Criticizing Christianism Helped Civilization. Not To Criticize Islam Does Not.

The Iranian theocracy killed at least 50 children during a few weeks of Fall 2022. Nearly three centuries ago, one could play “Le Fanaticisme Ou Mahomet Le Prophete, Tragedie par Voltaire”. Both facts, killing children for religious reasons, and censoring critique of religion, are related; I didn’t invent the argument, it is found explicitly in Voltaire complaining, for example, about children burned alive by Catholic authorities just because those children were born Jewish. 

NYT refuses to print possible deepest explanations of why children are been killed in Iran, and censors even milder observations which Voltaire made, three centuries ago:

The New York Times, famous for (mostly) NOT talking about the Holocaust of the Jews during WWII (and now claiming to be “haunted” by how badly, that is, pro-Nazi, the NYT behaved then), censored all my comments on why the theocratic regimes in Iran kills children. The NYT’s basic position is that believing that the interpretation of Islam in  power in Iran is to blame should be censored. Instead it nebulously criticizes the “regime” in power. It does not dawn on the NYT, that this “regime” is called Shia Islam. The regime is Islam. The regime is not secular law, the roots of which are at least 27 centuries old (Rome) or even a thousand years older than that (Babylon).

This way, the NYT can present as an outrage the fact children are being killed, while making sure children keep getting killed.

Please find below a collage of various comments I sent to the NYT. All my comments which could be seen as crticial of Islam were censored. Remarkably, of hundreds of comments critical of the killing of children in Iran, not one was critical of Islam. So no mentally debilitating system of thought affecting the Middle East was injured by the NYT. 

***   

NOT to criticize Islam is racist, and malevolent:

The concept of “secular” comes from “seculum”, a period of 120 years. Secularism is the religion of living in one’s own time, with relevant technology and problems.  Being tied up again (re-ligare) by what makes sense today.

The attitude of making the critique of Islam into a death sentence is in the Quran, all over the Quran. The penalty is death and eternal torture.

Allah says: “They who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, such are rightful owners of Hell. –(Quran, S 5; v.11; then Allah repeats that same message again and again and again, throughout His Quran, varying a word here or there; for example: “But those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are owners of hell-fire.” (S.5; v.86)).

Accordingly, the QURANIC “REVELATION” KEPT REASON IN BONDAGE. At that point weaklings who hate civilization always whine that I should talk about Christianism and its horrors. Right:

***

Europe Was Built With And Against Catholicism:

Much of what came to be know as Christianism, was from a humanitarian movement lauched centuries before Christianism. There were social services in Rome, and alms to the poor on massive government level. Christianism adopted those as if it had invented them, but it didn’t.

What was uniquely Christian was the terror launched by Theodosius I, Roman emperor and theocratic tyrant, around 380 CE, calling “heretics” all those he wanted to attack and destroy. Thus, of course, Christianism, known at the time as “Universal Common Opinion” (“Orthodox Catholicism” in Greek) was accused. As deserved. Eugenius, a school principal, supported by the Senate of the city of Rome,  allied to the Frank Arbogast, Commander in Chief of the (Western) Roman army tried to stop Theodosius (and his Goths!) Eugenius and Arbogast died from it. And the Western empire collapsed.

However, a century later, Clovis, elected King of the Franks and Roman Imperator (in the technical sense) and Consul, adopted a more subtle approach. Clovis forced Catholicism into a more civilized form by… adopting it (and educating it, to the impotent rage of some Popes).

That more civilized form of Catholiscism, open to Judaism and even Islam,  lasted five centuries, until 1026 CE exactly, when heretic burning was relaunched… Then Christianism was resisted tooth and nail, by a whole panoply of European thinkers such as Abelard (12C). That resistance took many forms, including creating religiously independent universities… The Fourteenth Century’s most important thinker, Buridan, who discovered most of Newton’s laws, refused to get a religious degree, and still rose to the top of the top university, and advised four kings (also slept with a queen, at least, so it was said at the time…) This is indicative of how little respect the church was getting. In the fifteenth century, not content with putting senior churchmen in cages, king Louis XI of France would send the army to protect Protestants against Catholics (yes, that was before Luther was born). A testimony to tolerance: imagine an Islamist chieftain sending armies to protect unbelievers…

The anti-Christian movement was immensely powerful in Europe. As Nietsche pointed out, Christianism, a perfect slave religion, was used mostly as a way to keep the peasants in place, and many among the peasants knew it, so they revolted, and were exterminated (10C). A steady state of repression was thereafter imposed with steady state reverence for Christianism, an exact parallel, for the present day oil and gas plutocracy all over the world. To get into the real mood of the oppressed in the Middle Ages, one just has to read the 150 remaining Fabliaux, where lecherous priests, the basest individuals imaginable, preaching religion while doing the opposite, are ridiculized while being tortured to death, as justly deserved. The earliest fabliaux are from 1150 CE. In an early one, the priest who slept with the wife pretends to be Jesus, striking the sanctimonious pose of the martyr on the cross, so the husband nails him, before slicing off his endowment…

Europe became Europe, because superstitious religion was kept under foot, and under secular law, once the Franks had got rid of the Roman Catholic state (which they were supposed to defend, and ended up defending against…). 

Tellingly, the word “Europe ” in the modern sense, was introduced by the Franks, during the invasion of Europe by the Muslims in the early Eighth Century. The armies resisting the Muslim invaders were called “European” by Eighth century Franks (Franks were squabbling among themselves… to put it midly… but recognized they shared common values that Muslim invaders were deprived of. Later, under Charlemagne, though, accomodations were found with Muslim rulers of Spain, as those had veered towards civilization too…)

Calling Europe “Christian” in the early Middle Ages was a joke and a (serious) coverup of what was really going on (for the real lion mentality ruled de facto, as Friedrich Nietzsche insisted correctly). European civilization, even around 700 CE, was highly diverse, and there was no attempt to impose a monolithic way of thinking (except in parts the Franks were actively conquering). Islam was the exact opposite: 

***

Islam wants to be superstition, religion, revelation, civilization, system of government, law and justice:

All the Muslim philosophers who suggested to put reason first fell under Islamic terror. The Islamic dictators kept a wide berth from any overly critical Greek philosophy. Even Plato and Socrates were too much for them. Aristotle was better, since he was a collaborator of tyrants, thus Aristotlian writings survived well under Islam. 

The most famous Muslim philosopher, “Averroes”was stoned to death in 1198 CE, by a mob of Muslims in Morocco because Muslim scripture says to kill people who may think differently on esoteric subjects. This leads straight to killing children in the streets of Tehran in 2022.

The third successor of Mahomet was killed in a coup against the Qur’an he had dictated, because of this Quran he had dictated, boiling all the alternative Qurans, and that Uthman Quran is the Quran we have now, and we are supposed to respect as if it were god itself. But in 650s, the closest companions and relatives of mahomet fought against it. To death. In huge battles, such as the Battle of the Camel, led against the Quran we have now, by Muhammad’s most loved and devoted third wife, the young Aisha. In truth, this Quran is much too much Uthman’s elucubrations. Muhammad was more broad minded. After all, in the Quran, Allah admits:  religions are “mere fables of old men“.

***

Fighting for Iranian Freedom is fighting against Islam:

Good luck to Iranian youth, it will need it, because tyrannies are often successful when they cling to power, not hesitating to kill children.

The region under the spell of Islam was, for millennia, the world’s wealthiest, and much civilization originated there. Time and time again, tyrannical regimes have used Islam as a cover for oppression. This didn’t happen in the West because of the separation of church and state which, although often wobbly, mostly perdured.

Muslim tyrannies have ruined the Middle East. Only secularism will save them. The rise of the West was in part caused by more distance between religion and critical thinking, in particular, humanism and science. 

Iran has a very old civilization. Iranian calendar is seven millennia old… By contrast, the imposition of Islam by invaders is only 13 centuries old. It is high time that Iran frees itself from what the Quran itself called “mere fables for old men”.

