Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Europe Immigration Massacre

April 24, 2015


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

And they drown like lemmings.

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

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

Mass Death By Hypocritical Bureaucracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here we are again.

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

So what to do?

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’


November 21, 2014

To know the worth of a country, look at how it treats the most innocent, the children.

Obama just belatedly proposed to not expulse right away five million immigrants with children (out of at least 11 million illegal immigrants). However genuine the president’s emotions, this all swims in a sea of hypocrisy: why did the “Democrats” not act, when they controlled Congress, and the presidency, five years ago… As they had promised they would?

Worse: the measures proposed by Obama are only temporary. If (as is likely) the USA has, within two years, an entire “Republican” government, the ‘generous’ invitation of Obama to illegal immigrants to “come out of the shadows“, will backfire: once localized by authorities, illegals will be thrown out, more easily: a textbook case of bait and switch.

Even worse: the gigantic illegal immigration in the USA masks a state system of plutocratic exploitation of (workers and) children. It is deliberate.

Is Obama left wing? Not really. All he is proposing is to try to impose International Law for a few months, because such is his good pleasure, at this point. He just forgot to have a law passed when he had all the powers. Too busy golfing with his buddies. (I don’t golf, golfing is a pseudo-sport for conspiring pip-squeaks who love to replace wilderness by fertilized lawns.)

Deporting children born in the USA, or their parents, would be a violation of the Convention of the Rights of Children, an International Law in all countries, except… the USA.

Paul Krugman woke up to the issue in “Suffer Little Children”. Says Krugman:

“there are more than a million young people in this country who came — yes, illegally — as children and have lived here ever since. Second, there are large numbers of children who were born here — which makes them U.S. citizens, with all the same rights you and I have — but whose parents came illegally, and are legally subject to being deported.

What should we do about these people and their families? There are some forces in our political life who want us to bring out the iron fist — to seek out and deport young residents who weren’t born here but have never known another home, to seek out and deport the undocumented parents of American children and force those children either to go into exile or to fend for themselves.”

When I say Krugman woke up, I am generous. Like the New York Times, he writes as if he were unaware of the fact that only the USA, on the entire planet, violates the Rights of Children, as official government policy!

I sent a powerful comment, the New York Times naturally censored it (this way, if nothing else, they can steal the ideas therein!). It’s reproduced below, and having censored it, is testimony to the general hypocrisy, and that the New York Times is not just far right wing, but somewhat inclined to abuse children, as a matter of systematic thinking.

The USA, as a country, loves to give all sorts of lessons to the world. Those high moral principles are often self-dealing, but it requires some work to find how. For example, the actions of the USA to destroy the European imperial (“colonial”) system, starting in 1918, sounded lofty, but aimed at replacing European administration, by American plutocratic exploitation.

Similarly, the on-going crack-down on banks, by being more severe with overseas banks, aims to replace world banking by American banking. And the crack-down on tax evasion, by being squarely aimed at the middle class (FATCA), aims to impoverish said middle class, and condition it to live in a police state, while reinforcing the transfer of power from everybody, to the reigning plutocracy (something else Obamacare also achieves).

Loving children is natural, being essential to the species’ survival. Hating children, is artificial, perverted. We expect no less from plutocracy, the rule of demonism (demonism, the rule of all things demoniac, in other words, plutocracy, is my answer to Leibnitz’s theodicy).

Before I get into the comment censored by the NYT, let me answer those would suggest this is only a problem for the USA.

Not so.

Starting in 1918, the USA maneuvered efficiently to get in control of the world, helped in this by German racial fascism, British naivety, and an idiotic, if not outright treacherous French commander in chief in 1940.

The end result is that the USA controls the world. By this I do not mean just that Washington and Wall Street rule. Russia, under Yeltsin was mostly destroyed by the perverse, self-dealing advice given by top American Universities, including the University of Chicago (where Obama taught) and Harvard (where Obama was distinguished, in more ways than one).

A lot of this has to do with a vicious mood best cultivated by mistreating children.

Candidate SS officers burnished their mentality by piercing the eyes of kittens; that Americans tolerate not knowing too well that children working in the fields fill their vegetarian plates is akin to that. And now for hypocrisy supreme:


In 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by UN General Assembly. On September 2, 1990 it became international law. 194 countries signed and ratified it. With one notable exception: the USA has not ratified it. It is keeping company with Somalia, and South Sudan.

