Archive for the ‘Roman History’ Category

Putin: Kill Tatars, Own Crimea

March 19, 2014

Putin says Crimea is historically Russian land”. Reality: Stalin killed and deported the Natives, Russians moved in, Putin owns.

On the 18th of March 2014, Russia and Crimea signed a deсree about affilation into the Russian Federation. This ended the independence of Crimea: it had lasted only one day, making Crimea the shortest lived state, ever. Just like Hitler, Putin loves historical firsts.

Crimea became the 84th region of super giant Russia, the country that wants to swallow Eurasia (at least that’s what Putin says… He wants to lead a “Eurasian Union” [sic]).

Meanwhile unidentified gunmen attacked a Ukraine military base, and several people got killed, including an Ukrainian officer.

The Black Sea Was A Greek Lake

The Black Sea Was A Greek Lake

The same day, Putin made a discourse to the Duma and other worthies of his regime. Here is an extract:

“The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered. 

At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol ­– the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city.”

Let’s stop Vladimir a moment here. Putin claims Crimea is historically Russian land, but this is mostly due to a very recent Russian directed holocaust. In that particular area, as much as seven million may have been killed… And there are still living witnesses of that holocaust.

Let’s review big history to see how much Putin lies. Crimea was the land the Tauri, and then became Greek. By 500 BCE, Greek colonies extended all along the north shore of the Black Sea, Crimea and the Sea of Azov. So, on the face of it, the entire area belonged to the European Union, way back.

By 100 BCE, Crimea was under Roman administration. Later the invading Scythes became a problem. But Crimea was protected by the Legio I Italica and a detachment of the Legio XI Claudia.

Putin wants to evoke history, he claims Russia owned Crimea. What is the successor state of Rome? Francia, not Russia. And that shows up in Francia’s respect of Roman law, something that escape Putin’s dictatorial mysticism.

Finally Crimea was invaded by the Goths (250 CE), the Huns (376 CE), the Bulgars (4th–8th century). The Franks fought those three, and lethally wounded both the Huns and the Goths. Why do I observe this? Because Europe is a small world, and Stalin-Putin, nouveaux riches.

The Khanate of the Khazars (8th century), occupied Crimea, before turning to Judaism, while being defeated by the state of Ukraine known as Kievan Rus’ (10th–11th centuries). In 988, Prince Vladimir I of Kiev captured the Byzantine town of Chersonesos (present Sevastopol) where he converted to Christianism.

Then, in quick succession, the Byzantine Empire (1016), the Kipchaks (the Kumans) (1050), and the Mongols (1237) occupied Crimea.

Mother Russia in all this? It did not even exist.

Does something that did not exist have historical rights?

Tatars existed, though: they are a complex ethnic mix of European and Asian, using a Turkic language.

In 1346, the bodies of Mongols of the Golden Horde who died of the Black Plague were catapulted over the walls of the besieged Kaffa (now Feodosiya). Genoese ships brought the disease back.

1450, Moscow Was Just A Duchy

1450, Moscow Was Just A Duchy

In 1783, the armies of some of the lovers of Catherine the Great, a German princess who had killed her husband the Czar, conquered Crimea. These were the times when Russia became, by far, the world’s largest empire, conquering much of Eurasia and even America (down to California).

The Crimean war of 1853-54 was an attempt to block the Russian push south. It started with a conflict with the French in Jerusalem (where the Russians expected the French to obey them). Although the Franco-British won, the Czarists used the occasion to persecute and expropriate the Crimean Tatars some more.

When World Became Historical Russian Property For Greater Glory Putin

When World Became Historical Russian Property For Greater Glory Putin

In 1945, perhaps to reward Stalin to have been allied to Hitler, and thus crushed the Poles and the French, president Roosevelt gave Europe to Stalin up to the red line. (That very “red line” that Putin is now accusing the “West” to have crossed!)

On 18 May 1944, the entire population of the Crimean Tatars was deported in the “Sürgün” (Crimean Tatar for exile) to Central Asia by Stalin.  Deportees spent 18 days in freight cars for getting to Uzbekistan. The inhuman conditions were obviously made so that people would die. Over bridges, the trains would stop, and bodies thrown in the water. Others were sent much further, to Siberia.

About 50%  of the deportees died during transportation. In June 1944 Armenian, Bulgarian and Greek populations were also deported to Central Asia. By the end of summer 1944, the ethnic cleansing of Crimea was complete, and only Putin’s beloved Russians were welcome. In 1967, a law was passed to ban Crimean Tatars from legally returning to their homeland.

Thus we conclude the following. The historical justification of Putin for annexing Crimea is the mix of ethnic cleansing and holocaust that Russia exerted in the area over a period of a century. Approving annexation is therefore approving a holocaust.

The hysterical nationalistic chanting “Russia, Russia, Russia” mentality is intrinsically racist: it means others are not as worthy as human beings (although Tatars are OK as fish food, see above).

That sort of nationalism invites further massive violations of human rights. It’s intrinsically evil. The Kremlin does not own Crimea, and maximal sanctions and military preparations ought to be applied right away, all the more as, obviously, Putin will be stopped only if he is forced to.

Patrice Aymé

Pluto’s Dictators & Their Enablers

February 3, 2014

Plutocracy is bad, but it can be bent. Even some plutocrats develop hearts and minds. An example is the Warner Brothers (who were of Polish-Jewish origin). Their anti-Nazi campaign, started as early as 1933, and, no doubt, helped, for the best.

Sadly, Warner Brothers’ under order from Washington, would produce “Mission to Moscow”, which depicted Stalin the monster as a benevolent uncle. Stalin had invaded Poland, with his friend and ally Hitler, and proceeded to help massacre 15% of the population.

Never, ever, will we forget, or forgive, what happened. Thankfully German TV mentions Nazi horrors several times a day. (In the next part of its enlightenment, Germany may want to explain 1933 with the messianic fascist dictatorship it lived under 1918). This is how to terminate Plutocrats, when they go too far:

French Air Force Terminating Qaddafi’s Henchmen, 11/7/2011, Sirte, Libya.

French Air Force Terminating Qaddafi’s Henchmen, 11/7/2011, Sirte, Libya.

The Nazis ordered the arrest of 22,000 Jews in Paris during the Raffle du Velodrome d’Hiver (July 16, 1942). Because of help from the population only 13,000 were killed.

However, 4050 children were deported, and after months of torture, executed. Some of these children, while in detention, wrote heart breaking letters. Factual letters, full of dignity, asking for help, and the most basic decency. They did not get it. All they got was French adults horrified by the tortures the children were submitted to. Those adults narrated what they had seen, and it no doubt helped in the Nazi rout, two years later.

Reading from a ten year old girl, Marie, asking her papa, gently, to send a picture of him, and her mom, because she did not see them for so long, and wanted to be with them. Unbeknownst to all, the Nazis had already assassinated her mom in Auschwitz. How, why, so much evil?

Some will say, it cannot happen today. Sorry, it does. Maybe not quantitatively, but qualitatively.

Just have a good, cold look at what Bush and Obama have been doing. (Hitler was very good at claiming he had nothing to do with it, whatever it was; Adolf was all for peace, and excellent for posing as a victim: naive idiots, all over, still repeat word for word what Hitler was saying about the Versailles Treaty, and nearly cry.)

When Obama proclaims himself judge and executioner of civilians by drone, worldwide, and add that “ordinary people” are safe from the secret services, that’s the same inhumanity that he is projecting. OK, it’s less industrial. Less industrial at this point, but more obvious.

No wonder Obama’s popularity is low, in spite of the booming economy (in his stupidity, he does not know why he is getting so unpopular, because he does not understand he crossed a moral Rubicon, for all to see. And all have seen, precisely. Something wrong with a giver of lessons that acts in the exact opposite manner.

If we want to avoid the return of horrors such as Nazism or Stalinism. We have to be vigilant, and have tolerance zero for leaders showing patterns of abuse, against anybody whosoever.

The USA, at governmental level has, not just cooperated with infamy, but even organized it: see the complicated four way war set-up by Reagan, ordering Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, while selling to Iran weapons paying for Contra weapons transferred to Nicaragua, thanks to the airport of the governor of Arkansas (skirt chaser Bill Clinton).

A more recent example was the three way deal between Tony Liar Blair, George W. Bush, and Libyan dictator and torturer, Muammar Qaddafi. (The deal left France mostly out, and that proved a mistake, at least for Qaddafi.)

Anyway, the Oblabla administration is trying to make as if it wanted to clean house a bit. Here is the Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2014:

Probe Widens Into Dealings Between Finance Firms, Libya

Justice Department Joins Probe on Possible Violation of Antibribery Laws by Banks, Funds

The Justice Department has joined a widening investigation of banks, private-equity firms and hedge funds that may have violated antibribery laws in their dealings with Libya’s government-run investment fund, people familiar with the matter said. 

The criminal investigation, which has intensified in recent months, is proceeding alongside a civil probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission that began in 2011 and initially homed in on Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -2.62%  The Justice Department’s involvement hasn’t been reported previously. 

In addition to Goldman Sachs, federal investigators are examining Credit Suisse Group , J.P. Morgan Chase, Société Générale, private-equity firm Blackstone Group and hedge-fund operator Och-Ziff Capital Management Group these people said…

Authorities are examining investment deals made around the time of the financial crisis and afterward, these people said. In the years leading up to Libya’s 2011 revolution, Western firms—encouraged by the U.S. government—raced to attract investment money from the North African nation, which was benefiting from oil sales and recently had opened to foreign investment.

Investigators are trying to determine whether the firms violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act…The 1977 law prohibits U.S. companies and companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges from paying bribes to foreign officials. U.S. authorities consider employees of state-owned investment funds, such as the Libyan Investment Authority, to be foreign officials.”

Qaddafi ran one of the world’s worst regimes. I am happy to have, hopefully, contributed to his demise, by being the first philosopher to call for the dictatorship’s demise.

(Present troubles in Libya are pretty much part of the on-going liberations struggles, some from populations with their own 3,000 year old civilization, which have been oppressed for at least 13 centuries).

Next, of course, should be the butcher of Syria and the dictator of Ukraine. The former ought to be executed, as a matter of principle. Same overriding principle as with Hitler, and the like (too bad Stalin died in his bed; if he had not, maybe Putin would be more careful, and, thus, considerate!)

Notice that the definition of corruption according to today’s Washington, is very narrow: paying “bribes”, whatever that means. When Bill Clinton goes to Nigeria, one of the world’s most corrupt and poorest nations, and he is paid $100,000 for one hour of blah blah blah, is that a bribe? According to Washington, no. According to me, yes.

A bigger example? In 1933 FDR cracked down on Wall Street. Wall Street had provoked the 1929 crisis by speculating in finance instead of investing in the real economy, as its fiduciary duty should have been. In 2008-2009, though, Bush & Obama, instead of cracking down on Wall Street in a similar crisis, crawled down under Wall Street’s jackboot. Same crisis, opposed solution. The first moral, the second as plutocratic, thus immoral, as can be. No wonder We The People is starting to see through Mr. Obama mellifluous homilies.

In other news, New York City has authorized the construction of 15 square meters apartments. That’s a bit less than ten feet by 17 feet. We The People is not just treated like sardines, it will now live as sardines do, inside the cans.