This is the beauty and wealth of the Quran: just as reality itself, it contradicts itself. The reason is simple: Uthman, the third successor of Mahomet, had a commission to write the Quran he liked, but he couldn’t erase outright preliminary versions of the Quran: so some of the spirit of these earlier versions survive, here and there. Certainly Mahommet comes out as a more sympathetic, more feminist and more progressive human than any of his successors…

The Shah’s regime was criminal, kleptocratic and ridiculous. (My own dad, a geologist, met with the Shah, with the aime of finding oil for Iran, which was done; thus I lived in Iran a bit, climbing Damavand, among other things.) However the Shah was overthrown by Khomeiny and Al. after Khomeiny flew from France. Khomeini had been weaponized by the CIA in 1953 to throw out the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh. All this to bolster my thesis that:

Muslim Fundamentalism is fundamentally an aspect of the manipulation of Western plutocracy.

Actually, by destroying oil production in Iraq and Iran, Western machinations made sure that fracking for oil and gas would be highly productive… Similarly, pseudo-ecologists were encouraged to attack nuclear energy and hydrogen, and promote unwieldy batteries so that fossil fuels would stay the prime energy providers.

Right now the game has become more dangerous: similarly to what happened in the 1930s, the fascist regimes once encouraged by the West have started to coalesce. Because yes, it is encouraging fascism to pretend that Islam as found in the Quran of Uthman is something to be respected. 

More than 15 centuries ago, Clovis famously quipped that, had he been there with his Franks, Jesus would not have been crucified. But the whole point of Christianism is that God had been crucified by humanity. And Clovis knew this. So the point Clovis was making, at the point of his sword, is that Christianism should be missing its main point: the terror of a God so sadistic, he self-crucify. 

In the Quran, God (“Allah”) is asked why it is that he needs demons, satan and genies, if he is that powerful? Allah haughtily replies that the answer is too complicated for humans to understand. Humans as He likes to have them. Indeed, the answer is that God needs to keep on killing children, pour encourager les autres… 

***

Why would the NYT be an accomplice of child murderers by censoring comments explaining why the children are being murdered?(In some articles I sent comments absolutely avoiding Islam: they were published, while, about the same article, those pointing, even very technically, at Islam were systematically censored; that degree of subtlety in censorship, in 2022 is from humans, not yet machines… And the NYT has indeed an entire human censorship bureau… It reminds me of rooms full of hordes of Facebook censors, who tried to ban me several times for facts of Nazism, not flattering to Nazism, which I had related…)

Obviously because the powers that be beyond the NYT considers that it is better to leave malevolent aspects of Islam unexplained… So that this malevolence can perdure. 

Thus, while the NYT has to admit children are killed by the Iranian theocracy, the NYT pretends that this has nothing to do with the versions of Islam which are dominant today… and are explicitly revered by those who identify just DESCRIBING these versions of Islam with… “Islamophobia” also known as “racism”.

Whereas the racism is of course from those who advocate the sanctity of Islam, as the NYT does, and, therefore, the sanctity of Mullahs, and other criminals exploiting theocracy.  

This is, in part, a case of the NYT being affected with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. MSP is a mental illness and a form of child abuse. The caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the child is sick.

Western plutocracy, especially its fossil fuel branch, has found Fundamentalist Islam highly useful. So it is keen not to criticize Islam. That in turn creates various diseases, and then the main stream media, including the New York Times, pretends to be concerned with what they secretly set-up, namely reverence for Middle Ages’ theocracy… The very sort of oppression against which European civilization fought for 15 centuries!

Patrice Ayme  

Some of the Children killed by Muslim theocrats in Iran (picture from the Islamophile New York Times):

Need For Civilizing Planet Stronger Than Ever, As African Population Explodes, Planet Fries

Colonialism, as practiced by the Europeans powers, was sometimes, and all too often, atrocious, and, or, grotesquely exploitative. Famously the worst case was Belgian Congo; now the Republic of Congo, managed as personal property of a plutocrat, the king of Belgium. There were “incontestable crimes” in many other places. In Algeria (where half of my family is from) the part of the population which was both Native and Muslim, didn’t have access to the same educational level as those of Jewish or French descent. That was clearly a violation of basic human rights, and a stupidity (although it started from a concession to leave Muslims alone!) In India, the English applied a vicious and deadly salt tax, while importing food from a subcontinent which was partially starving. And so on.

President Macron of France, camped in front of the Faso, French and European flags, just said that he belonged to a generation which had not known “colonial” Africa (whatever “colonial” meant; it varied considerably: French colonial America was in most ways the opposite of English colonial America, for example). Macron spoke bold, new and direct (and for three hours, nearly half of it answering questions!) The French language has become more African than French, he correctly observed. Macron added that “Africa was engraved in the memory, culture and identity of France” (as a child brought up in Africa I am pleasantly surprised that this is said at last: long time coming; the reciprocal is also true, hence the massive attempted illegal emigration from Africa to France; I will argue here that it should neither be necessary, nor illegal… The way it used to be under the so-called “colonial” regime).

Macron’s visit was rather courageous: a grenade was launched against a French military vehicle shortly before his arrival, wounding bystanders, among other unpleasantness. Macon said there was “no more African policy of France”, but just a desire to look at a “continent of 54 countries… where the past and traumatisms vary”. The “past must passed”. Macron insisted that “his generation” was not giving lessons, or telling what Africa should do but, instead simply encouraged those who want “liberty and emancipation” (the usual neoliberal lecture). Macron correctly identified Africa as the place where all challenges of the world collide. A tipping point of climate and economy.

What does Macron proposes to Africans trying desperately to get to Europe? To return them where they come from. That won’t do. Macron brandishes globalization (“mondialisation”) as this great church, forum, market and future we have together. But, as it is, globalization can’t work, since it is globally lawless. Yes, being ruled by globalization is being ruled by a state of lawlessness. No great civilization ever survived, let alone, rose, through lawlessness. Quite the opposite. As we will see below, such is the lesson of all the civilizations forebears to the present one (in other words, such is the lesson given by the most successful civilizations).

However decried, “colonization” knew also many successes, as revealed in comparison with what is going on today, in all too many countries. Surely the Cambodian holocaust, when 25% of the population was murdered by its crazed leadership, would not have happened if France has remained the overlord of Cambodia (similarly for Rwanda, if Belgium had stayed in power). Empire and military force have their merits: the Cambodian genocide ended when the Republic of Vietnam’s experienced military invaded, and re-established civilization throughout Cambodia, by executing or arresting the savages (known for their human liver soup).

When Mauritanie was controlled by the French, even after independence, the respect of law didn’t differ significantly from that of the French Republic (I knew the desert as a child there; the giant land was perfectly peaceful and safe, even far out in the wildest wastes). However in 1985, Islam was declared state religion and sharia, the grotesque set of rules from Qur’an and Hadith, was declared law of the land of the Islamist “Republic” of Mauritania. Conclusion? 5% to 20% of the population is enslaved, and sharia is used to terrorize critics into submission.

Ideally, some imperial masters would come, and tell the Mauritanian leadership that they have to enforce UN law, effective promptly, or they would be dismissed. But then the next problem would be that the economy of Mauretania would be destroyed: slaves would have to be employed, ex-masters would have to learn to work. More money would also have to get through the country, namely it would have to be integrated to the world economy.

Baobab forest, Senegal. It used to be that the understory below Baobabs was thick, green, rich with life. Now, no more: the increased drought and heat from the greenhouse is desiccating the land.

Once Republican law is added to a vast economy, one has an empire. We have a vast world economy, we need a vast world empire; it even exists, to a great extent, and is called the United Nations. It’s just an insufficient extent. These ruminations were fostered by a comment from Eugen R [after some English corrections and enumerated remarks from PA]. Here is Eugen R’s comment:

“I just spent few weeks in Eastern Africa, touring villages, as well as the bush. The villagers live according to their ancient customs selling girls at their fourteenth birthday even if educated in schools managed by missionaries, for 6-10 cows, to give birth to children. [[1]] They live out of nature, or what it produces, while destroying it [[2]].

