another human being whom one reveres, like the dog reveres his master, and the Briton, his queen, and his princess, and his prince. A real fairy tale, Britain, I tell you. Complete with tax evading queen.

But slavery made Britain, and, especially America. Like in the US of A. No, this is not an allusion to the Franks retaking Britain from those who had invaded it, and liberating the slaves there, in 1066 CE.

No, it’s an allusion to how English America was made: by condemning vagrants to death, and then proposing to them deportation instead of the rope. How come that did not happen in France? Simply put, France was, and, de facto, is, much more civilized: in France peasants owned their land. However small. In Britain, they did not. Instead plutocrats employed them as quasi slaves.

The Brits are still slaves, in the sense that they do not own their land. All land in the United Kingdom is still “held of the Crown” in England and Wales and other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth realms. There is no “Allodial Title” in these desperate places. Something related to having a monarch, and being “subjects”. Exception exists, for example in parts of Australia (held by the original inhabitants). Owners of houses and businesses and the like within the United Kingdom are merely granted the use of the land by the reigning monarch, and are subject to return the land to the monarch if called to do so.

Amusingly, allodium, in earlier Latin alodis, alaudes, is already recognized in the early Salic law (circa 507–596 CE). Muslim law is often more than 13 centuries late (Islam recognizes slavery, which was abolished in Salic Law just when the Islamist empire was created, circa 650 CE). Here we see that English civilization is around 15 centuries late.

Nick Brackenbury:”Patrice, I don’t read tabloids. The Vote to Leave is done. Stop being a bad loser. When we joined the EC it was a Trading Community, now it is a controlling political movement. We like one person, one vote to count, and not be instructed by foreigners. Perhaps we are different. I often think of how the Euro Group of countries have treated Greece. Soon Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland. Many areas with over 50% unemployed, no investment, no attention to the young. Junckers is a joke, we fight wars to get rid of people like him. This time it just took a vote.”

To this Dominique Deux correctly replied: “When we joined the EC it was a Trading Community”

Yup, and moving to an ever closer union, as was EXPLICITLY stated when you voted to join. Vote as you like, but those of you who keep whining that you ONLY voted for a Common Market are liars. Then as now, now as ever. Or if not liars, suckers… then as now… now as ever.”

More than 43 years ago, in a referendum, the French population, one person, one vote, voted to let Great Britain in the European Community. Then Britain’s Parliament and government joined the European Community EVER CLOSER UNION. Within three years, Britain tried to get out, conducted a referendum, and voted to stay in.

The European construction, ever since 1948 was for an EVER CLOSER UNION. The European UNION was/is just part of it. The idea was to make war between Francia and Germania forever impossible. Economics was just one of several means to achieve this. There was a complete trade union before August 1914. Did not work too well.

Tabloids, and tabloid strength minds opted to believe that the UNION was a “bloc” or a “club”. And that this “club” was just about trade. That was a total lie. It was an EVER CLOSER Union.

I am no bad loser. The Brexiteers are bad winners. They are winners who can’t win. Their ship of lies is disintegrating for all to see. The Brexiteers’ win at the voting booth was the best way to insure the defeat of Brexit in the real world. Thankfully, it’s giving an opening for true Europeans to kick Britain out of the EMU (European MONETARY Union).

The fact so many Brexiteers, such as Nick above, think foreigners pass BRITISH laws, a 100% UNTRUTH, tabloid strength, is rather typical. It is actually astounding to see clever, well-informed, worldly and multicivilizational individuals such as Chris Snuggs, believing 100% such lies. On the positive side, it makes my study of fanaticism, Nazism, Jihadism, Stalinism, and other public mania so much easier.

The whole Brexit thing being such a silly thing. Britain will now leave Europe. Right. Keep calm and carry on. Sail east of New Zealand? Hahaha.

The English suffers from their home-made plutocracy… And accuse foreigners. Another of my correspondents, the English-born and tremendously educated, US biology professor Karen Eilbeck wrote:

“Reflecting on my trip back to the UK, I feel quite sad. It is easy to fly the St George cross out of your bedroom window and blame others for your state of affairs but harder to actually do some positive and impactful. Start with something small. Pick up the rubbish. When I see my home strewn with garbage, it hurts. Don’t stop to blame anyone. Take the initiative. Do something. I promise, it will make you feel better, and it will make those around you feel better and maybe everyone will be a little less depressed.”

Please read my essay especially around Martin Wolff’s considerations, which I have long written about. But now that the Financial Times says what I said, it should be right. Fix English plutocracy and its addiction to immigration of savage people and stolen, tax evading capital.

Meanwhile start by getting out of the European Monetary Union. Sunday, Iceland kicked England out of the European soccer cup. Today was the day the unworthy Cameron was kicked out of, and by, an exasperated EU. Tomorrow the Europe of 27 Nation-States meets and decides.  

On the EVER CLOSER UNION. The Ever Closer FEDERAL Union of 27 Nation-States (with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Montenegro and Kosovo taking orders; the last two use the Euro, the former two obey and contribute).

Europe is a matter of war, not trade.

If Great Britain cannot play democratic, or does not want to, it will still have to take orders from the democratic European Union, just like Morocco does, and for the same reasons. Guess what? The time to get rid of these tax havens which have enriched British plutocracy so much, has finally arrived! And let’s see how well the City of London does, when all Euro trading is done in the Euro Zone. No wonder the French are pressing to get Great Britain out ASAP. The UK Prime Minister has been asked to get out of Brussels for the European Union meeting of June 29, 2016.

A Union with disunited lunatics having surreal visions made little sense, indeed. It also means that the French Republic is effectively ejecting Great Britain out of the European Union, without waiting for the ignorant Britons and their tabloid addicted brains, to realize the enormous extent of the tremendous error they made. Half of the art of war is the surprise element: at Waterloo, Napoleon got surprised by the Prussian army. With Brexit, the Brexiteers are surprised. To their surprise, they found that they did not want to really leave, at least not now. And it turns out, second big surprise, that France wants them out, now. 

