Archive for the ‘Oligarchy’ Category

Blair Bliar & The Islamist Hatred He Brought

July 6, 2016

The Commission studying the war crimes of Prime Minister Blair came up with scathing conclusions. Blair is culprit as charged by anybody who has studied the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even Donald Trump thunderously charged, speaking of Bush and his ilk: “they lied”.

The lie was that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a secular regime, had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Of course it did not. Blair claimed that he was sincere, July 6, 2016. Either he is lying again, or he admits that he was then, truly, a complete imbecile. There is only one weapon of mass destruction: the nuclear bomb. It was impossible for Iraq to develop one, because Iraq had no nuclear reactor (so no Plutonium), nor a (extremely visible, as they were then immense) isotopic separation factories (so Iraq had no Uranium 235, the one and only other nuclear explosive). In truth, Blair was an architect of evil. Being an architect of evil, and how to sell that to We The People, is a skill plutocrats are ready to pay top dollar for. Thus Blair became immensely rich, following the Bill Clinton model:

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Normal British and American people are ill-informed: their governments lied to their face, Hitler style, and they goose-stepped behind them.

The British Chilcot commission, recognized that, as a result, at least 150,000 Iraqi civilians died. 179 UK soldiers died, and more than 4,400 American soldiers (in truth much more than that, and several times that number were maimed, often inside their brains, from the accelerations of exploding IEDs).

Blair In A Few Words

Blair In A Few Words

Worse: the invasion of Iraq, this blunt, delirious, obscene, groundless attack against a secular Arab country showed to all Arabs, and now the whole world, that Islam was right all along. Thus the Islamist State mentality was born. Even worse: to the whole world, it was made obvious that the only way to oppose the West’s plutocratic drift, is on religious grounds (this already happened in the Seventh Century). And the anti-West religion par excellence is Islam (Islam was designed that way, explicitly, by Muhammad; Muhammad insisted that Islam was the way to defeat the Greco-Roman civilization and the Persian one, a Greco-Babylonian derivative). 

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

As The Guardian puts it: “Asked whether invading Iraq was a mistake Blair was strikingly unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared. He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.”

Blair’s two-hour press conference came after Chilcot, a retired civil servant, published his long-awaited report, seven years in the making, into the Iraq debacle. In the end, “it was a more far-reaching and damning document than many had expected. It eviscerated Blair’s style of government and decision-making.“

It also revealed that in a private note sent on 28 July 2002 Blair promised Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” Is it just the love between two men, or the love of greed, and power, overwhelming all?

Thus now Islam, and its social equality message, poses as the great answer to the ravages of plutocracy. That is why Islam is gaining, even in Brazil.

How to stop all this? Well, first things first: the war criminals, those who conducted a war of aggression thanks to huge lies, should be indicted for war crimes.

At Nuremberg, Joachim Von Ribbentrop was condemned to hang (slowly, it turned out), for “war of aggression”. By this was meant the attack on Poland. France (and its British poodle, safely removed on its island) declared war to Germany three days later.  

So France was not viewed as the aggressor, although the Nazis accused France to have started World War Two. Why? One needs judgment: the aggressor were the Nazis, not the French Republic. And this is exactly what is needed now: judgment. Judge Blair and Bush. And their criminally behaved poodles. At least, if you want to avoid We The People to turn to Islam to stop what has become a criminal way of managing government, and getting away with it. For all to see.

Sex is strong. Hatred is stronger. Pushed to its limit, hatred makes killing the enemy what gives sense to the world. Hatred makes oneself divine (or very close to it). As the Qur’an explicitly says. This is the new world of mood Bush and Blair mightily fostered (part of a US tradition of using Islam as it always had been meant to be used, ever since the Fourth Caliph (Uthman): as an instrument of subjugation) . All those who don’t want to punish Bush and Blair for fostering mayhem, Islamization and subjugation,  contribute to it.

Patrice Ayme’

European Ultimatum to Sabotaging Britain

June 24, 2016

The European Union wants Britain out, ASAP. No panic, bear, grin, and carry on. Seventeen million losers and conspirators voted one way, to Trump’s and other racists’ applause. A vote organized by hallucinating losers for other hallucinating losers, has turned as expected. It was organized by Europhobes, supposedly against Europhobia and against other, greater Europhobes, while served red-hot by counterfactual hatred organized by tax evading plutocrats who own all of British media. Thirty years of big lies bore fruit.

Let’s be clear,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “a blow has been struck against European unification“. The European group of all right-wing parties in the European Parliament condemned the British vote.

Great Britain has been sabotaging the “ever closer European Union”, for 43 years. Good riddance. Good riddance? Not so fast said Boris Johnson, the greedy future British PM:”Nothing will change in the short-term,” Boris hammered away. The well-fed Boris came out of his mansion, and was very loudly booed by a throng of Europhiles, while an impressive police curtain protected him.