The village headmasters have dictatorial authority. For example they decide who will get land to build houses in the village and who do not. The alternative is to leave for the cities, directly to the slums, where the unemployment is close to 100%. [[3]]

The only positive development is, that the villagers understand how important for them is conservation of wildlife, that brings tourists, who are the only source of cash money for them, even if most of the income from tourists is collected by the white or Indian lounge owners. [[4]]

In 1970’s when Mugabe took over the power, Zimbabwe’s population was about 6 million, now it is close to 17. [[5]] The economy grew zero so the problems grew three times. This is an example of decolonisation in one African country. But the others, with less violent governments, are not doing much better. This is what I call the cultural trap [[6]]. On one hand it is romantic, fashionable and valuable to try to preserve the unique cultures, on the other hand it is not sustainable, and Europe will pay for the necessary expected collapse, either by mass immigration or by extreme nationalistic regimes. I don’t know what is worse.”

***

An enlightening comment. Here are my remarks:

[[1]] Selling and buying girls should be strictly outlawed, and terminated by imposing extremely severe penalties (many years of prison for the buyers, and even for the sellers, while their families would get some government support while they are meditating in incarceration). Among other benefits, it would be to diminish the birthrate. (Otherwise, the population will be diminished, holocaust style, as happened in Rwanda when it was Africa’s most densely populated country). 

[[2]] Where there is access to the sea, factory fleets from distant countries (say Korea) have ravaged the African fisheries. That should be repressed and the perpetrators should do prison and hard labor for a very long time, and their boats should be confiscated. In other places, dams have ruined the environment by preventing seasonal flooding on dozens of thousands of square kilometers or more. Senegal is an unfortunate example for both. Although Senegal gets some help from French military aviation to detect illegal high sea fishing, the repression should be considerably augmented. (There is evidence that Korean factory fleets were allowed to hug the Senegalese coastline while, and because the son of pseudo-socialist president was busy becoming a billionaire; lack of international law, order and discovery has prevented Senegalese justice to recover all the stolen money.)

In many places in Africa, natives are not aware that cutting trees dessicate the land. Something that girls who study much longer should be made aware of.

[[3]] Ideally, an imperial organization, under UN supervision, would be re-installed: once Africans get to cities, work would be provided to them by European companies (and also American firms, secondarily, especially in the Anglosphere). Thus, instead of doing nothing, and being incarcerated in their own cities, Africans would get to partake in the construction of the world. That would cut mass illegal desperate immigration to basically zero.

As the Europeans and Africans would mix more freely on African territory, more natural relations, less master to slave would develop. Because of the presence of an “imperial” administration (itself under close democratic watch), corruption would collapse, and European investors, now protected by strong laws which would be extensions of European laws, would invest massively (as they used to… in the colonial era).    

[[4]]. I detest “trickle down economy”… except when the alternative is no economy at all. As is all too much the case, in all too much of Africa. No economy at all means, actually, obscurantism, war, holocaust, even cannibalism. As observed.

[[5]] The Maoists were perfectly conscious of the problem of overpopulation. So they instituted the one child policy (with exception for minorities, such as Tibetans). Thus China has now *only* 1.38 billion people (with a slowly increasing population. India’s population is increasing at a fast linear clip and will soon pass China (give or take nuclear war). if Mao and his able underlings and successors had not instituted the one child policy, China would have four billion people, and would be desperately poor, deprived, invaded, at war, and lawless, as much of Africa is. Instead, the People Republic of China is becoming one of the planet’s guiding lights, on a trajectory to become quickly the world’s richest country, and already one of the smartest.

Overpopulation is a disaster for Africa, but it’s not PC to say this. It’s even less PC to observe that overpopulation is an invitation to destruction, war and abomination.

Many African countries  Kenya’s population was 8 million in 1960, now it’s 48 million (600% augmentation). Niger went from 3 million to 21 million, more than 71% of the population can’t read. However, women have more than seven children in Niger, and parents there want always more. The planet can’t take it, and Niger should be forced to cut its population explosion. Niger population is expected to be 42 million within 17 years: should they all come to France? Except for the south and a big river, most of the country is Sahara desert).

Africa is not alone. This is one world, one planet. Africa’s problems are our problems, even if we live in Kamchatka, or Bolivia. Work is a human right. Having hundreds of millions of Africans without work is a violation of human rights worse than some forms of slavery (history show many types of slavery; slavery in Babylon, 4,000 years ago, was not slavery in the USA, in 1850, or traditional slavery in Mauritania in 2017).

New technology has brought new crimes, thus necessitates new laws, indeed!

The attempted illegal massive African immigration into Europe is the symptom of massive human rights violation, which forces the refugees to take life threatening risks, so desperate they are. Europe cannot say it didn’t create the problem. It did, as much as it did create colonialism. Under colonialism, this problem didn’t exist (subsaharan Africans have been coming to Europe for millennia, records and archeology show).  Solution? Send, work, investment to Africa, but that can happen only if imperium, imperium of the LAW is extended there. It’s not a question of giving Africans lessons.

The state of Qin became supreme in China within a few generations of having adopted as official policy “LEGALISM” (also called “rationalism”). This was no coincidence: the rise of the most famous states of civilization are a direct consequence to their being “STATES OF LAW”: Egypt, Sumer Cities, Babylon, Sparta, Athens, the Roman Republic, Qin, and the Frankish Empire>>Europe>>”Renovated Roman Empire”>>European Middle Ages>>USA + United Nations + European Union, are examples of the power of legalism.

Indeed the Republic of China is, philosophically speaking, a direct descendant from the “LEGALIST” state of Qin. Qin in official pan-Chinese imperial form, led by Shi Huangdi, lasted only a decade. However Qin was already supreme before the birth of Shi Huangdi. Moreover, Qin was succeeded by the Han dynasty, which adopted the “legalist” system of Qin. “Legalist” may sound like an obscure concept, but it was highly practical. Legalism was opposed to the systems of fiefs, land grants given to mighty plutocrats, which had festered before under the Zhou dynasty (for 8 centuries!), and which brought the notorious Warring States period (to which the Qin empire put an end, through direct conquest).

Instead of land granting to mighty plutocrats, Qin guo used state officials to administer regions… This is the exact same system which was adopted by the Carolingian Franks to “renovate the Roman Empire”… 11 centuries after Qin. Charlemagne covered the Renovated Roman empire with 300 “counties” headed by nominated officials (those would degenerate two centuries into fiefs, launching the messy plutocracy known as the feudal system)

We now need to renovate the world, and it includes Africa, under the command (imperium) of law. Yes, an empire of law, not just a globalization of feudalism. That, of course is not just something that France alone can impose. When France, helped by her vast empire, opposed Nazism in the 1930s, alone, she ended invaded in May-June 1940 (while US plutocrats, who had fueled, fed and helped Hitler in all ways, laughed).

A sense of history, and civilization, is not enough. One has to have the means.

And this brings me to the “cultural trap” Eugen R spoke of above. [[6]] Cultures are nice, but there is only one law. The one and only law compatible with human nature. In particular the “obscurantism” Macron talked about is incompatible with human nature. Enlightenment is not a modern thing: it is the nature of humanity.

However, when Macron claims that “religious extremism” is not religion, he understood nothing to superstitious religions. (Not to say he didn’t have to say that to the primitives!) Admiring local cultures should never extend to admire local superstitions (including various Christianisms and Islamisms).

It is rare that I approve of a president’s discourse (I approved of roughly none of my friend’s Obama’s discourse, and especially not his ridiculous discourse on Islam in Cairo). It actually never happened. I have also called Macon a Trojan Rothschild Horse, or the like. However, Macron’s discourse in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, was very courageous, and nearly perfect. Africa found a president.

