Archive for the ‘conspiracy’ Category

If only the French ran America

January 17, 2014

 In Our wildest fantasy: if only the French ran AmericaThe Economist embarked on a flight of fancy: that the French are more into affairs than Americans. On sheer statistics, it’s the other way around. All right, that’s a rather innocuous myth.

Some myths, though, are much less innocuous. A vicious delusion is that the USA had nothing to do with this:

Emergency Supplies From USA Corporations Enabled Nazi Destruction Of Poland In 1939

Emergency Supplies From USA Corporations Enabled Nazi Destruction Of Poland In 1939

A related, and even less innocuous myth, of the American Plutocratic Circus, is that the French are cowards. The myth of French cowardice is continually rehashed in the financial press, for example the Wall Street Journal. The same formulas are always used, with the same inventions, and the same words. So it was only natural that an ill intentioned American reader would seize on the opening provided by The Economist, to rehash a cliché well-known in the USA.

mandinka1 pontificated accordingly that: “If the French ran the US military all of their soldiers would have tanned arm pits and their weapons could be bough [sic]cheaply with a sign “never fired dropped only once””

The expression “never fired dropped only once” is commonly used in the USA about French weapons. It’s supposed to depict the cowardice of French soldiers running away from battle.

This is of course not just insulting, but as erroneous as it gets: France, since even before the people of Orleans and the Franks routed the Huns (in June 451 CE; Orleans’ original name was Aurelianum), has, by far, the world’s most extensive military history. The longevity of a country is only as good as its military.

The essence of France is not wine and cheese: it’s weapons and the inclination to use them when necessary. Hitler was one of those necessities.

I had in mind this picture from September 1, 1939, the day when the Nazis attacked.

September 1, 1939, The Day The Plutocrats Attacked the World

September 1, 1939, The Day The Plutocrats Attacked the World

The Nazis were allied and supported by Stalin’s USSR, imperial Japan, fascist Italy, countless plutocrats and corporations of the USA, plus, soon enough, the Congress of the USA.

I replied this to mandika1:

If the French ran the US military, the USA would have declared war to Hitler on September 3, 1939, instead of collaborating with the Nazi dictator in 1939.

The war against the Nazi dictator would have been wrapped up in 1940.

Instead, it is because of his alliance with the USSR (formally) and the USA (de facto), that Adolf Hitler could get lucky against the French military in June 1940.

Hitler had no oil: he got it from Texas (and the Caucasus). IBM, managed from New York gave him the machines he needed to get organized. Ford and GM provided with transportation. Standard Oil and others with synthetic rubber (necessary for any machine).

When Hitler ran out of lead tetraethyl, in September 1939, his Air Force could not fly: the Americans supplied him with lead tetraethyl, so that Hitler could keep on killing Poles, Jews, French, Czechs, etc.

Meanwhile the USA’s Congress and his president made it a crime for an American citizen to set even a foot on a British, or French ship, among other sanctions.

Even then, the battle of France of May-June 1940 was the deadliest battle on the Western front in World War Two. The Nazis had to use suicidal charges at Sedan.

The Nazi losses, never made official, reached about 100,000 dead. By September 1940, the supremacy of the Nazi Air Force, having lost thousands of planes and many of its best pilots, had been shattered, and the invasion of Britain had to be cancelled.

And what were the USA doing during that time? Business with Hitler.

These are the years the USA chose to live in infamy, thanks for reminding us of that.

Patrice AYME

Obama’s Dog Wishes

December 24, 2013

Once I was talking to a MD, a very young cancer specialist. He is making millions, in the very exploitative health care system of the USA. He told me Obama was really smart. I asked him why. He said: ”He taught Constitutional Law, was a Senator, and now he is president. What other proof do you need?” I pointed at Obamacare. He chuckled, no doubt contemplating decades of happy returns of multi-million dollar income, in the guise of helping the underclass.

Right, Obama is very smart. Yet, one can be smart in many ways. This is Obama’s wishes, 24 December, 2013. I am cutting and pasting Obama’s exact tweet:

“From this family to yours, have a peaceful Christmas Eve.” pic.twitter.com/nfPOEni3xk. This is the picture:

Obama: I Stick My Tongue Out To You

Obama: I Stick My Tongue Out To You

A given thing can always be looked at in many ways. A way to look at Obama sending a pic of his panting dog is that Obama is acknowledging the truth.

In words: When you are a dog, it is natural to stick your tongue at We The People. Obama cares for your health: he is ready to lick you.

Countless leaders rose through obscurity, throughout the ages, and were viewed, by their millions of followers, as the smartest men who ever lived.

Some will say, this is different, the USA is a democracy. But of course not: including the so called “representatives”, less than 1,000 people pull the string in the USA, population 320 million. In Athens, thousands of people pulled the strings. A quorum of 6,000 citizens existed for the less controversial decisions. It’s as if, in today’s USA, a minimum of twenty million individuals had to explicitly vote for decisions.

Republican Rome was also much more of a democracy than we have nowadays: a Consul had full judicial and executive powers just for one month at a time, and that just for a year, and had to share power with the Tribunes of the People, who were sacrosanct, and kept the legislative power.

As I explained, in “Representation Is No Democracy”, Switzerland is legislatively democratic: the People decides the laws. But not so in the other Western so called “democracies”. Athens was legislatively and executively democratic.

So Obama became president. He and a critical mass of his supporters had a party until they lost most power in their carnival cruise ship. Then they accuse the Republicans to have taken over the helm. They had just forgotten to use their full power to serve We The People, when they had it.

Most of Obama’s “reforms”, and change of directions had to do with pursuing what G.W. Bush had started. So we are in G.W. Bush’s Fourth Term.

G W Bush, son, and grandson of one of history’s worst plutocrat, naturally had decided to make tax payers rescue American banking, and American industry, even before Obama became president.

The only thing Obama really did is to decide to have the American Middle Class pay some more to the health care plutocracy, by duplicating the “reform” Republican plutocratic governor Romney had imposed in Massachusetts. Interestingly, Obama, a Freudian dream boy, calls Obamacare his “signature achievement”, the exact same term, signature, that he uses when he kills civilian gatherings with drones.

Most of Obama’s supporters can’t see deeper than Obama’s bronze color, and, to this day, sing his praises. I personally gave two years, much writing and action behind the scene, influencing the influential, and spent a fortune getting Obama elected, just to see him follow exactly the “advice” he got from all and any the plutocrat he met, whom he all celebrated as “friends”.

Thus one can safely say that most of Obama’s supporters are not very smart. Yet, that’s smart: not only they do not suffer more than mussels beatifically beaten by the waves, but they please their masters. Plutocrats don’t want them any other way than dumb, and self congratulatory.

And what of Obama? Is he smart? There are many ways to be smart. One can be smart as a dog, smart as a human, or street smart. There is no doubt that Obama is street smart. Wall Street smart.

However, history judges the presidents of the USA according to higher standards. What does Obama think of it himself? Well the picture says it all. It’s what’s called a Freudian slip. Obama views himself a s a dog. He is not just basically powerless, but he has been Wall Street’s lapdog. Now he wishes you Happy Holidays.

History will just point at Obama’s abysmal lack of accomplishment, or when the Financial Times philosophy came to power. Even G.W. Bush’s Medicare Part D (Seniors don’t pay for drugs) can point at a higher achievement to serve We The People. And, by the way, all the most dreadful policies of Bush (torture and arbitrary detention officialized, defended, and globalized; invasion of Iraq) , were inverted by Bush himself, not Obama. Obama’s presidency sat on Bush’s Shoulder.

Bush: See How Easy It Was, To Roll Them Up? Obama: Well, You Decided All, I'm Just In Love.

Bush: See How Easy It Was, To Roll Them Up? Obama: Well, You Decided All, I’m Just In Love.

Obama introduced his own satanic policy: arbitrary execution by drones of gatherings, so called “signature strikes“. Something still going-on, the latest being an attack on a wedding in Yemen, a few days ago: spirit of Christmas, Nixon style. The worst about this, is that, differently from Auschwitz, which was secret, this is all public, and thus the horror is endorsed by the People of the USA…. Very publicly.

Obama realizing, however unwittingly and subconsciously, that he is just a dog, commander in chief, presumably, of a pack of many dogs, and a lap dog of Wall Street, is a sad gift to make us. But we will accept this gift. Finally he came with the truth. As the world totters on the edge of many abysses,  truth is the greatest, and first, gift.

The Ancient Greeks already cut and decorated fir trees for the winter solstices, and the Roman Saturnials were such an extravaganza, complete with gift exchanges, that many laws were passed to reduce their duration below four weeks. Sometimes, honoring tradition is the best thing.

From one who holds the truth dear, following a 28 centuries old tradition, Happy Holidays! And, next time, let’s all try to find a dog who, at least, can bark.

Patrice Ayme

Europe: Dawn & Lesson

November 9, 2013

Europe and her colonies, extend all around the planet, from Patagonia, to both sides of the Behring straights. More importantly, European philosophy dominates at the United Nations. And Human Rights reign within since the official proclamation of the European Union. As, and because, tribalism, also known as nationalism, the preferred weapon of plutocracy, was beaten back.

Core of Europe's Worldwide Philosophical Empire

Core of Europe’s Worldwide Philosophical Empire

Yet, a worm is in the fruit, best illustrated by the grotesque spectacle, since 2008, of plutocrats whipped in a feeding frenzy, gorging themselves on public funds, like the pack of sharks they are. How come nobody is arresting them yet?

That’s consecutive to a legal, judicial and political failure of the Republic rendered mad by plutocracy in its brain. Many are the parasites who kill their hosts.

Worse: American leaders, political and intellectual, don’t get it (although Paul Krugman is showing signs of improvement in his cultural and mental condition).

Tyranosopher: Plutophile American economists keep on being invited to conferences where the fate of the civilization is thrown to the rabid dogs of the free market, Obama Wealth Care style.

Let’s try to teach these ignorant, lethally vicious people the correct ideas, lest it has to be done at the point of a gun. They talk about Europe, but they don’t know what it is.

Simplicius Maximus: Point of a gun? Really? So what’s the problem?

Tyranosopher: The problem is that even Krugman, Stiglitz, Obama and company well meaning American economists or leaders, teach the world lethal lies, not because they are vicious bastards, just, but because they have no idea what the truth is. And of course, right of them, it’s way worse.

Watch Obama, who believed, really believed, the poor fool, that greed would solve health care in the USA. Now he finds out, but does not understand, that the greedsters are all over his Obamacare, to the point he can’t even fake it.

Each times Obama opens his mouth, it’s an avalanche of lies about the “marketplace”, the “consumers” “navigating”, “exchanging”, buying and selling health plans with the cooperation of the IRS, like all the rich pigs who make the atmosphere Obama breathe. After all, that’s the way the rich pig made their money, why can’t the poor make their health care that way?

Krugman got a Nobel Prize in Europe, and spoke authoritatively about the disaster that, according to USA plutocrats, the euro was.

Yet, years later, Krugman discovered that Europe had founding fathers (Robert Schuman, Jean Monet, etc.). And that there was a plan to fabricate a European Union, and that the euro was a crucial piece of that machinery. Only now does he start to slowly get it. People like this dine at the White House, and are taken very seriously by the ignorant ones above them in that military hierarchy one calls democracy.

Obama never knew a plutocrat he did not love to death, like a dog living among sausage makers.

Simplicius Maximus: But Britain, while in Europe, is against the euro.

Tyranosopher: Sheer recent plutocratic propaganda. What the plutocrats mean is that the City of London, technically a plutocracy, does not want to be in Europe.

Actually Churchill himself qualifies as a founding father of Europe in no uncertain terms.

Winston, his cabinet and parliament, after thinking it out with De Gaulle, decided to unite France and the United Kingdom on June 16, 1940. The PM gave De Gaulle his personal plane to go persuade the French government; the French PM agreed, but his cabinet of spastic traitors refused. That was a disaster. France was actually far from defeated, and could have kept on fighting from Africa.

Individuals who are against Europe now are just greedy barbarians who know no history, or regret Auschwitz, or both.

SM: Are you not exaggerating?

Tyranosopher: No. Look at World War One. The war was a blunt, direct fascist attack by a desperate plutocracy, against democracies that were totally surprised: a week before, neither France nor Britain expected war. To the point that’s hilarious.

The war would have been over in months if the USA had not helped the Kaiserreich. The free market supremacy, according to which profits are always right, has long been an accomplice of the worst fascism, and plutocracy.

Simplicius Maximus: So you are saying that the exploitative doctrine reigning in the USA was a major cause of World War of 1914-45?

T: Absolutely. If not hindered by the USA, France and Britain would have quickly defeated German plutocracy, thanks to a sea blockade, and given the levers of power to the SPD, the Socialist Party of Deutschland, which is all what the war in 1914 was about.

Although most American intellectuals are not explicitly evil, they are implicitly so, because what they say, research, and learn, is all about what their wealthy masters want them to say, research, learn. We have to try to teach the honest ones, optimistically supposing there are some, what Europe was, is, and should not be again.

