Archive for the ‘Plutocracy’ Category

LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY II: Because Great Wealth Steers Elite Leadership. Referendums To Fix It All.

December 28, 2018

Extreme WEALTH SELF LEVERAGES THROUGH PURCHASED INFLUENCE. HOW TO FIX IT: Referendum Initiative Citizen, RIC.

The Roman Republic did it! And died from stopping to do it! Athens didn’t need to do it (its wealthiest citizens were not as wealthy as those of Rome; instead wealthy Macedonians killed Athenian democracy). The Republic of Florence didn’t do it, and died from not doing it!

This essay is a deepening, and development, focusing more on the spiritual aspect of oligarchy, and plutocracy, found in my essay “LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY”

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/limit-wealth-absolutely/

Want progress? Want democracy? Let We The PEOPLE VOTE in a referendum TO LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY! Once the issues are clearly explain and debated, it would pass.Who would object to limit wealth under, say, 100 million dollars?… Except if the work is of public utility (so the likes of Space X, Blue Origin could keep on going on private capital). Another referendum would pass universal healthcare in the USA (no need for debate there, the polls are overwhelmingly in favor)…

The ancient argument against great wealth, familiar to all organized savages, for most of the Neolithic, is that wealth exponentiates: the more of it there is, the easier it is to get more. Even the savage Plains Indians taxed extreme wealth nearly 100%, redistributing thoroughly the thousands of horses a great chief could own.

Another, newer, argument, developed here, is that in modern, massive civilization, wealth controls opinion, hence minds. Wealth can easily purchase the leaders of a Representative Oligarchy system, also known, by a common abuse of language, as “Representative Democracy”.

Corruption is intrinsic to this so-called “Representative Democracy” when wealth is not limited absolutely. Even if one put serious term limits and drastic limits on how much the private sector can influence the public sector. Indeed private actors of immense wealth have many powerful ways to influence (as I will show):

10,000 decide of everything, worldwide: that’s .00001% of the world population… Billionaires are a fifth of that in numbers… So roughly there is more than one very wealthy person for each top leader or influencer, worldwide. This is the crux of the disease attacking us and the biosphere: the leadership feels, think and acts to please wealth. Moreover, as the wealthiest are intrinsically evil (consult Christ!), bad decisions are deliberately taken to further the rule of this oligarchy, because wars, conflicts and disasters distract We The People…

Rome is our great lab study and warning sign:

The Roman Republic is our great predecessor. The Roman Republic made the principle of respecting secular law foremost, as Qin did in China roughly at the same time. This highest principle was a huge success.

Making secular law foremost is such a powerful principle that it makes powerful states: Qin (prolonged by their immediate successors and implementers, the Han) and the Roman Republic built giant empires which can be viewed as lasting to this day (France, thus Western Europe, and the Anglo-Saxon colonies are direct successor regimes of Rome: they use Roman law… refurbished by Constantinople and the Franks, foedi of Rome, and sole inheritors of Roman Imperium.

The Roman Republic collapse was long drawn out: republican elements were taken out, one after the other, for 550 years (let’s say for clarity from 150 BCE until 400 CE, when the Franks were given Roman military imperium over the Germanias and Gallia… by a strange government of Catholic bishops, who, practically then, governed the Roman empire).

Sometimes, under the fascist empire (launched by Augustus), things went back, the other way, towards more Republicanism. In particular under Trajan, with mass scholarships paid by taxes on the rich, or when emperor Caracalla gave universal citizenship. But overall, the Republican institutions decayed under the fascist empire…

The Roman Republic was an enormous success, as a territorial empire: most of the conquests were made under the Republic. If so successful, why did the Republic collapse (dragging the Roman state with it)?

***

Sylla, Cicero, Caesar and Augustus accompanied a (plutocratic) revolution they didn’t start and couldn’t control:

The Roman Republic lasted 5 centuries, in full. Then it ran into trouble, as civil wars happened all over. Caesar’s grand nephew, Octavian, aka “Caesar” (he took the name of his uncle and adoptive father, as per tradition), captured the Republic.

When Octavianus/Caesar/Augustus took control, peace got established, by force, and that enforced peace made this Augustus popular enough to stay in power.

“Caesar” made himself “Princeps” (first, principal)… First man in the Senate, somehow, controlling everything, but without the title of king. When he died, nobody knew what to do, and the generalissimo, Tiberius, stayed in seclusion, until the Senate, duly selected by Octavian/Augustus, a set of plutocrats, begged Tiberius to come out, and take some of Augustus’ responsibilities.

Indeed, by Augustus’ death, Rome’s billionaires occupied the entire political landscape… but for the army, which had been the force, and most of the will, behind Octavian/Caesar’s revolution (regressive revolution, revolution nevertheless!)

Augustus, an extremely gifted teenager who led a revolution, got unhinged early on. Plutocracy would drive anybody crazy, that’s its main purpose, in the grand scheme of evolution!

***

Roman Republic Lasted Five Centuries In Full, Because of Absolute Limit on Wealth, Vanished When they Did:

In the next four centuries after Augustus found himself “Princeps”, power would balance between billionaires, the plutocrats and the army, until the latter increasingly defanged the Senate (where billionaires ruled), and the plutocrats embraced Christianism, thanks to Constantine’s crazed family, etc.

How did the Roman Republic collapse then? From the switch to a professional army which reverted to old methods of pillage and the like (as Alexander’s men used to). That switch itself was caused by the impoverishment of Rome’s citizen-soldiers, obvious by 150 BCE (and which the Gracchi deplored in eloquent terms, claiming Roman citizen-soldiers had it “worse than wild beasts”, although they were called the “masters of the world”).

That destitution of citizen-soldiers, in turn was caused directly by the rise of the hyper wealthy. The latifundia (giant agri businesses manned by slaves, owned by hyper wealthy Senatorial class) undercut the work product of Roman traditional peasants…. That happened because globalization made it possible immense fortunes which, coming back to Italy bought out indebted citizen-peasants whose work products were undercut by slave work (on the giant latifundia).  

The Gracchi brothers tried to impose the wealth limit laws (existing, but not enforced). They were too late. A generation or two too late (but then of course the Roman army was busy destroying Carthage allies, including Macedonia). They were in turn undercut by the rise of global plutocracy eschewing local taxes and laws. As the hyper wealthy by then could afford private armies of goons, the Gracchi and more than 5,000 of their supporters were assassinated.

So the citizen-soldiers army disappeared… All the more as the invasion of the Teutoni, Cimbri and their allies, saw the near annihilation of the entire Roman army, before the peasantish Marius, helped by the Senatorial Sylla reestablished the situation spectacularly by annihilating the invading German armies.

In any case, out of that mess came professional Roman armies, and they had to be paid… by their commanders in chief, the imperators. When imperators, such as Pompey the Great and Caesar, collided, civil war resulted.

***

We Are Engaged In A Similar Decay, With The Similar Causes to Those Which Demolished the Roman Democratic Republic

The whole process of decay of the Roman Republic arose from the economic, and then social destitution of Roman citizen peasant soldiers… the same citizen peasant soldiers who had made Greek city-states so powerful and progressive (with the exception of Sparta, where citizens were just soldiers enslaving the Helots who were the peasants (and occasional soldiers, when Sparta needed massive armies).

Now, of course, we are decaying just the same, and the leading republics, France and the USA switched to professional armies. As happened in Rome, professional armies can make coups and even, revolutions (Octavian had to do what his centurions wanted him to do; one of them went to the Senate, and brandished his sword, adding that, if the Senate didn’t agree to the propositions the army made, that sword would force them to…)

***

Same process of wealth concentration in the oligarchy, while the public perishes, as under the decaying Roman Republic: public property collapses, while private holdings (the 1%!) blooms.

Representative Oligarchy, Our Present System, Attracts deliberately idiotic greedsters:

I watched ex-Président of the French Conseil Constitutionel Jean-Louis Debré. That institution, the Conseil Constitutionel, makes sure French laws are in agreement with the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 (not the one of 1793; the UN follows 1789, not 1793; 1793 recognizes the right and duty of peoples to enter insurrection when Rights of Man are gravely oppressed: it was too progressive for the founders of the UN…) The US doesn’t have really a Constitutional Court, although the Supreme Court, SCOTUS, sometimes plays that role, somebody has to…   

Jean-Louis Debré is the son Michel Debré, long a Prime Minister, and brother of Bernard Debré, MD and MP. Also the great grand-son of a Great Rabbin of France. Same family as the famous Fields Medal mathematician , Laurent Schwartz. In other words, a family as connected as one gets, to the point of having a Wikipedia entry with around 50 names! In any case, the ci-devant Debré was on all French TV networks, day after day, to explain, with the bluntest bad faith, that Direct Democracy was the rule of the mob (he used the Greek word invented by the Greek hostage Polybius when he wanted to ingratiate himself with Roman plutocracy, circa 140 BCE… Small world, no? Debré hit just at the same period when civilization took a bad turn, and, as an oligarch, 22 centuries later, stand with the bad guys… Never mind that led straight to Nazism and he is a descendant of Jews…).

So there are those who belong to the oligarchy, and those who accede to it. Several contributors to my site have suggested the obvious: that Obama’s parents were CIA connected (that would explain why he could go through school doing dope and learning very little: the future was his, as a perfect pupett), Now finally, some on the vague left have the courage to say it as it is: the Guardian ran an excellent article saying what I long said: last thing we need is more Obamaism

…Obamaism leads us to believe that we do not need to choose, and that we can actually have it all – as long as we always make sure to line up behind policies that appease the super-wealthy.

It is, in other words, the ideology undergirding the argument recently put forward by former vice-president, Joe Biden, who insisted: “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble … the folks at the top aren’t bad guys.”

Biden gets it all wrong, and that’s deliberate: 500 billionaires are precisely why we are in trouble. Actually, it’s not 500, but more than 2.200. Some of these billionaires are just creations of the powers that be, for example Abrahamovitch, a Russian sidekick of Putin, now equipped with Israeli citizenship, tight with Beatles legend Sir Paul Mccartney. I mention this, to show even artistic leadership is tight with the plutocracy, not really distinguishable from it. So here now is the beef of this essay:

BILLIONAIRES CAN BUY OUR LEADERS, SPIRITUAL  OR POLITICAL; Here Is The Math:

In the Representative Oligarchy we have now, the wealthiest can steer the few thousands politicians, CEOs, media pundits, influence peddlers, pseudo-intellectuals, university professors, etc. who drive the world.