Patrice Ayme’

“You Will Not Have My Hatred”

May 14, 2016

Six months ago, the Wahhabist attacks in Paris killed and wounded 500. The number of victims to get financial compensation from the state is now 2,500. A young mother, one of many, including many that some would define as “Muslims”, was killed at the Bataclan, a well-known theater, where a Californian band was performing. She was perforated by bullets. Her husband of 12 years, Antoine Leiris, was watching at home their 17 months old son. The world has been talking about Antoine Leiris’ mood and system of thought.

Hours after the tragedy, Antoine Leiris posted the following touching and admirable thoughts and feelings on Facebook, which became “viral”:

“Friday night you stole the life of a being of exception, the love of my life, the mother of my son. But you will not have my hatred. I don’t know who you are and I don’t want to know it, you’re dead souls. If this God for whom you kill blindly, made us in his image, then every bullet in the body of my wife will have been a wound in his heart.

So no. I won’t make you the gift of hating you. You looked for it well, yet to respond to your hatred by anger would be giving in to the same ignorance that has made you what you are. You want me to be afraid, you want me to look at my fellow citizens with suspicion, that I sacrifice my freedom for security. You lost. The same player is still playing.

Helene Muyal Leiris with Her Son Shortly Before She Was Assassinated By Islamists In Paris

Helene Muyal Leiris with Her Son Shortly Before She Was Assassinated By Islamists In Paris

I saw her this morning. At last, after nights and days of waiting. She was as beautiful as when she left that Friday night, as beautiful as when I fell head over heels in love with her more than 12 years ago. Of course I’m devastated by grief. I’ll grant this small victory, but it will not last long. I know she will be with us every day and that we will meet again in this paradise of free souls that you’ll never have access to.

We are two, my son and me, but we are stronger than all the armies of the world. I do not have anymore time to devote to you, I have to be with Melvil who is waking up from his nap. He is barely seventeen months old. He is going to eat his afternoon snack, as he does everyday. Then we will play as we do everyday, and during his entire life, this little boy will make you the affront to be happy and free. Because no, you will not have his hatred either.”

Antoine Leiris


For the original French version, see Facebook “Vous N’Aurez Pas Ma Haine”.

Mr. Leiris has now a vocal version of his message, and has been spreading his philosophy.


So what do I think of this?

Sometimes, silence is the best discourse. Respect, sometimes, is best. But I can only take that much:

Naivety Springs, Eternal. But Eternity Did Not Spring From Naivety Alone.

Naivety Springs, Eternal. But Eternity Did Not Spring From Naivety Alone.

Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Mr. Leiris is apparently confusing Christianism and Islamism. Same god, but there are subtle differences. In Christianism, we have been created in the image of god, indeed. Whereas in the direct Qur’an, we are his slaves. And in the Qur’an, it is ordered to “set every ambush” for the Non-Believers. Such is the “Verse of the Sword”, Sura 5, verse 9, an ABROGATING verse (meaning it makes all verses which contradict it, invalid). Sura 5, verse 9 follows Luke 19; 27 in the New Testament, showing that Christian viciousness inspired many, and far away, for centuries to come (a Christian monk arguably set the basis of Islam in the mind of his close relative, the “Prophet”, PBUH).

When god is nuts, naivety is no long term strategy.


So what do I think of this avalanche of haughty goodness? Well, it’s a long story. I can see perfectly why Mr. Leiris decided to feel, and think, the way he did. I approve of it. It is a defense mechanism which I have, myself, used many times. Hatred is too serious a subject to be embraced frivolously.

Thus, surprisingly for some, no doubt, ignoring hatred is  not a fundamental contradiction from what I deeply advocate. As it turns out, a fundamental debate of the same sort happened during the establishment of the state of Israel.

Same as Israel, or Julius Caesar, a creature born of many subtleties will have many Modi Operandi. Everybody has many Modi Operandi. Real, habitual, virtual, potential… Like everybody else, it turns, out, but even more than everybody else, a would-be philosopher will cultivate perversely an exuberant garden of Modi Operandi (Modes of Operation in Latin; Airbus, a company which makes large flying computers uses a more arrogant concept than M.O., the word “law”. Boeing is affected my the same syndrome. Changing “laws” inappropriately will make a plane crash).

Antoine Leiris’ text is beautiful, it conveys the awesome will of putting love, freedom, play, the positive appreciation of the world,  above anything else. Putting only the positively awesome above everything else, is awesome. I will make sure to inform god of this astonishing revelation, reheated a trillion times again. I could, some will say I should, leave it at that, before I become positively obnoxious anymore. And I will restrain myself, in an exceptional moment of respectful self-control.

Just one point: Antoine observed (in an interview on ONPC) that in other people, or in other circumstances, completely different reactions would be much more appropriate. And of this we will talk later, pretty much as we did before. Here is a foretaste:

Grass is made to be trampled on, we are not. That’s how we play, and appreciate. That’s why we can play, appreciate, love, and be awesome. Survival is also a humanism.

Patrice Ayme’

Logic Is Not Everything: It Can Be Anything

February 24, 2016

A common mistake among many of the simple ones, is that, as long as we keep calm and use logic, we can solve any conflict. It was understandable that one could do such a mistake due to naivety and inexperience, before the Twentieth Century. However, we have now, black on white and well known, demonstrations to the contrary, in formal systems studied by professional logicians. Besides, as The French Republic is demonstrating in Libya again, in collaboration with the USA, war has a logic which squashable critters don’t have.

Yes, I am also thinking of the famous Incompleteness Theorems, but, obviously, not only. There is way worse.

This Means All Important Choice Have to Do With Love, Esthetics, Will, Power, Craziness, The Proverbial Human Factors. Logic Can't Go Where The Heart Rules. Or Then Go Into METAlogic.

This Means All Important Choice Have to Do With Love, Esthetics, Will, Power, Craziness, The Proverbial Human Factors. Logic Can’t Go Where The Heart Rules. Or Then Go Into METAlogic.

Before I get in incompleteness and further evils, let me recap some of the traditional approach. I thank in passing Massimo P, for calling my attention to this.

The value of logic, February 23, 2016, Massimo

logicThis is going to be short and rather self-explanatory, with no additional commentary on my part necessary at all. Here is the full transcription of Epictetus’ Discourses, II.25, a gem to keep in mind for future use:

“When one of his audience said, ‘Convince me that logic is useful,’ he said, Would you have me demonstrate it?


Well, then, must I not use a demonstrative argument? And, when the other agreed, he said, How then shall you know if I impose upon you?