Patrice Aymé

Rome Did Not Fall

January 1, 2014

Happy New Year To All Those Worthy Of My Affection And, Or, Consideration. (Such as those kind enough to comment on this site!)

The tradition of celebrating the Winter Solstice as the start of the year, complete with cut fir trees and gift giving goes all the way back to Ancient Greece, and thus, by osmosis, to Rome (Zoroastrians, thus Iranians, celebrate the New Year in Spring). The Romans were a bunch of dung plastered peasants educated by the Etruscans to the north and the Greeks of Magna Grecia to the south. In the end, Rome got “renovated” by the Franks.

The Franks Renovated The Empire, Wiping Out Other Invaders.

The Franks Renovated The Empire, Wiping Out Other Invaders.

Early on, Roman peasants learned to learn. The first thing the Romans learned was that big time plutocrats such as Etruscan lords and Tarquinus Superbus, the last formidable king of Rome, were the ultimate enemy.

The Romans also learned that much less rich aristocrats (“the best who rule“) could be crucial to a revolutionary public-thing (res-publica). The natural conclusion was to make a “mixed” constitution, where the People would make the laws and the Senate (held by the aristocrats) would give “counsel” (“Senatus Consulte”). To avoid plutocracy, kings were strongly hated in Roman culture. Moreover, wealth was confined to the equivalent of a few millions dollars. Having more was, just, unlawful.

All this changed completely when, after the catastrophe of the Second Punic war, when much of the old ethical aristocracy was killed in combat, avaricious plutocrats broke down the anti-hyper wealth law, and took over. Under the Principate (=Early Roman empire, the weird contraption set-up by Augustus, officially a republic, but also a dictatorship), a Senator with a yearly income of only two million dollars, was viewed as poor.

In truth the Decline and Fall of Rome all started when the Gracchi tried to force the plutocrats to obey Rome’s anti-plutocracy laws from the Fabian era (around 380 BCE). Rome suffered horribly from plutocracy after more than 5,000 Gracchi and their supporters got killed. This was followed by Sulla’s dictatorship, two generations later.

The horror went on, until it turned into full degeneracy, civilization and population collapsing. Finally the Franks got control in the West, between 400 CE and 507 CE, and put an end to the collapse… Where it is more important to end it, that is, militarily. The Franks, being German, were much more equalitarian, so they stopped the plutocratic implosion of civilization.

However Frankish control was quintessentially Roman control. The Imperium Francorum was just a rebirth of the early principles of Rome. It’s not just that the Franks, or their law, spoke Latin. Or that  they were put in charge of the defense of a huge chunk of the empire in 400 CE. Quintessentially, the Franks lived like the early Romans, like farmers, albeit on a much larger area. This facilitated the anti-plutocratic spirit of the Imperium Francorum. To boost their numbers, the Franks showed even more tolerance than the Romans. By 600 CE, everybody was a Frank. A few decades later, slave trading was made unlawful.

By 800 CE, the Roman empire had officially been “renovated” (Renovatio Imperii Romanorum, and had just one emperor, from Northern Spain to Northern Germany, and Armorica to Constantinople: Carlus Magnus, Charlemagne (Constantinople was under a local regency at the time).

This is the simplest fact. Yet, for ideological reasons, it’s ignored. What are those reasons? They have to do with the exploitative spirit of the “West Country Men”. Admitting that the Franks reconstituted Republican Rome, complete with public government imbued with public service, and were astoundingly successful that way, is the exact opposite of what (Wall Street inspired) plutocrats want people to believe.

After being “renovated”, the empire fragmented. It became an empire of fragments. Yet, even in this highly fragmented state, the empire proved impossible to conquer (differently from say Ancient Rome, Oriental Rome (“Byzantium”), China, or India)… To this day.

Indeed, look for example at the Huns: they got to Orleans and Toulouse. However, in both cases, they were severely defeated for this insolence. Their descendants the Mongols got to Hungary, and even the Adriatic. However, they suffered heavy losses, and, by fear of the Franks, went no further. Tellingly, they made a long term alliance with said Franks.

By comparison, the Mongols conquered China, and established a durable dynasty, the Yuan, after toying with the idea of … eradicating China. Similarly the Manchus conquered China.

Observe the contrast between the Imperium Francorum and Late Rome: by 400 CE, the Franks were put in charge of defending the limes (= frontier) in the North West empire (Gallia, Germania Inferior, Germania Superior). However in 406 CE, a huge Germanic coalition galloped across the frozen (!) Rhine, surprising the Frankish army that had mauled them in years prior.

The consequence of that invasion was that the Western empire fell militarily, and, from there, demographically and economically (the Vandals cut off the Western Mediterranean, and Rome’s food, after conquering Africa).

The Franks though, had lost a battle, but not the war. By 507, at the battle of Vouille’, the Franks, army of Rome, destroyed the Goths, something the Romans had been unable to do for the previous 250 years. The same Goths that had humiliated conquered and devastated the city of Rome itself, 97 years earlier.

The regime that the Franks put in place reconstituted Rome fully by 800 CE (and more). By 1204, the Franks actually broke the “Oriental Roman empire”, by conquering Constantinople (that was the real fall of Constantinople: 1453 was just the final nail in the coffin).

By 1066 CE, the Franks had reconquered Britain. French (and thus, English), is little more than degenerated, simplified and Germanified Latin. The basic framework of law, in the West and at the UN, is technically Roman, but in the spirit of the Lex Salica of the Franks. So we can safely say this: the Greco-Romano-Franco-German imperium is still in power, and that power is worldwide.

What of the Hebrew god, in all this? I was reading a 2013 book by an American historian, who claimed that the Hebrews taught the West… equity, equality. Thus that clown demonstrated that some historians had paid for the grossest propaganda.

In truth, it’s the Greeks, the Romans and the Germans who came up with these concepts of equality and justice. Social policies, like welfare, were invented, and implemented, in Athens, and especially Rome.

Verily, it is rather the other way around: the Hebrew god’s monstrosity was a huge part of the Decline and Fall of Rome. Don’t look at me funny: I did not invent the idea. The Cathars (from the Greek catharos, pure: the original Puritans!), came up with the idea in the Twelfth Century (probably building up on the ideas of Abelard and his admirers and students). It was their main idea. The Cathars considered that the Hebrew god was, actually, the devil, and the Old Testament even worse than Hitler’s Mein Kampf (if you will forget the anachronism).

The Church of Jesus Christ and the latter days religious terrorists took that very badly, and killed millions of innocents to eradicate Protestantism (and Judaism too). So much for the Hebrew god.

Jesus was born sometimes in Spring, the early Christians believed. Yet, when the “Founding Fathers of the Church” a trio of fascists flourishing by 400 CE discovered that there was no way that they could eradicate the Greco-Roman Winter Solstice celebrations, they moved Jesus’ birth to the solstice. (In the same spirit, much of Christianity was just stolen from other religions). Now Christianity survives mostly in the religion of the Saracens (that Islam was a form of particularly dangerous Christian cult was the diagnostic of the Frankish intelligence in the Seventh Century, when the Franks got ready to stop the fanatical armies that had embraced that cult).

Rome never fell. Rome just metamorphosed into the most advanced form it needed to survive.

Patrice Ayme


Note: It is amazing how ignored the Franks are, because they are the direct junction between the Greco-Romans and us. There is no other junction. No just this, but the Franks surpassed Rome around 1,000 CE in some crucial ways (food production: heavy ploughs, better agriculture, beans, sustainable energy from wind and water mills, etc.).

The Franks (meaning free or ferocious) were actually a confederation, a sort of mini EU of the time, armed to the teeth, that appeared among Germans in a zone of heavy Roman influence. Unknown Romans(?) or other intellectuals had a heavy influence on them, as their Latin written law was much more advanced than the Roman one (more lenient). Initially they talked a sort of Old Dutch. Then switched to Latin.

The fact that the Franks are ignored by conventional historians is a testimony to their lack of scholarship, and servitude to a plutocratic agenda with a twisted mind of its own.

Liquidate The Liquidator

September 5, 2013

In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro a few days ago, Dictator Assad pretended that, “In the beginning, the solution should have been found through a dialogue from which political measures would have been born.”

That was a lie: he shot peaceful secular demonstrators demanding an end to his tyrannical hereditary plutocracy, when protests started in 2011 (no other Arabic speaking dictator did this so massively). Then Assad repeated for the Figaro his refrain that 90% of the rebels are Al Qaeda. “The only way to cope with them is to liquidate them,” he said. “Only then will we be able to discuss political measures.”

First kill, then negotiate. Assad feels like Bruce Willis in the “Fifth Element”.

Assad should know: he is a liquidation specialist. “If you and Chirac want me out of Lebanon, I will break Lebanon.” Assad told Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri in 2004, a few months before two metric tons of TNT (seven Tomahawk missile warheads!) blew Hariri and dozens of other people into small bits. Hariri had been Prime Minister a total of ten years, and was the most prominent Lebanese politician. He and French president Chirac were pushing Assad’s occupation army out of Lebanon.

Why aren’t you worried about the Islamist rebels? They seem cruel and demented.

They are cruel and demented. The Assads made them so.

The Assad dynasty is about the worst of the worst. Smiles hiding criminal fury. It single handedly caused the Syrian civil war. Instead of  “liquidating” his countless enemies, an easier alternative, to reach appeasement, is to liquidate him.

As the sedate NYT puts it: His violent reaction to the uprising led what was once a proudly secular society into a largely sectarian conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims and his small minority of Alawites, an obscure branch of Shiite Islam.

“For him there is nothing to lose,” a Damascus-based analyst said, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He cannot compromise. He has to see this through. He cannot rebuild; he cannot reconcile. He is stuck. He can rule over a pile of rubble — that is the best he can do.”

The New York Times ran the following day a report on the execution of 7 soldiers…

I read it, and send the following comment (the NYT censored nearly all my comments on Syria, something that makes me suspect a lack of neutrality on their part):

I find unbalanced that more than 95% of the NYT “pick” comments are statements using an irrelevant brutality to justify not punishing a crime against humanity by a government.

Now for the naive ones out there who are inspired by the years of infamy of the USA in 1939, 1940, when the USA refused to fight Hitler: the Assad family created that mess, and most of it, deliberately.

Although I strongly condemn Islamism, and wished the laws of war would be respected, in the case of an insurrection, it’s difficult to keep prisoners alive. Guerillas don’t run prisons. Besides, that the executions of those seven soldiers related in the NYT were brutal, and apparently unjustifiable, does not mean they were unjustifiable (the rebels claim those soldiers had committed war crimes, and recorded them in phones). The whole story was related by one of the rebles, who disagreed violently with the execution. 

A rush to judgment is rarely a rush to intelligence. Thinking is harder than sinking.

Notice that when three USA divisions were engaged in the Second Battle of the Marne, in July 1918, they made nearly no prisoners. One of the reason? The American divisions, although victorious, suffered so many casualties, they were taken out of combat after a couple of days. American GIs, confronted to immense ferocity, rose to the occasion, and replied in kind.

Most probably, Syrian rebels are doing just the same, answering massacres by massacres, after decades of massacres.