Their total worth in 2018 is actually 10 trillion. Let’s divide by the number of individuals, like Debré, Biden, who they need to impose plutocracy aka “Representative Democracy” as the world’s best institution: 10,000 billions/10,000 = 10^13/10^4 = 10^8 = one billion.

OK, let’s be more realistic, suppose the 2,200 billionaires spent just 1% of their worth influencing the oligarchic influencers. That gives us a very sustainable, but gigantic 10 million dollars each! In other words, the world’s 2,200 billionaires can flood those 10,000 drivers of the world’s public opinion, with ten million dollars each, while spending a tiny portion of their wealth… And a spending that doesn’t function as a tax, which would go to the state, whereas here it goes to the hearts and minds of the oligarchy itself. The 1% spent influencing the influencers functions as a force multiplier! They recover much more, as when Steve Jobs persuaded Irish politicians to tax Apple just 1% on worldwide revenue, and then probably even more to persuade EU politicians to do nothing effective about this violation of EU law (minimum tax required: 12.5%).

The Guardian nails it, repeating what I said, and saw, from inside, a decade ago already : “It is easy to understand the political utility of this third-way legend: it lets Democrats continue raising gobs of cash from satisfied corporate donors and moguls, and it at least provides voters with more palatable rhetoric than what the Republican party offers. And yet the record of third-way policies over the past few years have made painfully clear that Obamaism’s refusal to choose a side can be a nihilistic choice unto itself.”

The Guardian is too generous. What we are facing here is institutionalized corruption. Past British PM (Major, Blair) made a fortune with jobs provided to them by the billionaire class and their agents. Let alone Al Gore, who made a cool billion and got a Nobel (for talking a storm about the environment while doing nothing about it when he could…)

In France the situation is hilarious: the top intelligentsia, politicos and plutocrats talk, dine and bed each other, sometimes in fancy palaces of distant monarchies. They have ruined the country, but never mind: they thrive, they rule the spiritual waves rolling over the countries. We have seen this before, say in the Ancient Regime (entangled with the Founding Fathers of the USA, nota bene…), or even earlier when Louis XIV was busy devastating France with his ethnocide against the Protestants he was so proud of (and the ensuing world wars…) Some Gilets Jaunes, Yellow Jackets, have concluded that it would best to burn the whole thing down, that entire conspiracy. I concur (are they going to try to get me convicted to inciting to burn down a conspiracy? Right now in France, as in Putinistan, inciting to rebellion sends one to jail. Well, corrupt judges will have to admit that there is one conspiracy, first. According to the 1793 Declaration Des Droits de l’Homme, it is our DUTY to rebel, then…)

So let’s recapitulate. Spending 1% of their wealth each year actually acts as a force multiplier: billionaires make more by spending 1% of their wealth a year, than by not spending it. As observed. A billionaire goes see a president in his presidential palace (happened countless times in the White House and the Palais de l’Elysée), The billionaire makes the president a very remunerative job waits for him when coming out (OK, doesn’t work with billionaire Trump, so Trump is very bad)… if the president consents NOT to tax the company of the billionaire, or his “foundation”, or if the president consents to let his company violate antitrust laws, or environmental laws, or even national security laws (as when French or US drugs have to be all purchased in China; or when “markets” are obtained from technology transfers to… fascist dictatorships, as happened plenty from the USA to Nazi Germany and the USSR).

Or then one takes all top state bankers and economists in Europe, two hundred individuals at most, and one persuades them that, to make real money they have to keep the Euro the way it is, as a  machine to further the wealth of billionaires. And so on…

***

How To Stop This? TAX WEALTH ABSOLUTELY! REFERENDUM INITIATIVE CITIZEN!

Indeed suppose wealth was limited at, say 100 millions: then the total wealth of the wealthiest 2,200 would be only 200 billions, and the amount to spend on influencers and “leaders”, only 200,000 a year… Tempting, however, not irresistible.

The RIC: Referendum Initiative Citizenry is another way around, as the wealthiest can’t buy every single one of us.

So let’s re-establish real, direct, Democracy, after a savage 23 centuries interruption, and do both!

In 1911, a referendum in California decided that women should vote: RICs are progressive, because they are anti-oligarchic and oligarchy is always regressive. That was one the first polity to give women such rights, after Pitcairn island in 1838 (!), and Australia (1894-1902). France had to wait until after the Nazis to see this happen. So referenda have the potential to change not just politics, society, but even the neurohormonal balance of the planet.

As it, those 10,000 (mostly) men who rule the planet are not just any men. They are among the greediest, most delusional, most arrogant, shallowest, most self-absorbed guys around: they are selected that way, and they favor their kind… Just as banks lend to the wealthiest, to make them, and themselves, even wealthier.

Examples? Watch Nancy Pelosi, the incoming speaker of the House.  Her and her husband’s fortune maybe as much as $100 million. Not bad for someone who has only worked in politics, starting in 1987. Of course that fortune doesn’t include her five children (long ago, Pelosi was reported to be worth $250 million). The Senior Senator of California does even better: she and her husband are billionaires, a fortune gained in China by the husband, while the wife steered US policy there… These two examples are found within a radius of ten kilometers (and I don’t dislike Nancy, I prefer her, by a very long shot, to her predecessor Republican Ryan)…

It’s like that all over the planet: watch Macron, who went from highest level public finance inspection, to Rothschild Bank, to the finance ministry, to the presidency, all in 15 years, earning a fortune, living in a million dollar apartment, and, guess what, all this fortune earned by devious means, disappeared. And of course everybody knows Trump’s fortune was at the public teat the whole way…

And this is not just France and the USA. In Britain, the third of the large historical so-called democracies, the situation has become grotesque, and hurtful. As The Economist pointed out December 28, 2018, in its lead editorial “The elite that failed” (published after the first version of the present essay): “There are two popular explanations for this mayhem…a catalyst for a long-simmering civil war between successful Britain (which is metropolitan and liberal) and left-behind Britain (which is provincial and conservative). Both explanations have merit. But there is also a third: that the country’s model of leadership is disintegrating. Britain is governed by a self-involved clique that rewards group membership above competence and self-confidence above expertise. This chumocracy has finally met its Waterloo.

Big words, and similar concepts to those I have brandished for more than a decade. If so-called Representative Democracy in Britain, France and the US has turned to “chumocracy”, in other words, oligarchy, for all to see, time for a rethink.

Verily, electoral policy doesn’t select the best, most moral and disinterested, but the exact opposite. Removing, or, at least, controlling them with referenda of We The People will make greed, delusion, arrogance, superficiality, self-absorption less influential in steering our common destiny.

Let’s do it! Limit Wealth Absolutely and modify the constitutions to enable RICs!

As explained a bit in Note 2 below, imposing an absolute wealth limit, and the Will of All through referenda, will have metaphysical consequences: it will steer humanity away from Will to Power of destruction, to Will to Power of loving creation…. 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: Most of these iconoclastic views of mine are more than a decade old. Some can be found in the European Tribune:

https://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:4331/diary

I published there until the editor at the time informed me that some prominent European bankers, men of wealth and taste, insisted that I be banned. So he told me, he was sorry, he had to ban me, because contemporary bankers insisted that my views on 1930s bankers collaborating with the Nazis were outrageous and unsupported by evidence (one of these bankers claimed to me that he did an Internet search, and all the articles he could find on the entire Internet  on the subject were… mine!) In the same few months I was banned from the Daily Kos (a popular leftist site created by the… CIA…) and relegated at the bottom of search engines. Dirty tricks work: a decade later. my obvious views, which should be taught all over the world, are not just considered outlandish, but are fully ignored, as everything was done, not to divulge them to the well-meaning, but ignorant masses…

***

Note 2: So I hold that the switch to plutocracy unchained caused by the non-observance of wealth limiting laws, brought the fall of the Roman Republic. The same holds for other Republics, like Firenze, which fell to bankers (the Medici).

The conventional view is much more celebrity bound and shrunk in context: Julius Caesar’s political maneuvers (rather than his generalship), say the common historians, dep in their academic cheese, which had long-lasting effects on Rome and Europe. Caesar’s critical role in going against the Roman Senate by crossing the Rubicon led to the eclipse of the Roman Republic and the emergence of the Roman Empire, the common view holds: Caesar was a bad boy, that’s all.

That (Pluto compatible) view neglects all which happened before, like Lucius Cornelius Sulla’s brutal and weird dictatorship, or Cicero’s dubious, foolhardy and ultimately self-destructive breach of law and process during the “Catiline conspiracy”…

Or, as I said, the view that it is this, or that individual’s fault neglects many major social, fiscal, political factors, such as the rise of an army, a professional army, which depended upon their leaders, the imperators (not the state!) to thrive (when Caesar and Pompey met, once, at the head of their legions, they saluted each other ironically as “Ave, imperator!“… both had the title and function… Clearly who was at fault was not Caesar (born in 100 BCE) but the plutocrats who opposed and killed the Gracchi and their supporters, two generations before Caesar’s birth. Even Marius’ professionalization of the army was a consequence of the unbounded rise of Roman plutocracy. By the way, when the Roman state collapsed in the West (400 CE to around 493 CE, when the Ostrogoths took Ravenna), the plutocracy, which had contributed to that fall in many ways, including rising private armies, stealing all the riches, refusing to pay taxes, and promoting supine, turn-the-other cheek Catholicism, joined the invading barbarian bands with gusto: it is often as if the barbarians gave the Roman plutocracy the tool and excuse they needed to enter the feudal regime…

All this to say this: the devolution of Roman plutocracy over 550 years, until final collapse, show that there are no limits to how low a plutocracy will sink, to promote the brutal, cruel and demented view of humanity which defines it with glee… And why this? Because, Ecce Homo, the Dark Side gives us the neurological passion dozens of millions of years of evolution have honed to the fine art of Homo.