Both Somalia and South Sudan are wrecked by war. Is then the USA wrecked by war? War against civilization, maybe?

The Rights of Children include not executing children and not making children work. The USA violates both.

It is easy to blame the Democrats: after all, they were in control of Congress and Senate (with a super majority) when Obama became president. Too busy partying?

Another point is that this immigration which happened illegally obviously happen with the complicity of the state. Or more exactly, the complicity of the United States of America. Indeed, no other advanced country had such an enormous illegal immigration (not only in absolute numbers, but relative numbers).

It stretches the imagination beyond decency to pretend that what is, by far, the world’s greatest military power, was such a failure at defending its borders, without deliberately organizing said failure.

How is a failure to contain immigration carefully organized? By deliberately organizing weak controls and weak penalties (the same way Great Britain did it).

Why is a failure to contain immigration carefully organized? Because of a will-to-exploitation.

Interrogating agribusinesses’ owners is revealing: they needed, and need, the illegal workers. They are actually the ones employing the children, in total violation of International Law. Many are far right wing “Republicans”. They support illegal immigration, and have enough money to buy the authorities, including the politicians (who are themselves exploiters, so this is a peer to peer fraternity, exploiters to exploiters, playing kabuki theater).

This entire picture is a damning condemnation of the American system. Not just its famed “way of life”, exploiting right and left, but also its way of thinking, and even its emotional system.

Americans can go to Church all they want, and evoke god at every turn, but, by the measure that counts the most, their cruel country is the world’s ugliest.

Patrice Ayme’

Walls Of Common Lies

August 21, 2014

The legitimate kings were Henry V and Henry VI, kings of England and France, Paris and London. The contender a teenager was promoting was both illegitimate, and a public enemy. Such is the true history of Joan of Arc. Don’t expect one French out of a hundred to suspect it, six centuries later. Too happy, or so it seems, to have enjoyed another four centuries of war between Paris and London.

It is so easy to slip into propaganda, when brandishing history. Let me illustrate this further.

Century of Disaster Riddles, Lies, and Lives — from Fidel Castro and Muhammad Ali to Albert Einstein and Barbie By Eduardo Galeano

[The following passage is excerpted from Eduardo Galeano’s history of humanity, Mirrors.] In an aphorism Galeano imbues some “walls” with malfeasance, while insinuating that the Iron Curtain was not such a terrible thing. He vastly underestimates the unjustifiable length and lethality of the Soviets’ fascist contraption (by orders of magnitude). To trick us Galeano confuses the “Iron Curtain” (thousands of kilometers long) and the “Berlin Wall” (part of the preceding, but just inside a particular city).

The Almoravide Empire Justifies Several Contemporary Walls

The Almoravide Empire Justifies Several Contemporary Walls

Here is Galeano:


“The Berlin Wall made the news every day. From morning till night we read, saw, heard: the Wall of Shame, the Wall of Infamy, the Iron Curtain…

In the end, a wall which deserved to fall fell. But other walls sprouted and continue sprouting across the world. Though they are much larger than the one in Berlin, we rarely hear of them.

Little is said about the wall the United States is building along the Mexican border, and less is said about the barbed-wire barriers surrounding the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the African coast.

Practically nothing is said about the West Bank Wall, which perpetuates the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and will be 15 times longer than the Berlin Wall. And nothing, nothing at all, is said about the Morocco Wall, which perpetuates the seizure of the Saharan homeland by the kingdom of Morocco, and is 60 times the length of the Berlin Wall.

Why are some walls so loud and others mute?”

The answer is simple: different walls, different situations. The Berlin Wall was a thundering lie, for all to hear. Other walls can reveal very loud truths, whom nobody in position of intellectual domination wants others to hear.

Why, for example, if Europe is such an horrendous colonialist, and America such a terrible imperialist, are the multitude so keen to shred themselves upon rows after rows of ten meter high razor blades fences as in Ceuta and Melilla? We need truths to explain those facts. Why Africans such lemmings throwing themselves across the sea towards the land of their oppressors and enslavers? Why so suicidal?

To each offense, a defense. Tied up together by causality, offenses and defense are, nevertheless, exact opposites. Somebody’s unjust aggression is someone else’s just war.