End of my (probably unpublished) comment to the NYT. 

(The GIs were also inspired by the Senegalese division by their side, which made zero prisoners, as the Senegalese knew full well that the Germans killed them racially like vermin! This sort of racial extermination went on in 1940, under Rommel’s 7th Panzer; however, by 1944, Marshall Rommel had realized that being a war criminal was not a good idea, so he ordered the arrest of the SS das Reich officer responsible of Oradour sur Glane!)

You see nothing good about Assad?

I share his official distaste for the Muslim Brotherhood. He can be amusing. As when he protested that comparing the Islamist dictator Morsi to a donkey was “an insult to the animal“. When he got to power, observers hoped that he would break away from his father’s dictatorship.

Yet, he became worse, as the Hariri assassination shows. Assad came to depend upon the Islamists to justify his own, much older terror. Terror will never end, as long as he is around. If he is not put out of commission, millions will die, and that’s the least of the problems that will arise.

Sec. of State Kerry derided common Americans as “Armchair Isolationists”? Makes you happy?

Kerry mentioned the liner full of German Jews that was turned back from the Americas, and sent back to Hamburg, and they all died. That was polite. I don’t have to be as polite as Kerry.

The USA plutocracy and its pet government, plus their honored homologues in the UK, formed the Deus ex-Machina that enabled Hitler.

You are obsessive. Plutocracy this, plutocracy that. What does plutocracy have to do with it?

Plutocracy is the rule of the Dark Side. That’s exactly what it means. Instead of the reign of Ahura Mazda, it’s the rule of Angra Mainyu. Plutocracy in that sense is more general than Jesus’ condemnation of wealth, it covers all the bad aspects of Satan as found in the New Testament and the Qur’an. Plus more.

Assad is a plutocrat in the worst senses of the term. Sometimes it’s a parody: his spendthrift wife was an investment banker in London. She is much admired there, a sort of Lady Di of Syria, rail thin.

Assad is expert at the dark art of an extremely rich family that killed hundreds of thousands to stay on top of the heap. He released thousands of Salafists to drown his legitimate secular democratic opposition, now he is whining that they are winning. His only future is death.

Assad’s plutocratic connections is why he is so popular in Britain. It’s again the same story with Britain, a semi democratic plutocracy, as in the 1930s, with Hitler and Mussolini: the plutocratic temptation. The men (and occasional women) who invented and financed Hitler were all plutocrats (as my uncle, who was in the know, told me when I was six).

Without the help, financing and investment of Anglo-Saxon plutocrats, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Franco would not even have fuel to move their tanks.

Stalin and Hitler hated each other!

They came to hate each other. But first they were allies. Even earlier, before Hitler, Stalin had helped Germany re-arm in violation of the Versailles Treaty. German generals trained in the USSR! That’s why they thought they could invade it successfully.

Britain did just the same, starting in the 1920s. There were very nasty exchanges about stealth German re-armement betwen Churchill and the French Republic, as early as 1929 (so pre-Hitler!). Without plutocrats from the USA, Nazism would not have been, and Stalin could not have developed his oil fields (thanks to pillars of the Democratic Party of the USA!).

Stalinism and Nazism were global phenomena inside which Anglo-Saxon plutocracy played a crucial role.

Can you be a bit more specific?

There is room for a 10,000 pages treaty. Not strangely, that treaty does not exist. Harvard forgot to study the subject (that Nazi songs were modified Harvard songs is a hint why!)

Jew hater Henry Ford massively financed Hitler in the early 1920s already. That’s how Hitler was able to constitute a well equipped private 5,000 men army by 1923. JP Morgan’s man was Schacht, the biggest man of the Weimar Reich; Rockefeller financed Nazi eugenics, etc.

Until 1924, Hitler was essentially an American propelled phenomenon. Some of these billionaire plutocrats, such as the Warburgs, were even Jewish. French intelligence at the time tried to expose all this, but it backfired and caused more hostility against France by those in the know in USA business circles. While the masses did not understand that they were manipulated by extremely vicious characters who had hedged themselves so that, whichever way World War Two would turn, they would profit from it.

Why would Jews support Hitler?

Just ask the peaceniks who support Assad. The head torturer Nazi Marshall who conquered Norway for Hitler was a pure Jew (Hitler then made him a “honorary Aryan“). Nearly 200,000 German Jews served in the Wehrmacht.

As Nietzsche insisted, the Will to Power tends to rule minds.

Fritz Thyssen, a top plutocrat, author of “I paid Hitler”, explained all this in great details (including later, the American plutocratic connection, with the USA government doing exactly what the hyper wealthy supporters of defunct Nazism told it to do). Don’t be surprised that Thyssen’s book is out of print, and out of reach of commoners.

Why do you always mix up the 1930s with today’s world politics?

For two main reasons. 1) The descendants of the bad actors of the 1930s and the institutions that supported them are still pretty much in power, and they use still the same highly conspiratorial methods. A method is to create, or support, very bad actors, such as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco (in that order), and then leverage the mayhem they cause.

For example a casual look at how Egypt used to live like in the 1930s show a huge progression of Salafism Islam since. That can be traced back to the fact Roosevelt and his minions, to arrange ARAMCO and company, made a pact with Ibn Saud that involved the Muslim Brotherhood. As Roosevelt had just given half of Europe to Stalin, at Yalta, that all made sense as a great work of Pluto.

Eight years later, the CIA used Khomeini and his Shiites to throw down the democratically elected Mosaddegh (later assassinated).

2) The fact that some bad actors got away with, and leveraged themselves thanks to, crimes against humanity in the 1930s was noticed by other bad actors, who did the same. That danger is much greater now.  The stakes are much higher.

Why are the BRICS so opposed to enforcing International Law?

Obviously because they intent to break it themselves. Several of them face huge rebellions in their own empires. About half of the PRC’s empire would be in outright rebellion, if not for heavy preemptive terror. India has lost control of a huge territory. Putin used huge brutality in the Caucasus, and is afraid to lose it all. Meanwhile he made the local Christian superstition into a state religion again.

What would you tell Hollande and Obama?

That they should hint to Putin and Xi that they have got it good, controlling giant territories not historically under Russian or Han control. Russian spans eleven time zones. That’s very good.

But Russia does not need to spread its military control in the part that used to be the core of the West, the Eastern Mediterranean. Same observation for Mr. Xi: he can keep on playing on the other side of the Himalayas.

Others, worldwide, ought to be told that it will be human rights, one way, or another. When the UN was formed, the obsession was to avoid war between nations. Now the obsession ought to change into avoiding the sort of decomposition one observed in the 1930s, a mix of fascism, plutocracy and destruction of human rights.

As the movie 2010 had it: “Europa is not yours, don’t attempt a landing there.” If Putin and Xi want a cold war, they will not win it any better than Brezhnev and Mao.

In general, the BRICS became what they are, because of capital flight towards them, from the West. Financial and intellectual capital. Embraer won’t be much, without Airbus’ help and the Western market.

If the BRICS threaten the core of the West, the West can fully reel back its plutocracy. To start with, the West controls at least two-third of the world’s GDP (Euramerica alone controls 55%of world GDP).  

Considering the state of the planet, if order does not come to reign, it will have to be imposed. Auschwitz was secret, so the immoral ones could claim they did not know.

Instead Assad is loud and blatant, making the immoral ones who hide behind peace into obvious co-criminals. Damascus is not a swamp in a deserted part of Poland (as Auschwitz was). Damascus is the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. The rebels Assad gased there, are secular people fighting for survival. Assassinating their children is a crime as great as any crime known to humanity.

When the Second Cuban division invaded Congo in May 1978, the French did not ask the UN for authorization. France dropped paratroops, the 2e Régiment étranger de parachutistes over Kolwezi, and that was it. Cuba and France are in good terms now, precisely because France just said no, when it was time to say no.

Why do you say the West may have jurisdiction over Syria?

It’s a long story, and I should write a specific essay about it. However, in light of the G20 meeting, let me give a quick synopsis of the argument:

Syria was never really a nation, until it became a Roman province and reached its apogee under Rome. It was illegally seized in 636 CE by the Islamist invaders, using horendous methods. Looking that far back in the past may sound ridiculous, but the unlawful demolition of Israel by the Romans after the Second Judean war (explicitly recognized as illegal by emperor Julian around 360 CE) is the legal basis for the existence of Israel, as far as I am concerned.

France is the successor state of Rome. The Imperium Francorum is actually the fifth state of Rome, after the Monarchy, the five centuries long Republic, the Principate (starting with Augustus), and the Dominate (starting with Diocletian, around 300 CE).

Europe was officially a “Renovated Roman Empire” by 800 CE. Thus the states Francia spawned, not just France, and Germany, but Italy, Spain, Britain, actually all of Europe and its entire diaspora, are all successor states of Rome. That can be seen by looking at the Capitol in Washington and the (Roman!) law, all over.

After the First Crusade, Roman power was back in the Middle East, including in much of the green part of Syria. Legally, I do not see why it could be seen as having ever left. Call it the long arm of secular law.

That the successors states of Rome have jurisdiction over Syria is easier to explain than the presence of the Chinese or the Russian states over giant expanses they never controlled before (although Chinese armies were in Central Asia in 750 CE, after the Franks had destroyed the Damascus Caliphate). Something Putin and Xi should be made aware of: they behave as if they can mess up the historical core of the West. So why should no the West mess up with their empires?

Before and during World War Two, imperial fascist Japan generals conducted more than 2,000 gas attacks inside China. This was ignored by the world for years. But, as it turned out, not safely ignored. The act, and ignoring it, was a sign of collapsing ethics, worldwide.

There is No Hope but Hope. And Human Rights prophecize it.


Patrice Ayme


August 13, 2013

There is no really free market. Only governments are free to set-up markets. In “Synthesis Lost” Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman ponders what is unthinkable for the plutocratic establishment:“you have to ask why, if markets are imperfect enough to generate the massive waste we’ve seen since 2008, we should believe that they get everything else right. I’ve always considered myself a free-market Keynesian — basically, a believer in Samuelson’s synthesis. But I’m far less sure of that position than I used to be.

Indeed, the economic beliefs that built-up massive civilizations, East or West, rested on a completely different notion: the irreplaceable genius of government funded & commissioned Public Works (See [1] for a caveat).

Pont Du Gard: Not built By The Free Market

Pont Du Gard: Not built By The Free Market

The aqueduct above brought water to Nimes (Latin Nemausus, a local Celtic god).

The first three aqueducts built into Rome, about 23 centuries ago, later carried 400,000 tons of water into the city, each day.

The first one, the Aqua Appia (312 BCE) was one of two major public projects commissioned by the censor Appius Claudius Caecus; the other was a strategic, super strong and super durable road between Rome and Capua, way south.

Eleven (11) giant public aqueducts served Rome at her peak, some piercing mountains through tunnels. Although extremely expensive to build and operate, the water the aqueducts brought to the public was free. So were the uncountable baths found in all Roman cities (many had curative properties… Thus, RomanCare was free!).

Rome was not called a Republic for no good reason.

That Republic worked as long as the law limiting wealth absolutely was enforced; as I have argued, globalization was the undoing of the law first, and the republic, next. A vivid lesson for today, when the situation is pretty much the same.