Although the Obama presidency proved me aplenty that knowledgeable advice is not what power in the USA is after. At this point American power thinks it’s smart to be dumb. Rarely have people that ignorant been so smug.

SM: What’s Europe? How did the concept or word even originate?

Tyranosopher: The Franks are the ones who named and defined Europe. The Merovingian Franks.

Simplicius Maximus: Surely you are joking, Tyranosopher. Everybody knows that “Europe” was how the Greeks designated, in Greek,  present day Greece. It apparently came from the Phoenician “ereb“, “west”. The Romans deformed this into “Europa”.

Tyranosopher:  Europe was not just a history, it’s also a myth that haunted, well, Europe. The Franks, like other Celto-Germans, were well versed in mythology. They knew what one was supposed to know about Troy.

Simplicius Maximus: How come they knew so much?

Tyranosopher: The history of the Celto-Germans is poorly known, mostly because Roman imperial power had no interest to let it be known. But it was rich.

However, in recent years archeology has made great progress. The Celtic world was old and most advanced in some technologies. 25 centuries ago, the Celts had the world’s most advanced metallurgy: the Roman army was equipped by Celtic forges, to make strong, light armor, and adopted the Celtic-Iberian sword.

The Celts had ocean going vessels, the best in the world, direct ancestors of the ships Columbus used. The Celtic world was greatly about shipping all over, from Ireland to up rivers in Spain, France, Germany. All the way to Anatolia.

SM: What does that have to do with Greece?

T: Well, the Celts traded with the Greeks and the Carthaginians. And not just metals. Also plenty of ideas. The Celts adopted Mercury as a great deity, perhaps because trade, exchanges and globalization were so big in the Celtic world.

SM: How come?

T: Trade was a giant advantage in the past. You could not just go to your basement and ask your 3D printer to make a carbon fiber reinforced gun, go two miles down and break the rock to extract fuel, or grow genetically adapted bananas in Alaska. You heavily depended upon distant resources, if you wanted a superior socio-economy.

Thus the societies that came to dominate the ancient world were all well travelled: the Cretans (Minoans”), the Phoenicians, the Mycenaeans, the Etruscans, the Celts, the Carthaginians, the Greeks.

That, in turn, was related to how they were founded, or their geographical situations, or both. Crete and Gaul, for example, were central.

SM: Ah, here comes the French. Long time, no hear.

T: It’s a fact that what is presently called France, is, first of all, a crossroad. There are no less than three major ancient trade routes through France. One from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and two from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, and Germany. Europe’s mountainous terrain made it much more difficult to go through anywhere else. That difficulty of travelling was much greater, the more you go back in the past; probably that’s why the Celts invaded the whole Gallic area to start with.

SM: What of the Romans in all this?

Tyranosopher: The Romans evolved an excellent Republic and quasi direct Democracy. Differently from Athens, the Romans did not have rabidly murderous hyper plutocrats next door. Both Etrusca and Magna Grecia instructed Rome. Their student, Rome, grew to overwhelm its teachers, thanks to its greater democracy, but it did not deny them.

Roman anti-sexism grew from Etrusca (Augustus’ wife was Etruscan, and showed it). Educated Romans learned Greek first. Caesar’s last words were in his first language, Greek.

Athens’ second rise was interrupted by Macedonia. That direct democracy, having survived the war against Sparta and other powers paid by plutocratic Persia, was crushed by Macedonia’s Antipater. Antipater, an experienced elder Pluto, a great general, may even have poisoned Alexander. Antipater made Athens’s rich captains an offer they could not refuse.

Although Athens had fought Persia to death, the Macedonians, who parroted the Greeks in some ways, did not bring in their leading men as great a passion. Although Alexander was a confirmed mass exterminator.

Because the Rome was such a democratic Republic, it could not be defeated by Celtic bands, Carthaginian plutocracy, or the (fascist) “Hellenistic” regime.

However, by the time Rome liberated Greece, the Roman elite had turned to the Dark Side. Thank Hannibal for that.

Simplicius Maximus: So what happened next?

Tyranosopher: Well, the Roman senate, in a few years, ordered the legions to destroy all the free democracies in the Mediterranean world: Carthage, Numantia, Corinth, etc. A warning to Athens.

SM: Did you not just say that Carthage was a plutocracy?

T: Well, having understood the errors of its ways, Carthage, an enormous, splendid city, full of knowledge, trading all the way from Armorica to the Congo, turned to democracy. Too late. That made her an even greater peril for the inchoating Roman plutocracy.

SM: OK, can we go back to Europe?

Tyranosopher: Carthage was also Europe. In an important cultural sense. You have to understand first that the Greco-Roman empire was an error.

Simplicius Maximus: I know your theory: slavery made the Greco-Roman empire fundamentally flawed.

T: Yes, it was not just creating a hyper violent society that self devoured, too friendly as it was, to Pluto’s brutally exploitative philosophy. Slavery and plutocracy also hindered technological development.

Hence the clear technological stagnation of the Roman empire, just when the exhaustion of resources begged for new technology to be able to exploit new resources.

Watch Obama give money to his sponsors and starve fundamental research, while never knowing a Pluto he did not want to pat in the back. Same stuff.

SM: Are you back, hitting at poor Aristotle?

Tyranosopher: Aristotle was never poor, always privileged. His father was Philippe of Macedonia’s own doctor, he taught Alexander. When the Athenians tried to examine his plutocratic drift, he fled, arguing, in an allusion to the more courageous Socrates’ fate, that he “did not want Athens to sin again against philosophy”.

Aristotle argued that citizens needed slaves, because they had no machines. Aristotle was using inverted, self destructive logic. In a modern version of this, Krugman says that Europe needs division, because it is divided.

Simplicius Maximus: Before we get into dissecting feeble minds,  can we finish with Europe? What’s the big picture, according to you?

Tyranosopher:  Rome spent 550 years ever more degenerating into ever greater plutocracy. This all ended at the peak of Christian terror imbibed plutocracy in 400 CE, less than 20 years after emperor Theodosius, a Spanish general, “war against the philosophers“, and his Christian terror decrees.

SM: What happened in 400 CE?

T: The Roman government told the Franks they were in charge of the defense of Gallia, Germania Inferior and Germania Superior.

Just like Obama, the Roman leaders had not taxed the plutocrats enough, and, so, like Obama, they could not pay for the army anymore. Except, by 400 CE, the process had gone so far, for so long, the empire was incapable of its own defense. In 406, for the same budgetary reason, the legions  and their auxiliaries were ordered out of Britannia, leaving only local militia to defend the island.

SM: Where did these Franks come from?

T: The Franks were actually a confederacy of the willing more or less organized by anonymous Roman shock intellectuals. Let their memory be honored.

SM: How do you know this?

T: Because the Franks’ basic law, the Salic law, was written in Latin, to start with. It was also more civilized than Roman law: much fewer death penalties, women could accede to full inheritance. Salic Law, written for a NON Christian society, immediately defanged Catholic terror.

SM: Still, how did the Franks come to power?

T: They acquired power, thanks to superior metallurgy, bigger muscle, multiculturalism (and the discreet support form far sighted Roman generals/lawyers, as I said).

The Franks were the early Vikings. In the Third Century, they raided the Roman empire, sailing up the rivers, all the way down to Spain. Constantine and his Augustus of a dad, fought them in Germania.

The young Constantine, a super warrior who was well known, hated, and feared at the imperial court, realized that he had worse enemies, in said court, and associated himself with his Frankish alter egos.

They lived happily thereafter, had many children, conquering the entire empire for themselves. Still the Franks were not amused by the Christian circus Constantine and the three sons who survived their homicidal, infanticide father. The Franks kept on trying to de-Christianize the empire, in a succession of plots, coups, and outright wars.

Finally, the Roman Catholic government just gave up, and killed two birds with one stone, putting the Franks in charge of the entire German limes by 400 CE.

SM: On December 31, 406 CE, Germans from several nations, some just arrived from way back east, galloped on the frozen Rhine, surprised and broke through the Franks, penetrating the empire, all the way to Africa!

Tyranosopher: Yes, greenhouse deniers always go around, claiming it was much warmer under the Romans, but that’s an explicit example of much greater cold then. This deep freeze did not happen again.

SM: What did the Franks do next?

T: Well they grew their power and population over the next three generations. They were fundamentally farmers using new heavy ploughs (metallurgy again) to bring more intensive agriculture, with new crops, to the North’s rich soils.

By 476 CE, the Franks were the greatest military power in North West Europe, and the elected king cum imperator cum Consul Clovis, son of his Roman imperator dad, Childeric, spent 30 years establishing absolute Frankish power over Gallia and Germania. In particular Clovis defeated the Goths, scourge of the Roman empire since Valens.

Frankish power was not just a military power, but, more importantly a philosophical power never seen before, the power of the spirit of the Salic Law. The adventure of the Franks, initially a small population, reminds one of Isaac Asimov’s novel, “Foundation”.

SM: So when do you put the Dark Ages?

T: The ages became ever darker after 150 BCE, and the darkness became terminal after Julian’s mysterious, violent death (363 CE); Jovian, who succeeded the great philosopher-emperor, burned down libraries in the name of Christ.

One can say that the ultimate darkness was from 363 CE to 476 CE. At least in Gallia-Germania. The fanatical Christian emperor Justinian destroyed Italy and Rome three generations later (in the guise of saving it). So in Italy the Dark Ages, after a monetary relief under the enlightened Arian Ostrogothic rule, came back with a terminal vengeance later.

Still by, say, 550 CE, most of the European population was dead. The cities shrank. At some point, Rome, all its water sources destroyed, was totally uninhabitable.

SM: So what of the word Europe?

Tyranosopher: In 721, the Muslim warriors, undefeated on land for one full century, invaded Francia. They had discovered that the Romans could not be defeated on sea anymore. To defeat Constantinople, the Muslims opted for the strategy the Turks would themselves follow seven centuries later: conquer the European side of Constantinople. The way to do that was to go from west to east, through Spain, then Francia, Italia, Illyricum…

Next to Toulouse, the Franks of the Dux Eudes fled for their lives when the Muslims charged. But it was a ruse (that the Mongols copied systematically later). Eudes’ men came back, from the sides and behind. The Muslims were annihilated. Francia, later known as France, became warring Islam’s bête noire, for the following (2013-721 =) 1292 years.

Ah, I forgot. The next giant Islamic invasion was broken at Poitier in 732 CE. Charles Martel (the Hammer)’s professional army, made of North-Western Franks, was truly a European army, and that’s how the Franks called it, remembering the assault of fascist plutocratic Persia against, well, Europe.

That’s where the name and concept of Europe comes from.

SM: Then what?

Tyranosopher:  Just as the contact with Rome had militarized Germany more (archeology shows), the eternal war with Islam militarized France. Things really got out of control when the Franks, who had spied on Islam since inception, decided to reconquer the Middle Earth in 1100 CE. That’s not finished, but it’s a side show, anyway.

SM: What is the main show?

Tyranosopher: the cradle of Europe is the tension between civilization and fascization. Civilization brings ideas, fascization, order. Power needs to find the right balance, depending upon circumstances.

Roman fascization, spurred by slavery, cruelty and brutalization, went overboard, and ended with global plutocracy. The Franks, the Free, were anti-fascist, and anti-plutocratic, lethally so, a tradition that perdures to this day (consider La Fronde, 1789, 1848, 1871, 1914-45).

Yet, Clovis told his ferocious, fanatically free warriors, in no uncertain terms, that, from thereupon, Roman fascism would order the Frankish army (a tradition that also perdures to this day: see the 750 or so soldiers executed in WWI, or the 40,000 collaborators executed in 1944-45). That was famously symbolized by the episode of the Vase de Soissons.

Simplicius Maximus: We are very far from American economists and their poisonous emanations.

Tyranosopher: Not really. First, the USA is a direct descendant of the Imperium Francorum. The fact that most Americans can’t distinguish between a Frank and frankfurter, does not make it any less so. Actually, the siege of the European Central Bank, Frankfurt, is the fort of the Franks. But that’s already too poetical and evocative by half for American economists.

Second, American plutocracy hates and fears a united Europe. Always had, always will.

SM: What’s the solution?

Tyranosopher: Well, same old same old, since civilization exists: break them. Destroy plutocracy. The reigning plutocrats and their direct ancestors are worse than the Jihadists, since actually, they are the ones who fabricated and used the modern Jihadists that they used from Egypt to Afghanistan, to the Caucasus (just ask Putin, ha ha ha).

SM: What happened to the Imperium Francorum?

Tyranosopher: The empire was divided between Charlemagne’s grandsons. Division through equal inheritance was tradition among the Franks, and prevented strong hereditary plutocracy. The real cause of the split between Francia and Germania, on the face of it, was Parisian ennui with the uncouth easterners. The Western Franks were supposed to present a candidate for election to the imperial position, but they gave up before the time of Otto I, in the early Tenth Century.

There was no will to constitute a strong military core, although, because Europe was the richest place, Avars, Mongols, Slavs, Muslims, Vikings, kept trying to invade. The local military was, generally strong enough to handle the threat, although the Romans were asked to help with Gregian fire equipped ships against the Saracens in the later Tenth Century.