Bush’s Bait and Switch In Iraq, Skewering Secular Iraq, in the Guise of Skewering Saddam

December 7, 2018

Celebrating GW Bush In My Own Special Way:

This week US King G. W. Bush Senior, 94 years old, died. His father was a fellow traveller, and prominent enabler of the fascist regimes of the 1930s. His father managed the most important of Hitler’s war industries, and employed Auschwitz slave labor. His father relinquished formal control of Nazi industries in August 1942 (yes, the US and Hitler had been at war, declared by Hitler, for more than 6 months). Then GW Bush’s father was such a linchpin of US plutocracy, he was nominated US Senator, just to make him above any suspicion.

In striking contrast, the young Bush got in the Navy below age, became a pilot, was shot down, parachuted in the Pacific, was recovered by a US submarine. A hero.

But also a trickster. He headed the CIA forever and was part of the powers behind Reagan’s throne.

During all those years, the West’s man in the Middle East was Saddam Hussein. As Saddam would point out, baffled, before his execution:’We had good laws, like in the West. Why did they do that to us?’

You had good laws? Right. True. That was exactly the problem. Those good, occidental, republican, secular laws made you potentially very hard to control.

Power, Saddam, power.

The most important reason to invade Iraq is not listed above. It was to show the world, in particular Europe and its pseudo-intellectuals and plutocrats, who was the boss. Right, the list above was for the 2003 invasion, not the one under GW Bush. But the fundamental reasons stayed the same. Another, not listed above, was to DESTROY SECULAR Iraq. Muslim Fundamentalism, a fundamentally plutocratic, theological ideology is a great justification for all exploiters and lovers of abusive war.

Saddam got the bad idea to switch from US Dollars to Euros for oil payments. Horrendous: Thus Saddam was setting a precedent, a chink in the US Dollar armor. An example had to be made. That was for the second, terminal attack against Iraq.

In the 1970s and especially 1980s, Saddam was the West’s enforcer. He was told to attack Muslim Fundamentalist Iran, so he did. When attacking Iranian tankers got beyond Iraqi competence, French pilots did it. Saddam got massive French, British, US even German support.

In the 1980s, top western government officials couldn’t have enough of Saddam, who bought so many nice, and very expensive weapons…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaP7ZrmkcuU

When Saddam was all puffed up, and ready to go, thinking he had achieved an Arab secular state, at last. Success yes: his goose was cooked.

Saddam Hussein was led to believe invading Kuwait would be tolerated, that was the bait.

Saddam was upset: the Iraqis argued that sideways drilling from Kuwait, using advanced drilling techniques (now standard in fracking) was draining Iraqi oil fields. The more fundamental problem was clear for all to see by glancing at a map: Kuwait was made up to deprive Iraq of sea access… When Roman emperor Trajan got to his legions to the Gulf, he got to present day Kuwait (he unfortunately fell sick and died shortly after).

In any case, once Kuwait, a theocratic monarchy got invaded by the Iraqi Republic, Bush’s US screamed with high indignation, and the war was on, amplified by United Nations Security Council’s decisions. Now for some of the official mumbo-jumbo, one can consult:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

… and read between the official lines… Inter-preting: the concept comes from going between what is in front. This is what thinking is about.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: the preceding was started by the following exchange with Irade Alexi Helligar, December 3, 2018. Alexi:  “I have argued this point for many years:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/george-hw-bush-obit-presidential-legacy.html

“The Overlooked President: We should thank George H.W. Bush for many of the successes attributed to Reagan and Clinton. George H.W. Bush Was a Better President Than Reagan or Clinton. He did right by the country at political cost to himself. What modern presidents can say the same?”

I replied: Not saying much, though…

Irade Alexi Helligar answered: Patrice Ayme, Yes, it goes to show how bad US leadership has been over the past few decades. Let’s not forget, George H.W. Bush gave us Clarence Thomas.

Patrice Ayme: Saddam Hussein was led to believe invading Kuwait would be tolerated, Sideways drilling was an issue, also the fact Kuwait was made up to deprive Iraq of sea access… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

Irade Alexi Helligar: Ah yes, quite true.

QED…

 

 

Politically Correct Famous Democratic Economist Admits To Treachery of Political Leaders After 2007. Good. Yet, Why Just 2007? To Laud Plutocratic Clintonism?

November 6, 2018

It seems obvious to me that the official economic doctrine is the theoretical justification of plutocracy. Roman emperor Constantine used what he called Catholicism, his invention, to justify his increasing plutocracy. Nowadays, plutocracy is haughtily brandishing the philosophy of “economic science”. Now a famous economist looks at that, and blames everybody else. Mr. Delong is a friend and colleague of Krugman, and their ilk. We are talking here of the mainstream ideology of the self-declared “left”… Which is just stealth plutocracy: a definition of plutocracy is inequality. Inequality increased under Obama, when it reached its highest level ever (as measured by looking at the top 1%, or top .1%, etc.) Right, it’s probably getting worse under Trump… But Trump never claimed to be “left”.

***

Inequality augmented under Obama. Here is the slice 2013 until 2016. This was caused by the fact Obama helped most the bankers, hence the wealthiest…

Blame the Economists?

Nov 1, 2018 J. Bradford Delong

Ever since the 2008 financial crash and subsequent recession, economists have been pilloried for failing to foresee the crisis, and for not convincing policymakers of what needed to be done to address it. But the upheavals of the past decade were more a product of historical contingency than technocratic failure.

BERKELEY – Now that we are witnessing what looks like the historic decline of the West, it is worth asking what role economists might have played in the disasters of the past decade.”

Unsurprisingly, famous economists protect Clinton from any blame. When, in truth, Clinton demolished the New Deal most effectively. Learning from Goldman Sachs, even before he was elected president, that, if he wanted to be re-elected he would have to do as he was ordered to, by the wealthiest men, Clinton told Robert Rubin Goldman CEO:”You are telling me by reelection depends upon fuckin bnd traders?” (Nowadays, the once famous quote has disappeared from search engines: no accident.)

Brad Delong: “From the end of World War II until 2007, Western political leaders at least acted as if they were interested in achieving full employment, price stability, an acceptably fair distribution of income and wealth, and an open international order in which all countries would benefit from trade and finance”

Patrice Ayme: Not true: Clinton, a so-called “Democrat” ruined the separation of banking and speculation (installed by president Roosevelt and Congress in 1933). Instead of serving all, banks were reset to serve mostly the wealthiest. Moreover Clinton enabled so-called “financial derivatives” with total free rein. Even more serving of the wealthiest, enabling them to leverage themselves tremendously. That led to the 2008 crisis, when a bank dealing mostly in US Treasury Bonds and an insurer, AIG, got acutely bankrupt from derivatives… with nearly all other major banks, just as bad. Bush, in accord with Obama, and then Obama alone sent to the banks all the money they needed and some.

Brad De Long: “Then came 2008, when everything changed. The goal of full employment dropped off Western leaders’ radar, even though there was neither a threat of inflation nor additional benefits to be gained from increased openness. Likewise, the goal of creating an international order that serves everyone was summarily abandoned. Both objectives were sacrificed in the interest of restoring the fortunes of the super-rich, perhaps with a distant hope that the wealth would “trickle down” someday.”

PA: Right. So why do we still call individuals like Obama, “Democrat”, and act as if they were,  when all they did was to serve the wealthiest, the plutocrats (feeding them ever since)?

De Long: “Others, like me, understood that expansionary monetary policies would not be enough; but, because we had looked at global imbalances the wrong way, we missed the principal source of risk – US financial mis-regulation.”

PA: One reform is necessary: banks are there to serve We The People and the real economy serving We The People. Banks should not serve speculation to make the wealthiest wealthier. Plutocrats hate it, so so-called “economists” can’t understand its utility (to themselves!)

De Long: “Between the financial crisis of 2008 and the political crisis of 2016 came the presidency of Barack Obama. In 2004, when he was still a rising star in the Senate, Obama had warned that failing to build a “purple America” that supports the working and middle classes would lead to nativism and political breakdown.

Yet, after the crash, the Obama administration had little stomach for the medicine that former President Franklin D. Roosevelt had prescribed to address problems of such magnitude. “The country needs…bold persistent experimentation,” Roosevelt said in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression. “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

The fact that Obama failed to take aggressive action… With policymaking having been subjected to the malign influence of a rising plutocracy, economists calling for “bold persistent experimentation” were swimming against the tide – even though well-founded economic theories justified precisely that course of action.”

PA: Need one say more? Delong congratulates himself with the present state of affairs. But actually US society became much more unequal under Obama. Rising inequality brings the collapse of civilization: such is the lesson of history. One can’t get a worse result than collapse. Time to redefine “left” in light of increasing potential collapse..

That collapse didn’t happen yet is why we can still talk about it.

But never, in the history of humanity, has collapse seemed more likely, long-term. In no small measure, because of the cecity of official economy, which is more focused in increasing inequality than in realizing that this is another name for rising plutocracy.

Economists, like most of those working in the media, are just employees of the world’s wealthiest men. Directly, or indirectly through plutocratic universities. Plutocratic universities are not universal.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/plutocratic-universities-are-not-universal/

Nor is the present economic theory resting on a universal foundation: it rests only on pleasing plutocracy. Economy will become universal when it rests on energy itself, more exactly, Absolute Worth Energy.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/energy-is-the-fundamental-unit-of-economics/

Meanwhile, let those who managed the increase of inequality under Clinton, Bush and Obama blame others: that’s what they do best.

Patrice Ayme

There Is No Aristocracy But For Democracy. Meanwhile Plutocracy Is Just Evil Power. And Absolute Power of a Few, Intrinsically Evil.

October 24, 2018

[This is a much expanded version of a comment of mine dutifully censored by the New York Times, who knows well how to make it so that it’s readership is not poisoned by true and most relevant ideas. The article I commented on was Erdogan Says Saudis Planned Khashoggi’s Killing, and Demands Answers.

Conclusion of the NYT article: Turkish president Erdogan does not want a direct fight with Saudi Arabia. He does not want to turn this into a bilateral argument between Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He wants it to be on one side M.B.S. and on the other a murdered journalist.”]

***

The NYT article was basic, and cautious. Some altitude was needed, to address that debate properly, I reckoned. That “murdered journalist”, Khashoggi, was much more than just a journalist, but also a part of the Saudi establishment, prior, and a propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood, for decades, and, lately, made himself an excellent advocate for democracy in the Middle East. Erdogan himself exerts dictatorial powers of the Turkish media reminiscent of those exerted by president Xi in China.  