Don’t try to explain the relevance of Public Works to the economists who helped bring the present Greater Depression, slowly morphing into a Great Degeneration. They will look around with boiled cod eyes.

In “Colbert Good, Keynes Not So Smart” and in “To Save The World, Please default!” I have attacked Keynes as one of the creator of the vengeful Nazi mental system and a promoter of the powerlessness of the plebs (I may fire another blast against him, and his admirers some day soon). “Keynes” does not deserve to be honored in economics. All the more as the correct parts of “Keynesianism” have been known ever since there are serious governments, and they erect pyramids.

Here is a proof:

Grand Canals Of China: Built By Government

Grand Canals Of China: Built By Government

The Grand Canal Hangzhou-Beijing, 1,800 kilometers long,  was built from 581 BCE to 1290 CE (when the Mongols/Yuan finished an elevated section to reach Beijing, using locks, the first summit level canal in the world). At some point during the Sui dynasty, 14 centuries ago, over a 6 year period, 3 million worked on the Grand Canal.

Looking at this, one understands better why China has built a gigantic Very High Speed Train network. It’s the very Chinese thing to do.

The Middle Kingdom found, all by itself, just as Egypt, the Middle East, Persia, Roma, and Europe (starting with Francia and the re-emerged Italian Republics), that only public works can achieve certain tasks. The most important tasks.

Grand Canal: Public Utility For 26 Centuries.

Grand Canal: Public Utility For 26 Centuries.

So much for the concept “Keynes”. Now for eliminating the so-called “free market”, as a most fundamental concept. (In a follow-up essay, I will explain what allows the free market in the first place,”governmentalism“).

There is an entire religion around the free market. It is immodestly compared to god, complete with his ”invisible hand“. Adam Smith, a student of the French physiocrats, had mentioned the “invisible hand” no more than a handful of times in his entire works. Wall Street made a cult of these two words… Yet, Adam Smith was a government official, and no rabid free marketer. Some of the French economists had previously stridently, and correctly, called for freeing the markets… but for excellent reasons. However:



This is a basic, but fundamental observation. The free market is a carefully contrived illusion, a myth. Plutocrats have recently exploited that myth, to make their hands invisible as they manipulate society into submission. (That’s why the plutocrats want us all to worship the ‘invisible hand’, so that we will worship their invisible influence too!)

As long as there were ferocious Marxists all over to bark naïvely about “capitalism”, plutocrats had to stay honest enough to prevent a critical mass of critics to not go over to the other side. But, when Stalinism collapsed, the ex-USSR embraced the Harvard version of plutocracy (not as bad as Hitler’s, but still pretty bad). On the other side of the Amur, cynical Chinese plutocrats embraced all capitalists willing to change from their pesky, expensive workers at home. Soon enough, the German Socialist Chancellor introduced tough reforms of the German welfare state, making it distinctly less comfy… And it, literally, worked!

The leftists, the progressives, the socialists, the liberals and the humanitarians were thrown in total confusion and spastic despondency by this collapse of the idols. Still are. (Hence Obama’s feverish clinging to Warren Buffet and Summers).

All the more as a heavy propaganda from the plutocrats, pouncing for the kill, insisted that the ‘free market’, namely themselves, was everything. In a word: god.

Yet. There always was no free market, and there will never be any free market. The free market is a playground set-up by the government, always. That’s done through various laws and regulations, and the exchange of personnel.

That became very clear in 2008. The ex-chairman of Goldman Sachs, Sec. of Treasury that G.W. Bush and Barack Obama had left in total control, Hank Paulson, went on his knees to beg Nancy Pelosi, a democrat in control of Congress, for nearly a trillion dollars to save all the largest banks of Wall Street (we are now, with “Quantitative Easing”, and counting a similar aid in Europe, well above ten trillions!).

Pelosi gave the People’s money to Paulson.

Yet that was not hers to give. In a democracy, people would have voted to see if they wanted all their money to go to the richest owners in the land.

Left unsaid was the fact that the richest people in the land had lost all their money to the… richest people in the land. To themselves! It’s a case of insurance fraud: plutocrats stole the loot, and then asked the people to pay for it.

Pelosi gave all the People’s money to the richest, because she is an immensely rich woman, and got there by being extremely kind to families controlling assets 100 times (of more) her own wealth. By being kinder than ever, to the powers that be, no doubt her family will prosper, further and better than it would otherwise.

The entanglement of plutocracy and supposedly democratic politics is a worldwide phenomenon. For example Pompidou, director of bank Rothschild in France, was selected as Prime Minister by president De Gaulle, and then later succeeded him. In Britain, past Prime Ministers Thatcher, Major and Blair, were handsomely rewarded, no doubt to encourage their successors to be just as kind to plutocrats. Clinton, a simple man driven by basic instincts, was little more than the puppet of Goldman-Sachs’ Robert Rubin, and then his assistants Summers and Geithner (all of them plutocratically connected, just as Susan Rice, a fixture of plutocracy under Clinton, now Obama’s National Security Adviser.).

In the Obama administration, most personnel with a say in economics are young multi-millionaires shuttling back and forth between White House, giant banks and Wall Street; this corruption is even considered an objective criterion of seriousness. It is reproached loud and clear to Janet Yellen, the very qualified, and prophetically accurate, Vice President of the Fed,  who ought to be the obvious successor to Bernanke, to “lack experience” at being such a corrupt double dipper!

There is no such a thing as an economy independent of the government. The government rules. The real question is who is ruling the government. (In the USA, the likes of Susan Rice rule, for now more than 20 years, in her case; she was only elected by the plutocracy, but that’s good enough; Summers, just as unelected, was in the White House already 32 years ago…).

In a democracy, We the People rule. In a plutocracy, an oligarchy of admirers of the Dark Side rules, more or less invisibly. That oligarchy will use whatever means to stay in power, and their impudence knows no bounds. As Anne of Austria, queen and regent of France, sneered to the head of the Paris Parliament during the Fronde:“Do you believe this is a republic?”

Question, Ms Anne of Austria:”When and how did it stop being republic?” Answer: well, insensibly. Just the way a frog is being boiled by rising the temperature slowly. And that is exactly what today’s plutocrats, who hold the government, are doing.

Banks using leverage insured by the government are not private, but agents of the state. Indeed, they could not exist without that insurance and implicit back-up (“the lender of last resort”). They claim to be private, so that the few individuals who manage and “own” them can grab what are, truly public funds and public profits.

Jamie Dimon, for example, is a rogue agent of the private-public financial system. The government gave him the huge bank Bears-Sterns in the famous “Jamie deal”.

A number of private mercenaries feeding at the teat of the Public are the dark lords of that system. While of course denying that this teat is a teat, or has any milk, or value.

(That’s why plutocrats love Summers; because he is so dark; the richest banks have been given eight trillion dollars, in the USA alone; the problem Summers will have to solve is how they keep most of that while making it appear otherwise; the trick of paying TARP with QE may not work again…)

There is no such a thing as an independent financial system when the fractional reserve system is used. Finance is an instrument of the government, at least proportional to the leverage used. For example with 3% reserve, one can view a bank as 97% government (and 3% private!).

Why? Because if there was no governmental back-up, people who have deposited money in the bank, understanding that the bank has lent 30 times the money it really has, would rush to recover their money. In hours, the bank would have zero reserve, and then would be bank-rupt.

Hence a new synthesis has to be founded, with these truths made central. I call it “governmentalism”.

Grand Canal: No Mountain Is High Enough To Stop The Government

Grand Canal: No Mountain Is High Enough To Stop The Government

It’s nothing new.


Patrice Ayme


[1] One of my general themes is that the Franks relaunched civilization right (without religious intolerance and then without slavery). However, the first five centuries of Frankish rule are characterized by few public works in stone still standing. However the Franks made enormous works in military infrastructure (Europe fought and ultimately defeated many attempted invasions, from the North, the East, and the West). The Franks also made enormous efforts in education (making it mandatory), and also in beans (proteins) and many other biotechs and finally engineering, mechanical advantage… So the Franks created much more infrastructure than the Romans, but the infrastructure they created was necessary to advance civilization, it was more oriented towards HUMAN infrastructure. Less stone, and less fascism.


July 9, 2013


Abstract: Having a republic (Res Publica, “public thing”) is not just nicer to the public, in everyday life, it’s, more vitally, a military advantage, when war comes.  It’s not a coincidence that Rome accomplished most of its military successes when it was a Republic, or still, although a “Principate”, not far removed from one: under Augustus, worldwide, Rome was the closest society to a full blown Republic. That gave it tremendous military advantage: decisions were taken rather collectively. Thus after debates, hence more intelligently, in the average.

The important concept here is the notion of “public”. Rome crashed militarily from too much fascism, for too long and for no good reason, bringing the dreadful consequence of lack of public support, let alone a lack of creative input… which can only come from the minds of the many, the public.

A modern example? The USA stealth war in Afghanistan (1979-2013) and the rise of the USA as a surveillance state were engaged secretly and pursued without public debate. For example, why did US President Carter order a secret attack on Afghanistan on July 3, 1979? First, why was that order secret? Because, of course, it was ordered for no good reason! Thus the war in Afghanistan had no real public support (the public didn’t even know about it), and was not engaged for intelligent reasons one could justify. Time to cut the secrecy, and bring back the public. If one does not want to kiss the republic goodbye, that is.


When the fall of Rome is evoked, old fashion historians focus on military events at the end of the Fourth and beginning of the Fifth Century. Or they brandish hundreds of entangled causes of decay.

Superficially, indeed, the Roman empire cracked because it lost a crucial battle:

Adrianople: Fascism Is From One Mind, & If An Idiot, Toast

Battle of Adrianople: Fascism Is From One Mind, & If That Mind Is An Idiot, It Is Toast

The military crash of Rome blossomed at the Battle of Hadrianopolis, August 9, 378 CE, when the Gothic cavalry decisively annihilated  the extremely experienced Oriental Roman field army (including the emperor Valens, single-minded author of the disaster).

(Although the mysterious defeat and death of Augustus Julian in Mesopotamia (earlier, in 363 CE) was more fateful.)

The disaster at Hadrianopolis/Adrianople was a near fatal blow to the prestige, military, economy and tax base of the core of the empire. The empire was unable to recover for a number of reasons. In particular because plutocrats were too mighty to be taxed.

In 400 CE, the legions were ordered out of Britain and the Rhine Frontier. The Franks, shock troops and nation “infeodated” (under treaty and oath) to the empire were left in charge. Instead of having the defense of the empire staying a public thing, it was subcontracted!

However, during the winter solstice of 406 CE, the Rhine froze over, and an enormous coalition of savage Germanic nations charged through Gallia and Hispania, all the way to Africa (in the case of the Vandals).

That was the fatal blow to the Western empire, the “Occidental Part”. Population and economy collapsed. The Vandals, from their African redoubt, established an empire that reigned on the Western Mediterranean, cutting the grain trade, starving Italy, shutting down international trade, etc.

The Goths seized Rome four years later (410 CE). A century later, the Franks, in a full consultation with the Consul Anastasius (who reigned in Constantinople as Augustus for 27 years until his death at age 88), would finally destroy the Goths at the Battle of Vouillé, in 507 CE. Rome, that is, Constantinople, then made Clovis Consul.