Now it remains for France to find the means, and that means financement, and that, in turns, means submitting plutocrats to the imperium of law, and pay taxes, instead of evading them, thanks to small criminal states such as Malta, Luxembourg, ireland, etc. Yes, when Ireland refuses to let Apple pay tax, it is criminal, and yes, it’s killing Africa.

When Ireland supported Hitler (under the guise of “neutrality”, like Switzerland) during World War Two, it was already catastrophic: the small neutral states were crucial in the defeat of France in May-June 1940 (hence Auschwitz). Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, all of them “neutral” in 1939, and early in 1940, all made the (momentary, but very bloody) defeat of civilization possible.  

We have the same situation now: the plutocratic order is the real world government we have now. To switch to a “legalist” system as Rome (26 centuries ago) and Qin (around 350 BCE) did, is what the planet needs. Now.

Immigration to rich countries is a form of colonialism: nothing wrong with it, as long as it enriches all, overall. However, it shouldn’t turn, as it has, into an exploitation of misery. To reduce the misery, investments have to go the other way. But not just financial investments (as Macron sing-songs). Ideological, legal investments too. The trade of ideas is the most important trade. 

Yes, Macron, we are orphan of a common imaginary. Not that some of this imaginary was always correct: some African students accused Macron and France to incite the catastrophic, illegal immigration across the Mediterranean. Macron retorted that :”Who are the traffickers [of human beings]. But they are Africans, my friend! They are Africans! Ask yourself also that question! It’s not French people who are doing human trafficking in Libya! It’s Africans! We must all seize our responsibilities! We have started to dismantle the networks. But stop this discourse which consists in saying:’the problem it’s the other!’ You are incredible!”

Here Macron, correctly came close to one of the great lies of the Politically Correct: the slavery of Africans is organized by Africans. What Macron didn’t say explicitly, but may have meant implicitly, is that African slavery was organized by Africans, even way back when (contrarily to the lies of the PC). I have argued that slavery out of Africa actually saved African lives (the evidence is overwhelming; however it’s also overwhelmingly suppressed, because it’s so un-PC; an Indian friend begged on her knees that I removed that essay, claiming it would destroy my reputation… Instead i put the title in capital letters, emphasizing importance!) It’s pretty clear that millions of Africans who try to emigrate to Europe right now believe that emigration may well save their lives, or may make them worth living.

In a sense, colonization of Africa didn’t really, durably happen: with the exception of South Africa, where a few million descendants of Europeans cling, where are the Europeans? Colonization of America (or Australia) did happen: Europeans are all over, the Natives were mostly wiped out, notwithstanding parodies such as the tall blonde ex-Harvard professor, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who claimed to be an American Native to get prestigious teaching position.

What we need now is to counterbalance immigration of Africa to Europe by an immigration of Europe to Africa. And don’t decry those colons, one way, or the other. Yes, it all has to be made legal.

We are orphan from the best of a common imaginary we need to recover, while, and for the same reason, we need to destroy the worst of same said common imaginary. Building a better world starts with building a better truth.

Patrice Ayme’

Nature Of The Physical Law & Reaction Law

Human laws are modelled, in spirit, after physical laws. So it is socially important to realize how physical laws are established, and that they are not immutable. Physical laws are established by observation (some direct, some axiomatic; yes, a paradox). However, if you read the magazine “Wired”, you may feel that physical laws are established, like the Bible or the Qur’an, by the sheer power of a personality cult:

“LAST MONTH, NASA researchers dropped news with potentially huge consequences for space travel and science as a whole: They ran an experiment whose results seem to defy the very laws of physics, and could change how we travel through outer space. Problem is, experts say that it’s incredibly unlikely that Isaac Newton is wrong. Instead, the most likely explanation is the team simply made a mistake somewhere along the way

The team was testing a theory that there’s a new way to propel satellites, instead of using rockets powered by a limited supply of fuel. So they put a radio antenna in a specially designed, sealed container. Turned on, the antenna bounced 935MHz radio waves (similar to those used by some cell phones) around, and the container apparently moved a tiny, tiny bit. This violates Newton’s third law of motion, one of the basic tenets of physics.

Loosely put, Newton taught us that no action can occur without an equal and opposite reaction.”

[WIRED from August 2014: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/why-nasas-physics-defying-space-engine-is-probably-bogus/]

Reaction = Action Is An Experimental Fact. Or Was, Until Recently. Does not have to stay that way

Right, the article is from 2014. However, the riddle got more interesting in 2016, when the same tests were conducted in hard vacuum… with the same results (it was initially thought that radiation heated air, which expanded, creating a push; without air, that counter-idea failed).

Who are these “experts”? People who gave the Nobel Prize to each other? Newton did not “teach” us that action = reaction inasmuch as he demonstrated it (thanks to arcane mathematics). Before I explain what I mean, let me mention that Richard Feynman wrote a famous book “The Character of the Physical Law” (which I read). Feynman observes that there is a hierarchy of laws. Here I will observe something even more subtle: there is a hierarchy of how fundamental laws are viewed as fundamental.

***

Newton ASSUMED this “Third Law”, he made an hypothesis of it (and the law was probably known to cannoneers for centuries). Using in part this action = reaction hypothesis, Newton was able to deduct, from a large axiomatic system, with lots of arcane mathematics, theorems. And some of these theorems had practical consequences which were found, or known, to be true (Kepler laws). So it was reasonably assumed that Newton’s Third Law was correct: it is an axiom the use of which bring the correct theorems. The same sort of reasonings established the First and Second Laws of motion, which were discovered by the stupendous genius Buridan, three centuries BEFORE Newton.  

To my knowledge, the Third Law was first stated by Newton. However, that law was certainly well-known by Roman artillery engineers, who were used to catapult large masses at enormous distances: they knew of the recoil all too well. Roman and European Middle Age artillery enabled to seize cities (armies which were less competent in artillery found seizing cities difficult to do; the Turks used Hungarians engineers to breach the walls of Constantinople with giant guns).

Thus we see there are two sorts of physical laws: those we assume as axioms, and then we certify them, because the mathematical logic they give rise to bring apparently correct results. Other natural laws are observed directly.

For example, the so-called “Standard Model” can be viewed as a sort of giant law. It uses, in its axioms, the so-called Higgs boson, and that was indeed found (sort of).

Thus direct observations can suggest a law (say action = reaction; or gravitation) which then is established through the axiomatic method (heavily used in modern physics). Actually the case of gravitation is even more interesting: observations suggested an attractive force. Then Ismaël Bullialdus, a French priest-astronomer-mathematician found a reasoning why it should be an inverse square law (Bullialdus has a crated named after him on the Moon). Armed with Bullialdus inverse-square law, Isaac Newton used the inverse square law as an axiom to “deduce” Kepler’s laws  (I wrote “deduce”, because, centuries later, it was called into question whether Newton had properly demonstrated Gauss’ law, which reduce, gravitationally speaking, planets to massive points)

Examples of laws observed directly are numerous: they include the classical laws of optics, of forces (depicted by vectors; but one cannot use vector theory to prove how force behave… because vectors are abstracted forces), much of electrical behavior, etc.

Some laws were deduced from axiomatics before being demonstrated experimentally. Newton’s crowning achievement was more or less) demonstrating the equivalence of Kepler Laws with the 1/dd inverse square universal attraction law… given the laws of “Newtonian” Mechanics.

As I said, the laws of mechanics were greatly deduced by Buridan and various engineers, generations before Newton.

Could the same be going on now? Who knows?

It is a question of observation. Ultimately physics, nature, is what is observed, nothing less. It gets to be more than what is observed, because of our imagination, and the fact it needs to use the logics and maths it knows.

Meta-lesson? Politics degenerated in the West, in the last 50 years, because what was really going on was observed only in a fragmentary way. This is in particular the drama of so-called “left”, or progress. We have to stick to what is observed.