I have never heard of Eduardo Galeano before Paul Handover and “Tomdispatch”. I will try to get his book, I love different perspectives, challenges, and, especially, questions I can answer.

Writing about history is a heavy fate. It’s indeed easy to slip into commonality, Common Wisdom, that is, most often, propaganda. Unknowingly.

For example, Galeano implies that Alan Turing committed suicide because of the victimization he was submitted to, as a homosexual. Sounds good on the surface, and it is Conventional Wisdom (so Galeano repeats it, like a good, book selling parrot).

However, a more refined knowledge of what really happened reveals that Turing’s death was probably an accident that befell the already-at-the-time hyper famous Alan Turing, MBE, Member of the British Empire. Verily, Turing had left well behind his condemnation for unwise relations with someone all too young in his employ, whom Turing had imprudently accused of theft.

Some will say: “Why are you so vindictive about the innocent lemmings who love to allege that Turing was forced into suicide, for his homosexuality? Is not that a pretty tale? Does not that help homosexuals? Even if it’s false? Can’t you leave pretty tales alone? What do you have against homosexuals and Joan of Arc?”

Well, truth is my religion. From history, lessons are to be drawn. Correct ones are best. Incorrect ones, and deliberately so, criminal.

I partly draw my uncommon morality from meta-history (that’s the history of the systems of thought that made history).

First, if Turing died accidentally, there is a moral to it: accidents happen. Turing had long played with dangerous chemistry. Since childhood. he went one game with cyanide too far.

Second: whereas Turing was legally harassed for homosexuality, it’s important to realize that, at the time, that was not perceived as an intolerable injustice (even by Turing himself!). There is a higher, meta-lesson in this: the intolerable can look sufferable.

Parrot, repeating history, often engage in Thought Crime. TC: Though Crime, or Terrible Catastrophe.

Recently, some important guy from Hamas was saying something about Jewish children being bathed in blood (an old lie from Middle-Age Christian fascism). Common leftists and other vulgar intellectuals did not protest… Another Thought Crime.

I was listening the other day to a very educated French teacher, a biologist, telling a swarm of little French children, aged five to nine, the beautiful history of the victimization of Joan of Arc. Except that, as taught in France for the last 200 years, it’s sheer propaganda.

The bad “Anglais” were actually themselves French… The would-be French king, later Charles VII… was not the legitimate French King, and thus he was not keen to be sacred king…  The Queen of Four Kingdoms manipulated Joan and Charles behind the scene, fatally opposing the legitimate kings, Henry V and Henry VI, kings of England and France, Paris and London.

Thus history is not joke, and nationalistic pitfalls, let alone plutocratic ones, everywhere.

Telling false history to little children teaches hatred.

I do view my activities as those of a historian, because I interpret history. I take some facts that are generally ignored, and point out that they demolish Conventional Wisdom, or the Politically Correct, let alone their vicious embrace. (Nietzsche did nothing different, and most philosophers have, indeed, re-interpreted history. Some of these reinterpretations have become Common Wisdom.)

Yet, I try to exert maximum honesty: when I say something, however controversial, it’s backed up, by serious logic and facts, to the best of my knowledge.

And I avoid historical salad: putting together obviously unrelated things, as if there was a logic to it.

Interrogating all these walls, as Eduardo does, is an excellent question. Yet there is an obviously huge difference between walls that keep people in, and those which keep them out. Blame is pointing out in directions opposite. One of them is right, not both.

The very fact that Europe and the USA have to build walls around themselves, as Rome did for five centuries, is a testimony to their success, not to their failure. And those walls are also a testimony to the failure of more general systems of thought (anti-“colonialism”, global plutocracy, pseudo-leftism, over-exploitation of the planet, crazed demographics, etc.)

Another example: I detest the Moroccan regime (supposedly directly descended from Mahomet, actually just a full blown plutocracy). Yet, one has to visualize the local conditions before crushing it with blanket blame.

And the EU will get some of the blame: the EU haughtily decreed that “Morocco was not European“. That is insulting. Moreover, it is false geographically, genetically, and according to deep history. To boot, it’s not wise, economically self-defeating, politically stupid and strategically dangerous.

All this, because European leaders are arrogant twerps with not much knowledge where it counts.