Real Man: Clovis Killed King Alaric Himself

Real Man: Clovis Killed King Alaric Himself

Thus 101 years exactly after the savages broke through, the Romans (aka the Franks) turned things around militarily at last. True, they had been busy meanwhile, destroying the cause of all that turmoil, the Huns (who had pushed the Goths and other Germans west, to start with).

Vouillé had avenged Hadrianopolis. 129 years later. History can unfold slowly, although it goes faster these days.

But the most interesting question is what happened at Hadrianopolis.

And, even more fascinating, why did it happen?  Roughly, the defeat happened because the Roman system was fascist, with one single jealous man at the top. The intelligence of the collective was reduced to the intelligence of one.

Actually it was a bit more subtle: the top emperor, Valens, was jealous of the success of one of the top generals, Sebastian, who had defeated some Goths, and of his nephew, the young Gratian, emperor in Occident, who had also defeated fierce enemies, the Alamani (the Franks would finally destroy those “All Men” two centuries later).

Valens wanted his own victory. Although everybody in the Roman military structure, including the officers in his own field army, and the Frank Richomeres, head of Gratian’s guard, told him to wait for Gratian’s army, which was only 400 kilometers away. So Valens marched his army ferociously for 7 hours over difficult terrain in full sun, and when thoroughly exhausted and dehydrated, engaged battle, without even knowing where the redoubtable Gothic cavalry was.

One man had taken all the decisions, all the wrong decisions. The one-man-alone-in-command factor was the fundamental cause of the defeat.

One can compare with two other spectacular defeats, this time the defeat of famous Republics. At Cannae an enormous Roman army was annihilated by Hannibal. What happened? The Romans fell into a trap: Hannibal retreated to give the Roman center an illusion of victory, drawing it in, and then enveloping the entire Roman body with cavalry, squeezing it, similarly to what would happen, six centuries later, at Hadrianopolis.

At Cannae, the Roman army was unwise, imprudent, outsmarted. However the army was not engaged in a march of obvious idiocy because of one man’s folly, as it would be at Adrianople. If it had been, that would have been stopped right away (as happened say when the French army tried to defeat the Brits in Toulon; as France was a republic, Napoleon, then just a captain, was able to contest the strategy of his superiors, was supported by politicians, and won a great victory).

The same hold for the defeat of France in May 1940. Just like Hannibal at Cannae, but on a much grander scale, Hitler and his generals, thoroughly desperate to start with, decided to be lucky, as that was the only thing that could save them. It did. They conceived the phantasmagoric plan to draw in the army of the Republic, by smartly attacking the Netherlands first.

Just as the Romans at Cannae and Hadrianopolis, sure of victory, the French rushed in their elite armor and armies forward. Then the Nazis, undetected thanks to Lady Luck, and how crazy their strategy was, cut them from behind.

So the difference is subtle. It’s a question of degree. The mind of one, versus the mind of the many. At Hadrianopolis, the orders given to the army were outright insane. All top military officers begged emperor Valens to reconsider. He refused, because he could, being the head fascist. But his head was no good. It was permeated by Christianity, that is, superstition.

At Cannae and the Battle of France, the armies of the Republics, blinded by hubris, confronted adversaries who were desperate, in all logic, and thus could only try to be lucky. And they were.

Then, of course, luck carries only that far against the intelligence and character that a superior public brings. Rome took seventeen years to defeat Carthage (218 BCE-201 BCE), the French republic, thanks to its reluctant, or even initially hostile, but finally enthusiastic allies, six years to annihilate the Nazis.

Conclusion? War is always the most serious business. One has always to be ready for the worst. Hubris ought not to be invited. And the public is both the brains and hearts of war.

The USA started the war in Afghanistan by 1979, under Carter, to block the Afghans, Russians and… despised French to exploit the resources in Central Asia without profits for Washington/Wall Street, and to show all who was the boss (Brzezinski claimed it was just to destroy the USSR, but he is dissembling).

At the same time, to make war by proxy, the USA decided that Pakistan’s dirty work in Afghanistan was best complemented by others. So Washington recruited Bin Laden and other fanatics, in cooperation and collaboration with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, and its collaborator and enemy, the Saudi Inter Service directorate (notice all these people are alive and well).

That attack on Afghanistan was hubristic, greedy, full of imperial overstrech. Those adjectives count as three moral negatives. In Afghanistan, the USA had, at best, only one (fake) moral positive: namely the specious, devious argument that their rogue mercenary Bin Laden had attacked from there. (Yeah, and who made Bin Laden into a soldier of god, and armed him, to start with?)

Perhaps the most important asset in a long war, is moral superiority. Morality is the extension of war to the realm of the possible.

Moral superiority is why, ultimately, the Republics won against the fascists Hannibal and Hitler. Or why, ultimately, the Franks defeated the Goths (the Franks were tolerant, inclusive, more civilized, and supportive of the 97%; not so with the Arian, exclusive Goths).

Reciprocally, lack of Roman moral superiority is why the Romans were defeated by the Goths (both sides were Christian; but the Goths had made a peace proposition that was advantageous to Rome, and that Valens rejected hubristically).

A fourth moral negative in Afghanistan is that the USA made a cynical usage of a primitive superstition, precisely because it was primitive, hateful, and illogical. Right from the start, in 1979, the USA fought to establish, or re-establish, fundamental Islam in Afghanistan (as the USA had done in Iran, or Pakistan, let alone Saudi Arabia or Egypt).

Once again the prominent tactic was that superstitious people can be easily manipulated, as the CIA had done in Iran, by instrumentalizing the Shiites against PM Mosaddegh (culprit of oil nationalization, and general insolence). However, Afghanistan, as a republic, and the benign monarchy before that,  had been pretty much free of superstition and at peace, so the USA strived to re-impose, twice, on Afghanistan a fascist, sexist interpretation of Islam.

This is no way to win a war. Morality cannot foster, or tolerate, big contradictions. As it is, the West has nothing much to defend in the Islamist republic of Afghanistan. Best to negotiate directly with the Taliban. Or, barring that, to just withdraw.

One lesson of the Roman military collapse, was too much energy was spent fighting war in the Middle East without enough overall civilizational superiority to win once and for all. All this energy playing military Sisyphus was as much energy that was not spent on the crucial frontiers: the Balkans, and, especially, the Rhine-Danube gap. Or reacquiring civilizational superiority.

Instead, what we presently observe is that the USA is turning stealthily into a military regime, complete with secret supreme court of surveillance and secret laws. How can one have secret laws in a res PUBLICA? Are not laws the architecture? Are they not public, by definition, in a republic?

It’s time to stop that drift. Obama should yank the USA out of Afghanistan, after making to the Taliban an offer it can’t refuse. He should also remember that Rome rotted from inside first. The more secret the rot, the worst the gangrene. Industrial strength secrecy has no place in a Re-PUBLIC. Moral force is domineering for wars, and the survival of civilization, in the fullness of time.

History is not just complex. It has meta-layers of complexity, as psychology does, and because psychology does, on the grandest scale. Those who do not want to learn from history, do not want to learn from psychology.



Patrice Ayme


May 4, 2013

Western Intelligence, Oriental Despotism; Redux? Democratic Occident, Fascist Orient, & Vice Versed?

Obama just  nominated Commerce Secretary the billionaire heiress who discovered him, and introduced him to the Rubin-Summers-Goldman-Sachs-Citigroup conspiracy. Penny Priztker was condemned to pay a 460 million dollar fine by the Federal government in 2001, for financial malfeasance. 460 million, that’s more than Mitt Romney’s fortune… a fortune which made small rank and file democrats huff and puff, in indignation, a few months ago, just like their mighty masters told them to do (plutocrats such as the Pritzkers are the real thing, and Obama, their boy, not to say, servant).

Now, if the 460 million dollars fine felon becomes chief of commerce, that’s fine, as long as the masters of the people don’t ask the People to huff and puff about the fine. The finer the fine, the finer the master, say the little People, and they bleat, satisfied. As a grateful, and hopeful, Obama put it:”Priztker is one of the most eminent personalities of our country“. When Pluto reigns, down is up.

When Common Decency Is A Hindrance

When Common Decency Is A Hindrance

Plutocracy is the New World Order. The New World Thinking. The New World Emoting.

To get some perspective on this, it’s good to have a retrospective look at the greatest plutocratic realms of the past, and ponder why extremely wealthy fascism rose, increasingly, in the Orient, while clever democracy rose, occasionally, in the West. And sometimes fell, disastrously, for reasons related.

It turns out that, when Rome became fascist and plutocratic, it turned to, and into, Oriental despotism, and criminals, indeed, came to command and control. Criminality became morality.



Establishing  giant, metastatic empires in the Orient is nothing new: the Hittites tried it, they proceeded to invade Lebanon and the rich valleys behind, Egyptian territory. However young Pharaoh Ramses II, defeated them at Qadesh, next to present day Damascus. Through courageous combat in that battle which defined his long rule, Ramses rescued victory from the jaws of defeat, somewhat miraculously.

Ramses lost ground, though, and later made a loving peace with his enemies. Then, the Hittites having been destroyed by the mysterious coalition of the Peoples of the Sea, the Assyrians tried to impose their own giant metastatic empire, using the harshest methods. That brought them so many enemies that they got invaded from all quarters, annihilated as a nation first, and an army, later.

Then the union of Medes and Persians, thanks to three remarkable leaders, established a giant fascist empire, from Ethiopia to Central Asia, Libya to India. The third emperor, Darius, besides being excellent at sword-play in the dark, and a great general, proved capable of using a free market economy, switching to so called Keynesianism, and then a command and control economy, as needed. Darius established a giant “Royal” road network (ancestral to the one the Romans would build, four centuries later).

A Persian Pony Express, with posts every five miles, would bring news from distant corners of the empire in a week. Darius went on to invade the Scythians, land of the Amazons, present day Ukraine.

Darius’ Persia was the greatest empire, so far, larger than the present day continental USA. It became so, thanks to a great variety of methods of socio-economic governance. Some of these methods would later be used by the West, massively. Not just the communication network, the free market, the command and control, but also a crafty diplomacy of seduction, cooptation and local autonomy (that’s how the Ionian Greeks and Phoenicians became collaborators of Persia; whereas Alexander would annihilate Tyr).

However, unbelievably, tiny Athens broke the Persian empire, inaugurating the next great event, still on-going, the rise of the West. Again and again, minuscule Greek armies routed the juggernauts of professional giant armies. Again and again, small democracies proved superior to large fascist foes. I claimed that mental superiority entailed military superiority.



Herodotus explained the Greeks’ military superiority: free men are more motivated in battle, as they fight for themselves, he said. But it’s not clear that elite Persian soldiers did not feel free. They no doubt felt rather free, but not as much.

I hold something slightly different, a new dimension of understanding: free men, living in an “open society” are not just more motivated, but, simply, more intelligent. Yes, intelligent.

Yet how come that the free men tended to be in the West, and the subjugated ones, in the East? And this for 4,000 years, defining the “West” as anything west of Mount Lebanon. Why did so much of the Mediterranean turn out propitious to freedom and individual initiative? What of the enormous Celto-German forests, from Spain to the Baltics?