Meanwhile, as I expected, Cameron delayed his resignation into Fall.

A saboteur sabotages better from inside. A real saboteur, complaining it really hates it there, will want to stay in the bowels of the ship, to keep on sabotaging.

As long as Great Britain stays in, it can sabotage the EU. Out, it may have to beg, and end up like Norway, paying twice as much per capita to the EU government, as Great Britain presently pays. Without Norway having any right to debate the measures taken. I believe that Boris Johnson will strive towards another referendum (just ask the Irish about how that is done). 

Oopss. Brexit: Britain Cut In Two. Beware Of Unintended & Intended Consequences

Oopss. Brexit: Britain Cut In Two. Beware Of Unintended & Intended Consequences

Meanwhile Trump landed from a Trump helicopter in Scotland, and declared himself delighted by Brexit, in a way sure to irritate there (Scotland voted 62% to remain in the European Union).

The European Union’s top leaders declared that they want the United Kingdom to leave the union as soon as possible, however painful that process may be”. Moreover there will beno renegotiation.

The presidents of the European council, commission and parliament – Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz respectively – and Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, said any further delay to Britain’s exit would “unnecessarily prolong uncertainty”.

After talks in Brussels, the four said they regretted, but respected, Britain’s decision.

This is an unprecedented situation, but we are united in our response,” the European leaders said in a joint statement.

While the UK will remain a member until exit negotiations were concluded, the European leaders expect it to “give effect to this decision … as soon as possible” by triggering article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which is effectively Britain’s formal letter of resignation (and starts a 24 months count-down).

Everything indicates that the United Kingdom will wait until November to activate Article 50 (the divorce with the EU). Nothing has been decided. Some parts of Great Britain voted 70% to 30% to LEAVE the European Union. Other parts of Great Britain voted 70% to 30% to REMAIN in the European Union.

Moreover, two-third of British Members of Parliament are for staying in the EU.

Verdict? New elections in Great Britain could be coming. However, it was mostly Labor voters voting with UKIP who caused the loss of “Remain”. That will cause the Tories pause.

In the 2000s Ireland, France and the Netherlands voted against the European Union.

What happened?

They voted again. Until Europe got the right answer.

An example is ongoing with Switzerland. In a referendum in 2014, Switzerland voted to reject the “free circulation of European citizens” which Switzerland had signed on, in exchange for 666 “bilaterals” (the treaties with Europe; OK, maybe not exactly 666 of them, but something like that). Bioth Norway and Switzerland belong to Schengen. Great Britain does not. Britain was always half out of the door, sabotaging, thanks in great part to its membership of the European MONETARY Union (EMU). Yes, unbelievably, Europhobic, British Pound clutching Britain, is a member of the EMU. Today.

The European Union started to take retorsion measures against Switzerland the next day (with cancellation of Erasmus effective immediately) and then gave an ultimatum expiring in 2017. Meanwhile the Swiss government did not apply the referendum. Guess what? A new “free circulation” referendum is coming, to abrogate the preceding one. At this point all and any political party in Switzerland will do anything to appease the European Union and turn around the February 9, 2014, referendum. It seems to me likely that this what Boris Johnson will try to do. But he will have a lot of hatred and delusion in the way.

The European leaders declared that the special settlement negotiated by David Cameron earlier this year was void and cannot be renegotiated. Various European leaders talked about the “EU 27”. Cameron will go to an emergency summit in Brussels on Tuesday, one day after France, Italy and Germany meet in Berlin. Merkel and Hollande talked right away.

The xenophobic, Islamophobic, hypernationalistic, Europhobic racist parties all over Europe are rejoicing, and clamoring for referenda. They want power, at the cost of disunion, war, economic or whatnot. Like Boris Johnson, they will do whatever it takes to “lead” us all to oblivion. At least self-described “liberal” American Europhobes (Krugman, etc.) can bathe in self-serving delight. So how come they claim not to love Trump? Don’t ask them, they will get angry. They want to have it all ways. Nothing makes people more angry than forcing their faces in their own contradictions (as Socrates already noticed, and exploited… Until they made him drink poison).

Patrice Ayme’  

Obama Closes Yosemite

June 20, 2016

OK, only part thereof. Something Europeans miss totally about the USA, is that it is an empire, a military empire, and obeying orders from above is view as the essence of morality. Yes, the Roman army worked exactly like that, for many centuries… Until it did not. This is what gives to the Trump phenomenon an interesting, not to say disquieting, perspective: as Americans view respecting orders from above the essence of morality (as the Prussian pseudo-philosopher Immanuel Kant ordered) one may wonder what will happen with President Donald Trump? Will Americans goose step behind him as they did with G. W. Bush? 