However, as Medieval plutocracy showed its ugly snout, wars between German and French plutocrats became a feature of the landscape. Plutocrats were good at playing war games against each other, and the increasing nationalism they fostered insured their domination for eight centuries, until 1789.

In 1789, the plutocrats saw the mortal danger Human Rights constituted for their universe, and they fought to death to crush them. Yet, the Republic survived, and thrived. The USA itself became a democracy in 1865.

Although Human Rights make the skeleton of the United Nations, the war is not over, as plutocracy has grown in power ever since Thatcher and Reagan. As the biosphere is under attack, Pluto’s achievements have never been as great.

Simplicius Maximus: So nationalism was a plutocratic weapon?

Tyranosopher: Assuredly. Contemplate what the Kaiserreich plutocrats did in July 1914. This why European construction, and the euro, are so important: they are anti-national weapon. We want to dial back to 800 CE, when Europe had a common currency. The apartheid that was tried later brought a millennium of tears, pain, death, horror.

This, the Americans do not learn at school. Europeans ought to remind them of that.

The lesson of 30 centuries of European history is that, although diversity is instructive, nationalistic and tribal disunity is lethal. Not just for people, but for civilization itself.

So leave the euro alone, vulgar plutophiles. The euro is not a subject in economics, nor even politics. It’s a matter of the philosophy of survival.

***

Patrice Ayme

Obamascare

November 3, 2013

I am for universal health care. For me health care is about care, not profit. An immediate computation (see below) show that at least one third of the health care cost in the USA is plutocratic gouging.

Although covered by an expensive health plan in California, I went to a French public hospital to have my daughter (motivated strictly by the better health care there, something that became obvious on… the phone from half a world away; the pregnancy was difficult and I feel sure that my daughter is alive today thanks to that decision).I do not like Obamacare, mostly because it’s a red herring. The main problem of USA health care is that it’s health profit first, instead of health care.

Plutocrats Baucus & Liz Fowler Care To Profit, Stupid

Plutocrats Baucus & Liz Fowler Care To Profit, Stupid

Obama could have started to fix that with presidential executive orders (removing the chains that prevent Medicare to negotiate with health care providers; he did not do it, and he is still not doing it, as he has everybody hypnotized by “Obamacare”; an executive order there would have more effect than Obamacare).

Obamacare is also about class: you can pay more, you get more; if you are poorer, you get a substandard plan (hilariously, most of the colored ones get the substandard “bronze” plan! You colored you bronze).

Also Obamacare obviously will not solve the covering of the uncovered, as its Byzantine structure depends upon the Internal Revenue Service (something the true underclass in the USA has nothing to do with; I know several underclass people and families from several states, by the way; when was the last time Obama talked with somebody who owns just a few torn clothes and a dog? well, I am actually friends with a few of them. We talk.)

True the expansion of Medicaid may help. But Medicaid is state, and Obama controls Medicare, more than Medicaid, so why did not he want to help more?

I have had a full subscription to the New York Times for more than three decades, but this week I have been wondering if I should not cancel it.

An example: an editorial in the NYT on Friday claimed that none of the 150 million employer health insurance in the USA would be cancelled.

However, I had just I got a cancellation notice from my employer provided Aetna health plan, effective within weeks, because my plan is “substandard”. I sent a one sentence comment informing the  New York Times of that fact. It was not published. Since the Obamacare roll-out 50% of my comments were censored, the worst since 2003. After I complained, that was increased to 90% (and apparently 100% in the last days).

Instead  we are submitted to a deluge of anti-French and anti-German “facts”, revealed by the New York Times. Germany, not Obamacare, is causing a recession. Obviously France and Germany prevent the market and the “exchanges” to do their work.

Other facts from the New York Times’ parallel universe:

1) Germany is “hacking away at French social services“. The French Socialist Party, which controls the presidency, the national assembly, the senate, and the regions of France will be surprised to learn it is “hacking away” socialism under German orders. My comments on that were censored.

I guess it’s better for the New York Times to talk about imaginary hacking than about the French 75% tax on high incomes (above one million euros; precisely to prevent “hacking away” at social services). My comments on this were censored too.

2) The New York Times also informed us that France caused the Great Depression of the 1930s (never mind that the referenced Irwin paper was short on ideas and scholarship). The New York Times insisted that “Germany in 2013, is like France in 1930“. So Germany in 2013 is causing a Great Depression, same as France in the 1930s.

[Why don’t we talk about USA plutocrats sending emergency war supplies to Nazi Germany in 1939 to fight off France? (oops, that would be “anti-American”)]

3) Krugman pretends that he found a counter-example to the fact that loose monetary policy leads to higher interest rates, namely, you guessed it, France in the 1920s.

I presented a full page of why the effect was due to special circumstances, namely half the working age males in France were incapacitated, or dead. Showing Krugman’s scholarship missed the elephant in the bathroom: censored. Naturlich.

4) Observing that Southern Europeans are still richer than  the Germans is no news fit to print in the Times. Also censored.

4) Basically, insists Krugman, Germany is causing the American government shut-down (by making the Eurozone an export demon to China).

Let me suggest another bad thing Germany did to the USA: Obamacare. It’s obviously the fault of Bismarck, a German Chancellor who introduced universal health care around 1860. Bismarck was even anti-market, thus anti-American, as the insurance companies in Germany are not for profit. Repeat: NOT for profit.

[If the insurance companies were NOT for profit, I would be for Obamacare. Actually, even as it is, I am for Obamacare… but it will not work, anyway, as its own gouging will strangle it.]

USA health care cost in excess of 18% of GDP, and ranks last in objective markers of care (rank 46 behind all developed nations, and quite a few developing ones). Germany, France, and the Netherlands spend 12% of GDP and rank best in health care worldwide (although Italy does nearly as well, with 9% GDP). Thus one can fairly say, observing that 18% – 12% = 6%, around 30% of the cost of health care in the USA is pure plutocratic profit.

It is apparently dawning on the New York Times that Europeans are not just NON-American, they have built a NON-American world. An alternative world. NON plutocratic, increasingly. The danger is extreme. According to another NYT hysterical November editorial, the republic is threatened by “populists”.

“Plutocrats vs. Populists” opines that: “HERE’S the puzzle of America today: the plutocrats have never been richer, and their economic power continues to grow, but the populists, the wilder the better, are taking over.” Proof of that the “genteel” Summers was not appointed because of “populist” opposition. While American “philanthrocapitalists” [sic!] are fighting against malaria. (Actually the Gates are interfering nefariously with the world health CARE system, many scientists are increasingly complaining.)

All this anti-European hysteria of course has to do with Obama’s Secretary of Health & Human Services declaring this week that Obamacare was a “debacle“, or it has to do with Germany so anxious to hear more from Mr. Snowden about NSA industrial espionage that it sent a member of the national assembly to pose with Snowden.

What the New York Times proposes is to replace the Republic with philanthropic plutocrats.

The USA got tremendous mileage for nearly a century from the war between the (French) Republic and various German (USA supported) fascist racial plutocrats. But now, no more. The New York times has to fight the bicephalic Franco-German republic. Well, it will not win.

As the Athenians demonstrated 24 centuries ago even a tiny Republic of the People can defeat a giant plutocracy (Achaemenid Persia). France, Germany and their immediate satellites do not make a tiny Republic, but one roughly as large demographically and economically as the USA. The European Union exported in 2012 for 2.2 trillion dollars, more than China, and about 50% more than the USA (in spite of a very strong Euro).

The Washington based International Monetary Fund has joined the American chorus berating Germany (repeating like a deranged parrot the arguments in the NYT). Howl in vain. Only one opinion matters: that of the sister republic, France. And what France believes is that she has not been serious enough and she needs to Germanize herself. The process has started: unions are starting to sit on company boards, as in Germany.

France, like Germany, believes that the economy ought to be industrious first. The world first working steam engine and steam boat was built by a French university professor motoring down a German river in 1707. That was no accident: at the time the somewhat crazed plutocrat, the so called “Roi Soleil” (Sun King) was not creating the best condition for innovation. Crazed plutocracy is not the best for anyone, but crazed plutocrats.

Obamacare was written by a Vice President at the largest health insurance company, Well Point, Liz Fowler. Under plutocratic senator Baucus. Ms. Fowler is back in the for huge profit business, big time, racking up millions off the inchoating Obamacare.

But listen to Bill Moyers, a sedate, ancient, experienced commentator from PBS. Moyers talks about “treason“, and says the situation is unheard of since the nineteenth century (when senators were not elected). He says that one should call it for what it is; a “leveraged buy-out of democracy“. He recommends to get ‘busy”.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1355498-Liz-Fowler-Wall-Street-Crony-The-Truth-behind-Obamacare

I highly recommend that readers listen to Mr. Moyers five minutes’ description of the mind boggling corruption. First order of business ought to be to get informed.

The Obama administration is the most corrupt ever, in recent memory. Those who hated G. W. Bush can only thank Obama for feeding their outrage some more.

***

Patrice Ayme

White Flag Syndrome

September 7, 2013

AUSCHWITZ PRIZE TO BE WIDELY ATTRIBUTED.

Abstract: The cultural difference between the French Republic and the European countries that collaborated voluntarily with Hitler explains their different attitudes relative to the criminal  against humanity, Assad. Obama, Kerry, Hagel are commended for pushing in 2013, exactly for the opposite of what the duplicitous, plutocratic Roosevelt did in 1939. Obama is becoming the indomitable defender of human rights. Excellent.

What’s behind the Russian led, Assad loving coalition? The same sort of plutocracy loving coalition that propped Hitler and his friends.

It’s the very fact that France and the USA are cracking down against the worldwide, tax evading plutocracy, that makes all those who have profited from global plutocracy anxious at the deposition by force of one of their own, namely Assad. It’s not just that if Assad goes, why not Kim, Xi, Putin? It’s also a worldwide conspiracy of leeches that is threatened!

***  

Why do you think Hollande and Obama are isolated about “punishing” Assad?

They are smarter! They are nobler! They have the long view! They defend civilization! They, literally and figuratively, have better intelligence about what is going on in Syria, Russia, etc. France and the USA are also the two top military powers of the West. They are also more courageous! Americans always boast that the USA is the “land of the free”, and France means “Free”.

French fries literally translates into “freedom fries”. Neither the French nor the Americans revere their unworthy masters as the Brits do.

As i said in the introduction, there is a generalized plutocratic angle. If Hollande and Obama are willing to use force, and take out a demon such as Assad, are major tax evaders next? Striking the plutocracy is essential for the Republic.

What makes France and the USA so special?

This is a vast, very interesting subject, but I am in a rush to present more arguments to destroy Assad, so I will address this subject another time. I had a full integrated essay with that inside, but people don’t have this sort of attention span. Let me just say this. For all the silly talk about “the special relationship with Britain“, the USA and France are sister republics, pretty much a unique case in history. They have the same constitution (up to details). They originated together, from the same republican process. Even more importantly, that entangled republic generated the world movement towards democratic republics all over, the United Nations and the Charter of Human Rights.

So it’s no accident they are in the lead against a mass criminal against humanity such as Assad. They have always been in the lead.  

Why is France so isolated inside Europe about Syria? 

It’s an extremely simple, but horrid, truth. Remember the 1930s? The psycho-philosophical cultures from that time persist. They were passed from parents to children to grandchildren, to great grandchildren.

Look at Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council: a Belgian Flemish politician. He suggested like a fool to negotiate with Assad, as if that had not been tried for decades. You have to ask about such a fool: what does the Belgian Flemish  tradition feel about fighting infamy, Hitler’s style?

Well the answer is that the defeat of the French army in May 1940 has everything to do with the attitude of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940.

(It’s a long story, so it will not be given here; but the Dutch and the Belgians should understand their grandparents caused the defeat of 1940; they were not the only cause, true, but their “neutral”, “pacifist” attitude is part of the causality web that produced Auschwitz. To act properly, instead of trying to help them, as it did, the French Republic ought just to have left them to the wolf, as they deserved.)

What happened in the 1930s that revolts you so much?

All European countries WILLINGLY COLLABORATED with Adolf Hitler. All of them. EXCEPT FOR THE FRENCH REPUBLIC. The French Republic was Hitler’s dedicated, relentless enemy. But that was it. The rest of Europe was, at best, supine. Denmark resisted the Nazis 6 hours (still, hundreds were killed). France fought six years. So, of course, Denmark, ended richer, in material possession, per capita, whereas France was devastated. Sweden, or Switzerland, were made filthy rich from WWII.

Wow. That’s crazy! Are you sure? They all collaborated? Why does not anyone talks about this?

There is no glory in remembering what happened. But now, it’s a warning. the only country that can talk about Assad in Europe is France. Because France knew how to talk to Hitler. With all due respect, the other European countries should come to the classroom, and be taught by their professor of practical, survivalist, philosophy, France.

That is, once they come out of the chapel where they celebrate abject, inhuman, vile, decerebrated subjugation to fascism and those prone to the worst crimes against humanity. Have you just looked at Von Rompuy’s weasel face? He looks like the most despicable treacherous villain from central casting. It’s hilarious.