And when the man had no answer, he said, You see how you yourself admit that logic is necessary, if without it you are not even able to learn this much–whether it is necessary or not.”

Actually Epictetus uses “logic”, it seems to me, rather in its original sense, a discourse. Yet Massimo, like the moderns, will tend to use logic as it was meant in, say, 1900, just before Bertrand Russell objected to Frege’s forgetfulness of the “Liar Paradox” in his formal system justifying arithmetic. A further exploitation of the Liar Paradox brought the incompleteness theorems.

Logic is indeed how human beings communicate. Logic enables debate, and debate is the equivalent of sex, among ideas. It generates entirely new species. However post Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, logic has progressed much.

Modern studies in logic show formal logic can be pretty much anything. Formal systems contradicting the most cherished axioms have been found to be consistent. Some have cute names, such as “paradoxical logic”, “fuzzy logic”, “linear logic”. Thus, Logical Pluralism has been discovered. “Classical Logic” (which neither complete nor coherent) is just a particular case. In some logics, a proposition can be neither true, nor false.

Along the line of ones of the greatest logician and mathematicians of the 20th Century, Generalized Tarski Thesis (GTT):
An argument is valid if and only if in every case in which the premises are true, so is the conclusion.
So yes, madness can be logical. “Logic”, per se, is not much of a constraint. It’s only a set of coherent rules to draw a conclusion. The only constraint is to keep on talking.
The Ancient Greeks would have been very surprised.

So if logic is not the end-all, be all, what is?

Knowledge. Knowledge of the details. In other words, knowledge of evil. That is why, when I demonstrate, using knowledge, that Marcus Aurelius, supposedly the big time Stoic philosopher, makes the apology of Intellectual Fascism, I hear the cries of the Beotians, whose pathetic logic have crushed underfoot. What happened? I went outside of their logic. So they insult me. (Should I spurn them, and make them feel that I have nothing to say, or insult them back, by showing them, and others, what idiots they are? Sitting on one’s hand in front of rabid fascism is neither wise, nor safe!)

In other news, French special forces are operating on the ground in Libya, helping, among other things, very precise US strikes. This is a case of using the same logic as the enemy. The Islamists terrorize and kill: a logic which is pretty drastic. It can also be adopted. Let see how it goes, when the country with the greatest, longest military tradition, adopts it too. (France has a long history of drastic war against invading Islamists, since the Battle of Toulouse, in 721 CE)

Speaking of the enemy, the French Internal Revenue Service is forcing Google Inc., the famous monopoly. to pay back taxes. Google has sent the clown it uses as CEO to Paris. Google was transferring profits it made in France through Ireland, and then Bermuda. The bill? 1.6 BILLION Euros. Great Britain has a similar situation and economy, but is asking for only a tenth of that. Such is plutocracy: greater in the UK than in France.

Ah, the French Defense Ministry is not denying media reports that the French army is in combat, on the ground, in Libya. Instead, the French government has announced the start of an inquiry for finding out who compromised National Defense. In other words, it wants it to be known. Or there is much more coming, which it wants to hide. Or then American paranoia is contagious.

In other news, Belgium, historically a part of Gaul, has closed its border with France, as if Belgium were Great Britain, and France, full of Huns (instead of only Afghans). Amusingly, and a testimony of how much old gripes have subsidized, the Franco-German border stays open.

Logic is not all. Facts are much more important, including facts on the ground.

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’

Love Without Wisdom: Ruin of Humanity.

November 20, 2015

Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity? Lying, too, is the ruin of humanity, which is truth, if nothing else.

Lying about Islam will not seduce youth. Just the opposite.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love.

Attack of the day, this time Al Qaeda on Bamako’s most prestigious hotel. Ten Muslim Fundamentalists versus 200 guests and 30 employees. What could go wrong? “God is great!” screamed the gun totting Radicals. Therein were airline crews from Air France, Turkish Airways, and many Members of Parliament from many countries, including France (of course), Senegal, Quebec, etc.

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Human Spirit Is Indomitable

Well what could go wrong is that there were 40 French gendarmes from GIGN (Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale) plus French and U.S. Special Forces in the immediate area. The siege got resolved very quickly with only two dozens killed.

The deepest problem we are facing is philosophical. There is the Islam we have, and then there is the Islam we wish to have. The Islam we have, is the one in the Qur’an. Nobody reads the Qur’an, everybody talks about it, as if they had. Well, nobody reads it, except for the Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists, or “Radicals”

The West says:”The Islamist State is not Islam, it’s terrorism”. The Islamist State, and other Muslim Fundamentalists reply:”Just read the Qur’an”. Young, dissatisfied people (rightly dissatisfied from austerity, discrimination, inequities, etc.) then decide to make a little experience for themselves: who is right? They read the Qur’an and discover that the Muslim Fundamentalists told the truth: the Islamist State is the Qur’an, unadultarated. As long as the leadership of the West (political and intellectual) lies in a blatant way, and is easily caught lying, it will have no credit, and will only enrage youth ever more. (Maybe that’s what they want? As war serves plutocracy well?)

Islamism Is Terrorism, Wisdom Is Love

It’s as simple as that. Don’t agree? Well read the Qur’an oh you silly ones who talk about books you never read and were mostly told lies about. Before reading comprehension, one needs reading. Right, normal people prefer reading novels than reality.

In the Qur’an it is famously said that who kills someone, kills all of humanity. Never mind that Muhammad himself killed more than 1,000, including an entire tribe of Yathrib (now Medina). Yet, the Qur’an says this. However that verse is ABROGATED by tens of later verses which order all sorts of people (remember that later verses take precedence over earlier ones):

Imams bemoan “Radicalism”. But “radical” means about roots, and in the case of Islam, it means the Qur’an. Radical is the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself is a fabrication of Uthman, not Muhammad, as Aisha pointed out. Entire pieces of it were removed (notably the famous “Satanic Verses”).

So why not rewrite the Qur’an in a new version, the “Real Message of God According to Muhammad, Which Uthman And Others Hid From You”?

That will allow to remove the verses in the Qur’an which are in conflict with civilization.