Knowing long term history (last 1,000 years), shows that the area claimed by the “Polisario” was long Moroccan (for want of a better word, as past empires, extending all the way to Spain, wore different names).

One such empire was that of the Almoravides, true founders of the present Moroccan regime. The Almoravides empire extended from Senegal (where a founder of the empire was killed by a poisoned arrow), to Alger, Lisbone, and the Baleares islands.

Thus the long grudge of Algeria’s FNL (or whatever it wants to call itself) against Morocco becomes something nine centuries old. It explains the FNL’s hostility against Morocco, its support of the Polisario… And the Moroccan wall does not sound as silly, and outrageous anymore.

Empires are not always wrong in all ways. By definition, they order (imperare), and they can order, because they can defend themselves. The best defense being, often, of course, attack. Thuse when Hannibal had taken residence in Italy for more than a decade, the Patrician who came to be known as Scipio Africanus, suggested to the Roman People to attack in Africa itself, and that audacious strategy was entirely successful: precipitously recalled to Carthage, Hannibal hastily gathered forces were soundly defeated just south of the Punic capital, soon to be punished.

With Mexico, the USA has two choices: build a wall, or impose order (imperare), all over Mexico. The latter was tried a bit in the past, more than once. Next time it could well be more thorough, and definitive.

For the USA, letting 100 million Mexicans in, is not really an option

As it is Spanish is already the second language of California, and, extrapolating some trends, could become the first someday. (I do speak Spanish a bit, BTW, so I am no rabid Spanish hater.)

However, as they are immigration flows in Europe and the USA are sustainable… As long as the dominant European and American civilization is successfully imposed. In France, by some estimates, 95% of anti-Judaic attacks are attributed to persons of Muslim ancestry. This is symptomatic of borderline dangerous assimilation situation (more than ten people have died because of it, some little children, directly targeted in an elementary school, for being Jewish, and other French people… including at least one Muslim French paratrooper… a natural victim of anti-Semitism!)

What was particularly grotesque about the Iron Curtain is that it was to keep in workers who were supposed to be living in a paradise made for them. In other words, it was a lie.

The walls between Europe and Africa are not a lie. At least 50,000 have already died trying to cross them in the last ten years (the EU officially says 35,000 drowned in the Mediterranean alone). If one includes the Algerian Harkis of 1962, one speaks about hundreds of thousands dead… trying to get to Europe.

This is testimony of another lie: the standard anti-colonialist discourse. According to it, colonialism, whatever that was, depicts the ultimate evil. Clearly, the regimes that succeeded have been worse, by many measures. And that was entirely predictable: removing the colonialist administrations was equivalent to removing most of the anti-plutocratic safeties.

So walls there are. Contemplating them is good. But the hardest walls to remove are in those erected with the minds which harbor them.

Patrice Ayme’


Immigration Deception?

September 5, 2011

 Curious, but revealing incident in a park, somewhere in the USA. I was walking with my daughter, when I came across a group of very black children, accompanied by an older white woman. Usually American “blacks” are not that black, and to see a whole group of charcoal like children was exceptional. All the more since they spoke French, not English. Actually, they did not understand English.

 Having spent most of my childhood in French speaking West (really black) Africa, my interest was raised. My toddler, from her towering 23 months of ancient wisdom, was delighted to meet French speakers, and show them around the playground. Her antics made her instantaneously popular: she was using with proficiency a playground made for children at least 5 year old. Extremely charming: she conducted her business with great seriousness, beaming with pride. 

 I asked the teenagers what they were doing in the USA. I had expected them to be visiting for summer. I was surprised when they demurred. They said I should ask the American lady, who loomed in the distance. I found that weird. I asked the lady. She told me she was an immigration lawyer, and these children were “political refugees”. She had requested the U.S. Immigration to offer them political asylum. 

 PA: “Political asylum? Which dictatorship are they from? They cannot be from Zimbabwe, they speak French!” 

 Lady Lawyer: “They are from Haiti.”

 PA:“Haiti? But Haiti is a democracy! They just had a presidential election! With international observers, and the UN all over! There was no violence, whatsoever.” 

 LL:“You think so, but it’s not like here, it’s very poor there!”

 PA:“So you are saying that the poor ought to get political asylum, just because their country is poor?” 