What do you want Belgium, Britain, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Russia, Ireland, fascist Spain, Portugal to say? Oh yeah, we made Hitler all he could be?  And that’s why we want to negotiate with Assad, as we did with Hitler?

By the way, although ti’s usual to despise them, nowadays, Greece and Yugoslavia were also exemplary.

Can you give examples of these alleged collaboration?

Just a few examples out of many. Poland made a defense treaty with Hitler in January 1934, standing on its head the protection it was getting from its creator, France.

Britain made a treaty in 1935 with Hitler that, following Lord Keynes (UK economist and government official, object of a cult) violated the Versailles Treaty, and that the Nazis viewed as an Anglo-Nazi alliance against the French Republic. Later the ex-king Edward VIII was allowed to spy, as “Inspector of the British Forces” on the French defense system and plans, and communicate his finds to his friend Hitler (with the help of his American wife, herself a Nazi spy). The higher reaches of British society were stuffed with Nazis.

Russia and Portugal helped the Germans, and then Nazis, to re-arm secretly and unlawfully. Sweden and Norway made an “Iron Road” for the world’s best iron desperately needed by Hitler to feed his war machine.

The Swedes also licensed the 88mm gun, the Nazis’ main, and most effective anti-tank and AA gun. Russia, Italy were at war against France in 1939-1940, to help their little comrade Hitler. Giant Soviet resources fed the Hitler war machine.

Belgium betrayed the defense treaty with France by refusing to build fortifications (allowing the Panzer army to pass through unhindered in May 1940).

The Netherlands was basically a Nazi economic agent. The Irish government cried after Hitler’s death was announced. Switzerland‘s multifariously vicious roles helping the Reich, deserve a book. 

What about fascist Spain?

Hitler helped general Franco, but Franco did not reciprocate. Although Franco kept on killing millions of his republican, secular enemies inside Spain after he finished Catalonia in winter 1939, he was careful to NOT help Hitler. That made Hitler furious, and weakened him enormously: by controlling Gibraltar, which Franco refused to attack, Britain was able to keep a lock on the Mediterranean.

This also shows that all the countries that collaborated with Hitler rather than the Republic (France) did so willingly, motivated by greed, and unfathomable stupidity. We have a right, nay, a duty, to ask whether their cultures are still that mistaken, that they make a butcher such as Franco humanitarian and far sighted.

You did not mention Czechoslovakia and Austria…

Those two were complicated cases, with divided populations. The Czechoslovakian government was left out to dry at Munich when the French Republic, itself first betrayed by Chamberlain, could not serve Hitler with an ultimatum (as British PM Chamberlain had already given much of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in a spirit of negotiation; so France had to argue against both Hitler, and Chamberlain!). The fact that the formidable Czech fortifications where located in the ethnically German Sudetenland complicated everything, but Hitler’s bad faith was blatant.

Although not as bad as Assad declaring the only solution was to “liquidate” his opposition.

What about Greece and Yugoslavia?

Nowadays, it’s common to depict Northern European countries as more “moral”, and the south as corrupt. But, when it really mattered, when facing Hitler, it was completely the other way around.

Greece and Yugoslavia were anti-Nazi, and completely refused to collaborate, even though they faced annihilation. Their heroic sacrifice was not in vain. They played a crucial role in the defeat of Hitler in Russia: Hitler had to attack and invade them, losing all his (victorious!) thousands of paratroops in Crete, instead of sending them east. He never recovered these 6 lost weeks, of preciously good weather, and his lost units.

If Hitler had attacked the USSR by early May, as initially planned, there is little doubt that Moscow would have been encircled and captured, cutting Russia in two. Moreover Russian evacuations to Siberia would have been cut short. Stalin would have died in Moscow.

The vast Yugoslav and French resistance movements immobilized at least 30 Nazi divisions by 1944, many of them, elite. Vercors, in particular, allowed D day to succeed by diverting crack SS paratroop units needed in Normandy.

Why was the USA not present at Munich?

Because Roosevelt was a plutocrat in drag. More Von Rompuy than Lincoln. Starting in 1934, Roosevelt was extremely hostile to the French Republic, but he hid it successfully from the unsuspecting masses. If you assume extreme hostility to the French, you understand all of Roosevelt policies during 1934-1945, in one fell swoop. In common lore, one calls Roosevelt’s duplicity “American Isolationism”. But certainly American plutocracy was NOT isolated from Germany. Quite the opposite: it leveraged Germany.

How can you be so sure of this unusual thesis of Roosevelt’s hostility to France?

I look at his decisions, what he said, and the moods he expressed. The hostilities started in 1934 when France got upset about what she viewed as aggressive dollar devaluation, and the Anglo-Saxon’s elite friendliness to what became Nazism, first made obvious by Lord Keynes in 1919.

Can you give specific examples of Roosevelt anti-democratic plotting?

Roosevelt did nothing much to reel in American plutocrats transforming the Reich in a power-house. OK, Texaco got a tiny fine for fueling the Nazis and fascist armies in their insurrection against the Spanish Republic.

Then Roosevelt betrayed the German generals who had revealed to the USA embassy their intent to kill Hitler, and recalled his anti-Nazi Berlin ambassador, the historian Dodd. He also nominated as ambassador to London another loud pro-Nazi, J. Kennedy.

On September 3, 1939, the French Republic declared war to Hitler, and, within days an offensive by 45 French divisions was launched, smack into the Nazi “Westwall” (Siegfried lines). Hitler ran out of crucial resources within days as the Poles resisted desperately. The Nazi military situation was no good. American corporations flew decisively to Hitler’s rescue. What did FDR do to stop that? Nothing that could help the French Republic at war.

Quite the opposite. The Congress and the president of the USA, may they live in infamy, declared Britain and France to be “belligerent” and applied various, significant sanctions against them.

Said President F. D. Roosevelt to Congress, while French and Polish troops were fighting the mass murdering racist Nazis, September 21, 1939:

“But if and when war unhappily comes, the Government and the Nation must exert every possible effort to avoid being drawn into the war… this Government must lose no time or effort to keep the Nation from being drawn into the war.

In my candid judgment we shall succeed in these efforts.”

By September 21, 1939, more than 300 million Europeans were already at war. Democracy was represented by France, population 40 million, fighting more than 200 million fascists (Naziland, plus the USSR). There was nothing candid about Roosevelt, and his judgment was that, as long as his plutocratic class would stay on top, everything was fine. And that meant weakening Europe. For Roosevelt, the business of the USA was business. Business with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, that is.

Do you have more happy news?

Yes, Italian Justice just declared that Berlusconi has been in cahoots with the Mafia for at least 20 years. It has long been obvious that Berlusconi’s fortune is just his payment for Mafia money laundering. But then Toronto is been built by Calabria Mafia money (in a way unlawful in Italy; the Italians are furious).

In more happy news, the Treasury of the USA announced that the tax evasion by USA plutocrats to tax heavens is 1,375 billion dollars, a year, more than a third of the yearly Federal Budget of the USA. In other words, everything could be financed, except for the criminals who head the USA.

Did they talk about that at Saint Petersburg?

Well, Putin is himself organized crime of KGB type. He is going around stupidly claiming that the secular rebels in Damascus gazed themselves. That’s the big lie technique, dear to Hitler. In truth many Western intelligence agencies have all the details, and Putin knows they do.

Yes, supposedly there will be automatic exchange of data in 2015. It may happen because Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the USA want to stop the fiscal bleeding. The BRICS and other critters are furious, though. But like Roosevelt with France in the 1930s, they cannot say why they are really furious. Namely that all that good plutocratic money that used to flee the West towards the tax havens will be now be forced to stay there, in the West. That’s why BRICS currencies have been tumbling.

So, instead, they join Putin, and disingenuously suggest that the secular rebels gazed their own children?

Yes. They are getting very afraid that the West is finally using force to regain its destiny. They don’t like that, because they had a deal with Western plutocrats, and, without it, they sink.

They want to keep on submitting to their masters, so they can profit, as many did in the 1930s and 1940s. That is the White Flag Syndrome. If it’s hard to beat them, and more profitable to join them, adopt the appropriate mood and thoughts, while claiming you see no crime.

How does that explain the hostility of many European officials to France?

Because as I said, many come from a Hitler friendly parentage. Even more directly, many of them have their own, lesser deals with the Plutos. Many were, or will be employed by Goldman-Sachs and its ilk. They have rabid so called neo-liberal agendas, namely, they want all the money to their friends the plutocrats, and none to the welfare state (Mr. Rehn is an example; he was recently furious that France had balanced her budget by rising taxes, instead of dismantling her welfare state).

Many smaller countries are tax havens, and they collaborate with plutocrats just as their grand-parents used to collaborate with the fascists, or the plutocrats sponsoring them, in the 1930s. It’s often a question of families, just as in the Mafia (see Berlusconi; when Sarkozy and Merkel tolerated Berlusconi, they knew he was Mafia).

Britain, the Netherlands, Ireland have enjoyed great returns as tax havens. Ireland taxes worldwide Apple profits 2%. Luxembourg is little more than organized crime, etc. What they are afraid of, is that France will use more force, about taxes, and other large countries, such as Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, will follow in the breach.

Just one French nuclear attack submarine could shut down all the Caribbean tax havens, as I have long pointed out.

For example, France just forced humiliatingly Switzerland to submit to a humiliating tax treaty. Germany will be inspired. Because Britain is a major military power (that means a huge, costly military-industrial complex only second to France and the USA’s) and a welfare state, it needs revenue, and now that making Britain into a giant tax havens a la Magpie Maggie Thatcher has no future, it will need to find money, that money that fled to all tax havens, including of the European sort.

Let’s recapitulate. France and the USA are isolated because those republics are cracking down?

France and the USA are the fundamental republics. All others are imitations. The republican model was imposed on them from the outside, not by a revolution from inside. They are followers, not revolutionaries. What we have now is France and the USA imposing higher moral, humanitarian and republican standards.

It looks like gas, but it’s fundamentally about taxes. It’s about which values have imperium. When Putin claims the rebels gazed themselves by firing rockets from Assad’s territory, he is truly saying that it’s OK to be crazy, craziness is worthy. Obama was right not to waste his time visiting him. Yet, Putin has not sunk as low as most of the anti-wars in the West.

What is wrong with the anti-war protesters?

CNN showed an hysterical anti-war woman crying loudly in Senator Mac Cain’s face:”I beg you, I beg you, please, don’t bomb Syria!” She was waving an arm in the air, imploring. I admired Mac Cain’s composure. Interlocutor after interlocutor made a show of inconceivable ignorance during that Obama hating Tea Party meeting. These are the anti-war protesters for you: inhuman, irrational, ill-informed ignorami.

The anti-wars ought to be conferred collectively the Auschwitz Prize. That’s for all those who express loudly the opinion that the deliberate mass killing of children is none of their business, and not one weapon ought to be fired against the perpetrator, lest it disturb the peace. That’s sinking lower than the Nazis themselves, at least on the rhetorical level. And rhetoric is important; it’s the first order of expressed thought.

So don’t ask for whom the gas spreads. It spreads for you. And it smothers minds first.

***

Patrice Ayme

Pandora’s World

September 4, 2013

Abstract: More reasons for attacking Assad beyond what I wrote two years ago, “Force Works, Syria Next?“, and more recently (“Syrian Red Line” and “Peace From War“).

Three original points in the dialogue below: 1) there is -nearly- a right of ingerence in the United Nations, that allows to override the Security Council. The French Republic used it many times. This is such a case again. An occasion to teach most of the world’s countries about human rights.

2) Dictator Assad has threatened Israel and the French Republic. So now the self defense clause of the UN Charter can be used against him. In the latter case, that activates NATO.

3) An exclusive argument shows that the West has jurisdiction over Syria (as it had over Yougoslavia). The transfer of power from Rome to Islamist invaders in 636 CE was illegal, unconstitutional, uncivilized, and has proven irresponsible. Time does not make wrong right.

Fascism Is Always Personal, Decapitation Best

Fascism Is Always Personal, Decapitation Best

***

The French President wants to overthrow Assad’s regime. Is not that going too far?

No, it’s perfect. Assad, a criminal against humanity, equipped with weapons of mass destruction, has threatened France, so, to insure French security, that regime needs to go. The United Nations’ charter allows self defense, so now that Assad has threatened the French Republic, the latter has to right to strike. French strikes ought to specifically target the mass murderous dictator.

Assad is roughly in the same position as Hitler got in. Hitler did not surrender. Neither will Assad. Hitler ought to have been destroyed. By the same token, Assad ought to be destroyed. It’s not just a question of striking the VX factories, killing the neurotoxin scientists, their installation, and the specialized military units.

You see no ethical problem in attacking the Syrian government?

There are risks in engaging in action, any action, even going to the movies.

To check how fool proof my logic was, I dressed in pink (mimicking thus the “Code Pink” anti-war activists), and searched potential contradictors. I found them resting their wisdom on ill-information (I am much more “left”, whatever that means, than they are). Slogans (USA atom bombed Japan!) do not a logic make. (Self) glorifying peaceful thinking does not bend psychopathy. Quite the opposite; psychopaths smell weakness, an easy kill.