Meanwhile the comedy of stupidity unchained, keeps on unfolding. I showed an educated lady from California hyper-threatening verses from the Qur’an, which should be unlawful, just because they are hate crimes. She quietly told me: ”Oh, there is the same in the Bible.” She has been a professional woman earning her keep as an engineer for decades.

So the pan is hot?’ Say who pass nowadays for smart, well-balanced people. ‘No problem, the fire is hot too.” Surely, the argument that we should be happy with the Qur’an, because it is similar to the rule book of the Inquisition belongs to those who hope keenly to bring back the Inquisition.

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. It’s not enough to love God. You have to check first it’s not the Devil, as the Cathars pointed out.

The Vatican had the King of Paris (also known as “France”) annihilate the Cathars, using a Bible Fundamentalist army. One million dead. And all the Cathars’ writings.

But not, as you can see, all their ideas.

Meanwhile in Algeria, the local dictator, Bouteflika, had cartoonist Tahar Djehiche imprisoned 6 months in jail for cartoons ‘insulting the president’ -”. When the mood is around that insulting the Prophet deserves death, surely insulting the president deserves 6 months. Islam is the bed of gory dictatorship.

Who is Bouteflika?  A terrorist who became a general. He is one of the original principals from the FNL, a terrorist group to whom the French dictator (the one who dictated), De Gaulle, gave power in… 1962. De Gaulle, a famous racist, thought that Bouteflika was perfect for Algeria. De Gaulle thought he could keep “Muslims” or North Africans at bay, and away, by giving them to the wolves. That mood persisted, although its racism had to morph a bit. So the children of the North Africans who fled to France, or Europe, were mistreated by austerity (no schools for you, Muslims, the Qur’an is good enough, and selling drugs, too). So here we are. (Fully describing the relationship between France and North Africa deserves 1,000 pages, I am myself a byproduct; this was just an appetizer…)

If there is no love of wisdom, there is no wisdom in love. People are born from love, and thus have a capacity, and a need to love whatever, including evil. Love is not enough. Love without wisdom is only ruin of humanity.

Patrice Ayme’

What Are Germans So Angry About?

July 15, 2015


The terrible war between Sparta and Athens which destroyed Greece, started because Sparta wanted to be seen as the hegemon of Greece. Whereas, truly, all indicators were that Athens was the rising hegemon.

And the reasons for this were deep: the racist, fascist exploitative model of Sparta, far from being a leader, was going down, whereas Athens, whom Pericles described as an “Open Society“, was going up. Athens is the leader (hegemon) that we are following today.

Smart people learn from history, and France, in particular, has long pondered Athens’ fate.

Balancing a budget is worthy, as long as there are not excellent reasons to make it unbalanced.

A military situation is an excellent reason for unbalancing the budget of a state. The USA generated a massive deficit in World War Two. So did Britain, or France.

Hegemon Celebrates In Style Victory Over Germany In The Case Of Greece, July 14, 2015

Hegemon Celebrates In Style Victory Over Germany In The Case Of Greece, July 14, 2015

The USA deficit was from credit extended by the USA, to the USA. In other words it was convertible into a tax. The debt could be extinguished by taxation. And that is exactly what FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower did (tax rates were hiked up as high as 93% under Ike).

The British or French debts were credited by the USA, and that meant a sort of slavery, looking forward, as happened. France has seriously recovered. In August 1914, 38 million Frenchmen were invaded by 122 million German speakers. Now there are significantly more young Frenchmen, than young Germans.

Right now, the French Republic’s army is making war, or containing organized outlaws on several continents (South America, Africa, and Eurasia) and many countries. The French government does not have the money to do so. Thus the French government ought to keep its budget unbalanced. The French imbalance is targetted at 4.5% of GDP (in violation of Euro regulations by 50%).

British budgetary imbalance is only at 3.7%. The price Britain pays for this better budgetary balance, is to play now only a puny military role… relative to France. France does not like that, her only serious ally being now, once again, the USA. Same old same old, just as in the 1780s…

Germany has a primary budget imbalance of zero percent. Which may look balanced, but is not, because it’s mentally imbalanced to count cents, while Europe burns.

A republic which does not defend its values is not a Republic.

Balancing a budget can kill an economy: the Greek GDP is somewhat down 30% from its peak. However Greece has a primary budget excedent: that means that the Greek government spends less than it receives in taxes, fees, etc. The reason for the Greek overall current account deficit is payment of interest to (world government’s) institutions such as the ECB, the ironically denominated European Stability Fund, the IMF, etc.

The French government knows all of this, and is, truly, the real hegemon of Europe. So when the French president drew the line, Germans, most of them against keeping Greece is the Eurozone, according to polls, had to capitulate.

Another 85 billion Euros is going Greece’s way. Dr. Merkel, in the end did the reasonable thing, what the French government told her to do (and she overruled her hawkish, asnd somewhat deranged finance minister).

However, the Germans are angry. Very angry. The New York Times ponder “Germany’s Destructive Anger“.

The author, Jacob Soll, an American, played a role in Greek debt drama (rumors are that the debt may have been overestimated). Says he: German anger, and we know they are angry. Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble was reported to have started yelling during Saturday night’s negotiations. France and Italy have both made huge loans to Greece, but neither country has expressed hostility to Greece. Why is Germany so angry?

As an economic historian, I got a taste of this resentment…”

Indeed why are the Germans so angry? Because they are resentful. About what? Nietzsche was so intrigued by German Resentment, that some view him, first, as the philosopher of resentment.

How did Germans got so crazy, once again?

Mr. Soll, a professor of history and accounting at the University of Southern California, is the author of “The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations.” He concludes: “German attendees circled me to explain how the Greeks were robbing the Germans. They did not want to be victims anymore. While I certainly accepted their economic points and, indeed, the point that European Union member countries owe Germany so much money that more defaults could sink Germany, it was hard, in Munich at least, to see the Germans as true victims.

Here lies a major cultural disconnect, and also a risk for the Germans. For it seems that their sense of victimization has made them lose their cool, both in negotiations and in their economic assessments. If the Germans are going to lead Europe, they can’t do it as victims.”

Krugman makes similar observations in “Angry Germans“.

Says Paul: “Germany’s sense of victimization does seem real, and is a big problem for its neighbors.”