Two factors played a role:

1) Trade, with the big man, the leader being the ship owner-captain (Tyr, Phoenicia, Crete, Athens, Carthage, etc.). This required to excel at technology and adaptative intelligence, confronting nature.

2) Small owner-peasants. The West’s agricultural system did better thanks to small, free owner-peasants.  The owner peasant was captain of his own plot of land, and found himself in a situation roughly similar to the ship captain. Such people worked hard, and thought hard about outwitting nature. All of Germany was this way, until the military encroachment of Rome in the beginning of its plutocratic phase, brought, by reaction, a militarization of German society (this is what archeology shows).

A demographic core of owner-peasants was the core of the success of the Roman republic, and its successors, the Imperium Francorum, and France, or anything working along French lines (most of Europe). When enjoying this basic culture, of free, independent peasants, the West did very well. Why so? Because thinking by oneself, for oneself, makes one more intelligent.



The Orient did better when the peasants could cultivate. That meant, when they had water. That was not obvious in the increasingly parched lands, from the Maghreb to India. First, there, one needed to bring water to agricultural lands. Whereas in the West, both water and arable land were in the same place, not so in the East. In the East water was on rocky mountains, arable lands in parts of plains at the bottom of said mountains. To bring the former to the latter, one needed great hydraulic works. Underground canalizations, sometimes fifty feet deep, could extend dozens of miles.

Such extensive works meant armies of workers and maintenance people. And also standing armies to establish and protect the necessary order. Plus a field army to roam around the empire, and keep the static defenses obedient.

In other words, food on the carpet in the parched, basin and range Orient meant a large fascist system to make it possible, and everybody enslaved to it, in a military organization (Christianity and Islam, both oriental religions, kept much of this essential psychological character: fascist god on top, giving absolute, even capricious  orders to its slaves below).



What consequences today? Western countries do not depend upon small owner-peasants anymore, but upon giant farms, or agribusinesses, for food procurement. Even trade has become unbalanced: production on one end of the Earth, increasing unemployment, at the other end.

Giant agribusinesses, and unbalanced trade became facts of empire in Rome, and lasted centuries. It was a deliberate plot of Roman plutocracy. At some point, six senatorial families owned most of North Africa. Seneca, Nero’s tutor, the plutocratic philosopher of note, used to boast that he had no idea how many giant properties he owned on the various continents.

That delocalization and globalization made Rome, and Italy into an empty shell of its former self. As those who had the power, the senatorial families, wished. What they feared first, was a proud, potent, empowered People.

(Part of) Italy would resurrect as independent republics, more than a millennium later.

What’s the morality of the story? Men have a strong instinct for doing things right. In a plutocratic system, though, men who do things wrong get rewarded, and this goes on, until the situation exponentiates and breaks down. Thus plutocratic systems are intrinsically pathological: they reward criminals. Not just criminal according to the laws of men, but criminals according to the laws of nature.

In the Orient, life is harder, less natural, militarization exploits part of the Dark Side, because human beings, by living there, live in a less optimal situation. In the West, the rise of plutocracy did not have these excuses.

The Romans knew this well. The Roman republic was the product of a revolution against Tarquinus Superbus, the king of Rome, of Etruscan origin. So the founding act of five centuries of Roman republic was an anti-plutocratic revolt. Same for Athens (several times, during the same centuries).

The Romans passed a strong anti-plutocratic law. That law limited, by force the size of a family’s fortune; it fixed an upper bound on how much one could own. The Second Punic war saw the death, on the battlefield, of too many of the best leading Romans. Meanwhile the conspirators of wealth, back behind the walls of the fortified cities, as Hannibal was roaming the countryside, established a New World order of rents.

When Carthage got defeated, those men of greed kept on pushing, and tried to grab control of the state. After several wars of distraction against Macedonia, Carthage, Numantia, Corinth, etc. it became clear that was what was going on to thousands of the best Romans, led by top nobles (in mind and ancestry), the Gracchi.

The Gracchis mostly tried to impose the wealth limitation law. They also succeeded to impose a land redistribution (an unthinkable socialist measure in the post Thatcher-Reagan world!). Yet, the Gracchi and their supporters lost a civil war. All got killed, by the private armies of the plutocrats. By 100 BCE, when Caesar was born, the dice had long been thrown. Only extreme measures could address the situation (extreme measures that Caesar and Cicero, on the good side, would try).

Now what? Losing democracy, means, ultimately, that we will lose not just freedom, but intelligence itself. It is difficult to imagine how the Americans will pull out of their present death spiral into furthering the wealth of the .1%. When bandits are called “philanthropists”, all values have been inverted in a country: gangsters are in control, the mafia has got metastatic. It will go on, all inverted, until it explodes, or get trampled over. The commerce chief will be a certified felon.

The situation in Europe is not as desperate: conditions for a revolt exist. Although Goldman Sachs has its servants in place all over, the Italians threw out one of them, a Goldman Sachs partner, Mario Monti, at the first chance they got.

Some may sneer, as they notice that, once again I used “Orient” and “Occident” according to old Greco-Roman semantics. What of the true Orient, the far-out East, China and company? Well, I will hide behind my usual observation: it’s Western culture that conquered the world. Present day China’s ideology has very little that is specifically Chinese, besides what the West and China had in common, such as the more or less free market. The idea of “People” (Populus) and “Republic” (Respublica) are Roman. So the very title of China, the “People Republic of China” is, well, (Greco-)Roman.

The dangers threatening China, accordingly, like those threatening us, are those that devastated the Roman republic. For the reasons exposed above, the development in the West, of a more advanced civilization was first, thus why everybody adopted it later.  Rome was first to rise as high as it did. But, the greater the rise, the greater the fall. By 700 CE, the fall of Rome had been so great, that China had risen higher, on many indicators. The West, invaded by hordes of savages for more than six hundred years (beyond even 400 CE to 1000 CE) was fighting for survival.

Plutocracy as a New World Order is not just the end of many things. In the fullness of time, plutocracy is the end of everything.

Even the Will to Power. Slave masters are not so masterful. After all, they are enslaved to their slaves.

When Rome went down, Roman plutocrats whined that the “world was getting old“. By this they meant that resources were being exhausted. Unbeknownst to them, they were the cause of this aging, of this lack of renewal. Its stupidity plutocratic civilization could not find a way out of the box it had built. It needed really new technologies; it did not have the brains to discover them. And it could not have acquired these brains without losing control.

Right now, the world is not getting old, it’s getting killed. And that’s worst.


Patrice Ayme


December 31, 2012


Some pontificate that we are experiencing the “third industrial revolution”.

This erroneous naivety, rich in lessons, beholds a lack of measure, and a lack of history. As I explain why, I will introduce the INDUSTRIAL INDEX, which rests on the concept of energy and AWE, ABSOLUTE WORTH ENERGY, which rests on humanly effective energy usage.

Together both energy related concepts allow to found rigorously the notions such as industry, progress, even revolution, and the dismal science, economy.

Athena Parthenos: lots of energy to build, metal therein.

Athena Parthenos: lots of energy to build, metal therein.

Economy has been dismal, because it had no scientific foundation. Energy gives that foundation to economics. While generalizing… physics.

Verily, there have been many “industrial revolutions” before. Scholars of antiquity call them “ages”, instead of “revolutions”. A tradition.

Going from the Bronze Age to the age of (carbon reinforced) iron (steel) was a change of “age”. (Trojan War Greece fell to the iron equipped Dorians, launching the Greek Dark Ages.) To make bronze, one had to bring together copper and tin, sometimes from very far away. To make iron, one had to reach temperatures higher than any naturally occuring fire. Those new metals were all about new, and more intense, energy management.

One needs to define “industry” and one needs to define a measure for “revolution”. I will do both. Defining industry depends upon a measure of industry, and this is the same measure that defines revolution. So I will do the measure first. (See note on measure.)

A woman, with her bare hands, can do only that much. But if she drives a bus, she can do much more. Much more what? Much more work, in the exact physical sense of “work”. In physics, work is force time the distance along which said force acts. It’s equivalent to energy. (See work note)

An obvious question is how would industry be defined? Very simple: by work. A human, au naturel, can do only that much work. Industry does much more.

The concept of industry comes, through the French from the Latin “industria” “diligence, activity, zeal” itself from the old Indo-European roots “in”, or “indu” and struere (building, giving structure).

A measure of industry is how much work a human can do, or does, or depends upon,
or commands, in the average. To evaluate the industrial measure of a society, one sums up energy potential or realized, over the entire society.

To get an index, divide that generalized energy by the total population.

This is intuitively satisfying: the index equates the increased mastery of energy with increased industry. As energy is the most important notion in modern physics, this new economic theory fits smoothly with modern physics.

We need a name. I will use II, for Industrial Index.

How to measure the II varies according to societies. A herdsman will a flock of sheep brought in more calorie than his colleague running after wild mountain goats. In this case the relevant II springs from the difference of how much calories is produced (including by milking the goats) versus how much is expended (including training dogs, building fences, or making arrow heads…)

The Neolithic revolutions of herding and agriculture brought tremendous jumps in II. The first dams were built apparently in present day Yemen, then solidly connected to the rest of Middle Earth by a wetter climate, and Jawa in Jordan, 3000 BCE. By irrigating vast lands, a dam does automatically what would be a lot of work for people carrying the water by hand, so it brings lots of energy (jump in II), and in the service of mankind (thus an equal jump in II(AWE) see below).

An industrial revolution occurs when II jumps. II will jump when significantly more powerful science or technology is introduced or deployed (for example the science of breeding less dangerous almond trees or boars). It took 2,000 years to deploy the technology of the steam engine, from the ancient Egyptians and Greeks to the Frenchman Papin (who made a steam powered boat, outright!).

The size of revolutions can be compared across the ages, using the ratio: II(before revolution)/II (after revolution).

For example the steam engine allowed to jump from the maximal power of a dozen horses to ten times that, an II jump of ten. Advanced coal based steam power plants reached at most 100,000 horsepower (around 100 megawatts). A nuclear fission U235 reactor ten times that. So going from fossil fuel to nuclear represented another II jump of ten. (But that jump has mostly failed because the military based nuclear technology partly deployed was found to be insuffiencently safe enough.)

An objection could be that this first order definition of II does not take into account, waste. However neither does GDP. GDP is notorious to augment with waste, so some countries have higher GDPs, just because they are tremendously more wasteful (what the Swiss and the French do does not differ much from what Canadians, or Americans do, under the same latitude; however Canadians and Americans need three times more CO2 to do it, a tremendous waste).

I have an answer to the problem of waste too. To remedy this, a notion, AWE, Absolute Worth Energy, does NOT consider the energy spent, but only the energy of the effect one is looking for by the activity that this energy deplyment intents to serve.

This II(AWE) is computed otherwise just as the II. A measure of the efficiency of a civilization is the quotient:

Examples: a traffic jam has zero AWE, but a Light Emitting Diode has an AWE close to 100% (as close to 100% of the LED output is used… as long as there is someone to enjoy the light of its energy output).
When a plane’s flight’s AWE is the energy of transporting people and goods, on that flight, NOT the energy spent to transport them (pretty much equal to fossil fuel spent + cost of training, flying, repairing, etc.)
It becomes a bit delicate when one determines the AWE of a PhD (but it can be done, using modern computers).