What the Khashoggi affair calls into question is the fact that it is considered Politically Correct, worldwide, to bestow huge powers on some individuals. Having heads of state ordering murders is OK for the PC crowd (because it doesn’t actively condemn it, and instead implicitly admired the mass murder by drone prone Obama). It shouldn’t be…

(The Saudis, as a part of an elaborate plot, had a double of Khashoggi go around Istanbul after murdering the original, in order to make people believe he had not been killed… They had not expected Khashoggi’s fiancée to be waiting outside, and the intense Turkish surveillance of, the Consulate…)

***

“Aristocracy” means power of the best: a self-glorification. In truth, aristocracy is just plutocracy, power of Pluto, the god of hell. Too much power doesn’t just corrupt, it turns individuals into demons. Mohammed bin Salman, MBS is not just a perpetrator, but victim of a mental process no one warned him about!

Leaders have so much power nowadays, ordering the killing of others expeditiously proves all too irresistible. We can all turn into Khashoggis all too easily.

Khashoggi, carefree, firmly entering the Saudi Consulate. Questions remaining: was he dismembered, starting with his fingers, he typed insolent statements with, while conscious, and did MBS order that old fashion punishment explicitly?

So Khashoggi entered the Saudi Consulate, for the second time in two days, to receive a statement confirming his divorce from his establishment wife (who disapproved of Khashoggi’s critics against MBS). “Saud” is the name of a family who owns Arabia. Having seized it by force, after making a conspiracy of mutual aid with the Islamist fanatic Wahhab. Late the UK, and then the US would make another conspiracy with the Saud patriarch about oil and finance.

Just ask the relatives of those who, in various places the USA was not at war with, innocently gathered, and all were killed in a drone strike!.. Because the gathering had the “signature” of terrorism, we were told by the US government. At least when Khashoggi was hacked into piece, only him died, not the whole neighborhood.

The solution to lethal, arbitrary leadership, all over the world? Not just reduce the power of  MBS, but reduce the power of “leaders”, all over.

The West may as well lead towards much more democracy, the rest will (be forced to) follow. Just criticizing Saudi Arabia is not enough.

Evil loves the Dark, already observed the Persian religion 4,000 years ago. Throwing a light on how Khashoggi died is a good thing. It would be even better to throw a light on the entanglement of CIA, SIA, and Bin Laden in the 1990s… Or how exactly the Afghan War started… And the role of the USA in that (hint: it was primordial).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/usa-attack-against-afghanistan/

The USA actually pushed, for years before that, Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence, to create a Muslim Fundamentalist war in Afghanistan. So it was not just a question of Democratic President Jimmy Carter. The drivers of US fundamental policies in the Middle East wanted to cause a Muslim Fundamentalist war in the Muslim world, to create there a factor of division. Once people are divided and at each other’s’ throats, they can be easily manipulated.

So Afghanistan was turned from a heaven of peace and advanced civilization into a house of horrors (my parents went there quite a bit in the 1970s: it was very safe, and secular… As I explained somewhere else, my friends of my father were mandated by governments in France and Afghanistan to find out about the considerable mineral riches of Afghanistan. That effort was not instigated by US plutocrats, so was intolerable…)

So let’s dig into Saudi Arabian potentates’ evil ways. But let’s not forget who pulled the strings to start with… Not just a geographical superpower, the US, but a mood animating the USA, and not just the USA, all of Western Civilization, which the Saudi princes have attempted to reproduce, namely using fascist power (generally found in the Qur’an, but also well beyond that), to instill a reign of terror.

***

Rushed hush ushers sheep best:

My original NYT comment was much shorter, of course. Yet, apparently the NYT disapproves of allusions to the fact the USA is who, ultimately, pulls the strings in the Middle East… and started the Afghan war, now the longest war of the USA, by a long shot. Actually, the alliance between the Saud family and the UK was signed in massive blood by the 1920s (and not just Ottoman blood, during WWI, see Lawrence of Arabia… which was fair, as the Ottomans occupied Arabia, but Arab blood, a more dubious situation…). US plutocrats and oilmen came around in the 1930s, to culminate in the Great Bitter Lake Conspiracy we enjoy to this (by “we” I mean that, although the conspiracy has been organized by the USA, Europeans countries profit from it, including France, as they run on Saudi oil…)

Conspiracies are managed best, when they are secret, or, at least discrete, and not a matter of public debate. This is why the NYT wanted its public not be exposed to my Chomsky-like revelations, this time again, as with many other times before that (especially as I am often better documented, and more balanced: I don’t just decry evil as the PC crowd does, bleating perfically, in fake outrage, except when their favorites: Clinton, Obamas, Bushes attacking Iraq, do it… Instead I try to understand evil ways, and see how justified or unavoidable they were…)

Absolute power corrupts. Everything. Not just those who directly profit from it. But also the very institutions which tolerate it, and the People who enjoy it.

Aristos: best. Kratia: power.

Want the best to govern? Want Aristocracy then? Well, the best form of government is total democracy, enabling total debate, and no straying into violations of human rights.

The light should shine on all as its name is truth. 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Let’s ponder again:

Aristos: best. Kratia: power.

Want the best to govern? Want Aristocracy then? Well, the best form of government is total democracy, enabling total debate, and no straying into violations of human rights.

How to enact it? What went wrong with Athenian total democracy was the lack of democratic institutions enforcing no straying out of proper, full informed debate, and no institution enforcing human rights (ostracism was used willy-nilly in Athens, and the national assembly was often hysterical, not just mass murderous and idiotic…)

Now we do have democratic institutions (although not perfect… they are best in existence than not)…

 

A Modest Proposal Regarding Google: Separate Greed From Cognition

October 14, 2018

Abstract: I propose to legislatively force Google to separate its for-profit search from its non-pecuniary interested search. In one case one would look for $Search, say Google$.com and in the other, one would search inside Google.com. (That is Google without the $ dollar sign…)

***

I spoke to the owner of a cheap hotel in the Alps. He explained to me how much money he was loosing from the already hyper wealthy, powerful and influential Google and its associated for-profit accomplices. Then I got a very simple idea to remedy part of the problem.

Google is the search engine most used around the planet. That made it into a world public utility. Now of course those who contributed most to its growth may object that Google is a private company, and they should be able to do with it as they want, like any other private company (private companies which are on stock exchanges are, confusingly, called “public” in the USA; they are not “public”: they are the property of the holders of the so-called “stock” of the company, so they are truly private!)

I had a much more thorough, truth-telling picture at my disposal. However, more than 15 years ago, I got evacuated from the then search engines because I had gone a few truths too far… (when I mentioned this to “friends”, then, they told me that was impossible, I was paranoid… Nowadays, few would believe that can’t happen: search censorship is official). So I didn’t want to repeat the experience (I got enormous censorship from Facebook in the last few months). So here above was a much milder picture: those billionaire creeps, endowed with all the powers thanks to my good friend Obama even scare people who, as I did today can hang on a cliff, 1,000 feet above the deck. We are in censoring dictatorship… At least we don’t get cut-up in pieces: see the Saudi Arabia exploit below…

But Google, by hook or by crook, achieved a world monopoly. That position is, in turn, an asset. How it became a world monopoly was by paying, directly or indirectly, by cash or by jobs, some “consulting”, some obtained just through the grossest influence peddling. Same as Apple and Facebook. (Notoriously Steve Jobs made a deal with corrupt Irish leaders to get Apple worldwide profits taxed only 1%… in violations of EU and US law…)

Thus Google owes We the People of Planet Earth, quite a bit. Besides, its spy-on-everyone practice should be unlawful: “We don’t need you to type at all because we know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less guess what you’re thinking about … Is that over the line?” – Google (then) Chairman Eric Schmidt

https://gizmodo.com/5878987/its-official-google-is-evil-now

Now if one looks for a given product or subject, one finds plenty of “Adv” (Advertising) listed on top. Then there is a whole jungle of paid transactions: Search engine marketing (SEM), search engine optimisation (SEO), pay-per-click (PPC), cost-per-click (CPC), cost-per-impression (CPM) search engine advertising, sponsored listings, paid for placement, and that’s before you get to services provided by the search engines themselves – Google AdWords, etc…

This is all extremely lucrative. Google has paid billions of dollars just to have Apple, its partner in crime, brandish it as its default search engine:

https://searchengineland.com/report-google-to-pay-apple-9-billion-to-remain-default-search-engine-on-safari-306082

Thus, worldwide, when people search for something, they enrich the crooks. Crooks? How else do you want to qualify those who pay very little or even no taxes, while being the richest (legal) persons on Earth. Companies as persons? Since “Citizen United” the crooked (?) Supreme Court of the US (“SCOTUS”) has recognized companies as “persons” with a right of free speech… GAFA (Google Amazon Facebook Apple) pay very little tax, whereas normal companies pay much more; that’s (greatly) how they became the richest in the world. They do not invent the science: they are technological aggregators, exploiting the work of obscure, impoverished, scientists.

Google once had a deep partnership with Apple. Then, while Steve Jobs mentored co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and Schmidt sat on Apple’s (NASDAQ:AAPL) board of directors, Android magically acquired into iphone like capabilities: do Google and Apple constitute a double headed duopoly?

One could use against them the insult GAFA use against companies who buy patents from inventors (thus rewarding inventors). GAFA and their ilk are NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES:  indeed, they, mostly, didn’t practice the research. They are just tax free monopolies exploiting the discoveries of others (who now, thanks to SCOTUS’s devastation of the Patent System, can’t exploit their own discoveries pecuniarily…).   

So Google: let’s separate for-profit search from non-profit search. Greed needs to be kept away from knowledge.

Morality starts legislatively.

Today, Trump said that Saudi Arabia’s disappearance of a well known journalist, if confirmed, would bring “severe punishment“.

