Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category

USA As A Police State

August 10, 2016

Many rage against Donald Trump, while singing the praises of Obama. They overlook that the Donald duck is what the Obama cat dragged home. How? Those who like false explanations call Trump supporters racist. However, Obama is personally popular, with a favorability rating of more than 50%, something rare for a president finishing his mandate. Meanwhile their anti-establishment rhetoric is strong (they detest Hillary Clinton, a blonde). So what irks Trump supporters is not so much the color of one skin, but the fact they have little skin in the game. For seven years, I wrote that the Obama’s administration, plus the Federal Reserve, deliberately favored the richest and especially the financial sector (say through Quantitative Easing, which directed money to the biggest banks).

Now the poorest are enraged. And the (plutocratically owned) media tell us that this “populism” is a dangerous form of racism. You want to see racism? Here it is:

Living While Black Is A Dangerous Condition. Obama Has Nothing To Do With It.

Living While Black Is A Dangerous Condition. Obama Has Nothing To Do With It.

Whereas, the obvious explanation is that average people are suffering as they see their median income, the median social fabric, their median everything go down, except for Obamacare copays, and for huge inflation striking not just healthcare, but education, and lack of upwards mobility. 

My friend John Michael Gartland told me that: “The American middle class pays 20%+ more every year in medical insurance payments and gets 40%+ less benefits. The political elite has no idea what regular people pay for anything. President Obama says fanciful things with sincere oratory but very little of it is true. At best, it is good intentions not backed up by reality.”

Another class of low lives experience discontent: those who are directly under the brunt of the police state. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arY3gtdNhjY

More and more videos are showing how ugly the system is.

Suppose the following. You are stuck somewhere, you don’t have the means to move. Somebody in the neighborhood comes to you and accuses you to have shot at them years ago, and you missed. Suppose also that you have never touched a gun in your life. You are accused of a complete lie. What to do? Apologize? But an apology would acknowledge that what did not happen, happened: it would make you an accomplice of your own victimization, and a culprit in two ways (of an act of violence that you did not commit against someone else, and of an act of violence you did commit against yourself).

So, what is the wisest course? Get a gun. It may seem counter-intuitive that arming oneself for ultimate violence is the wisest course. And for the individual, it is not, if the individual is willing to forgo all dignity. But, for a community, arming oneself is generally better than harming oneself.

There are two ways to abuse people: neglect them, or directly assault them. If one can get abused people to apologize, they will join in their own abuse, and take a beaten dog mentality. Making them even easier to abuse.

Another trick to rule is to divide by dividing patterns of abuse. The rage of more and more young African-Americans is a healthy reaction to a pattern of abuse meant to destroy self-worth. The abuse has increased with the repression. A Darwinian system has been set-up to subdue rebellious low lives.

Philando Castile was pulled over in July by a police officer in a car. It was at least his 46th traffic stop. Nearly all for minor traffic violations. It was his last.

After the stop — over a broken tail light — the police officer was told by Castille himself, that he, Castille carried, legally, a gun. Apparently scared that Castile could grab said gun, the officer shot and bled to death the 32-year-old. Castile’s girlfriend then live-streamed the dialogue she had with the officer on Facebook, sternly retelling the story of how a traffic stop for a low-level offense turned into a legal execution… while making sure of calling respectfully the assassin “Sir”.

Castile’s story has been the rule, for decades. Simply, good thinking people ignored it. Only now, thanks to modern technology, does the method become hard to deny. Eric Garner, Samuel DuBose, Sandra Bland — these are just a few of the victims of police and the criminal justice system over the past several years, but they all fall into the same basic framework: a routine stop or arrest for a low-level offense goes horribly wrong, leaving someone dead after they were accused of a misdemeanor or crime that doesn’t even involve any prison time.

Why? The police in the USA is trained to terrify the population into respectful subjugation (notice the analogy with Islam). That keeps said population focused on eating sugar (subsidized), corn syrup (subsidized), and watching sport on TV (subsidized) happening in the stadium (subsidized). Instead of having the population daydreaming about changing the system into a better place.

The criminal justice system in the US has become profit generating: there are private prisons, their companies are on Wall Street.

But local communities also share in the profits the abuse generates.

The law enforcement system make these encounters with the law happen frequently, and with increasing weight in a person’s life, once that person has been detected as a low life, and especially a low life who does not respect orders well.

It begins with one ticket or a traffic stop. But if someone can’t pay that fine, police will stop or arrest him or her again to get that someone to pay up. This leads to that someone getting fined again for not paying up already. And again. And again. One ticket brings a vicious cycle that can destroy a life.

With each of these encounters, someone’s record piles up — giving officers more reason, in the view they have been trained to have, to stop him or her, because they see the person’s record when running a license plate. Each time the arrests happen, the exasperation of the victim augments. At some point, they snap (we have videos testifying to victims saying they had enough, after being arrested dozens of times; they were then killed, one way, or another).

Neighborhoods with poor people of color are heavily policed, so miscreants are more likely to catch a cop’s eye if they run a stop sign, fail to signal on a turn, have a broken tail light, or sell untaxed cigarettes.

This isn’t just about a few police killings. It’s a criminal justice system that’s biased towards a Prussian like discipline for low lives. That’s even true with drugs: for an equal mass of the offending product, the sentences are ten times harsher on the sort of cocaine poor people use, than on the refined powder the rich use.

The USA is a multiracial society where low lives can keep on living, as long as they obey the system strictly. Otherwise the police’s ominous presence is there to remind them they can be shot. Appearances of fairness abound. Obama was made president and a Nobel laureate, but then was told, as he knew he would be, to obey the system strictly. Being smart, and all that, it’s exactly what he did. That’s why Obama gave so much to the hyper wealthy, the same who now embrace Hillary Clinton. (To compensate for his loss of dignity, he is an expert at looking full of it.)

When lauding the US model, with its ultrapowerful financial pirates, its high inequality, its performance oriented work ethics (certainly the highest, by far, of the countries which view themselves as most decent), supporters forget to mention the police state aspect. Even more striking, they forget to mention that it was roughly multiplied by ten, after Bill Clinton passed severe laws which set a very stern ambiance… And nearly doubled the incacerated population. US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg

(This is only the tip of the iceberg; total population under “judicial supervision” in the US, is now more than eight millions.)

This will not end well. But when will it end? The nasty plutocratic Roman system was the sorry predecessor of the present one. It ended as total degeneracy of everything. The alienation of Roman “populus” (people) from themselves lasted up to eight centuries (in the parts which were invaded by the Islamists, and the Oriental Part, Pars Orientalis). In the Occident, the system collapsed when the Franks and other Germans took control around 480 CE. In other words, the corruption of democracy into plutocracy can last extremely long before the plutocracy loses control: a generation of dummies brings up another generation of dummies, etc.