The Mayan civilization rested upon a tremendous irrigation system with reservoirs and canals. The largest canal, about 100 meter wide and more than 100 kilometers long, can be seen from space. So there was such a thing as Mayan industry. However, the American civilizations were violently destroyed, and contributed even less than East Eurasian civilizations to the present One world Civilization (the east’s greatest contribution, besides its very existence, may have been Chinese black powder).

Ultimately, civilization has been mostly the work of the Middle Earth. It makes civilization pretty much in one locale. The successive revolutions that articulated the civilizational mainstream all happened there, knew about each other, and are thus easy to compare.

The first industrial revolution was the invention of cities, the second one that of herding (or the other way around), the third one was intensive agriculture of engineered crops, the fourth revolution was writing (6,000 years ago). The fifth the political system (Sumer, 5,500 years ago), arriving simultaneously with copper-tin alloys, that is bronze. As tin and copper were often not found in the same place, they had to be transported by massive shipping (Crete, 4,000 years ago). Shipping was crucial for Western Eurasia, which, by the time of Carthage, enjoyed a trade system, shipping enabled, extending from the British isles to India, and even Black Africa; for example tin was shipped from Britain, and salted fish, from Black Africa).

There is no doubt that Rome had industry. The first Roman fleet, 200 warships copied from Carthage, was constructed in a few months, while the crews were trained in the dirt to move oars and obey commands (Carthage promptly sank that first attempt.) Rome had an enormous industry and economy.
But did Rome see an industrial revolution? Well the Industrial Index jumped. Roman dams are still in use today. Yet, the Greco-Roman empire mostly cheated. It split the population in two: the free, and the slaves. The Industrial Index and the II(AWE) applied mostly to the free.

Extremely. There are, or ought to be, two industrial revolutions in full swing, one of intelligence, axed on II(AWE), the other of energy, axed on II. The first is still in infancy, the other, in trouble.

The present Artificial intelligence revolution is blossoming, but, like an infant learning to crawl, it is far from fully capable yet. Its potential to augment II(AWE) is very far from fulfilled. That will happen when all the tasks requiring NON CREATIVE and NON CONSCIOUS intelligence can be done by robots. No more driving; the car will do it for you. No more cooking; the kitchen will serve you what to eat. Etc.

What about the energy revolution? It’s somewhat in regress. Although so called “sustainable” energies are developed, they stay an epiphenomenon, and will stay so, as long as they cannot replace base energy. The USA has decided to go the other way, full blast, burning the planet for its own profit, encouraging China and India to do the same with coal.

The new energy source was, of course, nuclear energy which has energy density greater by a factor of one million. A succession of red herrings have mentally unbalanced civilization about nuclear energy, and this is having the disastrous consequence that the biosphere is in the process of quick irreversible destruction. Nuclear waste fades to nothing dangerous after a while. But not so for the poisoning by coal combustion, which permeates the biosphere with eternal contaminants such as arsenic and mercury. Or CO2, that will stick around for millennia.

The Industrial Index is actually in danger of collapse. How? Because the population is augmenting fast (II is obtained by dividing total energy commanded by the number of people), while the catastrophic consequences of fossil fuels burning have reached a tipping point. So energy production may have to shrink. Better AWE (such as more efficient planes, high speed electric trains, photovoltaic electricity) may compensate for this enough. Or not.

To get out of the deepening depression the world is entering, we need a jump in Industrial Index. Why? For the same reason as imperial Rome needed one: the resources accessible with deployed technology are getting exhausted (the case of Rome, and also our case). Solution: new technology, with a higher II, thus capable with greater energy to reach further resources (say bottom of the ocean nodules or Helium3 on the Moon).

Otherwise we can do like the Romans and wait until we don’t even have the resources to conduct war. By the way, India and China have understood this, and their policies are axed around augmenting the Industrial Index. Whereas, stupidly, in the West some have claimed we have reached the “post-industrial age”. Apparently that means that the factories are in China.

We are also experiencing a problem that Rome did not have, namely the collapse of the biosphere.

A greater II means a greater massive energy source. There is one, and only one. It’s energy intensity is a million times greater than fossil fuels.
So start a crash program to make high temperatures (hence high efficiency) thorium reactors (the radioactive waste of that energy type is neglectable). They would give massive amounts of clean base energy.
India and China have them, but the West has more capital and expertise at the ready. Maybe Japan can show the way? (Japan needs energy but not 1950 tech Uranium 235/Plutonium plants, which are too polluting and dangerous.)

By all means, pursue sustainable energy. But, as it is, for a huge variety of reasons, it stays a sideshow, or an invitation to disaster: watch Germany go coal crazy.

Already in 2008, and before, I explained that “Energy Is the Foundation Of Economy”, and I introduced AWE.

That the USA has chosen a catastrophic energy policy goes according to American historical know-how. War has been good to the American Anglo-Saxon colony. Four centuries of war have brought unending success. The bigger the war, the bigger the success.

India, China, Japan, Europe and even Iran know differently. They know that there are wars that bring extermination rather than satisfaction. The Mongols hesitated to destroy China, and replace it by a steppe (Genghis Khan’s generals had the souls of geoengineers!). Just like Sparta saved Athens at the last moment, so did Genghis with Northern China. Iran and Iraq were not that lucky.

The present leadership of USA believes it will always be lucky, and war is a friend, so the more CO2, mercury, arsenic, coal, oil, gas, and rising, acid, lifeless seas, the better. Well, the Greco-Romans went down that road before. All the way down. In the end, they licked obsequiously the toes of the Franks for the next 15 centuries. That was not so bad, but this time is different; the planet is at stake.

If the USA were truly wise, it would opt to increase the Industrial Index instead of military know-how. The former implies the latter, but not conversely.

This is so true that even the U.S. Navy got it, and tried to conduct war exercises in 2012, using algae fuel. That fuel augments the II, because it produces energy from sun and air. It also sucks the CO2 out of said air (so plants making algae fuel could be fossil fuel plants’ best friend! algae fuel is basically the only method of Carbon Capture that could work significantly). The U.S. Congress, more controlled by plutocracy than the U.S. Navy is, was furious, and tried to block the Navy’s efforts. Funny how everything connects.

The military has long been partial to a higher Industrial Index. The first ‘automobiles’, in the Eighteenth Century, were commissioned by the French military. Earlier than that Middle Ages gunners found that Aristotelitian ballistics were false (physicists abstracted that generations later).

Even earlier Constantinople was saved “Gregian Fire” a long range flame throwing system based on fossil fuels. Gregian Fire allowed the Greco-Romans to beat back Muslim fleets for three centuries, sometimes burning up to 2,000 ships in one battle below Constantinople’s fortifications.
Meanwhile in France three full scale Muslim Arab, Berber and Syrian invasions were beaten back in 30 years, because the Franks succeeded to establish a slight industrial edge, using a number of techniques, from better steel to gigantic war horses, to a nationalization of the Church (to pay for the largest and better trained army since the heydays of Rome).

Plutocracy does not like revolutions, industrial, economic or political: they are all related, all having to do with ideas. All what the plutocrats want is to rule. And the way for them to do that, 2,000 years ago, or now, is by paying no taxes. That the world needs an industrial revolution and a paradigm breaking jump in II(AWE) is of no use to them, just the opposite. What’s good for the world, is not good to those who find their call in other people’s misery.

Ultimately, the industrious disposition of a society depends upon the psychology of its leadership. In a real democracy, that should be that of the People, but “representative” “democracy” often represents the People in name only. And industry is not the call of plutocracy, quite the opposite.

Carnegie himself, the USA’s first billionaire, pointed that out, and advocated, in writing, 50% tax on the rich’s income. Carnegie said that it was so that the rich pay back the society that allowed them to become rich in the first place. Carnegie also advocated confiscatory taxes on inheriting wealth, because, he said, the children of the hyper rich, per their psychological upbringing, are adverse to industry.

So why can’t “democrats” in the USA at least preach the way Carnegie did? Because they are “democrats” in name only?

Patrice Ayme
Work Note: apparently more sophisticated definitions just integrate work, as defined as above exactly, but infinitesimally, along paths.

Measure Note: I am using the word measure in the mathematical analysis sense. So I have equipped civilization, progress, industry and even technology with two measures: II and the more sophisticated II(AWE).
(I chose Industrial Index II, and not Industrial Coefficient to avoid a confusion with IC, Integrated Circuits, a good example of jumping II; besides, II is indeed an index, not a coefficient.)

Currency Crisis In A Nutshell

August 24, 2012


Abstract: A situation similar to the one we have today developed in the Third Century of Imperial Rome. Rome’s economy had outgrown its currency. There were three solutions to the problem. One was chosen by the Tang, paper. Another by the Franks, invasion.

Rome, under Diocletian, unable to grow the currency, chose the third way. Command and control of a barter economy. So, ironically, those who advocate the gold standard in the USA, such as Paul Ryan (candidate VP) are partisan of a Soviet style economy. Instead we have to make banks and financiers regurgitate the money they create just for themselves.


Starting in the Third Century, Rome, the world’s largest economy, was increasingly run on the gold standard. With disastrous results.


Caption reads: FLavius CLaudius IVLIA NVS (Flavius Claudius JULIA NUS) P P AVG (Princeps Populus AUGustus). VIRTVS EXERCI-TVS ROMANORVM (Strength Roman Army). (Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right.) 

A Franco-Australian collaboration on Greenland ice cores showed that from 366 BCE to after 36 CE, a period when Rome was at its peak, 70 percent of the global atmospheric lead pollution came from the Roman operated Rio Tinto mines in southwestern Spain (that can be seen from some characteristic isotopes ratio).

The Rio Tinto mining region was the richest source of silver in Antiquity. Some 6.6 million tons of slag were left by Roman smelting operations there. Rio Tinto was exploited by slaves with extremely short life spans. It was a vision of hell, the sky was black, fires everywhere, to the horizon. The rio ran red, still does.

The Romans worked Rio Tinto until Rio Tinto was exhausted with the technology they had (shortly after 36 CE). The mine re-opened in recent times, with powerful machines replacing slaves (and ‘Rio Tinto’ is well known to precious metal investors). 

The demand for silver increased dramatically after precious metal coinage was introduced in Greece around 650 BCE (although Sparta insisted to use iron for coinage: that was paper money, Fiat Currency, Spartan style). Ionian Greece, in particular Phocaea, and Lydia used Electrum, a naturally occurring alloy of gold, silver and other metals.

Interestingly, judging from the Greenland ice cores, the peak of Roman mining pollution was in 79 BCE. That is nearly two centuries before the maximum of the extent of the Roman empire under Trajan (originally a Spanish general) and his successors, the Antonine emperors. 79 BCE was not the peak of the Roman economy, that was reached later. But it is about when Sulla became dictator. This is an important hint.

Just when the commons ran out of coinage, greedy plutocrats monopolized worth. A co-dependency pattern repeated nowadays.

The smelting of lead-bearing ore declined sharply after the fall of the Roman Empire but gradually increased during the Renaissance of the Middle Ages. By 1523 CE, the last year for the Greenland ice analysis, atmospheric lead pollution had reached nearly the same level recorded for the year 79 BCE, at the Roman peak.