Things are getting ever more complicated and rougher in Saudi Arabia, as expected (from, in part the war against Iran by proxy in Yemen, where faults are shared, and civilians facing today’s world greatest human crisis). The disappeared journalist used to be an Islamist and was a supporter of the (fascist) Muslim Brotherhood, before supporting in 2018 democracy (& incoherently, still, the Muslim Bro!) Missing Journalist Was an Insider Willing to Cross Saudi Red Lines

The famous Jamal Khashoggi rankled authorities (and maybe Muhammad Bin Salman, MBS Himself, the reigning “Crown Prince”) with socially liberal views and (intolerable) sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood…

What to do? Just as common denizens should put pressure on legislators to separate profit and search, they should insist to separate fascist regimes and supporting them… by frequenting them. For example, going to Thailand, or Indonesia, let alone UAE or Saudi Arabia, as a tourist, should be carefully considered for what it is: an active support for fascism. Evil regimes (and that could be arguably more than 100 countries) should be spurned, avoided and rejected. I was no friend of Khashoggi, because of his Islamist past.. Nevertheless, cutting up the enemy in body parts (as probably happened to Khashoggi) just because he is basically right, is enforcing terror, just as efficiently as others are enforcing terror with biased search, and for the same basic reason.

Google greed cognition, the Saudi Islamist dictatorship: time to meditate the well-known Chinese proverb:”Kill the chicken, to frighten the monkeys“. If we chicken out of all this, the mighty getting mightier, in the grossest ways, we will be all become frightened monkeys..

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note on something somewhat related: Calling “private” companies the shares of which are publicly exchanged, enables the wealthiest owners of the world to claim, intuitively and emotionally, that they do something “public”. Whereas, of course, the exact opposite is true. The equivalent happened when Google seized as motto “Don’t be evil” (we will do it for you…)

***

Note on the author not being an hypocrite contrarily to appearances: I use Google all the time… I even use, very rarely, features of Google I know enrich it… But I would use any top performing search engine: search is a public utility…

France Parented the USA: So Why Forget? Because The Child, The USA, Played (And Plays) Vicious Games, Partly Reflected In How It Neglected Its Parent.

September 24, 2018

Tremendous efforts are vested by the elite to tweak the mentality of those they subjugate. No detail is spared. Details impact emotional logic, and can fabricate fake minds, apt at serving only the masters who set them up. And that starts by instilling a perverse, twisted sense of history.

Yorktown” is the locale and battle where two French armies, a French fleet, and the American army defeated terminally the British in the US war of independence. The aircraft carrier by that name is at the bottom of the Pacific, after another heroic battle (which it helped to win).

Even the names of aircraft carriers can be tweaked, perverting the sense of history and even of democracy: once named after the major battles which made the USA (Lexington, Yorktown, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Belleau Woods), now they are named after unelected celebrities (Ford) or undistinguished president (there is a “Reagan” carrier, but no “Nixon”, or “Carter” carrier… The idea being Reagan is vastly superior to Carter or Nixon… although history will judge otherwise… and no carrier should be named after them. JFK, an authentic Navy war hero, who died a martyr, avoided nuclear war, send Earth to the Moon, is another matter, he deserved a carrier…)

Why do the French get downplayed in their importance in the American Revolutionary War?

One French army, commanded by Washington, plus two French armies, commanded by Lafayette and Rochambeau, and the French fleet, commanded by De Grasse, converged on Yorktown, and, after heavy bombardment by French siege guns commanded by De Barras, forced the surrender of the British army.

The irony is that the French themselves learned, and learn, history from the real supreme victors of 1945, the USA, or more precisely, what the USA mostly means, US plutocrats, their media, universities, businesses, with their CIA, Deep State and another 16 “intelligence” agencies in tow.

If one were a French intellectual in the 1950s, and one wanted a lucrative career, one had to sing the praises of the US, or the USSR, or both (Sartre and De Beauvoir did both, after earlier collaborating with the Nazi authorities). Significant details such as the French declaring war (and attacking) Hitler in 1939, while Hitler was allied to the USSR (which provided Hitler with all sorts of goodies, including crucial oil), had to be forgotten.

So had to be forgotten, the troubling double game of the USA at the inception of both WW1 and WW2. The machinations the USA and its moral persons and agents engaged in, favoring fascism and working against the French Republic, should have been seen as particularly outrageous, especially in light of how the USA came to be. Indeed, the French monarchy of Louis XVI was the main agent of creation of the US Republic, and deliberately so. Most probably, without France, the USA would never have come to be. Hence the USA is the baby France brought to this world, and the refusal of the USA to do anything in May-June 1940 to prevent the fall of France is ignominious. If the USA had given an ultimatum to Hitler, his generals would have made a coup.

German generals had asked precisely for such an aggressive attitude, on the part of the USA, as early as 1937, to get rid of the Nazis; after a clear declaration, on the part of the USA, that the USA would side with France against Nazism, the generals had all the excuse they needed for a coupinstead the plotting German generals got denounced by the USA and the UK… to Hitler himself; hence in 1940, German generals could only feel that the USA, or the powers which mattered in the USA, those which controlled public opinion, were in agreement with the Nazi invasion of France! They didn’t guess they were the victim of another bait and switch, just as in WW1…

Had the USA sent such an ultimatum, requiring the immediate German evacuation of France, German generals could have said the Nazis imperilled Germany, as it was obvious to all Germans they couldn’t win the grand coalition of France-Britain-USA. Thus a loud and clear US intervention in 1940 would have brought quick German surrender… Instead, when Hitler declared war to the USA, December 11, 1941, all of Germany, and, in particular the German army, was so deeply committed to Nazi racial and other criminality, that they couldn’t back out…

Even by late June 1940, France was far from defeated: the French air force was poised to gain air supremacy (after enormous Luftwaffe losses and exhaustion), and the French army and fleet could lock up the Mediterranean, and pursue the war from southern France, Corsica and especially North Africa (which the Germans demonstrated later they couldn’t cross seriously, just because of the small islands of Malta, which stayed unconquered).

The Canadians intervened: they landed in Brittany in June 1940, but their divisions were promptly beaten back. A US intervention, the US had aircraft carriers, would have persuaded the French Assembly to keep on firing on the Germans (who had already suffered enormous losses).

The US Deep State attitude during WW2, driven by the French hating plutocrat Roosevelt, anxious to gain control of all European empires, was to destroy as much of France as they could get away with. Hence the attempted grabbing of New Caledonia, the bombing and annihilation of French ports (the Germans had no more boats), and the plan to occupy France as if it were Nazi Germany (that failed because the USA depended upon the one million men French army in 1944, and most US generals were sympathetic to the French cause, and even admired some of their French colleagues, for example “Hannibal” Juin, victor of Monte Cassino, and who could have finished the war in weeks, had he been given free rein…)

However, after the war, the CIA is known to have had at least 50 top French influencers in the media on its payroll… And the real influence was probably much greater. Top French intellectuals did as they were paid for: they rewrote all of French history in a negative light, starting with Vercingetorix and Caesar. Grossly underestimating the French crucial role if the American Revolution was part of it.

The French and US Constitutions of 1789 were proclaimed only three weeks apart. That’s no coincidence: France and the USA actually had a common revolution, and probably its main character was not the American Founding Fathers as much as the tragic figure of Louis XVI, who did in America what he was afraid to do in France (although he feebly tried there, persistently, but all too weakly).

If enough US citizens had known the history of the USA and of the ideals they embraced, better, in 1939, they would have supported the French Republic against the Nazis, the USSR and Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy … As Great Britain (a monarchy!) reluctantly did, in the last few months. History would have turned out differently: no Auschwitz, etc. But US citizens didn’t know France gave birth to the USA, as much as she did (and twice, as France also gave birth to Britain in 1066 CE, complete with outlawing of slavery there…)

Those who don’t learn history are condemned to make it worse, today. more than ever

The greatest and final battle of the American war of independence was at Yorktown: one US army, two French armies, and the French fleet, cornered the British army, and forced its surrender. After inflicting grievous losses on the Japanese carriers, the US aircraft carrier Yorktown was sunk at the Midway battle, a tremendous US victory on attacking Japan.

There is no more US carrier named “Yorktown” in the present US fleet. But the most modern US nuclear carrier is named “Ford”. “Ford”, although US president, was never elected to that office, nor to the office of Vice-President, which he was honored with before. One would guess that democrats and republicans want to forget how one guy can get to the highest offices of the land… without election. But, no, now we have an aircraft carrier to celebrate this strange accession. Strange in a democratic republic, that is…. So, say the history people learn, forget how the USA came to be, through a revolution co-engineered with France, in a republican, democratic spirit, but instead, celebrate now an unelected US president: a telling difference between yesterday’s hopes and ideals, and today’s decadence into plutocracy!

The excellent movie “Gladiator” presents a nice alternative history of Rome. It could have happened that way, indeed. The Republic could have been re-established because of a courageous general. But it wasn’t. Why? The probability that the Republic would come back was low. We the People of Rome expected dictatorship. At some point all minds have become too perverted by fake history, inappropriate mentality! Mental inertia is in command, all the way down to the direst oblivion…

Indeed, Roman fascism and plutocracy soon fell into more of the same, adding hysterical militarism, then apocalyptic, beyond idiotic Christianism, followed by the weird alliance of the wealthiest, with the most religious and barbarian chieftains.

Should we want to avoid the new Dark Ages we often seem to be cruise towards, we need to see history as it really was, not according to manipulative agendas. Yes, France gave birth to the USA at the battle of Yorktown, and yes, the USA betrayed the French (and the Poles, and the Brits, and the Jews, and all the other victims of Nazism) in 1939-1940. That’s real history, not to be confused with fake hysteria.

Patrice Ayme

Why Plutocrats Hate France: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

September 19, 2018

NOTHING IS MORE INHUMAN THAN IDIOCY

August 15, 2018

NOTHING TO FEAR MORE THAN IDIOCY

What characterizes the human species above all others? More intelligence! To be more intelligent is to be more human. Thus, to be more stupid is to be more inhuman. This basic observation about human nature ought to be the foundation of any worthy humanism. Humanization? More intelligence! Dehumanization? More stupidity!

Ah, “dehumanization”. The buzz word of August 2018. Internet monopolies have recently enacted policies to reduce what they call “dehumanization” (whereas, in truth, they were its main enablers, for many years). In practice, Internet monopolies eradicated some posts and, or, posters who engaged in blatant, outrageous, hurtful lies. Boldly, the New York Times wandered “Inside Twitter’s Struggle Over What Gets Banned”: The enormity of what some Twitter executives consider “dehumanizing” is striking. Twitter executives ponder whether tweets that disparaged immigrants could be considered dehumanizing. One executive insisted that it was important for Twitter to enable debate about immigration policy.” Thanks Twitter to enable debate about concepts!

