Archive for the ‘Foundation Plutocracy’ Category

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…

Gibbon’s “Decline & Fall of Roman Empire” In Pluto Context (Fall of Rome Part 2)

September 12, 2017

The British, yet French educated historian Edward Gibbon explained that he accomplished the work of “philosopher” in his justly famous “Decline and Fall of Rome” (DFR). 3,000 pages of dense text! Gibbon explained that the art of the “genius” historian was to select, as a “philosopher”, among a morass of facts “which are just facts”, those of higher significance. The irony, of course, is that his life’s work eschew highest significance, although he himself pulls the curtains for a brief instant, flashing the reality his work misses entirely…

To detect facts of the highest significance, and make them speak, is the fundament of the art of highest thinking. (This is true for all of philosophy, including of the natural sort, as Albert Einstein pointed out.).

Under Trajan, the Empire was at greatest MILITARY & territorial extent, when Gibbon starts his story. Later, the empire would extent much further, spiritually speaking through the concept of “Christian Republic”.

Trajan also introduced welfare and taxes on the richest. He could have gone further, but bemoaned he was too old to emulate Alexander (who didn’t introduce welfare and taxes on the richest, BTW…) Indeed he promptly died and his successor Hadrian was not cut from the same cloth, and precipitously evacuated much of the empire Trajan had conquered. (The map above shows clearly that the German barbarians were too close from the heart of the empire, just north of Italy, and sure enough, Marcus Aurelius spent his reign repelling them there; his ignorant son, Commodus withdrew further, Hadrian style…).

Under Augustus, legions reached Ethiopia and Yemen, but Augustus was full of avarice, and the notion of a world civilization didn’t appeal to him. In any case, he had none to propose. So he pulled the legions back from Germany, Africa and the Indian Ocean shore, and left a will, read in the Senate, advocating a shrunken empire, the exact opposite notion from his great uncle, Julius Caesar….

The “Decline and Fall of Rome” embraced not just the Roman empire from 100 CE to 1453 CE, but also Islam, and the Crusades. Gibbon, rightly, wrote an entire history of the West, from 100 CE, to 1500 CE!

Indeed, the idea that Rome survived the Decline and Fall of Rome was not a new observation: the empire of the Franks, the Imperium Francorum, was, de facto, Rome: it used the latest refurbished (Justinian legal code) Roman law, etc. It could be argued that the Frankish Empire was more Roman than Constantinople, because it spoke Latin, not Greek. By 800 CE, the Imperium Francorum proclaimed itself  “RENOVATION of The Roman Empire”..

Thus, then, of course, Gibbon, by his own implicit admission, should have called his book: The Decline, Fall and Resurrection of Rome! When Gibbon was writing his book, the British empire was much larger than the Roman empire, and arguably better organized and centralized. The French empire was not far behind, and, by his own admission, Gibbon recognizes that the Russian empire dwarfed Rome, in some sense.

Something even stranger is that Gibbon recognizes the obvious: most of the Roman Empire was created under the Republic. And it was because the soldiers defended their rights and their properties. Whereas, in the period Gibbon considers, when the Republic has been replaced by what he calls a “monarchy”, soldiers were motivated by greed, obedience and “religion”.i

Thus, however broadly he encompassed the history of the West after 100 CE, Gibbon could only miss the true cause of the corruption which he bemoaned, and caused the decline and fall of the Roman State.

But there was no choice: for 8 years a Member of Parliament (where he was “mute”), Gibbon enjoyed fame and clout in the British plutocracy. Gibbon could not sing the praises of the Republic. All the more as he made clear, in 1793 CE, that however admirable French artillery was, the valor of French soldiers deserved a better cause (or words to this effect). Gibbon had seen the conspiracy and alliance of European plutocrats attacking the French Republic. Gibbon had actually seen a battle (and was part of a militia ready to defend England against a French invasion, a rather ironical matter, as it was France which was invaded by everybody from the gang of all “aristocrats” united, not England!.

However deliciously informative reading him is, Edward Gibbon was deeply biased. So was all of history, ever since “politics” was founded. “Politics” means “looking at the City-State”. That look was not friendly, because most Greek City-States had democratic characters lost, ever since. To the sort of regimes Gibbon admired… and was a part of.

Gibbon didn’t draw the obvious conclusion from the sketch, in a few lines which he made of the Roman Republic, or how the Roman Empire came to be. His entire “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is biased, from context alone. From the universe which he chose to consider.

Today the British Parliament voted 326 to 290 the previously named “Great Repeal Bill” overturning the law from 1972 infeodating  British law to European law (by accepting the supremacy of the latter). This displaces sovereignty on 12,000 laws.

It’s as Mick Jagger put it in an excellent video “England lost”. In it a dishevelled English gentleman loses his mind from imagined frights, and dashed hopes to turn England into Singapore. At the end, the Briton runs straight into the sea, then stops, dazzled. A black man helps pull him out. A terse blonde 14 year old.girl tells him:”where do you think you could go?..pull yourself together”.

Clearly, by the time of Gibbon, the delusion was going strong. We don’t harbor it here. To understand the Decline and Fall of Rome is to understand the decline and fall of the RESPUBLICA Romana. It’s the Republic and its republicans which built the empire, not the evil imperial baboons the English plutocrat Gibbon is fascinated by…

Patrice Ayme’