In the case of democrats, what was observed is that “Democrats” selected a candidate who was the object of 4 Congressional inquiries (Sanders had none, never had any).

Now they insult us.

Patrice Ayme’

Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre

Ultimately, & practically, the Syrian Civil War’s primary cause is not even Islam, or the plutocratic effect, but European impotence (except for the French Republic, which is engaged in half a dozen wars… but financially and diplomatically hobbled by most other European powers… and, of course, its occasionally ingrate progeny, the US). Europeans, Merkel, and especially European youth, talk big about peace, human rights, freedom. Yet, what good is talk when it is not followed by enforcement? Replacing action by the dream?

Refugees, you say? Millions of them? Well, six hundred million Africans and Middle Orientalists want to enter Europe. For starters. Any questions?

I guess not. Shall we reinstate European colonialism, so that Africans want to stay in Africa, as they used to?

Here are further observations of mine: Europeans (semi-) intellectuals talked big about imperialism, decolonization, peace, flowers, bad-mouthed the strong-arm of the USA. So who did they enable? Assad. Assad is smoother talking than Saddam Hussein. But as far as killing his own people, he is much better. Connection with the plutocrats in London made the British Parliament friendly to him. And his kind.

Obama refused, at the last moment, to strike Assad, in collaboration with France. French pilots were in their seats, ready to go unleash Scalp missiles on Assad’s palace, but The One in the White House changed his mind. Annihilating weddings, or Americans on the beach with drones in Yemen, OK. Hitting big bad dictator, whose family holds billions in assets in the West, not OK.

Alep, August 2016. Those “Leaders” Who Do Not Defend Humanity Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of Leading The Wrong Way: European Peaceniks and Obama

What happened next? Putin saw the green light from Obama. Putin is an opportunist (see below). A much encouraged Putin invaded Ukraine, grabbing Crimea… which had been Ukrainian for eleven centuries. Now Putin is in Syria, training his army, extending his empire, and helping his fellow dictator Assad re-establish his rule (of terror). (Putin had seized parts of Georgia earlier. However Sarkozy intervened in various spastic ways, and Bush put a few hundreds US troops in the way of Russian tanks, persuading Putin to back off…)

Cynics will observe that the USA is the world’s number one producer of fossil fuels… Followed by Russia. Do those two have interest to see fossil fuel prices go too low for their own comfort? As long as there is a total war mess in the Middle East, most of the oil production out of Turkey, Syria, and especially Iraq, is shut down (by some measure, Iraq has the world’s second largest reserve of conventional oil). That lack of production keeps the prices up much better than the conspiracies from (a much weakened) OPEC.

In this light, Canada, which is trying to build a new giant pipeline, to exfiltrate the planet’s dirtiest hydrocarbons has also interest to extend the mess in the Middle East as long as possible. And sure enough PM Trudeau, that dashing ecologist in words alone, pulled the Canadian Air Force out of the Middle East.

Some will say Canada acted in a spirit of peace, alleluia, let’s save lives from horrid bombardment. By the same token, the Jihadists are all for eternal peace too. One does make peace with those who organize Auschwitz. Aleppo, right now is pretty much Auschwitz for all to see. Aerial bombardment is no panacea, but it remains the ultimate weapon. Who controls the sky and bombs from it has won more than half the war.

History will not be kind to Obama and those Europeans who pay only lip service to humanity, Socrates’ style (See Socrates on the lake of selfishness). To defend the position that one should not defend humanity and humanism is beyond vile, it is also illogical… if one is not a plutocrat of the most ferocious type.  

Trump accused Obama to have founded the Islamist State, ISIS, or words to this effect. Then he explained this happened through Clinton and Obama’s lack of action. Of military action. I agree, and said so at the time. Now I am making the same charge about the Syrian war. I have been making it for several years, if anything Trump is parroting me, and not the other way around.

These are symptoms of the White Flag Syndrome.

Obama maybe vile, from a humanitarian point of view, by refusing to strike a mass-murdering dictator, but, he is in the best American tradition: the US has helped many a dictator during the Twentieth Century, starting with Kaiser Wilhelm II (from 1914 to 1917). Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, countless bananas dictators, and many others more recently (Nasser, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Saudis, etc.)

America first, make America ever greater is a policy which has been most profitable. President Franklin Roosevelt in World War Two, following President Wilson in  World War One, refused to come to the help of the French Republic in a timely manner, after being begged to do so. That did not work very well for humanity, but it worked very well for America.

Roosevelt’s refusal to help France in 1939 and 1940 against Hitler, although Auschwitz had just been opened for business by the Nazis, for all to see, was despicable, anti-humanitarian. However, it brought the death of 50 million Europeans, the loss of the European empires, and, not the least, the coming of the so-called “American Century”.

Europeans, though, do not seem to have learned history as well as US think tanks did. Weakness in front of fascism and its associated plutocrats (Yesterday Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler, Franco, now, Assad, Putin, etc.) brought calamity to Europe. Syria, like Libya, should be part of the European empire of justice and peace, because it is the neighborhood of Europe. Actually, Syria was, until it was devastated by the brutal Muslim assault, the richest part of the Roman empire.

The king of Jordan believes World War Three has started. What is sure is that, for World War Three to start, the surest strategy is weakness in the face of infamy. It is known that many in the Russian chain of command believe that a surgical nuclear strike would intimidate the Western Europeans into abject surrender. Whomever the next US president is, Trump, Clinton, Kaynes or Pence, I would not bet on it. Indeed any of these four is clearly more aggressive than Obama. And the US chain of command is very deep.

Here is an example:
Low key and calmly cerebral, four star Admiral Haney, whom some would probably insist to call an “Afro-American” is Commander, United States Strategic Command (four star is the greatest number of stars, aside from times of world war). As such he would be the one talking directly to the president in case of nuclear war, real or potential. Haney commands  not only this country’s nuclear forces but its cyber weapons and space satellites as well.

David Martin, “60 Minutes”: Is it riskier today?

Cecil Haney: Well I think today we’re at a time and place that I don’t think we’ve been to before.

It is Haney’s job to convince Vladimir Putin that resorting to nuclear weapons would be the worst mistake he could possibly make.

David Martin: When you look at what would work to deter Russia, do you have to get inside Putin’s head?

Cecil Haney: You have to have a deep, deep, deep understanding of any adversary you want to deter, including Mr. Putin.

David Martin: So how would you describe him psychologically?

Cecil Haney: Well, one I would say I’m not a psychologist. But I would just say he is clearly an individual that is an opportunist.

[Sell, most politicians are opportunists. The job selects for opportunists. This is the major problem of representative democracy. Any politician is going to be a variant on Trump or Clinton, just those two make it more blatant. However, in the case of Putin and the nationalist mood in Russia, the sky seems to be the same limit as it was for the Nazis.]

David Martin, loaded question: Does it concern you that an opportunist has a nuclear arsenal?

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

Well the psychological scenario for the use of nuclear weapons is in place. It came from weakness. No force, no moral. Only a perspective of great ferocity and fury, in defense of democracy, the republic and optimal human ethology will convince those seduced by the most devilish and oligarchic instincts to refrain from acting up.

Patrice Ayme’.

Decrying Islamophobia Is Racist

On June 13, 2016, the so-called Islamist State killed a police captain in France, cut the throat of his wife, who died as a result, and took their three-year old toddler hostage. The killer, a (“French”) Islamist State recruiter who had been condemned to 3 years in jail for terrorism, was killed. Yes, that was the day after Orlando. France and the USA are squeezing the so-called Islamist State bridgehead in Libya hard, hence the quick pace of terror. Practitioners of total Islam are showing the true nature thereof.

Islamophobia means strong fear of Islam. It is called racist by the haters, but it is not racist: strong fear is not racist if it can point at explicit threats: strong fear of Nazism would not have been racist in the 1930’s. The Sacred Texts of Islam explicitly order to kill some categories of people, just because of what they are, or believe, even if those beliefs have no bearing on other people’s lives. Not to be afraid of lethal threat for no good reason is, assuredly, self-destroying.