(Archeology has shown, that, at least in the east, and until the devastation of war set in, the Roman empire was very prosperous, economically speaking; what decayed was its intelligence, obviously from an excess of fascism and theocracy. That defect, in turn, brought the invasions. Something to meditate as hordes of Islamists try to enter Europe; at this point, in the last year, at least four millions, with three millions held up by the Ottoman sultan Erdogan, in a deal with the EU…)

Planetary devastation will probably precede plutocratic collapse. Because there is so much We The People has to understand, before attempting any revolution, and it is very far from evern knowing what all the dimensions of understanding are. The otherwise excellent article “The Tyranny Of A Traffic Stop” fails to understand the root of the big picture completely: the tyranny we have now, extending all the way down to traffic stops, is one of the means to impose a tyrannical ambiance. Such a satanic ambiance being the essence of plutocracy, when the law violates goodness, decency, and everything human, everyday, just because it can. One falls again in the dominion of that old instinct, perversity, for perversity’s sake.

Allright, this is how the West was conquered. However, the empire now extends from sea, to shining sea. It’s not the empire which has to be extended further, inasmuch as the planet, to be saved. Besides, one can hardly present the US as a model, when it is so much about terrorizing the innocent.

Patrice Ayme’

 

How & Why The West Causes Submission

November 21, 2015

The very wealthy people who have long dominated the world, the plutocrats, want Submission (in Arabic, “Submission” is “Islam”). They want us to be submitted to them. Oil Barons made tremendous money from their satanic deal with the Devil, Ibn Saud, where Islam (= Submission) and Wall Street were central. Ibn Saud was the head of the most successful Islamist State of the Twentieth Century. That Islamist State was successful, because it made friends with the British plutocrats, before switching to the American ones in 1945.

How is it possible that young women and men want so much to kill other people that, for them, dying in the process is just a detail? Many ask this question, and roll out many complicated explanations to avoid giving the simple answer. That simple answer is in their face, in four words: just read the Qur’an. If you believe the Qur’an, killing yourself and others will send you directly to paradise (Qur’an (3:169-170), among others). Allah is merciful and very efficient to kill enemies.

This inability to read the Qur’an in turn comes from the mood that reading the Qur’an may reveal the truth. And that mood would contradict what politicians say all over: radical Islam is a pathology of Islam (I was listening to Raffarin, an ex-Prime Minister of France, who used these exact words). So doing they are blind to their own stupidity: radical means “roots”. Saying that the “roots” of something are a pathology of that something is a contradiction: the genes cannot be a pathology of what they generate.

Thus what is being imposed here is the mood that truth is not Politically Correct. This is not the only crazy, self-destroying mood imposed: another is that love wins all (just listen to John Lennon in this matter, he was a specialist of that delirious attitude, until that moment when he was made into Swiss cheese).

And When That Does Not Work, Extermination Will. Nazis Were Not Loved To Death, But Bombed To Death. And Ike Brought to Bear the National Guard, That Is, Force, to Integrate Schools. MLK Did Not.

And When That Does Not Work, Extermination Will. Nazis Were Not Loved To Death, But Bombed To Death. And Ike Brought to Bear the National Guard, That Is, Force, to Integrate Schools. MLK Did Not.

It goes without saying that the mood that truth is immoral is most profitable to the powers that be. The superstition habit (Christianism, Islamism) is a good way to kill respect for truth, by extending instead respect for collective hallucinations, as long as they are crazy enough.

Deeper than ideas are moods. Talking about ideas is not enough, one has to talk about what underlays them, moods.

Submission is a religion more known under its Arabic name, Islam.

I exposed its nature. Normal media, censors me, in particular when I quote from Submission’s most sacred text, the Qur’an. And when I quote Voltaire about it, it’s Voltaire’s turn to be censored. What does that say about civilization when truth is viewed as a racist crime?

A reminder for all these suicide bombers: they are going straight to paradise:

Qur’an (3:169-170)“Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.”  Martyrs go directly from life to paradise, and should rejoice for them.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (20:4678)…a man said: “Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], where shall I be if I am killed?” He replied: “In Paradise.“…

So Submission (= Islam) is a problem, but the meta attitude relative to submission, even more so. That meta attitude is that, if you read Islam’s sacred texts, you are a racist. Killing and wounding 500 people in Paris because they listened to music and went to restaurants, doing what ISIS called their idolatry cannot be explained by those who have no read Islam, the set of orders from Allah, the bloody dictator supposed to rule over all Muslims’ hearts… and souls.

In Europe, for example Germany, Salafists are free to preach, and it’s a full time job. This is lawful, under the pretext of “tolerance”, “freedom of expression”, “freedom of religion”. However strict Islam, teaching the Qur’an, in full is teaching hatred, maximally (see quotes in other essays). In particular, preaching the Sharia.

All this should be unlawful, and punishments should be applied. certainly if people can go to prison for possession of illegal drugs, which only injure themselves, those who preach violence should be punished much more.

This is common sense. That this common sense was not enabled by legislators is certainly a form of complicity, just as pontificating about islam without having read the Qur’an is also a form of complicity with the madness.

The ultimate red herring to divert attention from gathering inequality in the world: focus on this Islamism we have incited to grow in your midst.

Is that all very twisted? Maybe, but straightforward logic is not good at manipulating people; twists are required. But, behind these twists there are laws, psycho-historical laws, immutable.

Because, indeed, this is how the Greco-Roman empire went down. A religion was imposed from the top (Christianism), just as now Islamism is imposed from the top (by calling those who fear Islamism “racist”, and by NOT applying hate crime laws against Salafists). Simultaneously schooling and the army were hugely weakened, under the guise of austerity (so that Roman plutocrats would not have to pay taxes so high that they will not be able to become ever richer).

The analogies are strict. Meanwhile Rome suffered a broad resource crisis… which only greater education could have solved. Instead the world fell in exactly the same superstition which is now called Islam. Yes, Islam existed before Islam. And in particular with the most important love of death and the apocalypse, which is the underlying deepest theme of the Qur’an.

When god is a creep, creeps are gods. Thus creeps want creepy god to be great. “God is great!” they scream, meaning: we are great! Yes, indeed, great, very great creeps

The Islamist crisis we have is very similar to the Christian crisis of the Fourth century, and the fundamental cause is the same, namely the oligarchic crisis having gone so bad, that it hated, and ate, the brains

Patrice Ayme’

Too Much Aversion To Aversion A Perversion.

April 28, 2015

Too Much Aversion To Aversion Kills Prevention.