Germany’s sense of victimization is how it got to hate the French, the Slavs, and the Jews. Just read Hitler’s Mein Kampf: it starts with Germany victimized by the French, then smoothly transit to it being victimized by the Jews…

Why so angry?

Because the truth is out: Germany is not the hegemon of Europe. It tried, once again, and completely failed. Once again. The French Republic stood in the way, gathered around her a more powerful coalition than Germany, in the Eurozone itself, and then added the IMF.

The IMF made first a 180 degree turn: it has concluded that the Greek debt, as it is, is completely unsustainable, and should be cut drastically (Tsipras proposed 30%, I propose 50%). All serious students of debt agree. And Germany used that trick several times in the last 150 years.

Meanwhile, the USA had rallied the French position. The USA has created for its economy 13 times more money than the Eurozone.

France won. France won even Merkel.

France is the hegemon of Europe, Germany the moribund. Because, assuredly, only the mentally moribund would strike such a stupid position about Greece with so much obstinacy, absent any capacity for reason and introspection.

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’

No Force, No Republic

February 27, 2015

Humanity is force. This is what vegetarians, often, want to forget. It is no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a fanatical vegetarian, at the cost of his health (too much pea soup, I am not kidding). Hitler was out to project a sensitive image of himself. Thus the Nazis passed laws against cruelty to animals, and instituted a policy of strict protection of nature.

When the Public goes together to form a republic, a Public Thing, force is what that thing is made around, just as in a baboon troop.

Forgetting force is forgetting the Republic. Marcus Aurelius, chosen future emperor when he was just 17, outright taught stoic philosophy (some thought it was conduct unbecoming an emperor).

However, Marcus Aurelius went over the Dark Side when he forgot that’s;

Stoicism without force is only ruin of the Republic.

This has always been true, and is truer now than ever before, because, now, it’s not just a matter of nations, religions and civilizations going down in flames. It’s a matter of the biosphere going down.

It will take some getting used to: the drought in California in 2014 was the greatest in at least 1,200 years. The latest modelling is much worse.

Eradication, Final Solution to Abomination

Eradication, Final Solution to Abomination

Israel used force to prevent the construction of nuclear reactors: in 1981, a raid by eight F16s and eight F15s, dropped 16 tons of high explosives on Osirak, a French made reactor (the site was flattened again by the Americans, ten years later). Israel repeated the performance in 2007, annihilating the Syrian nuclear reactor.

If Israel does not use force, Israel will die. Rome was so strong that it could afford to go catatonic on fascism, theocracy and terminal plutocracy… And still not die. (Rome is very much not dead, as all historians who have paid attention will tell you).

The Roman Republic grew, for five centuries not so much because it was greedy, but because it had to react to exterior aggression (I basically do not know a case where Rome really instigated the aggression, the war… Except for the Third Punic war, the Carthago Delenda Est war… But, when the Roman Republic went to war, it won’t let go.)

Marcus Aurelius poisoned the empire, because he did not use force where it mattered, close and personal.

True, Marcus Aurelius spent eight year on the battlefield, trying to prevent the Marcomanni and other German savages to cu the Roman empire in two.

However Marcus Aurelius was weak in more important respects.

He forgot that emperor Hadrian, the predecessor of his predecessor, decided to choose him and Antonius Pius as future emperors, while passing over his own two sons.

Instead, Marcus Aurelius would heap all possible honors, including Consul and Emperor on his own son, before he reached the age of 16.

Instead, Marcus Aurelius would have not enough money to pay for the army, and decisively defeat the savages. Why? Because the plutocrats, heavily taxed under the great emperor (an ex-general) Trajan, were not taxed enough under Marcus.

First the Republic has to be strong.

At this point if one is on the danger list of Israel, France, or the USA, one gets disposed of.

That does not rile up my democratic instinct. Our leaders should be elected mostly to execute the “basses besognes” (= )

In the past, determined assassins and the like could only kill a few, although, as most societies wee organized according to the fascist model, there was such a thing as striking the head, and changing it.

In Switzerland, with a rotating presidency of seven (soon to nine), there is no great change to be expected by killing one (but for augmenting an ambiance of terror).

The Islamic State does more by destroying antiquities which prove that their religion is junk.

So the only justification for so much power in so few hands in the leading democracies is that they do what is necessary.

One thing they did not do was to change the financial system. There is certainty (in the case of Obama) and a high probability (in the case of Hollande) that the gentlemen will be out of power in two years. So they need them, and all their cohorts of camp followers, to make sure that they ingratiated themselves with the powers that be.

Obama was again in San Francisco, begging for money and making deals, a week ago. Some of the most influential locals (such as Brown, an African American long mayor of San Francisco) are begging him not to come anymore (the ambiance of corruption is not improved by the traffic jams Obama causes).

Obama should stick to assassination, like Hollande, or Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, the Greeks won an important victory. Although it was more symbolic than anything else, as France (still protecting her giant banks) had been forced to win the battle for the Greeks, earlier.



When he ran for his presidency, Hollande, the present French president declared that “Mon enemi, c’est la finance” (My enemy is High finance). People elected him on this basis, instead of voting for the other one, whose obvious friend was High Finance.

However, Hollande behaved just the opposite, deciding, after all, not to tax the hyper rich, and finally choosing a hyper wealthy young 30 something investment banker as finance minister.

Hollande went down ever more in the polls, while the French economy kept on diving from being, to nothingness. Hollande’s polls approval reached 11%, the lowest ever for a French president.

Finally France reversed course.

The mighty French Republic finally decided to declare in advance that it would run a deficit fifty percent higher than the limit imposed by the law instituting the Euro, and this for two years in a row.

This had a number of consequences: bringing the Euro down, and also solving the Greek problem: if France was going to run a 4.5% deficit, why would Greece have to run a 4.5% SURPLUS?

(The greater demand imposed by France can be qualitatively evaluated, considering the relative sizes of economies and deficits: it is as if France was going to run (15)x(1.5) above the limit, when Greece was looking only for 2x(1.5) relief. So the French violation is much greater… and was agreed to… a day or so after the Greeks won).

Paul Krugman agrees that the Greeks won. In “What Greece Won”.