So President Obama shows up in Yosemite, and a gigantic expanse of cliffs is “closed”, a kilometer high, several kilometers across. What fascinated me was the obedient tune many climbers sounded in a climbing site I read. It was as if God had ordered them to do something, and they felt honored. In a place like France, the order would have been so unenforceable, it would not even have been tried. Many individuals would have made a MORAL point of disobeying it.  

This Entire Landscape Is The Area Which Was Closed To Climbing When Obama Visited For Three Days

This Entire Landscape Is The Area Which Was Closed To Climbing When Obama Visited For Three Days

To give the scale, of this piece of the North Rim of Yosemite Valley, the exposed landscape in the picture  is more than 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) high. I have climbed and run all over it, from left to right, and above, and beyond. Differently from Socrates, who engaged in combat during epic battles, I am reduced to meeker pursuits, to get to examine myself.

What is good about being an obedient little fascist, is that one never has to examine oneself: following Immanuel Kant, one can define one’s morality as following orders. And this is exactly what the Nazis dis, and explained to whoever wanted to listen to them. (The jury of Eichmann in Jerusalem was not impressed by Eichmann explaining he had been moral by obeying Kant, and condemned him to hang. The Israelis had learned a few important things in WW II!)

Now this sort of orders given to an American population eager to please its masters, is not an happenstance: it’s training graciously provided by the Deep State, another occasion for Americans, in this case rather young Americans (most climbers don’t make old bones) to obey orders. I sent the following comment, fully expecting racist, tribal, hypernationalistic abuse of the sort which passes for normal in the Anglo-Saxon world this days, regarding France (and I was not disappointed). Yes, philosophy rests on experiments, just like science:  

I love the way Americans take orders, thus showing they are not worthy to lead the world, civilizationally speaking, as they effectively do. This sort of self-humiliation would NEVER work in France. Instead little American sheep take unconstitutional orders with alacrity, pride and total obedience. They should be ashamed of themselves, instead, and the rest of the world should be afraid. Very afraid. Indeed, who is this Obama? An employee of We The People! Wake up, People, instead of just goose stepping proudly in the sunset of the dignity of the human spirit. The meaning and appeal of real climbing is freedom. Taking orders, the exact opposite.

I know perfectly well that the essence of the USA is the military thing: the Indians did not go away nicely. They resisted. The army exterminated them. General Jackson, commander of the US Army decided to attack them, and Congress was too scared to contradict him. Hence the Cherokee “March of Tears”. The famous Tocqueville saw it, in front of his very eyes, but, as this was outside of his philosophical understanding, did not draw any conclusion on the American character, from that experience (I obviously do). Maybe one of the reason Tocqueville is so popular in the United States is, precisely, that he did not draw any conclusion of the holocaust of the Native American over a full quarter of the US, precisely when he visited them. That makes Tocqueville an All-American boy: very smart on what’s less significant, mute on what is most significant.

Here is the order: “climbing areas will be closed over the weekend. Please see below for area closures for Thursday evening (6/16, tonight) through Sunday afternoon (6/19). There will also be other areas closed Friday evening through Saturday evening. We will keep you updated on the official word for the Friday/Saturday closures.

“All climbing routes from and including Church Bowl east to Washington Column (Washington Column itself remains open) will be closed from Thursday sunset through Sunday afternoon. This includes Bishops Terrace, Royal Arches, Serenity Crack, Son’s of Yesterday.”

Thank you for your cooperation in these temporary closures.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/climbingclosures.htm

The reactions I got were the usual abuse, insults and lies (deeply believed to be the truth): France was accused to be a Nazi bastion of cheese eating surrender monkeys. Always amusing from the country which, besides Germany, did the most for Adolf Hitler. OK, I plead guilty for provocation, but what is science, but for teasing out, provoking through experiments the true nature of things, be they human or mineral.

I also understand that Obama has little choice in these matters, or so he feels: the instinct of obedience, called also “peer pressure”, is strong in the empire. And Obama was selected, because he felt it, deep in his bones, to help him “navigate”, as he put it. Thus, when Obama became president, he obeyed. Obama obeyed the powers that be. The empire was safe with him. Thus, some are disappointed by Obama, worldwide, but he is loved in the US: “change you can believe in” was very very small. And next year, the meek progress Obamacare ephemerally proposed will blow-up (it’s already doing so). As the “health corridors” expire with the Obama presidency. But don’t worry: President Trump and his art of the deal, will have to pick up the pieces, and dozens of young Americans are ready to goose-step behind him, lauding all and any “closures” that the government may decide to order.