Dehumanization is a great problem over the Internet, indeed… And it starts with having oligarchs in charge of deciding what allowable debate, or even presentation, consists of. Facebook censors some most famous paintings of the Renaissance: they hurt its dearth of culture, basic indecency, and overwhelming stupidity.

Once one realizes that stupidity is most dehumanizing, priorities should change. Of course immigration should be debated, and of course *some*, yes, some, immigrants should be disparaged (for example those who immigrate just to kill people of their host countries: there were several cases in France alone, in the last five years, totalling hundreds of victims. For example the Paris November attacks, or the Nice truck driver massacrer, a Tunisian on a residency permit, who killed more than 80 on July 14th…).

***

If intelligence is what characterizes our species most, why has it been so neglected by leading ideologies? Because of whom they were meant to serve!  

Leading ideologies promote stupidity, not just because the dim witted, and those who have mental pretense (like professional intellectuals) without the brainpower, are afraid of the notion of relative intelligence (which, one must admit, is fraught with the greatest subtleties and difficulties).

The fundamental reason why intelligence was not viewed as the foundation of humanism has been that, ever since the Macedonian tyrant Antipater, executor of the will of Aristotle (!) destroyed Athenian democracy, dictators, naturally enough, have prefered to reward and promote stupid philosophies and religions justifying their evil ways (Kant, Herder, Rousseau, Marx were examples; modern examples are all the philosophers absurdly claiming the Absurd to be the foundation).

One of the royal roads to stupidity, thus inhumanism, is to claim that there is no evil. Indeed evil is smart: evil hides in the details, or in plain obscurity (the proverbial “Dark Side”, 4,000 years old. So one needs smarts to detect evil, and, furthermore, smarts fight evil. (See Note 1 On Internet Companies)

A little, yet tragic tale will illustrate this very well.

***

Nothing To Fear More Than Overwhelming Politically Correct Idiocy

Sob story in the New York Times about the delicious US cyclists who went all around the world, constantly posting their adventures, and their faces, on “social networks”. And they advertized how great, handsome, and PC they were, because they extolled how everybody is good, and the only bad ones were those insinuating that not everybody is good, not everybody is beautiful (by the same token all US corporations and “foundations” are good, beautiful, and not evil whatsoever, as evil doesn’t exist).

The “cyclists” of doom, beaming with positivity. We are the world, we are the success, we are the good, look at us, world, just like the world, that world we rule, we gentle and beautiful. Plus or minus a few dozens of millions of determined killers out there… And the evil empire we work for. Mr. Austin was working for the Department of Housing and Urban Development when he decided to make the trip. The country where this picture is taken from crawls with millions of fanatical Muslim Fundamentalists determined to kill “disbelievers”. Obama says that’s beautiful (but then droned them in Yemen, Pakistan). I say it’s not smart to say this is all about goodness…

A mutual admiration society, throughout “social networks”… which can be very profitable for those who partake in them professionally: brainless, ignorant, thus splendid and familiar “Youtubers” can make fortunes, spilling all over the world their inanities. All for the best in the best of possible worlds, led by the best humanity which ever was (some of the major Internet monopolies are now taking affirmative action against authors who claim this is not the best of possible worlds, and censoring loud and clear; yours truly was censored and banned from many Internet places and search engines, more than a decade ago; when I said so, even leftists told me I was hallucinating). How wonderful, great, kind, awesome, well-meaning humanity is. Let’s quote the New York Times about that self-admiration society in A Dream Ended on a Mountain Road: The Cyclists and the ISIS Militants:

“Still, by the time they reached that bend in the road in Tajikistan just over a week ago, they had embraced the notion that the world was overwhelmingly good, the dozens of annotated photographs and the thousands of words they left behind show.

“You read the papers and you’re led to believe that the world is a big, scary place,” Mr. Austin wrote. “People, the narrative goes, are not to be trusted. People are bad. People are evil.

“I don’t buy it. Evil is a make-believe concept we’ve invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own … By and large, humans are kind. Self-interested sometimes, myopic sometimes, but kind. Generous and wonderful and kind… No greater revelation has come from our journey than this,” [Mr. Austin] wrote.” .

The (relatively) wealthy cyclists from the disant imperial superpower joined with other cyclists.

“Days turned to weeks, and then into months. Their bodies began to break. An ear infection landed Ms. Geoghegan in the emergency room in France. They both contracted pinkeye. They shouldered on through upset stomachs and sore throats.

It was winter by the time they reached Europe last December. Torrential rain soaked through their waterproof gloves. “Utterly hopeless, wet and cold,” they posted from Spain.”

At that point, they were saved by generous French and, or Spanish inhabitants, who dried them, sheltered them, and let them live with them until recovered. The amazing thing is that Mr. Austin was exposed to wanton acts of cruelty on the part of other human beings. Still, he persisted in broadcasting his “no evil” theory of humanity… Was he so deeply inculcated by Google, which pretended, for a decade, that its credo was “Don’t be evil”? (At least Google admitted the possibility of evil…)

The will to claim there is no evil, even after having been exposed to plenty of it, means that one is not authentic. Authenticity enables to reach deeper truth more easily. Truth is not just pretty, and a higher calling. Truth saves. And for those who refuse the truth, in the worst cases, death awaits, which could have been otherwise avoided. New York Times:

“But in the course of their travels, their blog posts also noted flashes of cruelty.

On one mountain pass, a group of men blocked their path and tried to shove the couple off their bikes.

And just 50 yards from the Spanish border in bumper-to-bumper traffic, Mr. Austin signaled to a driver that he wanted to cut into his lane. The driver let him enter and then — slowly and deliberately — began to run him over, trapping Mr. Austin’s bike between the advancing car and the vehicle ahead of them.

Still, by the time they reached that bend in the road in Tajikistan just over a week ago, they had embraced the notion that the world was overwhelmingly good, the dozens of annotated photographs and the thousands of words they left behind show.”

***

What happened in that bend of road is that those who self-promote through naivety to the point of hypocrisy met those who apply the lethal, vengeful, deliberately anti-Western ideology of Islam literally. Deliberately anti-Western? Muhammad himself said so. His followers followed the irate “men in black” Christian monks of the Fourth and Fifth century. Let’s not forget that, when Imperial Rome was at its peak, women bathed in what would be called 2,000 years later, bikinis.

***

What your “friends” call goodness, your enemies call evil:

New York Times:

…”over a week ago,came Day 369, when the couple was biking in formation with a group of other tourists on a panoramic stretch of road in southwestern Tajikistan. It was there, on July 29, that a carload of men who are believed to have recorded a video pledging allegiance to the Islamic State spotted them.

A grainy cellphone clip recorded by a driver shows what happened next: The men’s Daewoo sedan passes the cyclists and then makes a sharp U-turn. It doubles back, and aims directly for the bikers, ramming into them and lurching over their fallen forms. In all, four people were killed: Mr. Austin, Ms. Geoghegan and cyclists from Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Two days later, the Islamic State released a video showing five men it identified as the attackers, sitting before the ISIS flag. They face the camera and make a vow: to kill “disbelievers.”

It was a worldview as diametrically opposed as imaginable to the one Mr. Austin and Ms. Geoghegan were trying to live by. Throughout their travels, the couple wrote a blog together and shared Instagram postsabout the openheartedness they wanted to embody and the acts of kindness reciprocated by strangers.”

Mr. Austin and his pseudo-benevolent, pseudo-benign ilk, those holier-than thou types who insist that there is no evil, except in our presumably evil and obdurately perverse, all too critical minds, have human nature between blindfolds.

The world is a big, scary place, indeed. Some people are not to be trusted. Some people are bad. Some people are evil.

I don’t buy it.” said the one who got assassinated, in a revealing semantic slip: the assassinated victim speaks as if he believed everything was for sale, even ideas… Maybe he believed indeed all was a question of buying and selling. That is exactly the sort of mercantile mentality, the mentality that everything is for sale, that everything can be bought, many of those who are angry against the established order want to destroy (thus the appeal of Islamism). (Some will pontificate that “I buy it”is just a way of expressing oneself, that it means nothing, that it does nothing. Yes it does: it infeodates, emotionally speaking, the realm of ideas to the realm of buy and sell, Wall Street.)

Evil is not a make-believe concept we’ve invented to “deal” with the “complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own”…

Evil is not a question of making “deals”, as the naive smashed victim believed, in another semantic slip into emotional mercantilism. There are values and perspectives that are incompatible: an example is literal Islam, as found in Qur’an and Hadith… which is deeply incompatible with human ethology! Human ethology makes female and male humans quite similar. Islam says females are a fraction of men, at least judicially. The most common, wealthiest, most powerful versions of Islam says females are to be covered up. So it’s Islam against humanity, and only extreme violence can hope to succeed in this hopeless struggle. Hopeless: because how could humanity defeat itself?

Any ideology incompatible with humanity as deeply as Islam is, can be depicted as evil, as it generates a war with humanity: Nazism is another example. So are nearly all existing superstitious religions, for example Islam’s forerunner, Christianity… simply because they are war or slave religions which view women as warrior producing machines…

***

Evil is not just hidden in ideologies, more or less. Evil also has a neurological side, with its own rewards and its own inertia:

Hormones and neurohormones leading to destruction, cruelty, sadism, viciousness, fighting, do exist. Some will scoff, because, in their colossal ignorance and lack of the most basic imagination, they don’t realize humanity stand on the corpses of hundreds of millions of lions. Among other beasts vanquished, and prime among them, other human beings. Beasts and men alike learned their lesson: they were deliberately hunted.

Indeed after all these lions had been disposed of, it remained to dispose of those who disposed of the lions (and the tigers, and the panthers, and the saber tooth cats, and all sorts of man eating bears, etc.). War hormones are made to take command, and kill. War hormones can take command of an individual, or, much more dangerously, a crowd (some forms of lethal viciousness such as anti-Judaism have persisted for 17 centuries). By and large, humans are kind, deep down inside. However, not all the time, and not everybody. How many lunatics with a finger on a nuclear holocaust does it take to ruin the planet? Answer: just one. So the question of the evil of the one is paramount.