As Krugman explains:

Well, if you were to believe many of the news reports and opinion pieces of the past few days, you’d think that it was a disaster — that it was a “surrender” on the part of Syriza, the new ruling coalition in Athens. Some factions within Syriza apparently think so, too. But it wasn’t. On the contrary, Greece came out of the negotiations pretty well, although the big fights are still to come. And by doing O.K., Greece has done the rest of Europe a favor.

To make sense of what happened, you need to understand that the main issue of contention involves just one number: the size of the Greek primary surplus, the difference between government revenues and government expenditures not counting interest on the debt. The primary surplus measures the resources that Greece is actually transferring to its creditors… If you are angry that the negotiations didn’t make room for a full reversal of austerity, a turn toward Keynesian fiscal stimulus, you weren’t paying attention.

The question instead was whether Greece would be forced to impose still more austerity. The previous Greek government had agreed to a program under which the primary surplus would triple over the next few years, at immense cost to the nation’s economy and people.

Why would any government agree to such a thing? Fear. Essentially, successive leaders in Greece and other debtor nations haven’t dared to challenge extreme creditor demands, for fear that they would be punished…“

Let’s not forget greed, either…

Plutocrats are those who use power, generally through the money they command, to achieve satanic aims. Generally self–aggrandizement by commanding more is a primary obsession.

Central to this strategy is the tactic of making money ever more expensive, and reserved to the hyper wealthy. The less money We The People have, the richer plutocrats have.

Instead, to operate an economy effectively, one needs enough money to conduct all and any transaction that benefits the society at large. That’s a necessity.

Rome failed in that respect in the Third Century, because it ran out of precious metals, and also of enough internal force to impose a FIAT currency. The Franks remedied both problems.

The Franks  got the precious metals in Eastern Europe (a place the Romans had not conquered, per order from Augustus, and lack of oomph from not taxing plutocrats enough, thus having too small an army).

The Franks mixed the silver they mined with less valuable metals. and enforced the value of money: faux-monaieurs, the counterfeiters, were boiled. Alive.

Who are today’s counterfeiters? Who else but the money changers? The banksters.

All this because those who have power abuse it. And not using it is also abusing it. So when the inheritance of humanity is destroyed by Islamists, and nothing is done to stop it, not enough violence is used. Obviously.

So surrendering to the austerity is not just a weakness and a madness, it is a system of thought to submit societies ever more to the plutocratic madness, a much worse prospect.

Patrice Ayme’

Savage, The Franks? Islam Is Worse

February 26, 2015

Our friend the half-philosophers may start to huff and puff, as “Franks” were citizens of a federation (actually two of them, the one of the Sea, and the one of the River; the one of the Sea, or more exactly, Salt, is now known as Salian, or Salic).

Whereas “Islam” is a thought system, devised by some Arab warriors (PBUH), who got a good gig going for themselves.

To put in the same basket an ethnicity and a religion  is what some half-philosophers would love to call a “category mistake”. The irony is that I know (the basics of) Category Theory, and they don’t.

In Category Theory, there is a concept called a functor, which allows to go from one category to another.

Is Islam a functor from life, to death?

Is Islam a functor from life, to death?

In other words, because I know of functors, I can mix and match different categories such as Franks and Islam, and be relaxed about it (instead of being all gripped and unimaginative, as the average constipated half-philosopher; notice in passing that the concept “functor” was invented by the philosopher Carnap in linguistics).

The historian Pirenne, long ago, suggested the thesis that the collapse of the economy in the High Middle Ages was caused by the Islamists (Islam confiscated most of the Roman empire, and imposed a total embargo, cutting not just the Paper route, but the Silk Road).

In other news, On Fascism, Russian & Islamist Edition, Feb 26, 2015, a plan surfaced for the invasion of Ukraine, written more than a year ago, by some major Russian plutocrats, who have influence on Putin and are best buddies with the leadership of the Russian “Orthodox” Church.

Don’t worry, anybody involved will soon die, and things will calm down, this is Putin’s way.

There is a clear self-censorship going on throughout the West right now, because people are scared of these fanatics, the Putinists, and the Islamists. This, in turn, is deleterious to any critical mood, thus discourse, thus adverse to fixing any problem.

One cannot have a sane public discourse if one cannot even draw a human being. Having public insanity in place of public discourse will affect the Republic, to the point it will die, and that is why it died in all and any nation that submitted to Submission (aka “Islam”).


As it rose Christianism destroyed the Roman Republic (or what was left of it). In 363 CE, under fanatical emperor Jovian, an ex-general, a systematic policy of burning libraries got started (Jovian may have been behind the assassination of laic emperor Julian, I am speculating). In 381 CE under ex-general Theodosius, then emperor, laws were passed to enact a “War Against the Philosophers“. Heresy (“making a choice”) became punishable by death.

The Roman empire, which still had many characters of a Republic (which officially it was… Now a “Christian” Republic) exploded.

However, in the next century, in the West, the Franks took control, and build a Catholicism so moderate that it made Paganism, Judaism, and Apostasy all legal (and conversions in all directions).

Interestingly, the Franks, who soon built what they called “Europe”, as an empire, have the reputation of uncouth savages. “Frank” means Ferocious, not just Free.

But the Franks had no problem with Catholics becoming Jews: entire village converted, until the priest was the only Christian in town. Charlemagne himself, 4 centuries after the Franks acceded to power, had his friends call him “David”, because he wanted to be like Israel’s King David (not a friend of God, according to the Bible).

Compare with the savagery of Islam: somebody who leaves Islam is to be killed, say the Hadiths.

So what of the supposed great intellectual tradition of “Islam”? That sounds strange, on the face of it. What about the great intellectual tradition of Christianism? Well, the answer is that there is no such a thing: as soon as he became a fanatical Christian, Pascal produced nothing. All great “Christian” intellectuals are intellectuals first, and, second spent the reminder of their mental capabilities avoiding the fire in which the church wanted to throw them.

In France alone, around 1530, three major philosophers were burned alive for having contradicted Catholicism. This explains why Descartes, a century later, preferred to live in the Netherlands.

Contrarily to repute, the situation with Islam was even worse. At least, in the West, intellectuals could engage the Church in full combat, and they often won. This is a direct consequence of the Frankish leadership submitting the Christian leadership, starting in the Fifth Century. After that time, the Church was never again the government of the West (except inside the Papal states, a gift of Charlemagne, later de facto rescinded).