Anger Sometimes Not Just Best, But The Only Way:

Many people are conflicted about conflicts. They are told conflicts are intrinsically bad, and they should wrought the conflicts out of themselves. Avert aversion, and conspiracy theories, and the world will be yours. This sweetly insipid medicine is central to the plutocracy of the USA, and is repeated at all levels, from family therapists, to (nearly) all the media, to the presidency. “Black” and variously colored youth seem to increasingly disagree with this treatment. It is getting ever harder to swallow, as more and more youth are starting to understand Obama is more Wall Street than ex-disgruntled youth (whom, actually, he never was. Silver spoon is more like it.)

Anger is actually best, when it is the most appropriate attitude. Obama saved the private banks and the careers of the banksters who managed them, but what did he do for Black youth? If not now, then when, and what? Is breaking the necks and piercing with bullets those who disagree the solution, looking forward?

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Obama said it was all the fault of “thugs” who live in Baltimore, not banksters who steal on Wall Street. Don’t bite the hand that feeds…

The problem of the Jews confronting Hitler, is that they did not get angry enough. If they had, maybe the American Jews would have protested the pro-Hitlerian policy of plutocrats and the infeodated government of the USA.

Now we have Nepalis left to themselves, dying without rescue, while helicopters are used to ferry in style 1,000 gold plated “climbers” on Everest (who otherwise would have to well, climb down!). Hey, Nepalis are made to die in the service of the gold-plated ones, whereas the gold plated ones ought not to be expected to walk! In case like that, contempt is minimum service. Anger is more appropriate. And, appropriately enough, Nepalis are getting angry.

Europe, in the past was crumbling under plutocrats and religious fanatics (including Great Britain). So was, say, China. Flowers and smiles did not work. Violence is how one got rid of these predators.

But let’s give a the party of apathy a chance to open its mouth for a minute, or so:

***

Anthony Biglan, “senior scientist” at the Oregon Research Institute, a “leading figure in the development of prevention science” has helped over the past thirty years “to identify effective family, school, and community interventions to prevent the most common and costly problems of childhood and adolescence”. He uses “prevention science to build more nurturing families, schools, and communities throughout the world.”

Says Mr. Biglan: “The world has struggled with how to deal with others’ aversive behavior for millennia. The fundamental problem is to get people to not respond to others’ aversive behavior with their own aversive behavior because, more likely than not, doing so will simply perpetuate coercion and conflict.”

The way the author has it, aversion causes aversion, which causes aversion… So what caused aversion in the first place? Aversion? It sounds like the chicken and egg problem: the egg gave the chicken, who made the egg… It’s the chicken and egg problem, without the chicken.

The author blames responding to aversion by aversion. He advocates turning the other cheek, quoting Jesus, Gandhi.

But he does not roll out the violent quotes of Jesus, of which there are several:

Matthew 10:34. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Or Luke 19: 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

Or Jesus’ last message to his disciples: He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” [Luke 22:36.]

And don’t tell me I deform Jesus’ message! Jesus threw the merchants out of the Temple. Proof that not only he was physically violent, but that he was some sort of Kung-Fu master, or the like. Yes the best known version of Kung-Fu was invented by the Shaolin Monastery for defense against from bandits around 610 CE (and at the crucial battle to establish the Tang Dynasty in 621 CE).

Jesus knew that turning the other cheek was not the only valuable strategy to bring the reign of goodness. All too often, aversion to aversion brings forth only toleration of abomination.

The Nazis eliminated hundreds of thousands of Germans viewed as mentally or physically defective. (The Nazis had justified this by claiming that Germany’s population had augmented by 50% in 70 years, whereas the mental retards and degenerated specimens’ population had augmented by 450% in those same 70 years; so soon, the Nazis ominously concluded, one German out of four would be degenerate; thus the need to act now; simultaneously the children of Franco-German unions who were not pure white, were sterilized; there were several thousands.)

The Nazis’ plan was to see how little aversion to extermination the population could be trained to develop. After this, they exterminated Poles, and then Jews (many Germans had Jewish, or somewhat Jewish, friends or relatives, so the case of the Jews was most delicate).

But let’s go back to the aversion of aversion.

The author of the quote above, Mr. Biglan, the self-defined specialist of aversion, also quotes Gandhi.

To see his full essay, consult Scientia Salon: Nurture Effect On Caring Relationships.)

However Gandhi, by posing in Hindu clothes, forever, and with Hindu symbols, such as the Wheel, helped to antagonize the Muslims. This boiled over in 1939. As the Indian Congress voted to declare war against the Nazis, Gandhi, who called Hitler “my friend”, and had corresponded with the mass-murdering, war criminal dictator, did all he could, in vain, for India not to go to war against the racist in chief.

In the end, Gandhi had to turn against the Hindus, and for the Muslims. Gandhi recognized Muslims should get their part of the national treasury. He was rewarded for this perceived “aversion” towards Hindus by being assassinated by Hindu nationalists.

Mr. Biglan also evokes Martin Luther King. However, the entourage of MLK was armed to the teeth, with loaded guns: they were not born yesterday.

So the real fundamental problem of “aversion” is how does “aversion” arises in the first place. In general it does because human beings find themselves in adverse circumstances, or because evil tendencies by a few were not opposed early enough.

So it is the lack of aversion to various adversities, as they are gathering momentum, which leads to large scale aversion appearing in the first place.

An example is the Greenhouse Gas Crisis (“AGW”). If not opposed in a timely manner (and that will require some “aversion”), it will lead to large scale misery and war. Also North Korea, soon to have 40 nuclear weapons according to Chinese specialists, ought to looked at with appropriate aversion.

Prevention of the causes of aversion is how to prevent aversion. And the best way to do this is to have terminal aversion to abomination.

Time to value anger, people!

Appropriate anger, that is.

Appropriate emotions are appropriate. There is no emotion which is not appropriate to all and any situation. Full aversion to aversion is perversion.

Patrice Ayme’

Shoot Them All, God Will Recognize His Own

April 8, 2015

A (white) police officer shot in the back, eight times, a fleeing, somewhat corpulent middle age man, who was obviously not dangerous (he just had some child support payments due, on some of his 4 children).

The first shot was fired at least 5 meters away. After the victim is fatally shot, the officer screams hysterically at him: “Put your hands behind your back.” Three times. Then handcuff him. I saw the video several times. It gets more instructive, the more it is watched.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/us/video-of-fatal-shooting-of-walter-scott-reignites-debate-on-police-use-of-force.html?&target=comments&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&modref=HPCommentsRefer&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news#commentsContainer

The obviously unarmed victim had served in the Coast Guard. The police officer then handcuffed the agonizing victim, and went back 50 fifty feet to plant fake evidence.

The (black) family of the victim offered with tremendous dignity that “not all policemen are bad…” Yes, but. But we are dealing with a system here. A system of institutionalized violence. Racism is just one aspect of it.