Patrice Ayme’

Global Trade Outlaws Rule

March 9, 2016

FREE TRADE IS NEITHER FREE, NOR A TRADE

Sanders’ surprise victory in Michigan, a big industrial state, is attributed to his attacks against so-called “free” trade (Clinton has never seen a “free” trade treaty she did not love). Ditto for Donald Trump’s victory in the same state (Trump has proposed a 45% tax on Chinese imports). Polls show angry white males and the young (for Sanders) are voting against the system which brought to them the globalization of pauperization. Rightly so.

Let me provide more needed theory:

As it is, globalization means plutocratization.

First, globalization without redistribution implies plutocratization. (As Paul Krugman asserts.)

Second, globalization of trade without globalization of law amounts to trade without law. Thus, organizations, corporations and plutocrats presently engaged in global trade are, technically, out-laws.

Third the immense fortunes gathered by the trade outlaws have enabled them, in turn to pay well their servants in politics and national administration to further the very out-lawfulness which has made them prospered.

Fourth, under the Clintons in the 1990s, the Banking Act of 1933 was replaced by financial deregulation, which spread worldwide, making financiers masters of world trade.

Real Family Income Is Going Down. Real = Including CPI. If One Included Real Costs Beyond The CPI, The Real Income Would Collapse Even More. If I had Put On This Graph GDP or Trade, Both Of These Curves Would Be Shooting Up

Real Family Income Is Going Down. Real = Including CPI. If One Included Real Costs Beyond The CPI, The Real Income Would Collapse Even More. If I had Put On This Graph GDP or Trade, Both Of These Curves Would Be Shooting Up

One of my commenters and friends told me that it is president Carter, a democrat, who had started the degeneracy we presently enjoy. I was surprised, and initially denied. However, I looked and various graphs, and, to my dismay, he turned out to be right. As I learn more about what happened, I will integrate it in my discourse (Carter, of course, attacked, secretly, Afghanistan on July 3, 1979, so he was not highly considered here; but now he is heading evwen lower!)

In other words, we are engaged in a nonlinear process: the global trade outlaws are getting ever more powerful, and, the more powerful they get, the more they advance their plots and breathing together (con-spirare, conspiracies),

Meanwhile, We The People, are getting ever more destitute (the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, does not include LIFE ESSENTIALS such as education, health care, retirement).

Let me give you an example of the degeneracy of US society: I had an insurance agent for two decades, who worked at one of the most prestigious insurance companies in the USA. Last Spring he got sick. Although a well paid professional, he did not get health care in a timely manner. So he died of pneumonia. He was in his forties (basically the age when one gets sick the less). I know dozens of similar stories. Meanwhile, US healthcare is 50% more expensive, per head, than health care in the most performing healthcare systems in the world.

What does that have to do with the globalization of trade? Massive globalization led to massive plutocratization, and that, in turn, led to US politicians and civil servants doing exactly what plutocrats and their corporations wanted them to do (so that politicians and civil servant would make their future income up, as the good agents of plutocracy whom they are).

 Then the one who led us for 40 years, the one who makes more than 200,000 dollars in an hour, giving secret talks to financiers, claims to represent We The People. We The People are earning 10,000 times less (2,000 x 4.5) than she does, per hour. How can she represent, or even understand, us? Is that realistic? No wonder some of us want to protect themselves.

Paul Krugman, the architect, under president Ronald Reagan of “free” trade, presents as self obvious that Sanders’ program is “unrealistic”. Says Krugman: “The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties — Trump is trying to become America’s Mussolini, Sanders at worst America’s Michael Foot — Trump has been tilling some of the same ground. So here’s the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political traction?”

Well, I tell you why, Paul: We The People are getting tired of ‘the conscience of a liberal” who got to work engineering Ronald Reagan’s sinister plot to claim that giving to the rich was the best way to give to the poor. Krugie boy is on his best defending his position at the altar of “power”:

Paul Krugman: “The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he’s never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn’t and can’t.” 

That’s obviously a ridiculous thing to say: the USA has basically to get accord from just one power, the French Republic, which is all for putting the brakes on soul-less globalization (always has been, for about a century, whether governments are from the so-called right, or left). Then, automatically Germany, Italy and Spain (with, or without a government), will follow. Tax cheats such as Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands are going to increasingly feel the whip, and better shut up. (A few days ago, France told Britain that she would open the refugee gates, if Britain left the EU. So Britain is going to have to face unexpected costs, in all ways.)

The World  Trade Organization, prodded by France, already announced that a carbon tax, imposed worldwide, was NOT in violation of WTO rules. So one can start with that, on day one. See what it does for the price of Chinese steel and Chinese solar panels.

In all justice to Krugman, he finishes this way: …”the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don’t know exactly what form it’s taking.

Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.”

It is a huge “if”. I would be astounded if Clinton made it to the presidency.

