Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Nature Of The Physical Law & Reaction Law

December 5, 2016

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

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’

Advertisements

Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre

October 7, 2016

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.

Those Who Do Not Defend Justice & Civilization Are Culprit Of This: Europe and Obama

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

June 14, 2016

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

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

June 1, 2016

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

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

February 14, 2016

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

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

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’

Sarkozy Indicted For Corruption

July 2, 2014

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

June 21, 2014

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

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

De-Americanize This!

October 16, 2013

OK, the USA will not default now, but reserves itself the right to do so later. Say in three months.

Amusingly, the official Xinhua news agency from the People’s Republic of China is repeating much of what I have been saying for years. About the USA, of course. Before unleashing the hypocrites from Beijing, let me point out a few facts:

Can the USA default? Sure. The USA defaulted in 1789, 100%, and in 1933, 40%. So the USA defaulted when it was convenient. As the Romans used to say: caveat emptor USA (=Let the buyer of USA bonds beware). And you know what? Deep down inside, the USA’s elite does not care.

Here are a few numbers:

53% of the bonds of the USA are held inside the USA. 47% outside (mostly by other central banks).

61% of the world currency reserves are in dollars.

42% of the world transactions are made in dollars.

One dollar out of two is outside the USA.

Around 60% of 3.66 trillion dollars of Chinese reserves are in dollars.

The bonds of the USA were long claimed to be the safest holding in the world. However, in light of constant threats to default, in recent years, at the very least, the reasons for that conclusion have to be changed. One cannot argue with a straight face, that a default of the USA is unimaginable. The threat of default of the USA keeps on re-surfacing ever more urgently. It has obviously become a chronic disease.

Certainly, one cannot argue that it’s a big surprise. One has, instead, to explain why a default of the USA does not matter. The People Republic of China has to explain why, knowing full well that the USA loves to threaten default, it nevertheless kept on pouring up to 1.3 trillion dollars in US bonds.

The naïve reason usually given is that China has to put its money somewhere. However, the more Machiavellian reason is that the plutocrats in Beijing want to please their masters in Washington. And the more they help their masters, the more the masters will be pleased, and co-dependent. Or so the silly Chinese leaders hope.

As I have explained in the case of the Chinese and Spanish empires, there is a co-dependency. Right now it is between Washington/Wall Street and the global plutocracy (including the one in China).

Thus investing in the bonds of the USA is, for China, and not just for China, as if paying for protection money from the Mafia. The plutocratic Mafia.

Consciously or not, the leaders in Washington are playing this BOND RACKET. Like a global violin. That will work, as long as global plutocracy calls the tune.

Before a bit more on this, let me roll out the Chinese government’s melodious hypocrisy (with my comments between brackets):

“Commentary: U.S. fiscal failure warrants a de-Americanized world

BEIJING, Oct. 13 (Xinhua)…it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.

Emerging from the bloodshed of the Second World War as the world’s most powerful nation, the United States has since then been trying to build a global empire by imposing a postwar world order, fueling recovery in Europe, and encouraging regime-change in nations that it deems hardly Washington-friendly. [“Washington” is one thing, plutocracy a much more general one.]

With its seemingly unrivaled economic and military might, the United States has declared that it has vital national interests to protect in nearly every corner of the globe, and been habituated to meddling in the business of other countries and regions far away from its shores.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has gone to all lengths to appear before the world as the one that claims the moral high ground, yet covertly doing things that are as audacious as torturing prisoners of war, slaying civilians in drone attacks, and spying on world leaders. [If it were covert, it would not be as bad; the worse was trying to officialize torture and assassination without judicial process. Obama seems to start to understand this belatedly, though!]

Under what is known as the Pax-Americana, we fail to see a world where the United States is helping to defuse violence and conflicts, reduce poor and displaced population, and bring about real, lasting peace. [That’s a lie: the USA has done a lot for refugees, for example in Syria. China has done nothing.]

Moreover, instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas, instigating regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies.

As a result, the world is still crawling its way out of an economic disaster thanks to the voracious Wall Street elites, while bombings and killings have become virtually daily routines in Iraq years after Washington claimed it has liberated its people from tyrannical rule.

Most recently, the cyclical stagnation in Washington for a viable bipartisan solution over a federal budget and an approval for raising debt ceiling has again left many nations’ tremendous dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community highly agonized. [Strange English; poor PRC with its “tremendous $ assets”.]

Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing.

To that end, several corner stones should be laid to underpin a de-Americanized world.

For starters, all nations need to hew to the basic principles of the international law, including respect for sovereignty, and keeping hands off domestic affairs of others.

Furthermore, the authority of the United Nations in handling global hotspot issues has to be recognized. That means no one has the right to wage any form of military action against others without a UN mandate. [Agreed, yet not every regime is acceptable: Chap VII of the UN.]

Apart from that, the world’s financial system also has to embrace some substantial reforms.

The developing and emerging market economies need to have more say in major international financial institutions including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, so that they could better reflect the transformations of the global economic and political landscape.

What may also be included as a key part of an effective reform is the introduction of a new international reserve currency that is to be created to replace the dominant U.S. dollar, so that the international community could permanently stay away from the spillover of the intensifying domestic political turmoil in the United States.