Not that brandishing self-destruction enables to win arguments with Islamists: the Sacred Texts of Islam all give the highest rewards to so-called “martyrs”: they sit on the right of God, and will not be judged during the Final Judgment, but, instead, the “martyrs” will go directly to paradise, where they will enjoy milk, honey, 72 virgins and “fresh boys who are like pearls”. See the self-destruction? Not only is the Qur’an homosexually oriented, but it kills homosexuals (or martyrs in general, for that matter).

So why such pronounced fear of Islamophobia among so many of the pseudo-good thinkers? As I have argued, the rebirth of Islam was a plot mostly initiated by American oilmen and Anglo-Saxon financial plotters, more than 80 years ago. So why not to condemn it? Because now a new factor has risen: the fear of anything, and, first of all, of iconoclastic opinion. They tend to agree to all and any deployment of force, they are the equivalent of intellectual invertebrates.

Islamophilia Promotes Inhuman Activities.  Snowflakes Sell Their Souls To Satan, Lest They Melt In Tears

We are now dealing with a generations with so little intellectual backbone, they have to be called “snowflakes”. Those flakes can’t take an idea, let alone a joke, if it’s not “safe”. Don’t try lousy jokes such as:’Hot Muslim guy penetrates 100 gays in minutes’… they will burst in tears, and have worse words for you, than for the steroid laden gunman himself. However, jokes are crucial: the ambivalent attitude on homosexuality in the Qur’an which I made explicit in the preceding essay is revealing, and should be the butt of jokes. 

We are dealing here with propaganda of the worst type. Not just a propaganda of ideas, but a propaganda of moods: generation snowflakes, the hysterical fear of all and any fears erected as a panacea. The sort of propaganda that enabled terror to rule for millennia. Such terror profits those who rule through the most demonic means.

The Bible, Old Testament, claims that homosexuality is an “abomination“. The idea passed explicitly to the Qur’an, which quotes the Bible, 12 centuries later. Then the Hadith (more sacred Muslim texts from 13 centuries ago) was very explicit that homosexuals should be killed…

Those texts have to be condemned and called allegoric, metaphoric, whatever… This is exactly what the “Founding Fathers” of the “Catholic Universal” church did around 400 CE. 

The Founding Fathers of the Catholic Church were trying to make Christianism acceptable to the masses, and especially, to the Roman army. In 400 CE, the Franks were put in charge of the military defense of Gallia (to become “France” a millennium later), Germania Inferior (Low countries), and Germania Superior (Germany, Switzerland)

Although the Founding Fathers of Christianism called the Bible metaphorical and allegoric, it was taken literally, a millennium later with the crusades, inquisition, religious wars… In France alone, the Crusade against the Cathars, by itself, killed more than one million (7% of the population). Nearly four centuries later, seven religious wars between French Protestants and French Catholics killed millions.

The crusading madness had started after the Roman empire eastern capital, Constantinople, begged the Franks for a rescue from the Turks, who, after converting to Islam, a war religion, swiftly invaded Anatolia. So, initially, the motivation was good, but there was then horrendous mission creep (very long story including cannibalism and bathing in blood).

From the point of view of the Franks, ever since 721 CE, Muslims had horrendously invaded Europe, and were defeated at huge cost, in countless battles and wars. So, once again, the motivation, for many centuries was excellent, and as fundamental as it gets, for example when a Frankish army delivered Rome and the destroyed Vatican from a marauding Muslim army.

All in all, though, bad people saw the use they could make of the Catholic frenzy. Many of the great emperors of the European Middle Ages had negotiated, and even allied themselves with Muslim rulers (Charlemagne and Frederick II Barbarossa did this). However as time went by, very bad people used the worst aspects of Christianism (which have been duplicated in Islam, and then some!)

The wars generated by Christianism stopped when Europe and her colonies went through a philosophical change enforced by the primacy of secular laws over those of religious superstitions. The same remains to be done in the lands over which Islamism reigns presently. The task is huge: consider the crusade against the Shia which Saudi Arabia is presently waging in Yemen to a huge cost of children’s lives (the United nations declared a few days ago).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/uncritical-islam-lethal-homophobia/

Linda Putnam commented: “Christianity condemned this practices as you say, Patrice. And in the Western world they are strictly illegal today. However, in the Near East, these Islamic practices go unpunished for the most part….”

In the last 19 centuries, Christianism was all over the map with much of the 1789 “Rights of Man”/United Nations Charter. Jesus, strictly speaking, condemns homosexuality, as it is condemned in the Old Testament,  as an “abomination”, and Jesus claims he preaches all of the Old Testament, in its entirety.  Killing non-believers was preached by Jesus himself (Luke 19;27, among others). Now Christianism is confined to a secular legal cage, and can be shown to the masses safely.

Many countries have Sharia law. For example Malaysia (where only 50% of the population is Muslim!). Malaysia replaced British Common law with Sharia… At least for the Muslims. Reason? The Qur’an is very friendly to dictatorships. See:

“O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Surah 4; verse 59).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/god-hates-democracy/

Linda Putnam: “The ‘Religion of Peace”. Is ‘peace’ only for the believers of Islam. The kafirs cannot expect peace at the hands of the strict practitioners of this religion.”

Indeed. The Non-Muslim part of the world is called the “House of War”. The greedy elite of a corrupt country such as Malaysia, a monarchy with just 50% Muslims, has not just imposed Sharia law, but proclaimed that Islam was the “state religion”. Indeed, Islamizing terror is a dictator’s best friend.  

Overall, Islam was imposed onto the Middle East and North Africa by the application of sudden, overwhelming brutal military force. The counter-attack led by the Franks, including some of the crusades, evacuated the dictators and savages who had embraced Islam as the best pretext, from most of Europe proper. It took 11 centuries (from the invasion of Spain to the liberation of Greece). But one cannot say the job is finished. A superstition reigns over the natural ethology of man, the Republic.

Islam is friendly to dictators, who are always looking for reasons to execute or terrify people. They find plenty of such reasons in Islam’s Sacred Texts. By promoting Islam as excellent, and most peaceful, for populations suffering under it, the pseudo-left, the PC crowds, and the oilmen and financial plotters they have been sleeping with, are racist. Not to say greedy.

Patrice Ayme’

No Intelligence, No Power: No Morality, However Good

In Season Four of “Game of Thrones“, the immensely powerful knight, who has high moral principles, steals from his host, bangs him pretty bad on the head, leaving him dazed and bleeding on the ground. The valorous young princess Arya Stark, whom the knight protects, still a child, storms after him, and screams: “They gave you shelter, they fed you, they are good people, and you steal from them? The immensely powerful knight replies:”He is weak, that’s what wrong with him, they won’t pass the winter, so I may as well take his silver, or otherwise some worthless scoundrel will.” Arya shouts back: “You are the worst shit in the Seven Kingdoms!” The mighty knight smirks back:” To be good is not enough. How many Starks need to be beheaded for you to understand that?”

That was an allusion to the fact that Arya’s father, mother and brother had untimely, horrible, and unjust ends… And the engine of their destruction, and actually of the destruction of the Seven Kingdoms has been that goodness which fatally hobbles their would-be superior morality. If goodness leads mass atrocities, surely, it is not good.

This is the essence of the exchange, which I paraphrased because I am reproducing it from memory. This is also the essence of much my ethical system: to be moral, it is not enough to be good, one has to be smart and powerful. Smarts, in the matter of law has much progressed in the last four thousand years:

Good Laws Come Only From High Smarts. Hammurabi’s Laws Are 38 Centuries Old. Having Mastered Writing Was Necessary, As The 282 Laws Were Shown All Over The Vast Empire

In Hammurabi laws, hitting one’s parents was punishable by death. Same for stealing (except if one was a plutocrat, of course; slavery was legal, although in many ways much less harsh than in the US in the nineteenth century.)