After decades of increasingly corrupt, venal, lying politicians whose idea of policy is to do what the world’s richest corporations and their plutocrats want them to do, what could be worse?

Having someone reigning again who got paid a fortune repeatedly for plotting in secret talks with financiers what would be the next move to enrich that elite? Under Bill Clinton, the Banking Act of 1933 was destroyed, bringing the reign of unrestrained finance. Moreover global trade treaties got signed, which allow corporations and their corporations to escape taxation and legislation. How electing Trump or Sanders could make it worse?

When Clinton was asked why she accepted so much money from Goldman Sachs, for so little “work”she replied: “I guess that’s their rate!” She refused to release any transcript to the flood of talks she gave to financial conspirators and outlaws. And you know what? Thanks to the stubborn work of individuals such as yours truly, this sort of rotten mentality is now exposed, and nobody wants to be led by it anymore. Not even the people supporting Ted Cruz.

Paul Krugman’s dream of another cabinet job, 35 years after the one he enjoyed with his boss, Reagan, is fading away…

Patrice Ayme’

Is Oligarchy Intrinsically Evil?

January 28, 2016

Yes and no. Unjustifiable Oligarchy Is Intrinsically Evil. Unfortunately, be it in China, Russia, the USA, the EU, and nearly all states, this is what we are enjoying now. Here is a little recapitulation of why it’s deeply inhuman, and unfathomably stupid. Considering the mental crisis out there, it’s something to fix as a priority.

Oligarchy is the rule of the few (oligo in Greek). The fundamental problems of the concept of oligarchy are two:

First, the rule of the few is fundamentally anti-humanistic. Human beings evolved in smallish groups. Various experiments have shown people cannot know more than around 150 people. Beyond that human neurology cannot handle it.

Second, in these small human groups, brains were made to be used in parallel: everybody think, their thinking is considered more or less equally, and the best ideas blossom out of debates. One can see this, if one thinks carefully. Moreover, an experimental proof has recently surfaced. It has been discovered, last year, that the most important decision making in baboon societies, where to go, is made DEMOCRATICALLY.

The Problem Was Not Just With Hitler. All Present Regimes Have It, More Or Less. One People, One Kingdom, One Guide. However One Brain For Tens of Millions Proves, Unsurprisingly, Brainless

The Problem Was Not Just With Hitler. All Present Regimes Have It, More Or Less. One People, One Kingdom, One Guide. However One Brain For Tens of Millions Proves, Unsurprisingly, Brainless

Let me give a few details on research recently published. It was made possible by fitting all the 25 adults of a baboon troop with GPS receptors endowed with a precision of 30 centimeters (a “foot”), recorded every second. It is well known that alpha males often dominate the rest of the troop for acquiring food or mates (they are also prominent for defending the troop) . However, and that is stunning, the alpha males do not  monopolize the decision-making for the all-important function of determining where to go!

A new distinction has appeared in baboon society: the “INITIATORS”. Just as there are alpha males (and alpha females, often mothers of alpha males), there are baboons who specialize in showing the way.

Notice the difference with today’s human society where the alpha males (those Obama, and not just Obama, calls the “leaders”), and the “initiators” are the same who lead the way to implementing new ideas.

In all of the world’s countries, politicians dominate. Even in the USA. The USA has the world’s largest government in money spent, as it spends more, than the entire GDP of Russia. It is actually about as large as Germany’s GDP. In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up about 21 percent of the U.S. economy. Much of them are distributed at the discretion of a handful of politicians, who, in turn decide who to finance (Elon Musk’s Space X, Tesla, and Sun City being examples of firms partly financed by the state) or who not to prosecute (the various technology monopolies being another example; in another times, under other governments, they would have been broken up).

Another way to think about it is that one fifth of the U.S. economy is directly controlled by the a few politicians. (Or maybe just one, the president!) That’s about 65 million people whose livelihood depends only upon the government of the USA, at the whim of just… one man.

Instead of going into detailed examples, as I often do, squeezed between bronchitis, antibiotics and a lack of time, I will just evoke fateful choices presidents of the USA made recently. To wit: deregulating finance (Clinton), invading Iraq, without, moreover, imposing order there (Bush), letting the derivative madness and banks run amok (Clinton-Bush), a liberal killer drones policy (early Obama), dropping fuel cell research (Obama), privatizing space (Obama), cutting down taxes on the hyper rich (Bush-first term Obama) etc. Obama did just one notable positive (besides following France on Libya): breaking the incredibly disgusting practice of American health insurance companies to insurance only healthy people… (OK, that was a tiny, but decisive step.)

Instead I will wax philosophical, going back to Socrates. The executed philosopher spent a lot of his philosophical time whining that Athenian Direct Democracy could not work. Socrates’ arguments were correct: if you want a good general, you should not elect him because somebody who talked well wanted to be a general.