Disobey Police In The USA, Die!

Disobey Police In The USA, Die!

[Disobedient father of four Walter Scott shot like a rabbit. The police officer, in the window, up left was charged with murder. However, to parody a dim witted American philosopher’s pontification: is that Justice As Fairness? Namely the white, thus fair, officer, shots, thus administers justice?]

Police and judicial violence in the USA is pretty much in evidence, to whoever has looked at statistics, or lived in the USA. I have seen many times, in the USA, scenes that belonged straight out of a violent movie. Roughly anything, including several violent car chases with lots of sparks, collisions, etc. I have seen roughly anything, but for large explosions.

All right, with all the guns out there, the police can take no chances. All right, in that particular city, about half the population is “black”, and 80% of the police force is white (a de facto racial situation).

Yet, police brutality is not restricted to non-whites. It is a global attitude, although black tend to be more victimized. To change this global attitude is the fundamental problem.

John Michel from South Carolina replied that:

“No one wants to look at the fundamental problem. Go ahead, take a look at the foundation of modern-day human violence.”

My reply to John Mitchel:

Violence in general is one thing. However, the level of lethal and judicial violence in the USA is much higher than in any other developed nation.

What I am saying is that, although racism amplifies it, the problem is not just racial. It is about exploiting others, violently, and imposing the existing established order, violently.

And I am saying this has become a habit, and if one questions it, as I do, it has been suggested by lesser souls that I wanted to turn the USA into Libya, or Syria and Iraq, as if only violence, from police or justice, was the one and only way to hold the USA together.

I disagree.

I believe that Americans are smarter than lethally violent Islam Fundamentalists.

I also think it’s a world problem: all too many people in the USA, including among the so-called “leaders” perceive that only violence holds the country together.

In particular the violence on the rest of society which flows from very high income and wealth, and very low taxes experienced, by the .1%

That theory, usage and practice of force, is a satanic approach to society.

It is a model for, and an expectation about, the entire planet.

It is not a debate, a conversation. It is a will to extermination. Granted, the Will To Extermination is a core human characteristic. Granted, it makes the USA strong, pitiless, successful.

However, now the whole planet is watching. There is no more frontier to push. All this violence is the bad paradigm for conflict resolution. It is not just a question of justice, it is a question of prudence. Worldwide we have to teach subtlety and restraint, not madness, vengeance, and lethally efficient authority.

That’s dangerously obsolete (besides being the Islamists, and, or, Putin’s model).

Patrice Ayme’

Did Civil Rights Hide Plutocratization?

December 30, 2014

A train which passes by, may hid another one, charging the other way. Did obsessing about the Civil Right Movement hid the on-going Plutocratization which is flattening humanity, worldwide?

Did celebrating Obama’s brownish (fauve!) color as a great victory, prevent a proper analysis of the dramatic situation? To this day many a “liberal” (say, Krugman) celebrate obsessively Obama’s minuscule advances, which the Republican Congress will revert in five minutes, within a few weeks.

Even American “liberal” politics is to the right of the French Front National. It was not always so.

(The FN accepts the French welfare state, including single payer national health care, whereas most “liberals” from the USA do not, as the charade six years ago with Obamacare, demonstrated: when Obama proposed “Medicare For All”, democrats blocked him.)

A commenter (Aravis, an observant Jew) in Scientia Salon said that the USA was a good place, see how bad a place France is (France has a “fascist” National Front, many Americans like to pretend). This is fairly typical for what passes for reasonable opinion, in the USA. Bad mouthing France is a most honorable occupation, in the USA. Decades of Rand ranting, and the like, is the reason why.

Ayn Rand is a famous anti-philosopher, read by tens of millions of Americans. (Why so many? Excellent propaganda pushed her onto the masses.)

“Rand” was an outright racist, who extolled frantically the oligarchic principle (a few “Atlases” hold civilization up; whenever they shrug, civilization collapses). Rand was not her true name. Not American born, she came from Eastern Europe, the land of racism unchained, and discharged her venom all over America. She thought Indians deserved no rights, so I don’t see why Jews like her complain when the Nazis gave them no rights. Here is Rand ranting about the Natives:

“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using…. What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

France is the other republic, the one whose Constitution is from the same year (1789), as that of the USA. Yet, that French Republic functioned without killing (nearly) all the natives, without stealing (nearly all) their land, and without slavery (the Merovingian Imperium Francorum outlawed slavery in Europe by 650 CE, about a millennium before the Americans re-established it in the Americas).

The fascization of American politics started thanks to Nixon and McCarthy, in the early 1950s. Intellectuals were suspected to be “commies”, trade unions were broken thoroughly in invisible ways. Jesus helped with fascization: “In God We Trust” was passed by Congress in 1954. (Closely related to the SS “Gott Mit Uns”.)

Simultaneously, the Civil Right Movement was highly successful to give people of color the rights they had in the United Nation Charter (after all, the USA had ratified it!)

The United Nation Charter was an evolution from the principles of the French Revolution of 1789. Not so much from the Constitution of the USA (or some British Constitution, which still does not exist, to this day!).

Thus an explanation of the anger of so many American intellectuals against France. All too many of them are still closet racist, or something similar (to spare the Public, and my ears, I will not roll out statistics; however, some ethnic, and, or, religious groups, are still massively over-represented in universities of the USA, and still massively discriminating, to preserve their monopoly).

On the face of it, the “Civil Right Movement” ought to have been nothing important: Great empires, founders of the present civilization, the Greco-Roman, and its successor, the Imperium Francorum, were not racist. So how come the USA was? How come one is presenting as progress what the Romans found already natural, 2,000 years ago? (1)

Official racism in the USA was extravagant, an outlier, a sort of rage only inferior societies doomed to annihilation have engaged in (2). Killing about 3% of the population of the USA (the “Civil” War, actually the most uncivil civil war known, this side of Rwanda), fixed the problem. In part.

Deluded aggrandizement of the “Civil Right Movement” was a distraction. What was as necessary as flushing a dirty toilet, giving people their rights, was made into a glorious obsession, and constant over-celebration. Obsessing about Civil Rights that the USA had already signed on, and enacted, is why the stripping of the Banking Act of 1933 (so-called “Glass-Seagal”) could be done under Clinton, without anybody noticing.

Clinton could just play the saxophone, as if he were some jazzman (implicitly “black”), and everybody applauded, while Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Lawrence Summers, were deconstructing social justice, and organizing the greatest heist in the history of humanity, and soon to spread it over the entire planet (except China, where banks are not the government, but, quite the opposite, under tight government control). (The saxophone was actually invented by a francophone from Belgium, but never mind.)