 LL:“Yes, of course!” 

 PA:“Don’t you think that is abusing the concept? Besides, as a Socialist French Prime Minister, Michel Rocard, once said:”La France ne peut pas receuillir toute la misere du monde!” (“France cannot welcome all the world’s misery!”, meaning that just because people live in misery, they should not be welcome in France.) I don’t see why the USA ought to accept all the world’s misery, either.”

 LL:“The USA is not France. This is the New World! The more immigration, the better the American economy gets!” 

 PA: “Well, after World War Two and the Algerian civil war, the French economy was destroyed, but recently, in spite of little immigration, the French economy has clearly been doing better than the USA: free healthcare, free infant and toddler care, free schooling, much better life spans, less poverty, etc.”

 LL:“Americans are very generous people. They want to help Haiti.” 

 PA:“Well, so are the French: not only do they help Haiti too, but they are sending 15 billion euros to Greece, while paying for it with a 12 billion euros austerity plan. That help for Greece was just last week. Moreover, overall, France is a country where the poor get much more help, and the hyper rich pay, like in Great Britain, 50% tax or more. In the USA, the richest 400 incomes pay only 17% tax, and the democratic president, in a flourish of hypocrisy, claims that this will revive the economy.” 

 Lady Lawyer: “Well, a rising tide lifts all boats, the more people come into this country, the better it is for everybody.” 

 PA:“Sure the corporations love to have more janitors and valet park attendants come in, and maybe the economy of the USA can survive all this generosity. But certainly not the ecology, and the quality of life. 30 years ago, there were 17 million people in California, now there are 38 million. This makes California into the fastest growing state in the world. The entire world. It is pretty clear that California has not withstood the shock. Now they are closing schools in some villages in the mountains. There are a lot of mountains in California. Children will have to drive 30 miles, over snowy roads, which may be closed at the first Pacific storm, to go to school, next winter. Other cities are closing their police departments, some cities are bankrupt. Even the ultra conservative U.S. Supreme Court has ordered California to release more than 50,000 prisoners held in inhuman conditions. And the Post Office of the USA may close within 6 months. From lack of money. Why not help Americans too?” 

 At this point the immigration lawyer just walked away. I wondered not why she did. Perhaps to exhibit her generosity, and reconstitute her dominance, like the head chimpanzee exhibits his strength by dragging a branch, she went to help my daughter down a slide. She had not noticed that my sweet angel is a slide master, and could do without someone waiting for her at the bottom. 

 The lady lawyer do-gooder, anxious as she was, to receive the little goddess in her arms, forgot she had a heavy reflex camera hanging around her neck. The representative of justice and love ended smacking generously the heavy black contraption in my toddler’s face. The innocent angel cried profusely, to everybody’s consternation, while her lip swelled. 

 I thought that was a telling moral to the story: to be good, it’s not enough to want to appear good, or even to mean to be good. One has to act well, too. Or one may end mean.

 So what do I think about all this? Should I go all the way to the bitter end of that lady’s reasoning, and proclaim impoverished Americans to be political refugees in their own country?

 First, to import Haitian children as if they were political refugees is a travesty of the status of political refugee.

 Second, that taking children away from Haiti does not help Haiti. An empire of 310 million ought not to steal its substance from a country ten millions.

 Third that the resources given by the government of the USA to help Haitian children should be sent to Haiti to help them in their own country, where they belong, and where it would help Haiti more, by a multiplier effect. 

 Fourth, I immediately perceived an enormous cultural gap: the Haitian children were delighted to play with my baby, in a way I have never seen American children do it. American children tend to be standoffish , and are conditioned to engage in much less physical interaction, to touch much less, preferably not to approach, to even avoid eye contact, let alone unguarded speech outside of automatic banalities. 

 The Haitian children were all over my blonde child, and delighted by her enthusiastic French babbling. I could not resist thinking that the USA was not their country, they were not made for it, they would have to lose a lot, to stay in the USA, and survive what would be, for all practical purpose,  a hostile culture. 

 I actually mentioned this to the lady lawyer, and she retorted that the children will have to stay with the Haitian community. 

 Which brought me back to what was this lawyer was trying to do? OK, maybe she was motivated by greed, sorry, her profession, being paid by some organization(s) to import Haitian children. Or maybe she was truly delusional, and she really thought she was doing good. Indeed, how does it help the USA to put more of a burden on its exhausted social services? How does it help ten million Haitians to have American ladies come, swoop, and steal their children? 