The Roman Empire, followed by the European Middle Ages, and especially France, the successor state of Rome, found a solution. What I call “Democratic Institutions”. Those are meritocracies of expertise, organized as oligarchies. Guilds were examples in the Middle Ages. Medical Associations, for centuries, have decided who was a medical doctor in good standing, and who was not. Similarly for masons (free or not), architects, barbers, etc.

Philippe Le Bel arrested all the Templar at daybreak on Friday, 13 October 1307. It was a beautiful, and the first, example of a national police in action. The police of a state is another democratic institution.

Direct Democracy has to work hand in hand with Democratic Institutions. One cannot just decide what is the truth, just because it happens to be popular. Otherwise Kim Kardashian’s buns would be the only truth to be had.

But one has to keep in mind that Oligarchy is intrinsically anti-human. Not just anti-humanistic. It is deeply averse not just to our species, not just to our genus, but even to the order of primates.

And why is that? Because intelligence has been the evolutive strategy which has propelled the humanoids to supremacy over the biosphere, and now made us strong enough to be the main factor influencing it. Intelligence is higher, the higher, better, more subtle, richer, more powerful the ideas it produces are. Such ideas are born from the minds of the many, because they need debates, the equivalent of sex for ideas, to advance towards greater understanding.

Direct Democracy enables initiators all over, initiators of ideas, it’s the best enabler higher civilization ever had. And believing that oligarchy is better, the greatest enemy civilization has: not only it ends up promoting plutocracy, but, first of all, and worst of all, stupidity itself.

Notice this, though: most of the world society and economy is organized along oligarchic lines (although they are often hidden in suitably dark pools). It’s time to turn politics on its head.

Patrice Ayme’

Our Impotent Self Glorifying “Leaders”

June 20, 2015

I was watching Barack Obama in San Francisco, explaining that shootings of civilians by civilians, racist or not (“this sort of incidents”), does not happen with the same frequency in any other countries.  Obama talked angrily. He was at the sea cliff mansion of a billionaire, the Pacific on one side, the Golden Gate bridge on the other. But his anger was not just directed at the gun lobby. Reading his face, one could tell he had strong doubts about the BS splashing so vigorously out of his oral cavity.

Who Am I? What Do I Think? What Happened? Something Is Going On, But You Don’t Know What It Is, Mister President

Who Am I? What Do I Think? What Happened? Something Is Going On, But You Don’t Know What It Is, Mister President

Had Obama just doubts that what he was saying could bring any progress? Obviously Obama knew that we know that, whatever he says, makes no difference. A sad state of affairs. Mr. Skin Color President is taken seriously by nobody. But he still gets to use the big jet, so what’s the big deal? Since when did he care about anything else?

As Obama was denouncing the frequency of shootings in the USA, one was happening in Oakland (three wounded). Obama declared that it was “not enough to grieve”.  Indeed. But it has become so American, to just grieve. More and more, the rabble is into incantations, and little else besides. And the reason is in plain sight.

It was Obama’s 20th trip to San Francisco. To listen to him, one had to pay $33,400. Then one could get access to one of the various mansions of some of the wealthiest people on Earth Obama visited that day.

$33,400: more than half the median family income.

$33,400: does Obama feel the violence? It’s not Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, but Liberty-Inequality-Obscenity.

Does Obama feels he has power, because plutocrats and their little children give $33,400 to see his face? They would give the same money to whomever is president next. Its pocket change to them, and Obama is just the bus boy serving them, because somebody has got to do it. Obama was not born in Kenya, but his spirits sure died under a regime similar to the one colonial Kenya enjoyed.

Obama says the mood of the country has to change about guns. But 90% of the USA want tighter regulations about guns, 69% want to crack down on CO2. So why it’s not happening? Because the people who can afford $33,400 to see Obama in person are all who matter. And those people have very different priorities: they make money from fossil fuels, they need private armies to defend themselves, inequality is what feeds them, and the more, the better, they are happy that We The People Is NOT in power. And the first line of this, is that We The People’s opinion does not matter.

Is it why Obama looked so nervous and culprit? Maybe he stumbled on the truth? Did he finally realize he became… nothing? Nothing important?

The truth is that, during his entire presidency, Obama did nothing positive (besides killing Osama Bin Laden), and a few very negative things (letting banksters and the CIA get away with murder).

Why was Obama so ineffectual? Because he did not take one tough decision, and imposed it. Obama is not feared by anyone. And without fear, the Prince cannot rule, as Machiavel, having studied pope Rodrigo Borgia and ex-cardinal Caesare Borgia from very close, pointed out.