The Civil Right Movement unwittingly turned into being used as a cover-up for something much more dangerous: plutocratization.

Civilizations have flourished, because of capital large enough to muster great armies, which, in turn, defended cities (that’s where the “civis” comes from).

However armies function according to the Fascist Principle (one mind, one body), which gives them body, soul, and power. The army is no democracy, but the point of a lance.

Thus the army which makes the civilization possible is in danger of falling into a few hands (like in North Korea). Moreover, capital grows proportionally to itself, so those hands who control the most capital, especially if it is invisible, will become richer faster.

Hence all civilizations are at risk of becoming plutocracies. What’s a plutocracy? An oligarchy so vicious, it rules not just with money, but with demonic means. Historically, most societies were plutocracies. Human beings, though, are (evolutionary) made for democracy, instead of taking their order from “The Lord”.

The impressive reforms away from plutocracy by the Roosevelts and Eisenhower have been rolled back. Many people made a career to help with this roll-back. One ought to call them plutophiles. Randians are typical plutophiles: Alan Greenspan, a loud admirer of Rand, did his utmost to destroy the separation between banking and theft. Plutophiles spend their time seducing plutocrats, that’s their career.

Naturally in 2008, half the plutocrats got all the money the other half had stolen from banks, and the public was asked to replenish the stolen banks, hence the deprived thieves. So here we are. Plutocratic, also known as “financial derivative”, trading is 12 times world GDP.

This roughly means that the plutocrats have twelve times more money to play with than the rest of humanity. It makes even pretend democracy completely unsustainable. It also means that this cancer, plutocracy, born in the USA, has gone metastatic.

Patrice Ayme’

  1. Yes, Rome had French (Claudius born in Lugdunum), Spanish (Trajan, Theodosius), Balkan born (more than half a dozen, including Constantius, Domitian), African (Septimus Severus), or even Arab, emperors.
  2. Sparta is an example of a racist society which self-annihilated. Whereas Athens kept being influential for centuries: that’s where the future emperor and philosopher Julian went to study. Although Julian died from combat or homicide in 363 CE, the Gallo-Romans, and Franks, who had elected him, pursued in the Athenian spirit, and so does yours truly. By then, Sparta had imploded. Athens was the model of the “open society” (which Pericles celebrated). It is now a thriving megalopolis, and, as a city of the mind, her progeny is the United Nations. Sparta’s racism is buried everywhere, except in the likes of Arabia or Iran.

Why Are Americans So Primitive?

July 1, 2014

Paul Handover, from Learning From Dogs, a commentator of this site asks: “Your essay, Patrice, clearly depicts your views towards Western religions but here’s a question: why do so many Americans embrace Christianity in what one might describe as almost a fundamentalist manner? For such a forward-looking nation in so many ways, this aspect has puzzled me for some time.”

Both aspects are related, the religious primitivism, and the charge forward. Metaphysics, like other things meta, is primarily to address down to Earth questions. Literally:

God Given! Let the USA Bless God. Alleluia.

God Given! Let the USA Bless God. Alleluia.

[Don’t You Ask How We Got All This.]

The USA is like a horse with blinds: it is forced by its masters to pull a heavy load, and devices around its head do not allow it to look sideways. Not looking around and questioning is fundamental. Sitting in a café’, and chewing the world for hours, is best done somewhere in Europe. Americans do not like to discuss the big issues as much: they are too close to “conspiracy theories”.

An all-encompassing philosophical attitude looks around too much, away from the task at hand. It would ask too many questions about the reigning plutocracy. The plutocrats do their best this not to happen. The USA functions like an empire driven by masters, and common people think accordingly.

The coming back of the Christian God in the USA, since the 1940s, corresponded to an enormous influx of cheap labor from (then) primitive areas of the world (say Mexico). The Latinos provided with cheap labor, but they have a strong family structure. Primitive Christianism is a proven recipe to keep them down (just ask the Conquistadores).

In 1954, “IN GOD WE TRUST” was made the motto of the USA, and enforced in public schools in many states (not Hawai’i).  So now we have a president who asks God to bless the USA, as if he were the Pope, urbi et orbi.

I have written numerous essays on the connection between the Bible, where God Himself conducts holocausts, and the barbarity of the first three centuries of occupation of North American by English speaking Europeans. Whereas in Spain, Charles Quint, as early as 1550 CE, ordered to stop holocausts in the Americas, such an order to stop the massacre, was never given in the territory that was going to become the USA.

The result can be contemplated in the Brazil football world cup: whereas the Central American football teams (Costa Rica, Mexico, Honduras) are genetically mixed with Indian genetic stock, there is not one speck of Indian facial trait in Team USA.

A successful holocaust is not conducive to introspection. Especially when one enjoys its fruits every day.

But let’s look at it from a different angle. Obama named a commission to look into the disappearance of the bees. Well, there is no need to do this: the factors are well known, including nicotinoid insecticides.

So the leadership of the USA is playing stupid, to gain time for those who make and use such nicotinoids: playing dumb has its uses to gain time. After slavery was officially outlawed at the end of the Secession War, in December 1865, racism kept on going strong in the USA. Obsessing about the Christian God, allowed not to notice that: how could people obsessed by becoming good, be bad?

After all, the Bible is racist enough to endorse any tribal excess: it’s all about the Chosen People (whom Hitler chose for a perversely inverted special treatment).  The myths of the Bible, such as the “city on a hill”, and, of course, the chosen people, in this case, the Pale Faces, was to rule what was obviously the Promised Land.

Naivety can be brutally effective. And it’s not always wrong.

Minds in the USA are concentrated on achieving practical tasks. Instead of remaking the world in their head, the world is God-given.

So citizens of the USA work, and work, and never, ever, contest the established order seriously.

That’s why you will never see Paul Krugman contest deeply the banking system. Quite the opposite: he wants central banks to send it ever more money.

Paul is practical: he camps on popular positions. That makes him the most popular blogger for progressives on BOTH sides of the Atlantic (so Americanization is progressing, even among self-proclaimed progressives!)

Popular now, sure, but a future dwarf, not to say flea, in the history of thought.

All and any Americans are deeply uncomfortable when one makes deep critiques against “their” system. I had a rich, highly successful architect with plenty of skyscraper under construction, become red in the face, when he accused me of wanting to change the Constitution of the USA, and that never, ever, any reasonable American would take me seriously. Never mind that dozens of European countries change their Constitutions continually. In the USA, it’s the proverbial “third rail”, where all the electricity goes through. He never invited me again, an experience I had too many times to bother counting them.

Challenging the system, in a country such as France, for at least three centuries (after Louis XIV croaked), has been seen as the most interesting exercise (except for when the humor-less Robespierre and Napoleon ruled). In the USA, it’s viewed as a personal threat (by all too many).