Famously, around 1300 CE Philippe IV of France and his vassal the English king engaged in full submission of the Pope and his army. The Pope and the Templars both ended judged, dead, and, more importantly, taxed.

So what of these great Muslim thinkers? The answer is that most of them were, truly Jewish or Christians, or very recently “converted”, or then did not finish too well.


The fact is, the greatest Muslim university, Al Azhar in Cairo, is definitively founded on what the Franks, 15 centuries ago, would have viewed as barbarian principles. It actually refused to condemn the “Islamist State” as not conform to Islam.

Al Azhar has decided that those who renounce Islam and their children ought to be killed:

“In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful


Fatwa Committee

A question from Mr. Ahmed Darwish who presented the question through Mr. (Blanked out) of German nationality:

A Muslim man of Egyptian nationality married a Christian woman of German nationality. The two spouses agreed that the aforementioned Muslim man would enter the Christian religion and join the Christian creed.

  1. What is the ruling of Islam regarding this person’s situation?
  2. Are his children considered Muslims or Christians and what is their ruling? 

The Answer:

All praises are due to Allah, lord of all the worlds. And peace and blessings be upon the greatest of all messengers, our master Muhammad and upon his family and companions all together. As for what follows: 

We inform that he has apostatized after having been in a state of Islam, so he should be asked to repent. If he does not repent, he should be killed according to the sharia.

As for his children, so long as they are small they are Muslims. After they have attained maturity, if they remain in Islam then they are Muslims. If they leave it, then they should be asked to repent. If they do not repent, they should be killed. And Allah knows best.

President of the Fatwa Committee of Al-Azhar

Seal of the Committee

September 23, 1978”

Our civilization was founded on rejecting this sort of savagery on the part of Christianism. When the Islamists appeared, the Franks considered them to be a Christian sect, the Sons of Sarah (Saracens). Let’s persist in rejecting the savagery.

Antique Greece was not just defined by what it built, but what it rejected, the Barbarians (those whose talk sounded animal-like: barr… baa). One cannot be positive all the times, otherwise positivity itself loses meaning.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: After publishing the preceding, it came to light that the Islamist State, applying literally the savage texts that guide them, destroyed Mesopotamian art more than twice older than the invention of Islam by the raiders (Muhammad and the father of his 6 years old child bride, etc.). isil-video-shows-destruction-mosul-artifacts-150226153158545

There is no savagery but savagery, and Islam is its prophet?


February 16, 2015


Misreading the history of what happened centuries, or even millennia ago, can have drastic consequences today. As the European Union is been constructed, it is important that the enormous lies of the past get exposed, for the lies they were.

(Just as it is important to expose the all-powerful Christianism of the Middle-Ages, and especially of the Late Roman Empire for the civilization devouring monster it was: then we can turn to it scion, all-powerful Islam, and condemn it, just as vigorously, instead of licking its toes, respectfully, as Obama did.)

Greece owes around 65 billion Euros to Germany, from the Greek “rescue” plan, a neat trick to have the Greek People pay for (mostly foreign) banks. Syriza, the new government in Greece (in coalition with a nationalist party) is asking for more than 160 billion Euros in reparations for the assault, invasion of Greece by Germany in 1941… Which may have brought the death of more than 800,000 Greeks.

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ "Work Makes Free"?

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ “Work Makes Free”?

[As we have seen before, and will see again below, the tradition in American circles, is to accuse the French to have invented Nazism… And that’s exactly what the Nazis said. It’s also a giant lie. A racist, holocaust force lie.]

The Nazis’ exactions in Greece were so extensive, that it is difficult to know how many died; a typical assassination by the Nazis was not an orderly extermination in an extermination camp involving processing by IBM computer (!), but shooting of an entire family in some thicket, as the Nazis wanted to leave no trace of their activities.

Paul Krugman is getting bolder Weimar on the Aegean:”Try to talk about the policies we need in a depressed world economy, and someone is sure to counter with the specter of Weimar Germany, supposedly an object lesson in the dangers of budget deficits and monetary expansion. But the history of Germany after World War I is almost always cited in a curiously selective way. We hear endlessly about the hyperinflation of 1923, when people carted around wheelbarrows full of cash, but we never hear about the much more relevant deflation of the early 1930s, as the government of Chancellor Brüning — having learned the wrong lessons — tried to defend Germany’s peg to gold with tight money and harsh austerity.

And what about what happened before the hyperinflation, when the victorious Allies tried to force Germany to pay huge reparations? That’s also a tale with a lot of modern relevance, because it has a direct bearing on the crisis now brewing over Greece.”

Krugman argues that the policy imposed on Greece now is what sank the so-called Weimar republic. Nice on the surface, false when one looks at the details. (Weimar was NOT a republic, to star with.)

But here I am going to set Krugman right about history:



In 1953, the victorious Allies decided Germany ought nothing for Nazism (this is what Syriza is nowcontesting).

The history of Germany in the period 1912-1953 is relevant to the present Greek tragedy.

On December 11, 1912, it was a Sunday, the Kaiser brought his six top military men in a conference. It was decided that the ascent of the ever more prosperous French Republic and her vast empire, combined with the democratization of Russia, left the German plutocracy behind, and that only attacking them militarily would solve the problems.

The two admirals objected that they would never be ready to fight a world war within 18 months. The Kaiser insisted that they had to work more on the press to get the German population ready for war.

On June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the right hand man of USA president Wilson, secretly proposed to the Kaiser an alliance, with Britain, against France, if the Kaiser would stop his naval force built-up.

Germany attacked in August, and nearly lost its entire army in a French counter-attack next to Paris, in September (in the First Battle of the Marne).

However, corporations of the USA, for years, fed the otherwise landlocked Kaiser kingdom with war supplies, for years, through the Netherlands.

France and Britain complained to Washington, but they were not going to declare war to the USA.

After Wilson re-election in 1917, the USA declared war to Germany, just as the Soviets made peace with Germany, conceding a gigantic territory Russia occupied in Eastern Europe.

In 1918, Germany lost the war it had started deliberately, surprising everybody.

A last, all-out attack by the German army on Paris, the second Battle of the Marne, was decimated by a deluge of French artillery fire, and was finished with a pincer counterattack by 50 Allied divisions (including 2 American and 45 French).