Fanatical pacifists bleat about non violence, to keep wolves away. They don’t understand biology. Let them munch grass. Fiercer ones save the world. Always have, always will.

Of course, when attacking Assad, countless things could go wrong, and will. A French SCALP missile could stray off course and flatten a school (but they will come at night and their precision is one meter). Assad put people that he would rather see dead, such as some of his own Suni troops, in harm’s way.

In 1944-45, American strategic bombing over France, even Paris, killed many thousands of French people, and flattened entire cities (Brest, Saint Malo, Toulon, etc.). Some, including myself, consider that some of these bombings were motivated by weakening France. Yet, if you ask the French, they shrug, and use a well know expression:“C’est la guerre.” (“It’s war.”)

Assad turned peaceful protests against his plutocracy into a butchery: more than 100,000 dead, more than two million refugees (UNHCR numbers: one million more refugees in 6 months).

The Syrian dictator has violated International Law  by using lethal chemicals in a mass attack on a civilian population (inside his own capital city).

Doing so, the dictator also committed a crime against humanity by killing hundreds of children, knowing full well that the gas would sink in underground shelters where women and children had taken refuge. That does not make him legally different than the worst Nazis.

(Klaus Barbie, who had personally tortured to death around 5,000 people, was condemned to life detention by a French court for the murder of 34 children. Why? Because killing children as a hate crime is a crime against humanity. No prescription. That’s just one thing one can demonstrate Assad just planned to do, assassinating 462 children, at least.)

Chomsky has called an intervention in Syria a war crime.

Chomsky’s indignation against imperialism is so parody, it has no bite. The real problem is plutocracy, not imperialism. There are empires all over. I condemn Bush’s attack against Iraq in 2003 or Carter’s attack against Afghanistan in 1979. Posing as anti-establishment, while being part of it, as Chomsky is confusing.

Chomsky claims that the usage of neurotoxins by the Syrian government is not credible. He thus contradicts the evidence put forward by the French and American governments, and common sense. (The French government web sites have more than 100 shocking videos of gas poisoning in progress.)

I expect no less from someone whose scientific reputation rests on a silly theory of language (“innate grammar“; a theory that someone familiar with varied languages, can only smirk about).

This being said, Chomsky does a nice job as crazy, well meaning uncle in the attic.

Why can’t you embrace non violence?

Non violence contradicts the essence of man. Those who practice it religiously deny reality and invite moral disaster.

Gandhi embraced violent non violence that made him the self declared friend of Hitler, and caused the partition of India along superstitious lines, killing millions. So he was a disaster, although an icon to the fanatical non violent, and that makes sense.

By contrast, Mandela, also a lawyer, embraced violence when he saw no other effective way. By using bombs, Mandela earned the respect of his racist enemies, to the point he was able to change their minds.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is an extremely violent species. Quasi by definition. Be it only violence in the noble sense of using force. Homo SS has never been as violent as he is now, when he is threatening the entire planet, by his mere existence. Yet, non violence is not an option.

Because technology itself is violent. Yet, without it, most of humanity would die. Moreover, solutions to the dilemmas at hand, like the CO2 poisoning of the atmosphere, will involve great force, great imperium (say putting international flying, or even much trade, out of reach of the commoners).

The key to survival, of the humanity we have, is not to lie supine, but to call for ever more violence, or, if you prefer that semantics, force, while channeling it where it will do necessary good.

Politics is about making the lesser of two cruel choices always. Those who do not want to impose, or suggest, the application of cruelty, should stay out of politics.

Is not that too radical a position?

No. Take the CO2 poisoning of the planet. Obama proposed, in the same style as Obamacare, a host of regulations, all over. At best that would make for a police state, with a huge bureaucracy, a sort of Stalinism without executions. At worst, it will be costly and won’t work.

Instead the free market solution is just to change the playground ground rule, by imposing a carbon tax. Just as the free market solution for health care is Medicare For All.

You have lost me completely there. What’s the connection with Syria?

To do the right and moral thing in politics, one has to take often tough and cruel decisions. Just as Obama has long been reluctant to do. Until Libya, and now Syria. The boy is growing up.

A good politician has to take decisions that, at first will feel tough and cruel to some. Sure, it will be tough to kill Assad and his butlers. However, if one had killed Hitler and his butlers in a timely manner, more than 70 million people would not have died, and huge suffering would have been prevented.

Certainly, as a politician, it’s sometimes bad to be too good. Chamberlain thought he was good by refusing war as a solution in Munich and leaving Czechoslovakia to the wolf. That proved a disastrous decision, as the French republic and Czechoslovakia, per se, could have held off Hitler.

The planet is hurtling towards destruction at this point. The correct ideas to save the planet will feel tough and cruel to many, if not most. Because they will be so much out of what they are used to, their comfort zone. That should be explained to the naïve masses.

The Iranian president, says he is “a lawyer, not a colonel”. Is not that reassuring?

Rouhani is president. He gives orders to colonels. Or would, if the Grand Ayatollah did not pull the strings. He “strongly & completely condemns chemicals in Syria”.  Yet, if he does not want to do like USA president Roosevelt in the 1930s, who argued with Hitler, but then helped him as much as he could, Rouhani should help do away with a man who gases his own capital city.

The best way to avoid serious wars is to show to fanatics, and persuade them, that violation of International Law and crimes against humanity will be met with the Wrath Of God, right away. A language they understand.

Don’t you think that spurning the UN Security Council is ill-advised? Chomsky said that was a war crime.

Chomsky barks, history will forget him. The French Republic intervened many times, and got retrospective approval of the United Nations. The 1930s have taught the French that they should trust their instincts about human rights, and not pay too much attention to two tendencies:

1) International plutocracy’s influence (its moods, its plots, both adverse to democracy).

2) The global anti-Republic mood (one of the aspects of the anti-republican mood is the claim to cultural equivalence, aka “multiculturalism”, a mood that makes, for example Islamism equivalent to the secular democratic republic that is constitutional, and the most advanced stage of civilization, and has been, for 3,000 years).

Why Are You Pushing For Regime Change In Syria?

If one just “degraded” Assad’s capabilities, the danger is to undershoot.

1) One does not just wound a bear. Assad has engaged in terrorist acts in other countries (Lebanon). If he survives, he will feel empowered.

2) The likes of Kim have to be shown that, beyond the Red Line, there is no hope. A clear example has to be made. If we do not, Pandora’s world will open, and all evil contained therein will escape and spread over the Earth.

[Part Two Tomorrow.]

***

Patrice Ayme

Wealth Care’s Endless Summers

July 31, 2013

Abstract: Starting with Nixon, the Kennedy-Johnson welfare state became the wealthcare state. The rise of systematic failures such as Lawrence Summers, was instrumental that way.

***

Democrats point at Republicans all the time. In truth, they set-up the Wealth Care State just as enthusiastically. Ever since Nixon, all outwardly socially motivated programs grew that monstrosity. (With the exception of G.W. Bush’s senior drug program! Yes, W. the torture man!)

Nixon publicly funded the HMOs, to make a Kaiser richer. Now Obama has extended plutocratic care. Ever since Nixon, plutocracy has made failure into rapture. It did not start this way, quite the opposite: engineering made the USA rich and powerful. Most renewable energy is hydraulic. It’s symbolized by this dam:

President Hoover's Dam. Engineering, Not Plutophilia

President Hoover’s Dam. Engineering, Not Plutophilia

President Hoover’s dam is an astoundingly high 222 meters (like a skyscraper). The reservoir holds 35 billion tons of water (yes, 35 cubic kilometers). The Hoover dam was launched by Sec. of Commerce Hoover in 1922, and construction ordered, early, by President Hoover, mid-1931.

Imagine Obama built something that big… Instead Obama’s idea of bigness is big money from the wealthy, food from their big tables, sleep in their big beds.

The latest thrust towards the Wealthcare state is a frenzy to make Larry Summers chief of the Central Bank.  The usual suspects push for it: the Rubin-Goldman Sachs-Citigroup gang.

Larry Summers, plutocrat, plutophile, enabler of deregulation under Reagan,  fought to repeal the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall, which separated traditional banking practices and investment (very risky) banking. Summers  deregulated complex derivatives of the world-gobbling type under Clinton in the late 1990s. Summers, grotesquely sexist to the point of imbecility, hyper connected with the worst, the great whale that swallowed the world economy, and regurgitated the neoplutocratic order.

Under Obama, Summers was made chief economic adviser, and gave the worst advice imaginable. Irreplaceable. He is now inciting Obama to see ghosts. Says the President (July 2013):

“let’s make sure that we’re growing the economy, but let’s also keep an eye on inflation, and if it starts heating up, if the markets start frothing up, let’s make sure that we’re not creating new bubbles.

Obama is worrying about inflation?  What else? Little green men? Inflation? Which inflation? Obama is keeping an eye on non-existent inflation? What for? No new bubbles? Really? Is not that rich, Mr. President, after your administration gave about 8 trillion, half of GDP, to the biggest, nastiest banks that ever existed? And all this so those nastiest banks and their bankers could pay the immensely greedy Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin and their ilk? And fit the vision of the world they have, where financiers know best about everything? 8 trillion dollars to replenish criminals, that’s not a bubble?

After the tragedy of the 1930s, we are now enjoying a farce (before it turns again to tragedy!)

Hoover, an engineer from Stanford U., was no idiot, far from it; and he was experienced: the Hoover dam was his baby. But as President he became an idiot by not understanding the extent of the crisis, and providing an insufficient stimulus program, while allowing banks to de-fund the economy.  Not that Hoover did nothing: look at his colossal dam above. He just did not do enough.

Now here is Obama: one would expect that he heard of Hoover’s meekness. But all he knows is basket ball, not engineering. Obama does not have a Hoover dam to point at: Obama’s stimulus was mostly a fake. He kept his eye on the ball, indeed, from basket to golf.

Obama could have done something to mark the future, as Hoover did, with the Hoover dam. To this day, most of “renewable” energy is symbolized by the Hoover dam (hydro, worldwide, is on its way to pass gas in electricity generation).

What could have Obama done to mark the future with more than basket or golf balls? Get himself genuinely brainy advisers, not just greedy chickens, pecking away (Summers style). An obvious little project would have been Very High Speed trains, where they nearly exist, along the North East corridor or where they are guaranteed to be profitable, as in California.

Much more pharaonic and futuristic would have been for Obama to preside over a massive solar project in the South West USA.

The South West USA is the world’s best place for solar energy (due to solar energy guaranteed & proximity of enormous California, and its two giant metropolises, plus great safety). But Obama did not notice: all he has, is his “eyes on the ball”. The basket ball, historically, and now the golf ball. That’s the balls he knows. Not ball-bearings, not an engineer, just a player.

Yes, Obama gave a bit of money here and there (Mostly to Elon Musk, because he is a tall, good-looking rich South African). Stimulus-wise, Obama is a dwarf Hoover that built dams never higher than a few meters high.

Some will scoff I am unfair to Obama. But I have been too generous: Obama is Hoover in full reverse. Hoover used the power of the government to build a giant dam (so did FDR, only more so). Instead Obama used the power of the government to give money to plutocrats.

A non banking example? Elon Musk and space X, and the like: NASA money has been detoured to give to that clique, to the point NASA does not have enough money to develop the successor of Saturn V… (Finally decided 40 years after Nixon buried it!… except Musk stole the money…)

We have a Great Depression, but Obama has not noticed, because he only listens to Goldman Sachs (historically his greatest source of funds to get elected)! Indeed, Goldman Sachs’s owners are doing great. Obama breathes Goldman Sachs and its ilk. Such as Citigroup.

Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc. were all broke. What did Obama-Summers do? Each of the broken banks got about 60 billion from taxpayers, but Obama failed to acquire those properties taxpayers had paid for. So the plutocrats that controlled those institutions still do, and that’s why Rubin’s Citigroup and its immensely paid creatures (such as Lawrence Summers) are resurfacing from the abyss, stronger than ever. Well fed by clueless, pathetic taxpayers.

Why do we have a great Depression? Because presidents of USA such as Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama thought small, supposing they thought at all. Nixon ordered the stupid Space Shuttle instead of improving enormously the fantastic Saturn V (as it was easy to do, and Von Braun wanted), and Nixon conceived the stupid HMOs crony capitalism (= plutocracy).

The corrupt (What else?) Summers is paid by Citigroup (founded by Goldman’s Robert Rubin, B. Clinton’s main minder.) According to the Wall Street Journal, Saturday July 27, 2013:  “Mr. Summers is getting millions from a number of other financial firms.

These include stock-exchange operator Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., hedge fund D.E. Shaw, venture-capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and asset-management and advisory firm Alliance Partners”

Making Summers central bank chief, reminds me irresistibly of the nomination of H. Schacht at the head of the German central Bank.

Schacht, a pawn of the American plutocrat JP Morgan, enabled Hitler. Was it under orders? Schacht was tried at Nuremberg, and rebounded nicely as a master world plutocrat afterwards (he was obviously protected; he was best silent, as he knew all about Hitler’s mighty financiers).