Americans come from all over the world. Only very strict simplifying principles keep their minds compatible with each other. At least, so all too many of them feel.

Yesterday I was swimming in a lake in California. It has a small official “Swim Area”, watched over by no less than four official would-be rescuers armed with loud speakers. Going outside is “Against The Law”, although deprived of danger.  Other arcane laws apply: a five year old child, going out of such and such a particular limit, within the “Swim Area”, exposes the accompanying parent(s) to a $300 fine.

Being “Against the Law” is even more important than God, in the USA. Some laws seem set-up, just to test whether one will respect the “Against The Law” Principle. Those who do not respect that Principle are “outlaws”, and definitively not felt to be socially acceptable.

As this happened in Berkeley, a supposedly rebellious, flower power town, if there ever was one in the USA, some swimmers braved the interdiction, and were soon yelled at through the loudspeakers by adolescents a third their age, threatening them with the long arm of the law.

(Unsurprisingly, old foggies from the 1960s tend to be more rebellious than the youth whose parents were raised by Reagan; so, all too often, the enforcers are young, the old disobedient.)

As in all good American movies, the cavalry was called to the rescue against the terrorists. Black uniformed police officers swarmed the edges of the lake. A police helicopter flew low overhead, barking out orders. Never mind the budget crisis. Never mind this is a narrow 300 meters deep valley adorned with giant eucalyptuses and towering redwoods.

What is important, is to demonstrate how important law and order is in the USA. “Shock and Awe” will be applied. If the helicopter crashes, the rogue swimmers will be no doubt charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

Order starts with God. The God that gave the “Promised Land” to the “Chosen People” is best. He has proven his worth by killing millions, emptying continents, and torturing David’s son to death, because his father had not respected the law of God. The law of God is now applied to European banks and Argentina, bankrupting them all, empowering and enriching Americans some more, proving how this metaphysics of brutal  primitivism is all worthwhile.

Let Obama conclude: “God bless the United States of America!” OK, children! Now that we are done with philosophy, back to work!

Patrice Aymé

D Day Racket

June 6, 2014

In brief: As long as official history does not teach the truth, namely that all too much of the Anglo-American elite (let alone Stalin) supported the Nazis, the truth about D-Day will not appear. A sacrifice is celebrated: millions dying in combat to defeat a crazed racial mass murderous dictatorship. Yet, the greatest lesson is not drawn.

How is that possible? Obviously the same “special interests” which profited from the wars of the Twentieth Century, had interest to write a special version of interest that suited their ongoing purpose. Just compare who were the powers in 1939, and who they are now, to get a hint.

American "Philanthropists" Love Hitler

American “Philanthropists” Love Hitler

D-DAY: NECESSARY EVIL, BUT TOO LITTLE TOO LATE:

D Day was a very bad thing. That day 156,000 young Allied soldiers, most of them just out of childhood, confronted 56,000 young Nazis. An entire division of German teenagers faced in the Americans in the Western sector. They were so young, that officers of the Wehrmacht had organized the distribution of daily cow milk for the growing bones of those children. Most of these 212,000 youth became murderers, or attempted very hard to commit murder, that day, and most were treated like expendable killing machines, with total disregard for their humanity.

An example? At least 80% of Allied paratroopers, and there were thousands of them, were expected to die on June 6, 1944.

Inside France, 250,000 fighters of the Forces Francaise de l’Interieur (FFI) (im)mobilized the equivalent of 20 Nazi divisions. Within hours, Normandy was effectively cut-off from the rest of France (in one small sector alone, railroads were cut in 500 places; all land lines were cut).

Capable to move their forces at night ONLY, only with the greatest difficulty, the Nazis struck back with mass atrocities against civilians. In only one village, nearly 700 French women and children were burned alive.

WHY D-DAY? BAD LUCK, FIRST OF ALL:

Why did this holocaust happen? The obvious reason is that, by a stroke of big, bad luck, the Nazi dictatorship defeated the French Republic in May-June 1940.

The five million men French Army, a colossal force with three times as many tanks than the (German) tanks the Nazis had, and the entire British army, got cut from behind, and saw it too late.

In that Battle of France of 1940, nearly 200,000 soldiers died. Officially only 50,000 Nazi elite soldiers died, but the real number was probably twice that: the Nazi regime was not going to admit the war was a disaster. To pierce through, the Nazis had used suicidal charges by explosive laden engineers.

Exasperated by fierce, and lethal, French resistance, the Nazis committed systematic mass murders of French civilians. They deliberately assassinated thousands of French children. All the more as the French army at Dunkirk succeeded to block the Nazis long enough for the entire British army to flee back to England.

That was not exactly a detail: if the Nazis had made the entire British army prisoner at Dunkirk, they could have easily landed across (where they could have defended against the Royal Navy with long range guns, and the Royal Air Force by fighting only above the Channel). So Dunkirk prevented the Nazis to defeat Great Britain.

NAZI CEASE-FIRE WITH FRANCE DID NOT LAST LONG:

Abandoned by all, submitted to mass atrocities, a few men decided to limit the massacre with a cease-fire. The Nazis agreed to it, as they were bloodied pretty bad, and, drugged out and exhausted, could not fight anymore. (Actually the conditions for an Air Force led French counter-attack existed, but France did not look forward another butchery as in 1914-1918, when most combat age Frenchmen were either killed or wounded… All the more as it was not clear, whether, just as Stalin’s regime was, the regime in Washington was not allied to Hitler. )

The Nazis would occupy the second half of France after the French army had restarted combat on the largest scale, in North Africa (joining Operation Torch, 6 months later).

The Nazi rage was understandable: in May-June 1942, the 3,000 men army of French general Koenig, in a modern, and, this time, successful, version of Thermopylae, blocked Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the Italian army, for weeks. Whereas Leonidas held just three days, Koenig held three weeks, allowing the entire British army to escape (once again). Six times more French died at Bir Hakiem than Spartans at Thermopylae. Don’t hold your breath for Hollywood making a movie about it. Even at that late time in a three year old world war, no American had fired at a Nazi (although the converse had, interestingly, happened).

Rommel, having failed in his major encirclement battle in Libya, thanks to the damned French, was unable to eradicate Israel and seize Iraqi oil. Desperate, Hitler ordered an all-out attack, with insufficient forces, on Stalingrad (to cut-off the Caucasus, where the oil was:  as he could not get Iraq, Hitler needed the other source of oil, the Caucasus).

WHY DID THE USA WAIT FOUR YEARS TO LAND IN FRANCE?