***

Stupidity is the main enabler of oppression, subjugation, thus evil (ideological, or physical):

Consider for example the banking system: money (for “everybody”) is created by lending to the wealthiest. Unacceptable in democracy, but accepted, because most people don’t know! Stupidity rules! (How the banking system works is not something taught as very important to MBAs…)

With the power we have today, a few self-interested plutocrats can own most of everything, and thus can have most of the power. And how many myopic leaders can we take? Even if the majority is kind, generous, and wonderful, it takes just one, or a few myopic ones, to kill us all.

No greater revelation came out of the naive victims’ sacrifices  than this: one gets killed only once, and, nowadays, thanks to cars, SUVs, rockets, the atom, one lunatic can kill a village, a city, even a country.

Human beings can be all the kindness they want to project. I am sure the five Islamist murderers can be kind, generous, wonderful… in particular circumstances which suits them. But they also believed in a murderous ideology. Murderous ideologies have to be killed, and were always killed. This is generosity, kindness, and wonderfulness at their best. By killing murderous ideologies humanity progresses and civilization reconciles itself with necessary technological advances, reconciling our new found powers and what our ethos needs to be to enable the genus homo to survive.

That intelligence is central to humanity has long been obvious: after all, the name of the species is Homo SAPIENS (Swede Carl von Linné in 1758). Sapere comes in part from to taste, to perceive, being wise, all things pretty much synonymous with intelligence.

We live in strangely mentally degenerating times (take the notion that fearing Islam is racist, as if fearing Christianity, something most intellectuals were affected by, for 17 centuries, was racist… Or, more basically consider the (“snowflake“) notion that debate itself is something one should fear). Actually it’s not so strange: the degeneracy is symbiotic with plutocracy itself: it originates with it, and also makes it possible.

Small superficial thinkers play the same role in the army of plutocracy as light skirmishers played in ancient armies. They are also the junction between the most common masses and the sophisticated intellectuals from the top universities, experts of the collaboration with the established order.

Nietzsche attacked Christianity as a “slave religion”. Most superstitious religions are slave religions: that’s why they have been invented. They all rest on the sentiment that the common person is culprit, a sinner, because that person didn’t believe in the goodness of the powers that be, which, lo and behold, pretty much identify with the oppressors.

The world cyclists, everybody-is-good, everybody-is-beautiful reflected this, as they denied that there were bad ideologies, or bad people. Instead, they brandished as culprit the attitude of suspicion, and what underlays it, simple objectivity.

They paid the price. A sad story. Let’s make it a worthy lesson.

So would we, as individuals, or as humanity, if we didn’t stay sharp and suspicious. Critique, intelligence, a propensity to detect evil, are no way to sell one’s products, but they are the way to stay alive. And they are also the foundations of morality. Anything short of that is effective nihilism.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: Don’t be evil, we have the monopoly of that. Internet companies ask their subscribers and victims to sign long contracts in subtle legalese; that’s intrinsically evil: next thing you know all and any of your activities will be transmitted to various centers of powers, including para-governmental banks.

***

Note 2: New philosophers and philosophies coming out of them have to be smarter, logically or emotionally, than what came before. For example, Kant could be very smart. However, on most important subjects, racism and slavery, he was most dumb. His position would have necessitated to prove that enslaved races were inferior, objectively. Worse among towering German philosophers: Marx was an outright racist against Africans (and Jews, although he was one of them… one feels tempted to say: because he was one of them…)

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/marx-as-vituperating-racist-proto-nazi/

One see here that the followers of Kant and Marx, among them the Nazis (who said so themselves! Even Hitler!), have been self-selecting for dumbness (because they believe strongly, on a most important subjects, and all the “proofs” they have, are insults…)

***

Note 3: The rise of anti-PC psycho-philosophers such as Jordan Peterson (“12 rules”…) exploit the dumbness of the pseudo-left, by pointing out, implicitly, that it is more human to be smart.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/

***

Note 4: I was banned from sites in the past, for unknown reason, including the NYT, which has recently reinstated me… The only site which banned me, around a decade ago, the “European Tribune”, for an explicit cause, explained to me that some of its members viewed me as a crazy conspiracy theorist, as I pretended that there were relationships between US plutocrats and Nazism, or between some well-known bankers and Nazism. The proof of my madness was that, according to them, Internet searches seem to show only me had such weird ideas… 

 

 

 

 

Is Trump Hatred Secretly Directed At Clinton-Obama?

July 23, 2018

If they have a choice, do individuals tell themselves the truth, or convenient, more pleasurable fiction? Of course, generally the latter, except if in life or death situations (hence the philosophical interest of harrowing occurrences…) Thus individuals can, and will, hook up with collective crazes out there, if possible: collective crazes can be most pleasurable, thrilling, encouraging. Especially hatred.

One can see this clearly right now with Trump Derangement Syndrome: many pseudo-progressives, in a mass mental action, are obsessing about Trump 24/7… it sucks up all their mental oxygen, if any… while proposing strictly nothing to progress civilizationally!  Hoping for a return to the unsuspected plutophile past, the New York Times asked:”Disgusted With Donald Trump? Do This” … And for the New York Times to propose to vote… Against Trump.

However it’s precisely because they were disgusted by the lies of the Republican establishment (especially regarding the Iraq invasion) that Republicans voted for Trump: Trump’s primary Republican campaign consisted mostly in screaming to the face of his competitors that they were “liars”. And indeed, they were. (Let’s not forget Trump was a “Democrat” until September 2009.) It’s precisely because they were disgusted by the lies of the establishment that Blue State democrats voted for Trump.

The Blue State democrats who voted for Obama in 2012 (refined studies have shown), feeling betrayed, turned to Trump 4 years later. Thus the notion of betrayal is important. It is now alleged by Trump’s adversaries, such as the dying Senator McCain, that Trump is a traitor working for the KGB. However, McCain wrote strident stuff, two years ago about “Huma” not being a traitor. Who was “Huma”?  Someone who promoted Sharia in the West (Sharia is Muslim law: homosexuals, apostates, polytheists, insulters of Islam or the prophets, and others, have to be “executed”; women are worth half a man). Blue State democrats who voted for Trump, and not the establishment represented by Clinton and her sidekick Abedin… Huma Abedin, the straighter than straight citizen, according to McCain, the one with a giant set of teeth, literal and figurative, could be seen clearly, by modest people, as someone financed by the Wahhabist establishment of Saudi Arabia, for decades.

That McCain flew to the defense of someone from a family whose family business is Saudi propaganda shows him for what he is: fully a member of the Bitter Lake Conspiracy and its ilk. (Or maybe McCain hoped to sleep with her? …That’s the only valid excuse I can imagine) Abedin’s Congressman husband, and Clinton confidante, was involved in public sex with children, and now meditates in prison: one can’t make these things up.

Surely, Trump didn’t create the US system. For example, laws abusing children are centuries old in the USA. Separating children from parents can be called an industry (I even saw a case where the officer in charge apparently stole a child. Admittedly, I don’t know all the details… But the little blonde girl was a friend of my own daughter, who still asks about her, we tried to teach her some swimming… They left the US, apparently for Europe. Although the mom was a thief (she stole some things of mine), I am not saying she was a bad mother. But I am saying that in the US system, children can be certainly taken from parents…)

So why all the rage against Trump? Why not raging about those monstrous laws earlier? Thus then, wonder: the state of being enraged is a more general neurological condition than rage against a particular individual. This is why people who are angry will often hit an innocent object. So rage can start against someone (Obama) or something (the Democratic Party) and be transferred to someone else (Trump, Putin), or something (Russia).

So the rage is here. What caused it? They say: Trump, obviously. Yet it’s clear that Trump didn’t create the situation he found: the disastrous state of healthcare, the dearth of quality employment, unaffordable decent housing, unaffordable education, unsustainable trade balances, all-powerful finance, etc.

Reagan was the big change. Although Nixon was a crook, he was small time relative to Reagan and his admirers (among them Clinton, Obama)… Ever since the plutocrats have made ever more money and the poorest, the majority of the population, ever less relatively speaking…

The culpability of Obama is immense. Contemplate financial derivatives: even the Catholic Pope condemned them (I propose that all the practitioners of this dark conspiracy should be mass-excommunicated). Obama? Que nenni!

Naturally, “democrats” can’t admit to themselves that the colored skin hero took them for a ride, favoring, for eight years all-invading tech monopolies… so that they would employ him afterwards (one of the very most profitable monopolies under Obama, Netflix, is now employing the Obamas, under secret terms; somebody else, much less famous announced his contract with Netflix was 300 million dollars; so a billion dollar contract with the Obamas is imaginable; OK, 999 millions…)

Is then Trump another name for eight disastrous years of Obama? Actually, the disaster of increasing inequality, not to say iniquity evolved over 34 years.

The voices of the past say there is a solution to anti-Trump hatred: vote for the same old same old! That would certainly feel good, and moreover, solve nothing! Alleluia!

Here is an example: human rights for children, as defined by the United Nations. All countries subscribe to them, but for one country. The USA. When Obama and his gang had a supermajority, they could easily have joined the rest of humanity, and make it illegal to separate children from parents except in really extreme cases. They didn’t. They put children in cages, and… Trump did the same. Whose fault is that? The fake progressives who campaigned for Obama? (I campaigned heavily for Obama myself, giving years of life for him: zero return!)

The children in cages crap was clear for all to see in 2014. If the New York Times wants non-voters to bother voting,  the political parties, in particular the Democratic Party, need to own up to their own mistakes and stop blaming everyone else.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/treaty-ratification/theres-only-one-country-hasnt-ratified-convention-childrens

So now “democrats” and other pseudo-social justice types rightly scream against Trump separating kids and parents. But why didn’t they do something when they could? Why didn’t they strike these infamous US laws and practices, separating kids from parents, when they could?

More pertinently, where is the really progressive agenda? When Obama finished his mandate, inequality reached its highest level, ever. When Obama finished, getting ready to cash in, life expectancy in the USA took its most serious dip in a century. Any propositions to fix all these problems?

Instead, a new McCarthyism has been launched. With Russia accused of “interfering” in elections. As if the US had never “interfered” in elections anywhere? As if the USA didn’t have, for decades, the practice to interfere not just in elections, but with elected officials. Was the launch, by the USA and its CIA of the coup against legitimately elected President Allende of Chile, ever prosecuted in the USA?