Quantitative Easing (QE) enthusiasts advocate the idiotic, but highly profitable to them, notion that the economy is all about money: just send enough money to the financiers, and they will make the world right for you (such is the main idea of QE).

Many “democratic” economists have advocated QE: send trillions to buy off the (unprosecuted) banking criminals. And thus most of what Obama did was to implement the notion of sending, according to the esteemed economist and lawyer William Black, and also according to the inspector of TARP, and evidence, trillions to the very banks that created the 2008 disaster. (This is not just my opinion anymore: even the Wall Street Journal agrees now, see below!)

(The banks used a bit of that money to “reimburse” TARP, enabling big reassuring titles in the Main Stream Propaganda: “Banks/Companies Reimburse Government Loans”).

Perfect for a world where the financiers in power decide who deserve money (namely themselves and their friends: why do you think Obama spent years calling Jamie Dimon, the daemon head of JP Morgan, “my friend”?)

Thus caring about the economy was straight WEALTH CARE: take care of the rich, they will do the rest. Reagan (“Ray Gun”?) got the ball rolling all over industry. Thanks to Goldman Sachs, Rubin, Summers, Clinton (in that order), it was extended to all financiers, drugged out on derivatives, in the 1990s.

Bush succeeded to out-Clinton by extending wealth care massively to defense contractors by engaging in carefully unwinnable wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, all over.

Nixon has started HMOs by giving billions to private companies for Health Maintenance Organizing (HMO). The idea had been suggested to him in the Oval Office by the head of Kaiser Permanente, the industrialist Henry J. Kaiser. (Recent profits of Kaiser are of the order of 2 billions, and its revenue 50 billion; it’s the largest HMO in the USA).

Just as Obamacare flaunts the notion that stock exchanges and turning patients into shoppers will be the royal road to health care. Just send enough money to private insurance companies and health care plutocrats, such as Warren Buffet, Obama’s self interested adviser, and, little people, they will take care of you, thanks to the benevolent (and ‘invisible’!)hand of the market.

QE enthusiasts are propagandists for plutocracy. Just like many of the health care advocates are just poorly disguised wealth care fanatics who see more government subsidies coming their way.

Fine. This is what a plutocracy (aka “crony capitalism”) is all about. What’s not fine is when conscientious liberals fall for these schemes and howl in their favor for years. If one wants a society that cares, one builds a society that cares, and one does not simply throw money at the problem. That latter scheme is not new: Roman emperors practiced it for centuries, until the flood of money had corrupted the entire civilization.

Money even corrupted the most basic intelligence of the elite. When society is exclusively organized by money, there is no room for true intelligence. Even the Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2013, is finally understanding (five years after I got alarmed by Obama’s seduction by Summers!):

Mr. Summers is a master at “failing up.” Screw up at one job, get a better one. He’s now considered a front-runner to replace Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in January.

Mr. Bernanke’s response to the financial crisis has been to digitally print trillions of dollars and give most of it to the biggest banks that caused the crisis. This seems to have averted another Great Depression, but at what cost? Eventually, the Fed must ease this money out of the system…

Meantime, President Obama launched yet another campaign to help the middle class. “With this endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington’s taken its eye off the ball,” he complained last week in Galesburg, Ill.

He blames Washington, even as he leads Washington. One reason why the middle class is still suffering is because Mr. Obama has a knack for putting the same people who ruined the economy in charge of fixing the economy.

Well, it’s not a knack, it’s a system. There is constant commuting between the Obama administration and the institutions that got the most money from said administration. The woman who wrote so called Obamacare, a high level (VP) health care insurance executive, went back where she came from, after she was done. Single payer, American style: one woman, singularly paid.

But let’s look at the bright side. The Wall Street Journal’s broadsides against Summers are hilarious, and gratifying; the critiques above I put in bold letters I advocated for 4 years at least. At the time, most would have described my ideas as rabid, irrational leftism. In truth, it was only the truth.

The traditional method to deal with bank-ruptcy of banks is to nationalize them: stakeholders get wiped out, management thrown out, the state brings in what’s needed to keep the bank going, and then sells it back to the private sector. This is fair: banks have a monopoly on money creation, granted by the state. Although privately managed, they are still agents of the state. This is efficient: it punishes malfeasance. And it costs taxpayers, thus, We The People, nothing: all the money is brought by the wealthy, twice.

Faced with the bankruptcy of thousands of a type of banks, the S&Ls, Reagan and Bush Senior followed scrupulously the nationalization method.

Yet the American subprime/European malinvestment crisis of 2008 was dealt in the opposite way: money was just grabbed from taxpayers, and given to the criminals, the banksters. Why? So they could do it again? Bush, Paulson a steroid laden football player who was made president of Goldman Sachs, before becoming Treasury Sec., Nancy Pelosi, a plutocrat daughter of somebody, head of Congress democrats, Obama, the basket ball man, and Lawrence Summers took all the decisions, and gave no explanation, except that they saved the world!

Verily, they saved nothing, except an established order that had blossomed in an orgasm of over-exploitation. What they did, was to Transfer Assets to Rich People (TARP), and impoverish everybody else.

So why Reagan and Bush Senior behave fairly, and the politicians of 2008 so dishonestly? Because the world political class of 2008 was much more corrupt than that of 1998.

How did it get there? Under Clinton, that is the reign of Goldman Sachs-Rubin-Summers, corruption got away from any critical examination. That allowed it to reach a crtitical mass. Summers had a screaming fit against the lady heading the Futures’ Commission, insisting, as he did, that financial derivatives ought not to be regulated (under Harvard president Summers’ supervision, that University lost a billion dollars in derivatives trades, meaning students’ money was transferred to plutocrats).

The same lady, Sheila Bair, was unpopular in the Obama administration, just as the highly qualified Fed Vice President, Janet Yellen.

What’s the problem with those women? They are more careful that the men, being more emphatic. Somebody such as Summers believe that greed is the noblest engine of humanity, and government should serve greed. The welfare state is their enemy, the wealth care state, their solution. They have understood nothing to humanity. And even less to how Earth works.

Lawrence Summers helped ruin Russia (by giving Yeltsin terrible advice) and turned it away from democracy, and back to the KGB. Lawrence Summers made the economy of the West “derivative”. Worse than him, there is not. Thus, Summers is intensely attractive to those whose wealth depends upon ruining the rest of mankind.

Summers? Irresistible to the Obama administrators: that’s where the money is. Citigroup will reward them. Amen.

***

Patrice Ayme

JOAN OF ARC ROASTED TOO LATE?

May 18, 2013

Of worshipped stupidities the most vicious aspects of thought and emotional systems are made. In particular regarding nationalism and other religions of the violent type. As the emperor who was never observed to have no clothes, most vicious stupidities can live on, unruffled, respected by all. And they live on, because they are respected byall. To kill those vampires, the truth needs to be driven through their hearts. They live on, as long they have not been denounced for what they are.

It’s only when slavery in the colonies was denounced, as the outrage it was, that it could be outlawed. Denunciation had to precede extinction. Similarly, the denunciation of the Catholic Inquisition. to extreme pain, suffering and death, for centuries, had to precede its extinction.

A case in point of vicious worship: that of the homicidal bigot, Jeanne d’Arc. Behind that? Mass homicidal nationalism as religion.

The Daughter of French King Charles VI of France and Isabeau of Bavaria Marries the King of England, Recognizing his Right to the Throne of France (2 June 1420). The “100 Year War” is Over. Unfortunately, the formidable Franco-British king Henry V fell ill and died in 1422. Their Son Henry VI Became King of France & England (1422).

A definitive settlement of the “100 year war” between Paris and London had been reached: Henry V, and his descendants, were to rule England and France. The Treaty of Troyes, signed 21 May 1420, in cathédrale Saint-Pierre, between Charles VI, king of France, and Charles V, king of England, anticipated that Henry V, son-in-law of Charles VI, would succeed to him after Charles’ death.

The Treaty was immensely popular in the region which had been devastated by generations of fratricidal war between French noble families to rule the kingdom of France. Henry V, a direct descendant of the famous French king Philippe IV Le Bel, was celebrated when he entered Paris. Unfortunately the English monarch died in August 1422, three-month before his father in law, Charles VI. Henry’s ten month old son, Henry VI, became king of France and England. And therefrom an opportunist queen engineered a renewal of the disastrous war (which, on and off, will last until 1815…) 

A definitive settlement of the “100 year war” between Paris and London had been reached: Henry VI’s descendants, were to rule England and France. His mother, Catherine de Valois, was as French as French could be. The advisers were French, although the Duke of Bedford was made regent of France & England. By austerity, Bedford used cheap English-speaking troops.

Jeanne d’Arc shattered the peace, re-launched a civil war.

Joan of Arc’s legacy is four more centuries of Franco-English war. For no good reason, whatsoever. Let me forgive those who may wish that she had been roasted sooner.

What’s the story of Jeanne in a nutshell? That of a vicious pawn.

Signature Of A Devil?

Signature Of A Devil?

To understand the “100 Year War”, one has to backtrack to 1300 CE (at the very least!). Philippe IV “Le Bel” decided to tax the Church, in accord with his (part) vassal, the king of England. The Church begged to differ, but was forced to obey. Later Philippe had the Pope arrested (and soon dead). Besides Philippe expropriated banksters, the Templar Monks. The chief bankster, while roasting in the Royal presence, threw a spell on the king.

Within a year, the king fell from his horse, and died from it. His three sons followed in quick succession: to the kingship, and then, death.

The Salic law said that the next in line was their sister. Isabelle. Isabelle de France… Queen of England. Absolute Queen of England: her husband had been killed (in a painful way, making lots of noise).

Isabelle had a reputation in Paris. Having made her own sting operation, she denounced to her  (usually extremely well-informed) dad the wives of her brothers, for drastic infidelity. Two were sent to monastery, and the future (would-be) queen spent winter in a very cold jail, before being (some say) strangled.

In any case, lawyers in Paris refused to apply the law of the ancient Salian Franks. They refused to have Isabelle as Queen of France, on the ground that she was a woman, inaugurating centuries of grotesque French sexism contradicting the very roots of Francia, the philosophical roots of equality.

Isabelle, trying to outsmart her Parisian opponents, then resigned, and put her 16-year-old son, Edward III, on the throne (of England). Something she would soon regret. Edward, grandson of Philippe Le Bel, a Frenchman in blood and claw, son of Isabelle de France, no less, then asked for his due, the throne of France.

The lawyers in Paris refused, again: they had made other arrangements. The war between London and Paris was on, and lasted nearly five centuries (until 1815).

Who-was-boss was not a new problem in Franco-Anglia (the Franks, like imperial Rome, had been plagued by that problem, because only re-establsihing a full republic could solv it).

When the Duke of Normandy, vassal to the King of the Franks became king of England, he established an oath between him and the People similar to one that existed in Rome with the army, or between People and Princeps (hence the executions of around 3,000 Christians who had refused to take that oath, mostly under emperor Galerius’ influence, in the 300-310 CE period; “Christian” leaders would later use that martyrdom to justify, sort of, the killing and terror on millions they would exert in the following 14 centuries).

A weird situation followed: was, or not, the London king subject to Paris? According to the old ways of the Franks, yes: the king in Paris was viewed as (Roman) emperor (since the Verdun split). What was clear is that French were in command on both sides of the channel. The entanglements only got worse, from 1066 until 1320.

An example was Eleonor of Aquitania, duchess, and ruler of an immense realm, semi autonomous for two millennia. After her long union with the king of France was, clearly sterile, she divorced. And married the King of England, with whom she had many children. In the process she brought Aquitaine over, and that’s why Richard the Lion hearted was born, raised, married, lived and died in France (but for a few months he spent in England; he spent more time crusading side by side with the king of France, his “compagnon d’arme”).

After immense destructions, generations of war, and further dynastic problems on the Paris side, cooler heads prevailed. It was admitted that the rightful sovereign of France was Henry V, king of England, descendant of Philipe Le Bel, and it was decided that he would become, indeed, king of France.

The University of Paris, the City of Paris, and people all over the regions that had known generations of inconclusive war wholeheartedly agreed: give us just one king, one government, and peace!

Right from the start Jeanne of Arc got military support by a Queen from the South, the formidable Yolande of Aragon.

While “Jehanne” was still very young and unknown, Queen Yolande sent her soldiers to act as her bodyguards. Jeanne’s early miracles were fake (surprise, surprise). For example, she had encountered the would be king long before recognizing him “miraculously” in a crowd (that miracle is still repeated to this day, as if a fact, whereas it was just a ridiculous lie).

There was more than one Jeanne (at least another was burned; Jeanne bore witness against one of her competitors at some point). Preacheding against the English was a successful business model (similar to Muslim Fundamentalism as a convenient façade to banditry).

Same story as with the several would-be Christ that really existed at the times of Christ (differently from the mythical Christ himself, whose existence outside of Saint Paul’s head remains unproven).

So what happened? What was the real story of Jehanne d’ Arc? The southern lords of France were anxious to NOT see a formidable rule by Paris and London in the north: the double capitals, sitting in the middle of the largest arable lands in Europe, would have subjugated them totally.

So they contrived a story for children. Then the story ran out of control, and deep real hostility between England and France appeared. The truth was simpler: the story of a woman spurned by fate, who fought back.