Questions: Why could not these American landings have happened earlier, say in 1940? More precisely, why did the Americans from Canada land divisions in France in June 1940, but the Americans  from the USA did not? Why did the USA not declare war to Hitler, after it became obvious that Hitler had killed millions already? (Between the eugenics program inside Germany, the holocaust in Poland, including deliberate destruction of mills, to starve Poles, and the attacks in the West, including terror bombings on cities?)

NAZISM IN TOO MANY HEARTS OR WHY THE USA DID NOT ATTACK HITLER:

The usual explanation why the USA did not help its parents, France and Britain, in 1939 and 1940, against Nazism, is that the USA was “isolationist”. A careful examination shows, that the “isolationists” were all, but in name, Nazis.

And consider BNP Paribas. The French bank turned around an embargo. (A made in USA embargo: Europe does not embargo Cuba.)

It’s not the first bank to do so. HSBC was condemned that way: the fine was 1,9 billion dollars. So was Standard Chartered, for also going around the embargoes: 667 million dollars, and ING: 619 million. When asked, under the cover of anonymity, a high American authority said that BNP made a “bras d’honneur” to American justice.

Yes, indeed, what sort of justice is the justice of the USA? It’s a “justice” that officially condoned racism up to extremely recently: only in the last twenty years or so, the last states of the USA authorized “interracial” marriages  (whatever a race is: something for American justice to condemn you with, apparently).

THE PLUTOCRATS OF THE USA LOVED HITLER:

Plutocrats are diabolical: hence their name. Hitler and the top Nazis were also diabolical, and also crazy hence easy to manipulate. Why would Hitler launch himself in a war he was sure to lose? Because he was crazy? That’s the usual explanation.

Yet, top German generals, after living through the First World War and the  massive French counter-attack, 5 weeks after having surprisingly invaded France, were not keen to renew the same disaster. On paper, the French army was invincible. Allied to the British, they would control the seas. So why did the German generals not try to stop Hitler? Well they did. The only reason they did not go all out was that, they believed Hitler was supported by those who truly controlled the USA. And so did Hitler.

Roosevelt himself made no mystery that he repressed Jews at Harvard, and used that as an argument to demonstrate that he did not want war with Hitler!

WHO WAS THE USA ALLIED TO FROM !933 TO 1942, EXACTLY?

People had taken decisions on reduced data sets. If only one of these data sets had been changed, D-Day would never have happened.  Clearly, had the Germans know about Nazism and the Nazis, what their descendants know now, they would have allied themselves to the French Republic (which is what they did in 1948).

But how could they know? When German Jews tried to flee Europe, the USA denied them. The USA even prevented a liner crammed with fleeing Jews to land in… Cuba (here is the BNP again, get it? Cuba is the USA’s thing.) Baffled Germans saw the ship full of Jews returned to Hamburg. (All those Jews were later exterminated.)

Did not that prove to the Germans that even the USA’s Justice thought Nazi Justice was best to deal with Jews?

HERE WE ARE, 70 YEARS LATER:

By 1934, the relationship between the French Republic and Washington had turned really sour. Washington was using plenty of methods that Hitler was duplicating (massive re-armement, with Roosevelt’s 24 fleet carrier program, devaluation, trade war, inflation), and was profiting from (American plutocrats were flocking to Germany, to help the Nazis, a continuation of a USA policy started in 1919… before Henry Ford himself had created Hitler).

That bitterness kept on going. Throughout the war, including on D-Day, countless American corporations were working for the Nazis. IBM had the monopoly of computing in Hitler’s Reich, and was managed from New York, by the mass murdering criminal whose picture adorns this essay.

After the Nazis had been defeated, US services, including the OSS, were busy exfiltrating IBM directors from Europe, so that they could escape the French Justice system.

Now we consider Putin, after his access of Hitleritis,  and the political-financial system of the USA, still in the grip of the same plutocracy as a century ago, but steadily getting worse.

The first thing to understand is that there much more for the public to know, before the public can feel right about the grandest issues impacting not just civilization, but the planet itself.

This was send, with great difficulty, from a mountain redoubt. I will be off the Internet for a few days, running about the Sierra Nevada, talking to devious bears, impacting, if need be, the local mountain lions, networking through the ranges. Nothing like a sense of reality to refurbish the mind. After that, I will be able to strike back against the Multiverse with renewed ferocity.

Patrice Aymé

Putin: Kill Tatars, Own Crimea

March 19, 2014

Putin says Crimea is historically Russian land”. Reality: Stalin killed and deported the Natives, Russians moved in, Putin owns.

On the 18th of March 2014, Russia and Crimea signed a deсree about affilation into the Russian Federation. This ended the independence of Crimea: it had lasted only one day, making Crimea the shortest lived state, ever. Just like Hitler, Putin loves historical firsts.

Crimea became the 84th region of super giant Russia, the country that wants to swallow Eurasia (at least that’s what Putin says… He wants to lead a “Eurasian Union” [sic]).

Meanwhile unidentified gunmen attacked a Ukraine military base, and several people got killed, including an Ukrainian officer.

The Black Sea Was A Greek Lake

The Black Sea Was A Greek Lake

The same day, Putin made a discourse to the Duma and other worthies of his regime. Here is an extract:

“The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered. 

At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol ­– the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city.”

Let’s stop Vladimir a moment here. Putin claims Crimea is historically Russian land, but this is mostly due to a very recent Russian directed holocaust. In that particular area, as much as seven million may have been killed… And there are still living witnesses of that holocaust.

Let’s review big history to see how much Putin lies. Crimea was the land the Tauri, and then became Greek. By 500 BCE, Greek colonies extended all along the north shore of the Black Sea, Crimea and the Sea of Azov. So, on the face of it, the entire area belonged to the European Union, way back.

By 100 BCE, Crimea was under Roman administration. Later the invading Scythes became a problem. But Crimea was protected by the Legio I Italica and a detachment of the Legio XI Claudia.

Putin wants to evoke history, he claims Russia owned Crimea. What is the successor state of Rome? Francia, not Russia. And that shows up in Francia’s respect of Roman law, something that escape Putin’s dictatorial mysticism.

Finally Crimea was invaded by the Goths (250 CE), the Huns (376 CE), the Bulgars (4th–8th century). The Franks fought those three, and lethally wounded both the Huns and the Goths. Why do I observe this? Because Europe is a small world, and Stalin-Putin, nouveaux riches.

The Khanate of the Khazars (8th century), occupied Crimea, before turning to Judaism, while being defeated by the state of Ukraine known as Kievan Rus’ (10th–11th centuries). In 988, Prince Vladimir I of Kiev captured the Byzantine town of Chersonesos (present Sevastopol) where he converted to Christianism.

Then, in quick succession, the Byzantine Empire (1016), the Kipchaks (the Kumans) (1050), and the Mongols (1237) occupied Crimea.

Mother Russia in all this? It did not even exist.