We are not living in democracy. Athens had a democracy, we don’t. Democracy means direct democracy, where the Demos has the Power (Kratos).

Instead what we have is a political system where immense powers go to a few individuals, and only to them. That way the system headed by Putin, Xi, or Obama are no different. The rest of the population, the 99.9%, is left without power whatsoever. (Seriously: studies have shown that what people want they don’t get. More than two-third of the citizens of the USA want something done about the CO2 crisis. Yet, federally, nothing is done.)

That’s why the population cling so avidly to their guns. At least they have the power of holding onto a self-destructive device which can turn them into god for a few seconds.

Obama did not understand any of this. Or he did not understand what it meant. He seemed to have really believe he was in a sort of democracy among his peers, and he could debate things, get to a consensus, and advance things this way.

Not so. When President Eisenhower imposed desegregation in public schools, he used the military. It was dangerous, and dangerous for Ike. But Ike was a soldier. He ordered to proceed with D Day during a lull in a major storm. Ike was tough.

When Lyndon Johnson imposed the “Great Society” reforms, he forced lawmakers to sign on, by using all sorts of unsavory means, thanks to presidential powers.

And President Roosevelt said: “I welcome their hatred” speaking of bankers. And hated he was: after all, he had started his presidency by closing all banks for four days (selected few were re-opened later). Then he outlawed gold possession, devalued the dollar (thus defaulting on US debt). And so on.

Obama thought he could keep on leading a charmed life, seducing everybody, and be a good president. But being a good president mean, leading people where they did not want to go. All the preceding presidents took hard decisions, even Nixon and Carter (Nixon founded the EPA, HMOs, pulled out of Vietnam, admitting defeat, etc.; Carter, at the very least named the hawkish Paul Volcker at the head of the Fed, to crush inflation, bring a recession, and cost Carter’s re-election).

The present political system is nasty. To get any positive result, any positive progress, one has to be nasty. Nastiness has to be carefully measured.

As I sketched in the case of Napoleon, Napoleon was way nastier than he needed to be, in the end, although he got there from the invasion of France by nasty plutocrats, and, first of all the British army and navy. That invasion lasted years. For years, Napoleon’s homeland, Corsica, was officially a possession of the English crown, because the king of England said so. That would infuriate any Corsican, republican patriot.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, Angela Merkel, and her French poodles, having saved the bankers from their profitable perfidy, wants the Greek rabble to pay with dear lives. Seeing her business meanness and military impotence, inspired by Obama’s lack of balls, Putin has moved, and keeps on moving. Not afraid, as Xi in China, to take dangerous decisions.

Something Is Going On, But You Don’t Know What It Is, oh great leaders of the West.

Rome had started as quasi-Direct Democracy Republic (not as direct as Athens, much more direct than we have now). Six centuries later, this was not even a memory: Rome had become an unsavory mix of military dictatorship, plutocracy and theocracy. The ancient Republican structures, such as Roman law, were crushed underneath. Political power had lost sustainable legitimacy.

In 381 CE, emperor Theodosius (initially a Spanish Roman general) passed a number of laws which launched a “war against the philosophers”. The lack of thinking bore fruit quickly: the empire became so impotent that, by 400 CE, the Franks were put in military control of Gallia, and the Germanias. In 406 CE, the legions were withdrawn from Britannia.

This was the bitter and of the (Roman) plutocratic austerity program. And its motivation was the same as now: the plutocrats did not want to pay taxes. By then, most plutocratic families, or “nobles” as they called themselves, had a bishop in their family, giving them moral authority (this was the age of the “Founding Fathers of the Church”; Saint Jerome even made emperor Theodosius bent to his will).

If one wants moral authority, or just the ear, and presence of power, it’s simple nowadays: no need to pretend that one loves god. Just fork over $33,400, and the president is yours. Let drones and bullets fly. Pay lip service to violence. Amen

Patrice Ayme’

War Versus Direct Democracy

May 21, 2015

When We The People decide to go to war, it can be an excellent thing; to wit, many a revolution, including those which gave rise to the USA, the French Republic, the Republic of China (OK, OK… There were two…). However, when an oligarchy, or a plutocracy, decides to go to war, it is rarely a good thing. Most often, it is an atrocious thing. The war the USA launched in Mesopotamia, as one of its principals, if not the principal actor, one way or another, has not been a good thing for the Middle-East (although, lo and behold, it has been an excellent thing for the domestic oil industry of the USA. Any rapprochement between these facts is sheer coincidence, and no animals were hurt during the making of this movie).

So the so-called “Islamist State” captured Ramadi, a large city just west of Baghdad. The next day, it captured Palmyra, in Syria, 200 kilometers from Damascus.