Yolande of Arago was also Queen of many other things, including Sicily. She was married in 1416 to become queen of France, too, but her husband died before he could be crowned. Yolande later became the mother in law of the king of France she installed later on the throne, Charles VII. She was a specialist of legal assassinations, and the like. She was a most efficient diplomat: she turned Brittany against Britain, among other feats.

Yolande of Arago really won the “100 Year War”. Books have been written about her. She was the determined enemy of Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France, architect of the Troyes treaty (that had put Henry V on the throne of France). The two queens fought, on battlefields, for 22 years. Interestingly, women are the main actors of the “100 Year war”.

Such is the truth never told about Joan of arc; she was just another pawn of Yolande. Jeanne of Arc has nearly no redeeming value. In the end, all she preached was war, “booting” (“bouter”) the English out of “France”. Some God or Mary in the sky, or in her ear, had told her that some guy was the real king (although, logically, and historically, he was not).

Jeanne d’Arc was a dangerous fanatic, of the worst type. After a truce with the so-called “English” left her idle, she wrote to the Hussites, an intellectual group, backed by the university of Prague, which had broken with the standard Catholic Church on some doctrinal points. The followers of Huss had defeated crusades sent against them (they were defeated thanks to the highest treachery of the topmost Catholic hierarchy, sealing the doom of Catholicism).

Joan’s letter is extremely violent. It accuses Hussites of “obscenity“, “superstition“, threatens them with “extermination“. She promises to “remove your madness and foul superstition, taking away either your heresy or your lives.”

On the fanatical scale, that letter puts her higher than Osama ben Laden: she threatened to kill people who threatened her country in no way, just because they had “exerted a choice” (that is what “heretical” meant). [Fanatical supporters of “Jehanne” have argued that the letter was a fake, but then the Latin original was found, signed by her secretary, Pasquerel. Although “Jehanne” spoke several languages, she did not read or write, making her the equal of Muhammad!]

We have numerous letters of “Jehanne” where she promises, under various formulations, that she will “kill all those who don’t obey her“. (See note.)

Many of Joan of Arc’s exploits consisted often in attacking French cities. She had to siege Paris, while supposedly trying to deliver France from… the “Anglois”!

Jeanne taught hysterical trust in superstition, voices in one’s head (but only if the right person heard them, the others should burn). Jeanne taught hatred of intellectuals (as found in the universities of Paris and Prague), hatred of the “Anglois” (that is the other, whoever the “other” is; in truth only the foot soldiers spoke English, at a time when France enjoyed many languages). Jeanne taught, to all of Europe, that nationalism should raise to sainthood, and thinking, to the backwoods.

Voltaire had made fun of Jehanne in a 20,000 words work. As the homicidal ideology of nationalism rose, so did Jehanne. Jehanne was made a saint in 1920. Jeanne became a Twentieth Century nationalistic sensation. Some go around saying Joan of Arc is a “patron saint of France”. Whatever that means. She is in good company, one of her colleagues is “Saint Louis”, a dedicated criminal of the worst type, who wrote a lot of his bloodlust.

There should be a philosophical cleansing program of all the celebrities incarnating vicious ideals. The Austrian philosopher, Sir Karl Popper did this a bit in “The Open Society & Its Enemies“. There is much more to be done. In particular many of the French and European leaders loom large on today’s civilization, and some of them had tremendous flaws. By honoring them, one honors trains of thought and emotion that were conducive to immensely vicious activities.

Reciprocally some thinkers have been ignored, or defamed, for all the wrong reasons… To learn well from history, one has to get it right first.

Yes, Jehanne d’Arc was charming, extremely witty, attaching. But Jehanne also incarnated the passion for one of the oldest vices: superstitious tribalism. Her towering presence in history hides much more valuable characters, such as various French and “English” kings who, in the  50 years preceding her roasting had not just decided that the Franco-French war had to stop, no matter what, but instituted extensive truces, and even, in the end, found the legal solution that the forces behind Jehanne illegally shattered.

Joan of Arc represents exactly the sort of evils that we have to learn to throw in the fire. A tasty morsel, best carbonized.

***

Patrice Aymé

***

Notes: Jehanne As Anti-Sexist heroin: The only teaching of Joan of Arc worth keeping is her insistence that women could do a lot of tasks men did in the Late Middle Ages, such as war. She was, technically, burned for, wearing man’s clothing (after pledging she would not do that anymore)… In any case, whereas Jeanne was a nationalistic, superstition devil, she was a genuine anti-sexist saint. Supposing, of course that she was really the one who burned (there is some historical evidence that she did not, and considering her extremely mighty sponsors, that would not be surprising; burning a woman a month was routine in Rouen!) Because of her mighty, conspiring (plutocratic!) sponsors, much about “Jehanne” is unknown, even though it’s supposed to be known (for example there are no portrait of her, at a time when photographic like reproduction were made). Her age is a case in point; she is given as 19 when burned, but there is one piece of very strong evidence that she was actually 23!

Jehanne as Devil: Here is some typical Jehanne’s prose: “je suis chief de guerre, et en quelque lieu que je actaindray vos gens en France, je les en ferai aler, veuillent on non veuillent, et si ne vuellent obéir, je les ferai tous occire. Je suis cy envoiée de par Dieu, le Roy du ciel, corps pour corps, pour vous bouter hors de toute France.”

 (“I’m war chief, and in any place where your gents are found, I will have them leave, whether they want it or not, and if they don’t want to obey, I will have all of them killed. I am sent here by God, King of heaven, body for body (sic), to boot you out of all of France”)

***

USA Arm-Stronging Planet?

January 18, 2013

Sustainable countries are sustained, literally, by a type of secular nationalism, imposed by their national institutions, and showing up as local traditions. This peculiarism is akin to a religious structure, and often related to the local superstition(s). Religions have moral systems. Moral systems have very practical consequences: countries behave according to them, according to their own national morality.

The tradition of crooks confessing on national TV (that they were honest crooks, so to speak) is a tradition in the USA. And also, confessing, and that is obvious in the case of the cyclism crook Lance Armstrong, can be itself a manipulation.

American peculiarism is of peculiar interest because of the great influence of the USA, and its pretensions to universalism. It is always inappropriate to masquerade peculiarism as universalism. Yet peculiarism is often there to hide exploitation below red herrings, and other irrelevance.

In the USA, the bigger crooks, the more they visit visit the White House regularly. During the “Chinagate” affair, under Clinton, the chief crook visited the White House no less than 58 (fifty-eight) times (in less than 4 years). He was a major money contributor to the Democratic Party, and also a Chinese government agent. (22 other agents were convicted.)

Aaron Swartz was an Internet genius (having been co-author of the RSS program at age 14). JSTOR is an organization to STORe Journals. It is restricted to those who are viewed favorably by the powers that be (for example I do not have presently access to JSTOR, being an enemy of the established order).
Never mind that the research published in the academic Journals was financed by the public (yes, even arrogant Harvard is financed by the public, the word “private” as in “private university” is a joke).

In plutocracy, the public is made to be stolen, and the great priests (now played by Nobel prize winners and the like in “prestigious” institutions) are there to make that into a religion.
For a very long time, academic journals, or, more generally, academic publishing, have been a good trick to make multi-billion dollar fortunes, so the wealthy have been partial to this system, one more system to divert public funds to their pockets. (In Great Britain alone, several multi-billion dollar fortunes arose from academic publishing.)

Aaron Swartz noticed this, that JSTOR was an organization to steal public property. He downloaded millions of articles of JSTOR, to allow the public to access it own public property. That was an important violation of the plutocratic principle that only the mighty has access to knowledge, because knowledge is power, and power belongs to those who have it.

(The Obama administration uses this plutocratic principle when it uses secret recipes to decide which citizens of the USA will be summarily executed by robots, for whatever those citizens did that crossed the secret red lines.)

Aaron Swartz was relentlessly pursued by the government of the USA, the latter thus proclaiming, for all to see, that the established order had a moral right to steal public property. Swartz risked 35 years in jail, no less (for trying to give back to the public, public property, the primary crime in plutocracies!) He faced a trial, public humiliation, enormous cost in time, worry, money, gigantic injustice, the feeling that he was nothing, and would be crushed by plutocracy, no matter what.

Aaron Swartz committed suicide. When he was still free to do so. At age 26. He was made an example by plutocracy. Morality, plutocratic style, re-established. All plutocrats can rejoice. JSTOR came out with a declaration oozing with haughty hypocrisy.

Notice the analogy between JSTOR and the banking system: banks also use public money, and the full back-up of the public, through the money giving (“printing money”, “monetary base”, “quantitative easing”) of the public’s government.

However, in recent times, after a number of corrupt individuals tweaked the system to their advantage under Clinton, the bankers became convinced they could get away with anything. Now they have got used to confiscate the money, and keep it to themselves, their friends, politicians, and (so called) public servants. That’s why they have the command and control of the red carpet at the White House, and the president calls them “friends”, express his admiration, and go play golf with them.

Banking is another case of stealing public money by an oligarchy. But of course not too many academics will protest about JSTOR, and, thus, banking. Once “top” academics are fed at the trough in Harvard or Stanford, they laud the plutocracy that feed them, as Roman intellectuals used to do, to their great satisfaction, as small thinkers, and great greedsters.

A related case is that of Mr. Assange of WikiLeaks, an Australian. His greatest crime should have seen him decorated by the USA Medal of Freedom. Indeed it showed an attack helicopter destroying like vermin a number of civilians, and rescuers, having mistaken a reporter’s camera with a gun. It demonstrated that the U.S. Army had criterion of engagement inside cities that should be changed. And yet, Assange is pursued with rage, as if he were a danger for civilization.
Instead it is those who are gun happy and those who steal public property are threats to civilization.

In barely more than a week, the Boeing 787 “Dreamliner” experienced a brake failure, a fuel leak, a fire which fire fighters took 40 minutes to extinguish with specialized equipment, on the ground in Boston, a cracked front cockpit window, and finally smoking battery that leaked corrosive fluids, projecting flammable liquids 4 meters away, provoking an emergency descent and landing. The 787 Dreamliner was ordered off the skies, worldwide.

Immediately, propagandists with weasel words implied that this had happened before. But not so, to see a new model of planes with so many problems is an unprecedented event in aviation history.

(The Comet in the early fifties exploded mysteriously four times, and the DC10 also had two very deadly crashes; they got grounded, but these were, essentially mysteries about unforeseeable metal fatigue problems; the 737s also had a mysterious control failure, over several years, but, there again, this was more of mystery, a subtle, unforeseen problem; right now the A380 “Super Jumbo” is the object of a recall of cracking aluminum rib brackets in its wings, 4,000 of them per plane, because a British company made a slight mistake; but that’s no big deal, just a recall, and most companies will wait major revisions to do so.)

Why did not this happen before? Because Boeing was an engineering company based in Seattle. It made great planes. Now Boeing is a financial company with headquarters in Chicago, making financial-political plots, worldwide. So the 787 is a shoddy plane.

Meanwhile the F35 Lightning II, another worldwide USA led political-financial plot, is delaminating (the layers of composite material of the tail are separating from each other). Same story at Locckeed-Martin as at Boeing.

There is nothing like sheer violence. To impose oneself, and get to the top. Lance Armstrong (not his true name) made a fortune of more than 100 million dollars, and it’s entangled in his “charity” (“Live Strong”). OK, granted it’s little relative to ex-president Bill Clinton’s fortune, and much less of an ethical breach.

All along Armstrong cheated, and the rumor has it that his cheating was so successful, because it happened with the complicity of some controlling authorities.

The same thing happened with the USA Olympics committee in the times of Marion Jones, and for decades before that. Times magazine made a cover claiming she would get five gold medals. Never mind that Marion Jones was tightly connected, and even married, to notorious drug circles in the San Francisco Bay Area. Unfortunately the Olympic committees of other countries had enough of this American corporate circus, and Ms. Jones got finally busted. She went to jail a bit.

The fact remains that known drug addicts are celebrated as great sport figures, and entire sports are going control free, because they are big business, and the grotesque, steroid exhuding aspect of the athletes is part of the draw.

So Arm Strong confessed, a sort of religious ceremony USA citizens are eager for, in their simplicity. He was questioned by Oprah Winfrey, herself a monument of the system, a billionaire of her own, paid to ask the right questions in the right way on the authorized subjects, as part of the general lobotomization program. One could nearly see the dollars scrolling across the screen. It has always been clear that Armstrong benefited from the highest complicities, and still do.

That way Armstrong (not his true name) is pretty much like USA corporations and plutocrats. No paying their way, but profiting from the system, arm stronging the rest of the cycling world into oblivion, just like the USA corporations and plutocrats are arm stronging the rest of the planet into oblivion. While USA industries were making billions from Armstrong, the rest of the planet, once again, was getting the short stick.