So what happened? Rome used three precious metals: gold, silver, and copper. The first was used to make a coin, the Aureus, renamed the Solidus under Diocletian.

The Roman currency crisis of the Third Century was caused by Rome being, de facto, on the gold standard. The Romans had run out of the most precious metals to make small coins with. That left a currency too small for the growing Roman economy. Diluting the precious metal content of the coinage commoners had to use was no solution: it created obdurate inflation (while the gold solidus kept on being made and used for another 7 centuries, it was used only for big transactions).

Diocletian and his colleague “solved” the crisis with a command barter economy. In other words, Diocletian invented the Soviet system. So ironically, that is what going back to the gold standard would force the economy into.

Around 284 CE, the Roman economy had become too big for the amount of currency that could be created from precious metals. Emperor Diocletian solved this with a command barter economy. Even armies started to get paid in kind (say with food instead of coinage; that led to a de-professionalization of the army; soldiers had to marry and live with their families; the Franks under Charles Martel, four centuries later, would re-professionalize the army by getting precious metals in churches).

In the Seventh Century the Tang dynasty in China solved the problem in the modern way, by creating a “fiat currency” from paper notes. (It would lead to catastrophic inflation under the Yuan, six centuries later, and a reversion to metal, when the silver from Potosi became available). In the Eight Century, the Franks solved the currency problem for their growing economy by going where the Romans had not dared to go,  and seizing silver mines in Eastern Europe.

For all its grand philosophy and thinking, Athens would probably not have amounted to much, if not for its silver mines. It’s actually the discovery of a new silver mine that allowed Themistocles to propose to build a 200 trireme fleet to fight off the Persians with. Thanks to her silver, Athens could buy a lot, including wheat far away, in the Black Sea region (hence the far flung Athenian empire).

We are presently in a crisis similar to what struck Rome, a dearth of money for the real economy. Indeed,  banks have diverted money creation away from the real economy, which is starved of investments (that is money and credit, from banks, for private industry).

The situation is even worse in Europe. In the Eurozone, states are supposed to be borrowing from banks. And the banks are unwilling to lend, as they have better things to do with their money, such as investing in derivatives. The result is a dearth of Euros (relative to the size of the Eurozone economy) and an overvaluation of the euro relative to the USA Dollar.

At least in the USA, the UK and Japan, central banks create as much fiat currency as needed. it’s all backed up by the mighty Pentagon, creating a virtuous, and, or vicious circle (depending upon one’s perspective).

In early 2011, Mr. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, gave Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, a warning: “There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its citizens, than debase its currency.”

Never mind that France clung to the gold standard in the 1930s much longer than the USA, Britain and Nazi Germany, with disastrous results. This essay demonstrates something even more insidious that a country can do to its citizens: not having enough currency. And this is what is happening now. So Mr. Ryan is as wrong as wrong can be.

The unwillingness of banks to lend to the real economy, and the division of the economy between real and virtual makes us presently suffer both from deflation (in the real economy) and inflation (in the fake economy)

The way out is to print more, but, using command to send money that is created to the real economy and not to the fake world of derivatives and the like (as is presently happening). A good way to start is by taxing financial transactions, just like any other transaction is taxed in the real economy. The French financial transaction tax passed in France on August 1, 2012.

However banks did not fall on the heads of the French. According to The Economist, August 18, 2012, the French real estate market is still twice more overvalued than the British real estate market. In Britain, finance reigns, contributing 10% of GDP, in endless conspiracies.

And the other great temple of greedy financiers who give society meaning, the USA, sees, according to The Economist, a real estate market undervalued by 20%. Thus the real estate index is at 80 in the USA, and 145, in France.

Now remember that the wealth of common people is mostly in real estate. Hence a country where finance is repressed, such as France, sees much more wealth going to commoners than it does in the USA.

Some are sure to come up with GDP per capita at this point, and point out that the USA GDP is larger than the French. But that means nothing: a country with more traffic jams and expensive health care and education will see a big GDP, just like somebody with dilated cardiomyopathy, will have an enormously enlarged heart.

(Moreover the French GNP numbers are 10% higher than the GDP numbers…)

And it gets worse, because the French true ownership rate is higher than that of the USA. There is only that much wealth to go around (as the Gini Index observes). If most of the wealth goes to plutocrats, it does not go to the People, and vice versa.

Conclusion: The People on which the Wall Street empire reigns is naked, and that is because the financiers stole it. At least, relative to the French. Everything is relative, as long as there is life and it breathes… A Soviet style economy, as unknowingly advocated by the likes of Mr. Ryan, would bring with it the attending ominous fate of tyranny and theocracy (Stalin, Ibn Saud, Putin, etc.)

To come back to the situation in Rome, the increasing debasement of the Denarius, the common currency, relatively to the 80% pure gold Solidus could have been solved by introducing paper money. But that would have required a stronger state. It was, precisely, an occasion to get a stronger state. The Tang were able to organize a paper money currency, precisely because they had a strong state, with formidable sovereigns such as empress Wei.

Rome did not seize the opportunity to go to paper money. instead Rome went for theocracy, and its living descendants are Putin’s Russia, and various Islam theocracies, wobbling between cretinism and civil war.

And thus what the fanatics of the gold standard are proposing is actually a weaker state. It does make sense: most of the right wingers in the USA who are for the gold standard are also proposing to weaken the state.

They much prefer the jungle, and its law. 


Patrice Ayme

Create A New Branch Of Government: TRUTH.

August 1, 2012

Government traditionally consists of three branches: the executive, the legislative and justice. I propose to create a new branch, purely advisory, truth.

At the highest level, the three branches of government, with their corresponding functions had been conflated early in the Roman Republic (in the times of “Tribunes with Consular Powers“).

Yet, as the State became enormous and subtle, those functions became increasingly distinct. The notion of “State of Law” evolved into ever more prominence. Galla Placidia, reigning Roman empress and “Augusta”  proclaimed the “State of Law” very clearly in the Fifth Century.

She explained that the supremacy of the law required that it be applied to all, including, herself, the head of state. Equally.

During the European Middle Ages, Roman secular law, refurbished by Augustus Justinian around 540 CE, was a buttress against falling into what the areas conquered by Islam fell into (the arbitrariness of The One, anointed by “god” as a “messenger“).

For example, seven centuries after Justinian’s 40 year reign, the king of France “Saint” Louis admitted that he wanted to stab those who did not believe Christ in the belly, so that they would suffer more, but he could not do it, because it was against the (Roman secular) law!

Said Roman secular law became the foundation of all modern law, and United Nation law. Early on the Franks were equipped with their own tribal law, the Salic law (itself written originally in Latin), but they used it as an epiphenomenon on the main body of Roman law.

As the Franks were Roman authority in Gallia, Francia, and Germania, they adopted readily Justinian’s modifications. Their (re)conquest of most of Western Europe (507 CE-1066 CE), and their Renovatio Imperium Romanum (800 CE), insured that Roman law was European law for more than 2,000 years (most of the time, but for the occasional crusade, religious war, Spanish Inquisition, or bout of fascism a la Louis XIV, Napoleon, or Hitler).

Parliaments in the Middle Ages played the role of the Roman Senate. And they worked from the Roman legal system. France had 16 regions and 16 parliaments. They had to sign on any legislative, or constitutional change.

The parliament in London was endowed with extraordinary powers (much of them attributed when Montford tried to use it to become king). After the Republic nearly came back from action of the Paris parliament, little desirous to see in France what the London parliament had done (vote for cutting off the king’s head), the fascist youth, Louis XIV, shut them down (they were re-established by the revolutionary Louis XVI, and then they, in turn, shut down his attempts at making the plutocrats pay enough taxes).

I propose four branches of government: executive, legislative, justice… and TRUTH.

We need Truth Courts. One in the USA, one in Europe (although major European countries could have their own). Even the UN could have its own. A Truth Court could provide with unbiased opinions about various subjects such as Arctic Drilling, GMOs, Nuclear Technologies, circumcision and excision, stoning lesbians, drug legalization, and meta subjects, such as Much of FOX Is POX, etc.

We need Truth Courts to handle delicate subjects, and not just what were the forces behind Hitler, but also what are the forces behind the military-industrial complex, and the gifts it brings.

One of these gifts is the F35 “low observable” fighter-bomber that USA based military plutocrats persuaded many representatives of taxpayers in many countries to subsidy.

So far the program has cost 400 billion dollars, and not one single plane has entered service fully (although the plane has been “produced” since 2006). The cost is staggering: the Norwegian defense ministry admitted it could be as much as 762 million dollars per plane (the Pentagon had admitted only half that… so far, but recognized maintenance would be very expensive, easily doubling the price).

In truth, this is corruption at the highest order. As I will show in an accompanying essay, if the aim is really defense, an alternative offers itself, cheaper, safe and effective.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, Nelson Mandela’s great idea, has allowed South Africa to not go the way, of, say Algeria, or India. Both of these countries were torn apart, and have known war, civil or not, religious or not, more or less, ever since.

If Gandhi had been as smart as Mandela, not only would India, the Raj, not have split into three pieces, with millions dead, dozens of millions exiled, and a criminal and expensive arms race since, plus now the Damocles sword of nuclear war, but, moreover, other countries would have heeded the example (and Algeria would not have known 60 years of more or less hot uncivil war, plus millions exiled, and less economic opportunities for much of Europe, and all of North Africa!)



This house holds that: To insure civilizational veracity, let alone survival, we need a Truth Court.

“TRUTH” would be a new independent, secular institution. It would only provide with Truth Opinion. (Quite a bit like the Roman Senate provided only with Senatus Consulte, counsel, or advice, from the seniors… At least for a while, in the beginning, before the Public Assembly passed the bad law of letting the Senate decided in its stead.)

Alexi Helligar: Kind of like an official

PA: Yes. However, the mandate of, is, so far very limited as it checks mostly on USA politicians and their PACs. It is also privately financed. I am thinking of something huge, financed publicly, and to act as the fourth pillar not just of government, but of civilization. To find out all the facts, and likely consequences, related to human impact on the atmosphere, oceanosphere, geology and the biosphere, would be a primary target.

Andy Outis Would the jurisdiction of this court only apply to the fact-based community, or would Fox News audiences have immunity?

PA: Such a court would inform the commons that Much of FOX Is POX.

Andy Outis That happens on a daily basis. Their viewership doesn’t seem to care.

PA: They are living the lie. A Truth Court would help those who are addicted to lying sober up. It would be like being told that alcohol, or cigarettes are not good for health. Much of what passes for News at Fox News would be denounced as bad for mental health… by an independent governmental branch. Thus my proposition for four branches of government: executive, legislative, justice, TRUTH.

Andy Outis But that would take away their constitutional rites to be as ignorant as they wanna be!! Downright un American!!

PA: It’s indeed a rite, not a right. A tribal rite.


Patrice Ayme (with thanks to A. Helligar and A. Outis).

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For Ever Better Thinking. Humanism Is Intelligence Unleashed. From Intelligence All Ways, Instincts & Values Flow, Even Happiness. History and Science Teach Us Not Just Humility, But Power, Smarts, And The Ways We Should Embrace. Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner


Defending Scientism