Mine Is Bigger Than Yours. Islamic State/Daesh Captured Thousands Of Tanks

Mine Is Bigger Than Yours. Islamic State/Daesh Captured Thousands Of Tanks

What does that have to do with Direct Democracy? Everything. You see, the Iraq War is a family affair. It was essentially started by one family. No, not the Hussein family. Those were just a convenient excuse. The war was started by one American family, or, at least, under its watch. The Bush family. It was convoluted enough a story, and the Main Stream Media was so embedded in it, that the reality of what happened has escaped the befuddled crowds.

The picture above was taken after the capture of Mosul. Within hours of that joyous event, the Islamic State was flying combat helicopters, meaning that it employed Sunni elements of Saddam Hussein’s old army. In other words, lo and behold, the “Mission” was not accomplished. Saddam, or rather his punching power, was back. The same topo was reproduced after the capture of Ramadi. Columns of tanks flying the Black Flag could be seen on IS videos. (Yes, I have strange pastimes…)

War has a life of its own. Once started, it is hard to stop. All the more since it is quickly sympathetic to the worst actors. Thus, even making peace with war does not work. One cannot just rise the white flag, and surrender. Just giving up on war, surrendering to those who lead the war successfully, once it has risen its ugly snout, often means giving up to very bad guys.

The day after capturing Palmyra, Daesh (the Arabic insult France and Arab states hurl at the IS) dashed out of Mosul, ten kilometers towards the Iraqi capital. France and the USA have officially a few thousands soldiers on the ground in Iraq, not enough to stop Daesh. Air strikes have been hindered by a laudable effort to limit strikes to military targets. In most French or American sorties, bombs are not released.

It seems as if the Franco-American led strategy in the Middle-East is not working (in spite of more than 5,300 air strikes, and president Hollande of France attending the Gulf Defense Council in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). How come? Or, more exactly, what is going on?

Well, it’s called the Iraq War, and it was started under Bush Senior, long ago (if not even earlier, when Iraq was encouraged to attack Iran, with the same Western actors, well represented).

What would we do without Bushes? Would we even have had “enjoyed” Hitler (who called Prescott Bush his “most important” collaborator, at some point).

And this brings the big question: would the People of the USA have authorized the attack on Iraq, in a referendum?

No.

There would have been a debate, and undisputed example of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction would have had to be produced. First.

Some are sure to sneer that I am naïve, and that the We The People of The USA would have been manipulated into war. OK, let’s suppose that. Then what? The We The People of The USA would have egg all over its silly face, and, at least, would have learned something, namely to check its sources more carefully. For next time.

In a referendum, there is no doubt that an attack on Afghanistan, after 9/11, and an ultimatum, would have been authorized. Thus it’s probable, actually, that, once it had been exposed that Saddam Hussein’s secular regime was an enemy of Islam Fundamentalism in general, and Al Qaeda in particular, the We The People of the USA would have disagreed to attack a, de facto, ally.

Right, the Athenian Direct Democracy took lousy decisions during the war between Imperial Athens, and other rather oligarchic, if not fascist Greek city-states, led by a degenerating Sparta, financed by the giant Persian plutocracy.

Yes. This was then. A tough learning experience we can learn from now.

The fact is, one family got us in the Iraq War, for the last 25 years, and We The People of the USA, or We the People of Europe, did not vote for it.

Although at first sight it does not look like it, I have documented the causal chains between the mess in the Middle East and Western plutocracy, and the institutions it created. The Great Bitter Lake conspiracy, initially a manoeuver to push France and Britain out, and the USA in, is a case in point.

Kuwait itself was a conspiracy (it’s only natural that Mesopotamia would have access to the sea! Always had, before the British messed up with it).

The USA Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (August 2, 1990). Glaspie’s statements that “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts” and that “the Kuwait issue is not associated with America” were interpreted by Mr. Hussein as giving him freedom to solve the problem of Kuwait (which he alleged was using horizontal pumping in Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with a United Nations Security Council resolution.

University professors specializing in the question concluded that:”…The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.”[ ^ John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (Jan–Feb 2003). “An unnecessary war”. Foreign Policy (134): 54.]

Some don’t believe in Conspiracy Theories. However, beside the law of unintended consequences, history is mostly made with these. (To know this, one has to study history beyond the headlines.)

It is easy for one family, such as the Bush family, to conspire. When only a few men take all the decisions, their wildest dreams and most secret perversions can be enacted, and enabled.

Yes, conspiracies are impossible to organize in Direct Democracy. Thus, those who heap spite on “conspiracy theories” are actually asserting that We the People control our destinies. Evidence to the contrary is in plain sight. A few thousands individuals control most of the world’s wealth, and even fewer, most of the world’s power.

To remedy this, a few conspiring to kill millions, just one way: Direct Democracy, as much as possible.

Patrice Ayme’