 So now the numbers. In 1940, the USA had 140 million people. In 2011, the white Americans are 196 million, the blacks are about 20 million (I am using rough numbers, from memory). At this point the white population is not growing anymore (maybe because it is not getting enough help from the shrinking social services!) But the total population is 310 million, including 50 million Hispanics (who basically did not exist in 1940, they have been imported since). 

 Why so many Hispanics suddenly? Cheap labor, that’s why. Massive immigration has filled up the coffers of the corporate USA. This strategy of importing quasi slaves has stooped all the way down to infamy: the USA has refused to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The USA is the only country to refuse the children rights, with… Somalia, another country involved in ever less government, and ever more military spending. 

 Of course, Somalia is famous for its sea born pirates, while the USA is famous for its financial pirates. So both countries have, indeed, something else in common, besides child labor. The USA closes its collective eyes as Hispanic immigrant children go work the fields, with, or without their parents, who are paid little more, and just as trapped.

 All this immigration, far from lifting the population which was already there, as it used to, seems to have made its life harder. Why? 

 Well, in the past, the distant past, the government of the USA, thanks to presidents such as Jefferson or Jackson, had seized from Native American Indians, and others, gigantic portions of North America. Then they distributed them for a song to whomever wanted to take possession of them. This instantaneously made citizens of the USA, the richest, and healthiest people, in the world. By far. As more came in, they filled up the extremely needed manpower. 

 Nowadays the situation has completely changed. First, there are robots, and the like. Secondly the government is not in the habit of making free gifts to the middle class, as it did with FDR (when the government employed millions, in a few weeks), or the GI Bill (sending GIs to college for free), or LBJ’s “Great Society”, or even various social programs of Nixon. 

 Ever since Reagan, the government’s ideology has changed. It has become anti-governmental, and more and more resources were devoted to the rich (reaching a paroxysm under Obama, who cancelled the inheritance tax on billionaires, and lowered taxes on the hypoer rich more than Bush did, in his anxiety to show them he is such a good boy!)   

  Thus the main stream population of the USA, the white middle class, was less needed, and actually feared as a potential source of demands, requests, revendications, not to say unions, uncool behavior, or even outright rebellion. So the middle class is being robbed of power, and progressively starved.

 That starvation is an ongoing process, thanks to Obama, and his bipartisan partner, the Tea Party, who have never seen a tax on the rich they did not want to cut, paid for by cutting public services… to the point the economy of the USA is now grossly misfiring. For example cutting public transportation makes it hard for low income American workers to go to work, or to have any money left once they have transported themselves (and thus are incapable to contribute to economic activity, beyond their own work). But the rich lawyers in their fancy cars (as the lady above in her white Mercedes), or the multimillionaire president aspiring to become a hyper millionaire, don’t care to understand any of this.

 To import Haitian children is more of the same importation of humans to serve the for profit machine of the last three decades. It does not differ fundamentally from importing slaves in centuries past. Just replace the whip by dissemblance. Some will say: Oh, but the slaves had it hard! Not necessarily so much that they would rebel. Indeed, rebellions of black slaves in the USA were very rare. 

 Remember Jefferson’s children-slaves, who followed him back to the USA, willingly from France? Although they hesitated? Why? Because he made them false promises about freeing them, once they would be back to America. He was a full grown man, with an abyssal bend, they were just children. They believed him, and he lied. Maybe that should be mentioned in his beautiful memorial in Washington? Why not? 

 After talking to these Haitian unfortunates in the only language they knew, my impression was that they were made false promises too. And they seemed to guess it, but it was too painful, and pointless, for them to contemplate. Nobody relishes exploring the potential betrayal of those who profess love, and in whom one has believed. And, of course, they were only children. Three of them could not have been more than 13. 

 When I think back on it, a few days later, my impression is that I witnessed a pretty serious crime. The crime of a would be do-gooder, but still a crime.

 As the white Mercedes left, Athena pointed towards it a sanctimonious finger, and with a steady gaze, tears drying on her pink cheeks, declared: “Lady nose hurt bad!” Truth comes from the mouth of children.


Patrice Ayme