The rage against Trump is often commendable. However, the truth is worse: the rage is secretly directed at Obama, Clinton, and other traitors to We The People. Trump is only the name that can be uttered. So don’t vote for the same old. Think anew!

The essence of what I wrote above was published as a comment of mine by the New York Times. Only one reader recommended it: thus they know they are all culprits, and would rather avert their eyes, and their minds…

Could the troubling anti-Trump, anti-Russian hysteria agitating the USA run out of control? If one uses a strict analogy to Rome, to the Roman Republic, at first sight, it sounds fishy. However, the Roman civil war started in a way similar to the present situation.

Let me explain: in my vision of history, the Roman civil war was on and off, from say 150 BCE until Augustus terminated Cleopatra and Marc Anthony, and the Populus, following the army, gave him absolute control (to terminate strife, and repair tranquility, justice, society and economy).

How did the Roman civil war start? With an argument between the People, allied to the army, politically led by the Gracchi (who renounced their Patrician status to be elected Tribunes of the People) against the Gracchi’s own  fellow elite (who came to call themselves the “Optimates“). The argument was the same as now: inequality profited the Optimates, while reducing the status of We The People below the tolerable… Exactly what is happening now.

Suddenly, what was a purely political Roman debate versed into mass murder: the plutocrats killed the Gracchi and their supporters (more than 5,000 of the latter).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/stop-humoring-the-plutocracy/

This is why the hatred deployed against Trump and those who don’t join in the hatred against Trump is so troubling. It could switch to murder. Right now, we are at the stage where, ridiculously, Trump is accused by supposedly serious pundits, of treason.

Trump interviews from 30 years ago show roughly the same ideas & moods: his mental and volitional density was created, idiosyncratically, over many decades. He really believes in his positions. When barely 20 years old, he sued (successfully!) the US government for defamation… So calm down, and debate with civility. The many unsustainable characteristics of the USA, NATO, the West, the world, the biosphere, are not caused by Trump. They have been caused by the fact the USA was led by fake progressives and fake social justice politicians. Clinton actually destroyed the progress instituted by president Franklin Delano Roosevelt for controlling banks: an astounding insanity, not to say criminality. The result was the pandemonium of 2008, solved by Obama and the BCE by giving to the wealthiest exactly what they had lost, an even more crazed viciousness: social care for the wealthiest, let the rest of the population be despised and go starving, while the richest get subsidies for their luxury electric cars, the Obama way…

No wonder there is so much anger out there. Anger is good. But only when well-directed. The Germans’ anger against their own plutocracy, in particular, was redirected against the French, Slavs and Jews, with catastrophic results.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/nazism-a-consequence-of-vibrant-plutocracy/

We know the solutions: the first one is to get rid of the idea of giving so much power to a few, literally the power of life and death on the planet, a power no oligarchs ever had before. That they are elected or not doesn’t matter: Frankish kings were elected for nearly a millennium, still those Frankish regimes were basically dictatorships, and what we have now is closer to those than to Direct Democracy. So dislike the principle of Trump as much as you want: it is the same principle which brought us Reagan, Clinton, W and Obama, all demonstrably disastrous presidencies… even by the standards of Nixon’s reign. Nixon, was one of the two principal actors of McCarthyism, the hateful paranoia against anything resembling socialism, or even, criticism, by identifying either to Stalinism. However, once president, when he was not organizing burglaries or Christmas bombings (to persuade the Vietminh of the error of their ways), Nixon was not as bad as what we had since. Nixon created the EPA, the HMO system, etc.  Of course, I detest Nixon, and think HMOs are no good (relative to other possibilities). However, Nixon didn’t dismantle the Banking Act of 1933, as Clinton did. And although cuddly to plutocrats like his friend Kaiser, Nixon was not only doing what plutocrats told him to do, as Obama did.

Thus those who frantically hate Trump should realize their hatred should not be directed just upon the latest dictator around: what came before is what needs to be fixed. Going shrill on what Trump may do (like pulling out of the Paris climate accord in 2021…) is not constructive in the perspective of achieving real progress. And are you driving an SUV? Are you flying around the planet for tourism? If you are, hate yourself (if you have no good reason to be driving an SUV, or flying around, like Obama and his enormous entourage). Hate Trump, yet remember he gave half a million dollars to the Clintons, a few years ago. Hate Trump, but remember you may be worse.

Those who can’t examine their own lives, can’t elect the ideas and moods which should lead us. They give us a life that’s not worth living. For an inkling of what that entails, just ask the Jihadist next door, who, after all, has to live in an Islamist society, driving her, or him, to the most abject despair!

Trump Derangement Syndrome brings allegations that Russia financed the Trumps: as I said, plutocracy is one, I fully expects this. However, time spent obsessing about Trumps instead of progressing towards social justice, or a better, or simply survivable world. Those obsessed by Trumps should have been obsessed by Obamas before, when the world was given to the monopolies which now pay them handsomely!

By vomiting on Trump all day long, those with Trump Derangement Syndrome deny that we have a plutocratic problem, much deeper than one individual. TDS is a drug, an opiate for the soul:’Look, I am good, I hate Trump!’ No, you should hate history first, get to know it.

History is subtle, and has to be revisited. Take Cicero. Take Cato the Younger. Both are viewed as beyond any suspicion, the second one of the heroes of Stoicism. I claim they contributed to bury the (Roman) Republic, and I claim that, to understand what they did wrong, should inform today’s debate on what afflicts us: to be continued…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: As far as I know, I invented the concept of TDS. So many of my previously politically inert friends were severely affected, switching from total political indifference to Trump hatred. It was clearly a mania, like the Tulip Bulb mania, the South Sea Bubble, etc. The funny thing is that, a few years prior, when clearly Obama engaged in an outrageously oligarchic policy, they couldn’t care less…

Here is an early use of TDS: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/advanced-machiavellian-insulting/

Wikipedia observes that the late WSJ Krauthammer took it up six months later (maybe from one of my comments to the WSJ)

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/06/you_cant_govern_by_id_charles.html

 

Separating Children From Parents: A Crime. Not Fixing Guatemala Also A Crime

June 17, 2018

In my general semantics, plutocracy is exactly what that word says: the evil (Pluto) power (kratia). Plutocracy, the Dark Side ruling, is not just about money ruling (it’s a point on which I am in agreement with the mythical Jesus…) Sob story in New York Times about a mother separated from her son, then sent back to Guatemala, while her son, 8 years old, is left in the tender loving care of US judges. (Horrendous stories about babies and toddlers crying on the floor by the hundreds, torn from their deported parents, are circulating in the comment section of the New York Times.)

‘I Can’t Go Without My Son’:
A Deported Mother’s Plea
As a growing number of families are being separated as part of the Trump administration’s attempt to control illegal immigration, some parents are being deported without their children.

US tender loving care as its typical best. An officer at a detention center gave Elsa Ortiz a phone number to get in contact with her son, but said she was deported before she could use it. CreditMarian Carrasquero/The New York Times

To separate children from parents was practiced by Canada and Australia less than 60 years ago. It is recognized, by the United Nations’ law as a crime against humanity. It is especially horrendous when babies and toddlers are concerned.

Famously, the USA refused entry to hundreds of thousands of refugees from Nazi Germany, including Jews, in the 1930s and 1940-41. Most got stuck in France, and when France fell to the Nazis attack, dozens of thousands of these refugees were hunted across occupied France, found out, and then deported and assassinated by the Nazis.

However, Guatemala is not quite Nazi Germany. Yet if it is too much a place of criminal state activity (as the mother of that child asserts), it should be the duty of the US government to do something about it, at the government level.

Once again what happened with Nazism should be a guide: not only France accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Nazis, but, finally, France declared war to the Nazis (September 3, 1939). That, unfortunately led to the fall and occupation of France ten months later (and death of many refugees, as I said). Yet, there was an overall beneficial effect: the Nazis were not ready for war in 1939, and thus ultimately lost it (in 1945… when the Nazis had initially intended to go to war, with enough weapons).

Conclusions: separating parent and child is borderline crime against humanity, no ifs and buts. However, a strong deterrent, indeed. A better, and much less controversial deterrent would be to bring US power to improve matters in, say, Guatemala, by bearing onto the government there. That’s absolutely needed! Precisely by bringing enough power, including economic sanctions against higher-ups, to change things there for a tolerable level, or, at least, mightily push in that direction!

Some will whine it didn’t work with Cuba, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and now Venezuela. But that’s not right. Gentle pressure worked well in several of these countries, and also Peru, Columbia, or, for that matter, South Africa. Law enforcement is a global problem. By letting plutocrats roam free and arrange the world to suit themselves, we encourage global crime.

Arguably, it’s even the other way around: take Mexico. Under the guise of privatizing, the Mexican government gave Carlos Slims, a fifth generation plutocrat, the national telecommunication company, for pennies on the dollar. Slims became the world’s wealthiest man (and greatest owner of New York Times class A shares…) So doing, corruption blossomed at the very highest level of Mexican government, hence encouraging it at all levels. Meanwhile the new class of power addicts in the USA got drugged on cocaine (as Obama proudly flaunts in his pseudo-auto biography), creating a huge demand for organized crime networks to export said cocaine in the US. Hence a gang war in Mexico, which killed more than 100,000, and incited many Mexicans to flee to the USA.

So the US can do more than put innocent eight year olds in prison, making them into orphans: instead, send US drug addicts of the highest type to prison, the sort which crow about their addiction in print … and push to clean Mexico, in part by doing so…

Patrice Ayme

Note 1: Attorney General Sessions claimed that illegal immigrants coming with children is a deliberate tactic, as it more than tripled in a few years, from 14,000 to 71,000… Hence the need for a crackdown. BTW, there is a Federal Law which says one can’t separate parent from child for more than a few days… Except for good judicial reason… Otherwise it’s definitively child abuse.

***

Note 2: DHS claims 10,000 children presently in the care of HHS (they are transferred from DHS to HHS within 72 hours) were sent separated from their parents, with strangers, and that’s how separation happened. Policy already existed under Obama. Trump says he “hates the policy”, asks Congress to change the law. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat, says that 14,500 children came recently, WITHOUT PARENTS… And more than 11,000 are now under custody. (Total number of people arrested average 15,000 a month.)

250 children are caught a day… and send to school…