Of course, the purpose of promoting these changes is not to completely toss the United States aside, which is also impossible. Rather, it is to encourage Washington to play a much more constructive role in addressing global affairs.

And among all options, it is suggested that the beltway politicians first begin with ending the pernicious impasse.”

Lots of true statements, yet colossal hypocrisy. Let’s not talk about Tibet, or Xi Quiang. Or even of the plutocrats in power in China. Xi owns about half a billion dollars, the preceding Prime Minister, 2 billions, and the just condemned Bo Xilai had impressive properties all over Europe and a child at Harvard, driving a Ferrari. 

Let’s just talk coal: the People’s Republic of China is the world’s largest consumer of coal, using more coal each year than the United States, the European Union, and Japan combined. More than half of the coal burned in the world is burned in China. Half of China’s power generation capacity to be built between 2012 and 2020 will be coal-fired.

The end result is a guaranteed disaster, rising seas, and that means war.

And who can make war better than the USA?

This explains why the bonds of the USA will always be desired, default or no default. One always want to be bonded to the strong, even if it means bonded by the strong.

***

Patrice Ayme

Chemical War Prohibited, 1925

August 28, 2013

This is the integral text of the Protocol forbidding chemical and biological warfare. It was respected by all parties in World War Two:

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

Signed at Geneva: 17 June 1925. Entered into force: for each signatory as from the date of deposit of its ratification; accessions take effect on the date of the notification by the depositary Government. Depositary Government: France.

The Undersigned Plenipotentiaries, in the name of their respective Governments:

Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world;

and Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; and To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;

Declare: That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.

The High Contracting Parties will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the present Protocol. Such accession will be notified to the Government of the French Republic, and by the latter to all signatory and acceding Powers, and will take effect on the date of the notification by the Government of the French Republic.

The present Protocol, of which the English and French texts are both authentic, shall be ratified as soon as possible. It shall bear to-day’s date.

The ratifications of the present Protocol shall be addressed to the Government of the French Republic, which will at once notify the deposit of such ratification to each of the signatory and acceding Powers.

The instruments of ratification of and accession to the present Protocol will remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republic.

***

To become party to the Protocol, states must deposit an instrument with the government of France (the depositary power). Thirty-eight states originally signed the Protocol. France, the first victim of a massive chemical attack, in 1915, was the first signatory to ratify the Protocol on 10 May 1926. As of May 2013, 138 states have ratified, acceded to, or succeeded to the Protocol (most recently Moldova on 4 November 2010).

The rest of the miscreants are bound by International Law, whether they like it, or not.

***

Even the Nazis respected the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The Nazis had thousands of tons of neurotoxic gas in 1945, and the means to deliver them: V2 rockets, and three types of jet bombers (democratic aircraft did not fly fast enough to catch them!)

The Nazis had also every reason to be resentful: goaded into the war by their erstwhile allies (see the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement), exasperated by American plutocracy bait and switch tactics, seeing their world collapse as the evidence of their cold assassination of more than twenty million civilians was all over their realm, one would have expected for all senior Nazis to emulate Magda Goebbels, who personally poisoned her six children.  

Instead, cooler heads prevailed.

Cooler heads have to be encouraged.  

***

In 1966 United Nations General Assembly resolution 2162B called for, without any dissent, all states to strictly observe the protocol. In 1969 United Nations General Assembly resolution 2603 (XXIV), to overrule the USA (then using Agent Orange in Vietnam!) declared that the prohibition on use of chemical and biological weapons, now forms part of customary international law.

***

Hollande, French president (27 August 2013): “Le mas­sacre chimique de Damas ne peut rester sans réponse, et la France est prête à PUNIR ceux qui ont pris la décision infâme de gazer des innocents ” (“Damascus chemical massacre can’t stay unanswered, & France is ready to PUNISH those who took the infamous decision of gazing innocent people”)

***

So, let’s get personal, and indeed punish directly, individually, those who live in infamy!

Another reminder: very few high officers were responsible of imperial Japan’s fascist, war crime laden rampage that led to the vicious idiocy of Pearl Harbor, among other follies. (There had been an attempted anti-plutocratic coup by junior officers, February 26, 1936, against the higher-ups; many were killed, but the coup failed.)

Taking out a dozen of these fanatical high officers would have done wonders (and not enough of them were hanged after the war!)

Only one caveat in this Syrian story: the responsibility of Assad’s government ought to be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

That NO chemical of fanatical Salafist rebels origin have been released has to be made certain; this is when the good old methods of the NSA and other spies, come into play; the information ought to be made public.

Another point: if Hitler had been executed, say in 1944, a fortiori 1939, there is no doubt that the total number of people saved may have been a huge proportion of those who died..

Thus, one has to strike the head of the snake. If one can show that orders to use chemicals were given by Assad, he should be considered, him, as a person, the number one target of any strike on Syria. Because he would be, by far, the most responsible. Do to him what should have been done to Hitler in a timely manner. That ought to encourage those of the same ilk.

Some worry that Syria would be lost without Mr. Assad and his spendthrift wife. Not to worry: I am sure plenty of unsullied secular high officers can be found in the Syrian army to replace him.

***

Patrice Ayme