The retreating German army, under orders, scorched north-eastern France, flooding the mines, dynamiting all production centers, and even Middle-Ages castles, burning all telephone poles.



The Kaiser fled. However, the Prussian-German plutocracy he left behind still controlled most of the press, and the legend took hold in Germany that the German army had not been defeated.

Instead, Germans were indoctrinated: their army had not been defeated, it had been stabbed in the back. Germans were told that traitors inside Germany made the revolution that caused the defeat (the other way around from the real reality).

Those traitors were the Communists, and the Jews, they had to be killed. A civil war started, and units of the German army were employed to do just that.

As Germany was not occupied by the Allies, the Allies basically did not prevent those satanic ideas to take hold of Germany.

The Allies had not cut-off the head of the snake (as would be done after May 1945). Clemenceau predicted in 1919 that Germany, would attack 20 years later, again (as it did).

Except, next time, Germany was out to kill all the Communists and Jews.

The Paris peace conference of 1919 forced Germany to give independence to the countries it had long occupied, such as Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

It is shocking to see Paul Krugman repeat what would become one the mantra of the Nazis. Krugman: “First, Germany’s economy had already been devastated by the war.” It’s France, Belgium and Eastern Europe who had been devastated. Not one square meter of Germany had been occupied and thus “devastated”.

“Second, says Krugman, the true burden on that shrunken economy would — as John Maynard Keynes explained in his angry, powerful book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” — be far greater than the direct payments to the vengeful Allies.”

Yes Keynes may have said this, but this was not his most important message. Lord Keynes explains in his book that amputating the German empire from all the nations it occupied (“the economic consequence of the peace”) would indeed devastate the German empire.

And that it sure would, because the entire idea of many nations in 1919, including the French, was to dismantle the plutocratic empire Germany had set for itself in the middle of Europe. Lord Keynes showed his true intent, when he wrote in his racist book, that the Poles were an inferior race, and that they cannot manage an economy.

Such things are never said, so nobody knows them.

Thus our friend Krugman intones what became the German credo: “In the end, and inevitably, the actual sums collected from Germany fell far short of Allied demands. But the attempt to levy tribute on a ruined nation — incredibly, France actually invaded and occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland, in an effort to extract payment — crippled German democracy and poisoned relations with its neighbors.”

What is truly incredible is how ignorant of true history Krugman is.

My opinion, shared by Belgium and France in 1923, is quite the opposite. Even Paris itself had been bombed by the attacking Germans, and under long range artillery fire. That’s devastation. Germany was intact, differently from devastated Belgium and France.

The legend that Germany was devastated was most profitable to the Nazis and their plutocratic collaborators, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

“The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister).

The biggest Nazi lie of all was that the Versailles Treaty devastated Germany. And this is what many an American university parrot has said ever since (as it allowed to punish France, that was USA profitable!). For more on the Big Lie Technique, see: “Mediating Pluto“.



Germany was intact, but Germany did not want to pay. That would have been to recognize what happened in 1914, namely that Germany attacked France and Russia deliberately, knowing full well it would cause a world war (that its racist plutocracy hoped to win, with the a little help from the USA).

Why was history not learned in 1919? Some of the worst men who had caused World War One were in power in Germany, after the war.

An example is Dr. Schacht, a protégé of JP Morgan (yes, the American banker). Schacht was such a crook, his commanding Prussian general fired him for exploiting occupied Belgium. However, in 1923, he commanded the German Central Bank. To foil the French, Dr. Schacht decided to make German money worthless, by hyper inflating the money supply.

Paul Krugman wrote in his blog: “We know that part of the reason large postwar reparations were such an unreasonable and irresponsible demand was the dire, shrunken state of the German economy after World War I.”

Large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations” were a German Nazi legend.

Why did the Germans think of this legend? Because they had tried that trick, just prior.

Indeed, Chancellor Bismarck, after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, imposed on the French Republic exactly that sort of “large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations”.

Bismarck’s hope was that France would not be able to pay, and so war could be started again. In any case, his plan was to hinder the French economy indefinitely.(He got disappointed, as France paid, unexpectedly, in five years!)

So Germany was expert at the idea of mutilating reparations: after all, it invented the idea. (That’s why it should pay Greece now!)

The German economy shrunk by 25% in GDP, most of it during 1914, the year Germany attacked the world. Pushing a two million man army through Belgium will make your economy shrink.

What are those “large postwar reparations”? Intact Germany disingenuously argued that it could not pay, except in worthless paper.

The French Republic insisted that Germany had enormous forests, and could easily replace the tens of thousands of French telephone poles it had just destroyed. Was replacing the telephone poles the German army had deliberately destroyed in 1918 throughout a large part of France “large, unreasonable, and irresponsible?”

It was the refusal by Germany to replace these telephone poles that precipitated the crisis of 1923.

The French Republic, reasonably enough, decided that the German refusal to replace the telephone poles it just destroyed was indicative of a total lack of cooperation. So France, accompanied by Belgium, invaded the Ruhr.

What went really wrong is that it did not stay until reason had prevailed in Germany. Suppose that the French army had occupied Germany, until the Germans calm down, and wiser heads told the Germans what had really happened in World War One? How bad would have that been?

No Auschwitz?



In 1945, the French military fought inside Germany, and would stay there for the next 54 years, until the creation of the Franco-German brigade in 1999.

Properly digesting history is what enables civilization to survive and progress. History cannot turn into civilization unless it has been thoroughly examined.

Krugman is a Jew. He had said so himself, while recognizing he was very much cut off his roots. For Jews (!) to repeat like deranged parrots the very legends that gave rise to Nazism is beyond the pale, it’s falling into the abyss.


Because sometimes in the future, people in the West will ask: ‘Why was Israel created, if what the Nazis said was true?’ If it is true, as the Nazis claimed, that the French were the ones who launched Nazism with their exploitation of Germany, treacherously using the German Jews to stab the glorious German military from behind, did not the Jews deserve to be punish?

Well, the answer is the Nazis lied, and having Jews like Paul Krugman telling us that they did not, cannot change the reality of what happened.

Human minds cannot distort reality all they want. Nature, even human nature, is out there to correct outrageous errors. The hard way.

Patrice Ayme’