Countries come with their moralities. The USA long enjoyed the moral and judicial system exhibited in “Django Unchained”. But what did work, sort of, exploiting a rich and empty continent, killing millions of slaves and Indians, will not work on a crowded, simmering planet, full of people who are neither slaves, nor Neolithic American natives.
***
Patrice Ayme

Crazy Lie Technique

November 30, 2012

The Economist, the celebrated British tabloid, teaches economy thus: it siphons its European profits behind a mangy door of a second floor apartment in a poor part of Luxembourg. Would it be economical to pay taxes in the countries where The Economist is sold? Tax havens is where the good life is at, and The Economist just contrived a list to prove that.

Major profiteers and corporations do the same all over the world: they hide profits in tax havens they enabled through subtle conspiracies and deep propaganda. Why is the insanity allowed to go on? Not just because of corrupted politicians. Also because plutocratic agents made common people too confused to realize they are robbed blind. Instilling insanity is the plutocrats’ first barrier against common sense and decency.

Propaganda fabricates the spines of the sheeple (sheep-people). Here is a spectacular example. The “Economist Intelligence Unit crunched hard numbers” to answer this: “Which country will be the best for a baby born in 2013?” Here is its somewhat deranged answer:

Better Serving Emirs, Without Health Care?
Intelligent To Make Us Crazy & Stupid?

First of all notice that, among the first 15 countries, none is a major military power. In other words, these 15 countries depend upon the military superpowers for their protection. That is nothing to encourage, lest one wants to repeat World War II.

We saw what this kind of parasitism brought in 1939-1940: the pro-Hitlerian antics of Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands caused the loss of France, enabling 50 million Europeans to die subsequently; as a telling aside, Dutch Jews were killed nearly to the last person. 

Observe that sexist Muslim Fundamentalist regimes, with their subjugation of women, score high in The Economist’s esteem. This sadomasochism theme, unsaid, runs deep.

Among other amusements, Cyprus is one of the better places to live, according to The Economist Intelligence. Cyprus is an island cut in two, a few years ago, when Turkey attacked militarily by sea and in the air, invading it with its army, twice (well named operations Attila). Cyprus survives, without a peace treaty, the butt of Turkish hostility. Another full war, with more atrocities, is entirely possible as Turkey increasingly veers towards Islamism. But, according to the mental retards at The Economist Intelligence, Cyprus ranks higher than Japan, France and Britain, none of which is under foreign occupation. Maybe The Economist Intelligence finds lethal atrocities of the massive type one of the better spices in life?

So? What else? Why to live in a place that could be wracked by war again, just off Syria, with so many who have lost their property and can never again where they were born? Cyprus is a tax haven. Tax avoidance, the meat of life, according to Economist Intelligence!

According to The Economist Intelligence, Singapore is deemed safe, while the acceleration of sea level rise is 60% higher than the most pessimistic official forecasts (countries such as the Belgium or the Netherlands are spending already much to fight the advancing sea). For those unawares, Singapore, a tax haven, is barely built above high tide.

The Economist self glorifies, as it pontificates that “the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a sister company of The Economist, has this time turned deadly serious. It earnestly attempts to measure which country will provide the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead.”

So the other times, The Economist admits that it was not “deadly serious“? It was just seriously deadly, as when it  supported Pinochet? I sent the following to The Economist, and they published it:

The Economist’s biases comes in many guises. The Economist now tells us that tiny Israel, hated on all sides, surrounded by a ghetto like wall, and with the high likelihood to be plunged into five or six horrendous wars, nuclear or not, with impacts all over its minuscule vegetated territory, scores higher for a “healthy, safe and prosperous life” than all major West European countries?

Does The Economist know how to spell C R A Z Y?

And Switzerland, a small enclave stuck between France, Germany and Italy, does particularly well? As if it were on another planet? Whereas, in truth, Swiss schemes are highly dependent upon whether the EU and the USA are going to let them happen, looking forward. 

And Ireland, which lives partly from being an outrageous tax heaven (like Switzerland with its Vereins) will keep on being a tax heaven, thus staying rich, while keeping on getting subsidies from its poorer, but ten to fifteen times larger European neighbors?

And Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are much safer than Italy? The Chinese plutocrats will not go silly in the next 50 years? The Chinese leaders will not abide by the deep desires of their underground Lord? Just in case The Economist does not know, let it be reminded that the People Republic of China reserves itself the right to recover Taiwan, anytime, by force, and that, should there be problems within the PRC, it will be only natural to distract the sheeple with a good foreign war.

Crunching numbers” is good, thinking, better.

This incident offers a troubling two dimensional space: along one dimension, The Economist is really stupid, along the other, The Economist is launched into a multi-dimensional propaganda operation, no holds barred. Notice that in The Economist’s classification, tax heavens score high. Notice also that the large countries, which are taking increasing measures against tax cheats, are scoring low. An argument The Economist uses, even against the USA, is that they owe large debts.

What The Economist “forgets” to say is that the large countries, which defend the West, owe large debts, because they pay rent to tax cheats (including, but not limited to tax cheating plutocrats, tax cheating countries such as those glorified by The Economist, and tax cheating corporations, such as the one that owns The Economist).

In passing, The Economist mentions that the Netherlands, a sneaky tax haven, is the only Eurozone country worth living in. Just in case Luxembourg does not work anymore, the Netherlands, which is 30 times larger, should be able to shelter The Economist from big bad Franco-Germano-British taxes. (Netherlands population: 17 million, UK + FRA + DEU = 210 million.)

The Economist’s analysis of the best places in which to be born started with another piece of classical propaganda. That great plutocratic philosopher, Warren Buffet, one of the world’s richest and deepest men (Buffet splurged with various manipulations that turned Greece into a colossal profits him and his associates) was quoted extensively as opining that he was who he was, that splendor of a vulture, because he was born in the right country, as the right time.

The Economist Intelligent Unit is intelligent enough to pose as exemplary the USA in general, and its plutocracy in the 1930s, and in the 2010s, while talking about the good life.

Hitler famously explained in “Mein Kampf” how Big Lies work: “little people use little lies all the time, they do not expect big ones…“By using Big Lies, Hitler succeeded to persuade the Volk of things that were not true, as he pursued what he viewed as higher aims, that he knew the Volk would disagree with, such as preparing for a world war in 1945 or the extermination of the Jews.

If most Germans had learned about either of these secret aims of Hitler, they would have been horrified and would have viewed Hitler as insanely dangerous… So, knowing this, he lied, big time.

However, as time went by, Hitler became a mental investment most Germans believed in, and the more they invested in him, the more they believed. (A phenomenon well known in the stock markets, as all too many people tend to fall in love with their investments… however bad those turn out to be.) In the end complete collective insanity took over, as the book Soldaten, relating secret recordings of German POWs, shows (Soldaten is also in English with same title).

Now we have something new, that even Hitler did not think about: the Crazy Lie. The Crazy Lie technique makes people accepting of modes of apprehending reality that prevent them to think seriously.

The Crazy Lie Technique is, first, emotional. The Economist used to support Pinochet’s dictatorship for its economic prowess (paid in part with around 5,000 killed and 31,947 officially tortured). Some will say: that was then. Indeed. The USA helped or led, and paid terrorists right wingers to make a coup in a democracy that never had any coup (the USA was furious about losing control of Chilean copper).

Chili was, is, a European foundation. What happened to it was horrible, but The Economist applauded, just as Milton Friedman applauded. Many in the Pinochet junta were on CIA pay roll, while heating up their electrical pincers.

By posing the United Arab Emirates as what we need to emulate, The Economist is actually sinking even lower than it did under Pinochet. The UAE has no European foundation. The UAE is a sordid medieval pluto-theocracy. Some emir, son of his father, is chosen by his medieval tyrannical peers to be the chief, just as was the case in Transylvania 8 centuries ago.

Differently from Middle Age France, though, more than 80% of the UAE’s inhabitants are NOT citizens. They are basically salaried slaves. Health spending proportionally to UAE GDP is only 2.8%, the 181th rank in the world (there are only 193 nations in the UN; as Emirati citizens get health care, that means that non Emirati, the slaves, get none). The UAE enjoys four billionaires with worth around ten billion dollars. Out of a million Emirati (among 4.5 million foreign slaves, servants & mercenaries).

The UAE is Sunni Muslim, and it faces hated Shiah Iran just across the sea of the Arabic, I mean, Persian Gulf. The UAE is basically a Western Plutocratic outpost, not exactly what the Iranian theocrats fancy. Fortunately for the thousands of Persian rockets at the ready, the hundreds of huge towers of the UAE (culminating up to half a mile high in Dubai!) offer themselves as ready targets.

To warn Iran off, the French were requested by the UAE to open a sea-air base, with half a brigade of the French Foreign Legion in residence. Thus the Camp de la Paix came to be.

War with Iran is more likely than not. Although crumbling towers and fireworks among great explosions promises a good show, by assimilating this to the good life, the Economist Intelligence Unit apparently advocates massive lethal sadomasochism as the dominant pursuit of our desires.

Not all is dark in the UAE; it is a place that strives very hard, from pretty bad initial conditions (aside from having the world’s 7th highest oil reserves). But here what I target is the cult that Anglo-Saxon plutocratic media such as The Economist, and the Financial Times enjoy.

Both of the much admired tabloids ferry their revenue through Luxembourg for tax avoidance, which, on that scale, surely is satanic.

So why convey the insane idea that the United Arab Emirates provides with a healthier (2.8% of GDP on health, remember) and safer (obvious target for Iranian nukes) life? Just out of love for plutocrats? Not, not just that. What is taught here is insanity itself.

What is taught is an erosion of intelligence. The Economist Intelligence Unit is out to destroy intelligence.

Teaching people that “crunching numbers” leads to the mathematical conclusion that the UAE provides with much nicer prospects than Japan, France, Britain, Italy or Spain, is so crazy that the notion can only be accepted by suspending one’s critical and intellectual capabilities.

And this suspension of rationality and criticism is what The Economist teaches.

So we are supposed to join the plutocratic cult that Singapore is a much better place to be born than the USA. Or that the United Arab Emirates, a rabidly sexist medieval pluto-theocracy where most inhabitants are foreign slaves, just a handful of minutes away for the thousands of missiles of the hated Iranians, is obviously much safer and healthier than… the French Republic (of course!)

After I wrote most of this essay Lord Justice Brian Leveson, mandated by PM Cameron, came up with his report on the UK press. Leveson writes: “Most responsible corporate entities would be appalled that employees were or could be involved in the commission of crime in order to further their business. Not so at the News Of The World (the now-shuttered tabloid that was owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, owner of the WSJ, Fox news, New York Post, etc., and powerful enough to be a part instigator of the war in Iraq, hence Murdoch’s nickname: Murderoch).

“Lord Justice” observes that the press “did not fullfill its role of guardian of the nation“. (Hey, The Economist spits on the nation!) The ‘Right Honourable Lord Justice’ recommends that the press  should create its own regulator, backed by legislation to make sure it meets certain standards of independence and effectiveness.

What we contemplate in The Economist is a further problem. What to do when crazy lies are created, just to erode reason? The problem is not restricted to the plutocratic cult, but other cults, as the Islamist one.

Egypt’s Muslim Fundamentalist parliament is rushing to pass Islamist legislation, making the Sharia into law. Never mind that Egypt thrived without Islam, a military-industrial superstition, for 4,000 years. Egypt was 100% Christian, for centuries. The word “Copt” itself is the Arabization of the word for Egyptian in Greek. In other words, to use some humor, the Muslims stole Egypt from the Egyptians, and are still at it, because, well, truth is secondary.  There are up to 20 million Copts in Egypt (Islamists will tell you that’s a lie).

Plutocracy and superstition reign best upon decerebrated chickens. So the chicken they decerebrate. Nowadays, though, the tsunami threatening civilization is not a few meters high, but kilometers high. Even the plutocrats and other exploiters will be destroyed by it, with most of the biosphere.

What we need is legislating for more truth. I proposed to make TRUTH as a new branch of government. After all, experiments show that equity, thus justice, is fundamental to primates. But what is equity without truth? What is a primate without truth? TRUTH & REASON ARE ESSENTIAL TO HUMAN RIGHTS.

What is essential ought to be legislated, thus civilization is enabled.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: Last, but not least, morality, at the scale of nations, makes happy (at variable scales of time). And safe. Thus morality is a crucial component for tomorrow’s health and happiness (although what ‘morrow’ means will vary considerably: Germany was punished on the scale of generations, Sweden never was, the USA already self punished, in part, with the Secession War, but more works need to be done).

Notice that I excluded not just the medievalists countries, or those waiting for heavy military action, but also the tax cheats from the list: Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Singapore, Hong Kong (also disqualified as owned by a dictatorship). Others have also to disqualified on even worse moral grounds.

I do not contest that Australia and Canada are good countries to be born. If one’s aim is wealth and comfort, in the next few years. However the ecological policies of these countries are so greedy as to endanger the planet’s ecology. They contribute massively to fossil fuel burning. One wants to keep in mind that the unfolding catastrophe of heat trapping gases pollution will be terminated by a massive world war, not just flooding, droughts, hurricanes, mass extinctions, rising heat, and collapse of oxygen production.

Being born in countries where one’s moral system will be tweaked towards tolerance for mass criminality is not, regrettably a criterion that The Economist put as an input. But it is neither willing, nor able, to do so.