One needs the trinity of intelligence, power and goodness to impose morality. Absent any of the three elements of that trinity, mass immorality can, and will, blossom.

Examples abound in history. France is rich with them. For example, Louis XIV and Napoleon were neither smart nor good, so they were doubly immoral.

Louis destroyed the Protestants, which was particularly nasty, as his grandfather had made peace and a commonwealth with them; France lost millions, and found herself attacked from everywhere, including from the Netherlands and Britain, which used to be French, but were now full of angry protestants (many very intimately entangled with France).

Napoleon replaced the republics (for example in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, etc.) which the revolution had created, into monarchies owned by his family: how much more nasty can one be? One could make a nasty, very deadly war to re-establish slavery in Haiti, which the First French Republic had eradicated. All this was an abyss of stupidity: Napoleon sold half of the USA to the USA for pennies, and then got millions of young Frenchmen dying for his family on the battlefield… while claiming he was fighting for the Revolution.

Want stupid? Napoleon, that enslaving self-obsessed monster is still much admired, from San Francisco to Vladivostok. It’s not clear why.

Another one, much admired is Joan of Arc. Why not? She re-launched the 100 year civil war between Paris and London for another 400 years. That was fabulously nasty, demonically stupid… The day (the cult of) Joan of Arc is viewed as immoral, much progress will have been made.

In the 1930s. The French Republic was smart and right to oppose the Nazism, all the way to giving Hitler an ultimatum. However, the whole enterprise became much less moral, when the French generalissimo ordered to do what his subordinate had argued may be a trap. Hitler had attacked the Netherlands just to draw the French army there. The result was catastrophic, as the French army was cut from behind, and the Nazis were able to conquer Europe, all the way to Saint Petersburg, Moscow, and the Volga, while engaging in various holocausts, and inciting the Japanese allies to do the same. Out of that came the American hegemon we presently enjoy, complete with its technology monopolies doubling as spy networks.

And, of course, We The World enjoy Facebook morality. Facebook just censored French (state) TV for reproducing on its Facebook page a woman demonstration in… Chile. Hey, some of the ladies wore no bras, and Facebook always wear a bra.

Times they are changing though: the Obama administration is proposing to remove US generalissimo-president Andrew Jackson from the Twenty Dollar note. Jackson was no dummy, he was immensely powerful, and his nastiness was excellent for the expansion of the USA. And Jackson, in complete contrast with the corrupt Clintons, kept the banks in their place. Asked what he was the most proud of, Jackson said (in essence): to have kept the banks at bay. Quite a statement, as Jackson had doubled the area of the USA. (Nothing that Clintons’ admirers can understand at this point, though…)

The same remarks apply to Jefferson, or even Washington. Let alone Marcus Aurelius.

Nowadays, then the youth, even in the USA, understand that the criterions for morality have to be jacked up, so Jackson can go jack somewhere else.

All very good, of course. But Big Morality without Big Smarts will always backfired. It’s not very smart for the youth of the world to only go through the spy network, with its fine print which says that only American law applies (although a French Court just determined that was probably unlawful in France, since, actually, well, it obviously is).

No smarts, no morality. At least, at the civilizational level.

Patrice Ayme’

Supreme Joke

The USA is endowed with a “Supreme Court”, which is mentioned in a few words in the initial document establishing the Constitution of the USA. It was not meant as a Constitutional Court, but came to be progressively used that way. Thus a few individuals named for life have enormous powers. Such a system is intrinsically diabolical (thus friendly to the Lord of Hell, Pluto).

Power corrupts, and supreme power, especially in matter of justice, corrupts supremely.

Enormous powers for the few in matter of justice is not democracy. In the Athenian Direct Democracy, some juries had to have a quorum of 6,001 (yes, more than six thousands, depending upon the gravity of the matter). The Athenian system, established more than 2,500 years ago, was not perfect. Ours is clearly anti-democratic.

Scaglia was a judge named for life at the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Reagan’s education was sport announcer, and then actor. Reagan avoided combat in World War Two, but knew how to leverage McCarthyism. That made him a perfect politician to serve the satanic ones. Reagan became governor of California, where he imposed a tuition on the PUBLIC university of California.

Imagine the enormity: a public service became the exclusive province of the rich. That was just the beginning.

No Plutocracy Is Strong Enough

After this important symbolic victory, plutocracy flew from success to success. Now tuition at the so-called “public” University of California can be as much as a third of median family income in the USA (the income before taxes, social security, health insurance, etc.). So this distinguished plutophile, Reagan, was fully qualified to name a king of justice to rule over the USA.

That king was Scaglia. Scaglia was the leader of the “conservatives” at the Supreme Court Of The US (SCOTUS). He flew from success to success.

In 2000, SCOTUS stopped the recount of the vote for the presidential election of the USA. The difference of votes between Bush and Gore was around 300 (three hundred) votes, in favor of Bush. Gore had asked for a recount, and Florida law, when it was that close, required a recount. (Had Florida gone to the Gore, Gore, who was only five electoral votes behind Bush, would have been 45 votes ahead, and be elected President. Moreover Gore had won the popular vote.)

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[57]

At an election night party, “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor became upset when the media announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.[59] However, both Justices remained on the Court beyond President Bush’s first term, until Rehnquist’s death in 2005 and O’Connor’s retirement in 2006. According to Steven Foster of the Manchester Grammar School:

“On the eve of the election Sandra Day O’Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas’s wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia’s son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.”[60]

In 2013, retired “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority, suggested that perhaps the Court should have declined to hear the case, which “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation”.

The interpretation of the details can be argued. The basic point, though, is that enormous influence is exerted by putting so much power in a few hands, and it extends to their entourage. For example the Chelsea Clinton of the Clinton Foundation is in charge of fighting pollution in California (yes, more than weird; more exactly she finances, through the Clinton Foundation a private company which sells devices which detect pollution; why should it concern Europeans? Because some day it’s that company, ultimately financed by taxpayers in the USA, and then scaled up, which will be in charge of measuring pollution in Europe).

Gore dropped his lawsuit, and was rewarded by a gigantic fortune and the Nobel Prize (sounds familiar?)

Is the USA a democracy? No. Officially, Gore beat Bush by more than half a million votes:

Winner:   50,456,062 votes

Main Opponent:   50,996,582

Then, of course, there was the “Citizen United” decision. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case approving the unbounded, uncontrolled spending in political campaigns by (PLUTOCRATIC) organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (such as all and any “charity” financed by plutocrats, or, as they love to call themselves, “philanthropists”) . Then SCOTUS extended that to for-profit corporations, and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has “re-shaped the political landscape” of the United States.

The USA, formerly a republic, went, with the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United”, from de facto plutocracy to formal constitutional plutocracy.

Even Jeb Bush, one of its main beneficiaries, wants to get rid of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. He said: “this is a ridiculous system we have now where you have campaigns that struggle to raise money directly and they can’t be held accountable for the spending of the super PAC that’s their affiliate”.

Why do nine judge 320 millions? Some will say: expertise. However, the SCOTUS was not created as Constitutional Court. Other countries have specialized Constitutional Courts. In a country such as France, there are actually four distincts “supreme courts”: the Cour de Cassation, the Conseil d’Etat, the Constitutional Court, and the European Supreme Court. It all depends what the conflict is about. None of these judges are there forever, and they can be, and have been, impeached.

In any case, now plutocracy is the Constitutional Law of the land in the USA.

So it is, when too much power goes in too few hands.

And it has an impact, worldwide as the USA, as the world’s most powerful nation, anchor of nearly all the world’s major institutions, is the conductor of the world’s symphony, the One Way Descent to Hell.

So RIP Scaglia, we are left to enjoy the hell you organized for us, serving your masters well.

We write, and some will read. But will it reach? Did Montaigne become Montaigne because he was a close friend of the king and many other plutocrats paid attention to what he wrote? Probably. Some may have written better, and disappeared in a night, which they never left.

Still we go, as humanity always did.

Thought without passion is like motion, without motivation. A parody of humanity. A demolition, of incarnation. Existence, without sentience.

The supreme joke is on those Very Serious People who never understood that their supreme greed, is not just pathetic, but actually comical.

Not so, will the Supremes object: our refined pleasure is the power we have on you, and how much we can make you suffer: “Citizens United”. Sure, I agree. Sadism rules, and not just in black robes, my point entirely. Power enables cruelty to become supreme, and forget, in the thrall of passion, the frailty of the human condition. This is true, but it’s not just.

Patrice Ayme’

Europe Immigration Massacre

 

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

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’

Sarkozy Indicted For Corruption

Crime There, Business As Usual Here… 

France’s Former President Sarkozy Taken Into Custody: 

02 July 14

Just two years after losing the presidency in an election, former French leader Nicolas Sarkozy turned himself in to police for an inquiry into a cover-up of suspected illegal campaign fundraising. Sarkozy, 59, is France’s first former president to be taken into custody.

After 16 hours of continuous interrogation by the police, Sarkozy was put in formal “examination” by instruction judges at 2 am (on three counts). That means, translated in American semantics, that he is indicted.

Sarkozy is being questioned over his possible interference during a probe of possible illegal financing for his 2007 campaign from France’s richest woman, L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt. The case centers around whether Sarkozy and his lawyer were kept informed illegally on the investigation by a friendly magistrate — who was in return promised a prominent position in Monaco.

The sums involved, at most a few million Euros, are tiny by the standards of the USA. Some were used to organize large, USA style political rallies, with lots of flags waved.

In the USA, there is basically no such a thing as illegal financing: once respected some purely formal barriers, the world’s richest people can finance their chosen candidates with unlimited funds. Astutely, they finance both sides, “democratic” and “republican”, of the same thing that is everything.

Under Obama, that system became industrial, for all to see. Obama, or his wife, fly to the San Francisco Bay Area, all the time. For a bit more than 30,000 thousand dollars, one can have breakfast with them. As that’s more than half the family income in the USA, the price of the visit keeps the commons away.

Lunch, dinner and personal interviews are reserved to multibillionaires.

Why it has to happen so often means probably that the president is getting instructed about what to do next by the world’s richest people. (What else? More elaborated plots? Sex a la Clinton?)

In the French republic, spending for presidential elections is state financed, and limited to a few dozen million Euros. TV is requested by law to show candidates on an equalitarian basis. The last presidential election in the USA cost more than 6 billion dollars (there is also a lot of hidden spending).

The indictment of Sarkozy for corruption occurs on the very week when it was revealed that Bill Clinton, all by himself, had gathered a full billion dollars… from his beloved, the plutocrats.

That very week when the giant bank BNP was condemned grievously for financing companies in Cuba (an island that is Wall Street’s, the Mafia’s, and thus the government of the USA’s nemesis).

Financing companies in Cuba is legal in Europe. After all, Cuba is not viewed as a rogue nation by the United Nations.

Blatant, massive, astronomically large financing by plutocrats for all to see is basically unlawful worldwide, except in the USA…. The world most hidden, and largest, tax-haven (but only a haven for the hyper rich, because not everybody can afford an anonymous company set-up!)

Sarkozy is charged with corruption. This is a very serious charge in France. The last time this happened to a French politician (MP-Mayor of Grenoble, Carignon), he went to jail for four long years (among other punishments).

Sarkozy declared that he had been “humiliated“. And so it is for nearly anyone who has to do with “justice”. And yes, it’s not always “just”. Far from it. And yes, there should be more safeguards against the power of the state, as “liberals” have said for 26 centuries.

But, when he had the power, Sarkozy used, and abused, it. Enjoy.

Patrice Ayme

New York Vulture Justice

Courts in New York City keep with their hyperactive pursuit of USA domination (or is that simply, New York Financial District domination?) The latest was a decision, now supported by the Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS), to torpedo Argentina.

So it’s not just against the French (DSK, BNP, etc.). All too independent Argentina, a country which has the insolence of not accepting Wall Street colonial status, is in the crosshairs. As Argentina does not have the military power of France, it has, with the rest of Latin America, been invited to submit abjectedly.

Argentinian President Is Held Up By Gangster Justice

And obdurate Cuba shall be punished all the way to Paris (the BNP, Banque Nationale de Paris, story: why are sanctions against Cuba “legal” in International Law?).

Thirteen years ago, Argentina, pierced through and through by American banks and machinations, some engineered by Stanford-Harvard-Chicago trained traitors/economists, supported by generals encouraged by USA secret services, defaulted.

That was a shrewd move, economically. And fully morally justified. It was a question of the Argentinian People against exploiting vultures and conspirators.

Argentina, 13 years ago, refused to pay back its debt as planned when it had been contracted (by the traitors trained in USA plutocratic universities… A situation similar to what happened to Russia in the 1990s, when Harvard devils engineered there a self interested plutocracy in which Harvard had a stake!).

Ultimately, 93% of Argentinian creditors accepted settlements with the country, which were less onerous for the country. However, 7% of the creditors refused to bargain. They were typically the richest (allowing them to hold-out), and the worst (they enforced dictatorial conspiracies, a matter of obvious principle for them, vultures keen to make predation rule).

That brought the Appellate Court in New York to decide these Vulture Funds were right (I am sure they pay well, and money is always right, when there is enough of it). The Court, unbelievably, ordered Argentina to stop all payments on its debt… less it pays the hold-outs in this 13 year battle.

The main vulture fund is NML Capital Ltd, owned by billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp, and Mark Brodsky’s Aurelius Capital Management. They specialize in junk debt investing. They used their deep pockets to pursue a 13-year legal battle that’s now coming to a conclusion (or so they hope).

NML’s position is between 45 and 50 percent of the payout ordered by U.S. Judge Griesa, and amounts up to a billion, or so.

The good judge does not care that the 2002 default was highly successful for Argentina, and the master work of president Isabella Fernandez (photo above) and her husband (an economic university professor who was elected president at the urging of his Senator wife, above; unfortunately he died of a heart attack).

Perhaps the good judge knows no history, and does not give a hoot, and only loves caviar and songs, as served by Mr. Singer.

Another example of connection between American “justice”, vultures, and force. New York, the world central financial center, is used as a way to advance the interest of USA plutocrats, at the risk of paralyzing the world financial system.

Meanwhile several strange facts surfaced: the evaluation of Greece by the IMF a few years back, when Paul Krugman wanted to dismantle the European Union, were unduly pessimistic, the IMF itself recently admitted.  Great. How many Greeks died because of this?

Remember when top American economists were howling for the end of the Euro? Not only the European currency did not collapse, but now the yield on Spanish long term bonds is lower than that of the USA.

Morality? The cris that cruxed in 2008 is far from over. It’s a war for world domination. It’s fought in American courtrooms (objective accomplices of their pet vultures, or, rather, vice versa), and it’s fought in the court of public opinion. To fight back, well, maybe, judge Bush. It’s not exactly a change of conversation.

If American judges condemn the president of Argentina for saving her country, and punish all of Argentina, maybe Europeans could help the unjustly struck, by condemning a few American master minds, for real international war crimes. With the wrath of real justice.

Oh, by the way, Argentinian bonds, thanks to their high yields, have made a lot of money for private investors. They returned +10% in 2012, while other bonds in the average lost 6%. The total market that the Courts of the USA are trying to torpedo total 100 billion dollars, the payments blocked as we speak are of half a billion. Thus, like Putin, Wall Street is ready to use maximum force to have its way.

Victims who don’t struck back become accomplices of their tormentors. Under president Cristina Fernandez, Argentina has superbly resisted. An example all the more edifying as she is from the supposedly “weaker” gender.  

Patrice Aymé