Does something that did not exist have historical rights?

Tatars existed, though: they are a complex ethnic mix of European and Asian, using a Turkic language.

In 1346, the bodies of Mongols of the Golden Horde who died of the Black Plague were catapulted over the walls of the besieged Kaffa (now Feodosiya). Genoese ships brought the disease back.

1450, Moscow Was Just A Duchy

1450, Moscow Was Just A Duchy

In 1783, the armies of some of the lovers of Catherine the Great, a German princess who had killed her husband the Czar, conquered Crimea. These were the times when Russia became, by far, the world’s largest empire, conquering much of Eurasia and even America (down to California).

The Crimean war of 1853-54 was an attempt to block the Russian push south. It started with a conflict with the French in Jerusalem (where the Russians expected the French to obey them). Although the Franco-British won, the Czarists used the occasion to persecute and expropriate the Crimean Tatars some more.

When World Became Historical Russian Property For Greater Glory Putin

When World Became Historical Russian Property For Greater Glory Putin

In 1945, perhaps to reward Stalin to have been allied to Hitler, and thus crushed the Poles and the French, president Roosevelt gave Europe to Stalin up to the red line. (That very “red line” that Putin is now accusing the “West” to have crossed!)

On 18 May 1944, the entire population of the Crimean Tatars was deported in the “Sürgün” (Crimean Tatar for exile) to Central Asia by Stalin.  Deportees spent 18 days in freight cars for getting to Uzbekistan. The inhuman conditions were obviously made so that people would die. Over bridges, the trains would stop, and bodies thrown in the water. Others were sent much further, to Siberia.

About 50%  of the deportees died during transportation. In June 1944 Armenian, Bulgarian and Greek populations were also deported to Central Asia. By the end of summer 1944, the ethnic cleansing of Crimea was complete, and only Putin’s beloved Russians were welcome. In 1967, a law was passed to ban Crimean Tatars from legally returning to their homeland.

Thus we conclude the following. The historical justification of Putin for annexing Crimea is the mix of ethnic cleansing and holocaust that Russia exerted in the area over a period of a century. Approving annexation is therefore approving a holocaust.

The hysterical nationalistic chanting “Russia, Russia, Russia” mentality is intrinsically racist: it means others are not as worthy as human beings (although Tatars are OK as fish food, see above).

That sort of nationalism invites further massive violations of human rights. It’s intrinsically evil. The Kremlin does not own Crimea, and maximal sanctions and military preparations ought to be applied right away, all the more as, obviously, Putin will be stopped only if he is forced to.

Patrice Aymé

Mandela, Truth Philosopher

December 6, 2013

Mandela IS An Example to All. He will live on as a shining beacon forever. Not less because he brought to the fore, and showed that both the Dark Side, in combination with Truth, was how to make wisdom triumph. This is a lesson that had escaped Socrates himself.

In his entire life, Mandela did only one thing really wrong: he served a single five year presidential term, instead of two. He could have used the second one to say a few uncomfortable truths he had the stature to present, defend and implement the remedies they called for.

Human Rights: True, Thus Strong

Human Rights: True, Thus Strong

Told, when president, that some youth protested about the absence of enough social change, Mandela lashed out that they should go to school instead. Mandela had a temper. But he knew how to use it for the best. As a ram to tell the truth.

It’s because Mandela could call onto the Dark Side, as needed, that he was able to do all he did. Mandela was a master, not a slave. He preferred to take a chance and die fighting than thrive on his knees.

From kingly lineage, he became a lawyer, and struggled against the racial terror system in South Africa. Then the Apartheid plutocrats resorted to extermination, Mandela responded to the escalation in the only way, the only appropriate way. He brought a bigger  mob to handle the guys with the bigger guns. Mandela switched to physical violence and high explosives.

That, dear pacifists of the morbid type, is how one handles Nazi-like characters. Not by turning the other cheek, but by turning to violence that wins them over. As nothing else will.

That was the inescapable power logic of France’s attack against Hitler, and of the nuclear bombings over Japan: confronted to ultimate violence, only a fiercer violence can dominate… for the better.

Mandela’s armed struggle was the one and only correct decision: only confrontation can beat infamy, submission is collaboration.

Arrested, Mandela risked the death penalty. But the satanic servants of horrors opted for a wiser course, and that’s why 9% of the population of South Africa is still “white”.

It was a tentative des-escalation on their part. And a very wise one: as it turned out, Mandela was the one and only who could reconcile all. And that’s why 9% of the population of South Africa is still “white”.

(Although there was more mixing than generally admitted: the eyes of the otherwise very “black” Desmond Tutu, another Nobel Peace prize who deserved his prize, are… blue. Winnie Mandela’s skin looks also rather white these days, to the point I could not recognize her…)

Things could have still evolved for the worst, as they did, say, in Algeria. But Mandela, once again found the perfect dosage of Enlightenment and Dark Side to knead and transform his jailers’ previously rigid minds.

Mandela refused to call his jailers “boss”. But he learned their language, Afrikaner. He refused to be freed, until his conditions were met.

Mandela knew how much he owed to the Dark Side. He insisted he was not a good man, but real tough and mean. To prove this, he rolled out, a few years ago, that he had beaten his first wife. He insisted, too, that he was no Gandhi.

Gandhi was a pacifist, Mandela was not. Gandhi played saint, Mandela was one. Gandhi played the saint so much, he came down to believe in his all encompassing goodness. He could do not wrong, he thought.

Just as a pilot who thinks he cannot do wrong, and he had just to fly straight ahead, Gandhi crashed into a mountain. A mountain that he had erected himself, by being too much of an Hindu nationalist: the division of the subcontinent along religious lines, in a blood bath that killed millions, several times, and could cause a nuclear war. Relative to this, what he fought against was nothing. Gandhi turned something that was easy to do, and was going to happen anyway, into a disaster.

Mandela did the opposite: he turned something that was nearly impossible to do, into a total success.

Mandela knew people could cause mass mayhem, just by making mistakes, and thus that, in the situation he and De Klerk were, it was crucial to avoid the smallest mistake. And he said so, pointing out De Klerk’s “mistakes”, strenuously, firmly, but, deep down, kindly.

Mandela set-up the Truth & Reconciliation Commission: in exchange for the truth, the worst of the worst were forgiven, and reconciled. This stays a model, a new solution for political situations of this type, where either both sides have been very wrong, or when plutocrats give up power and are forgiven in exchange for explaining how their satanic powers were exerted (the latter revelation automatically disarms them, not just tactically, politically, but also, and most importantly, philosophically).

This is indeed exactly what Socrates failed to implement; big time philosophy in action, for the better, in a war, and racist context.

The Truth and Reconciliation strategy was a gigantic progress, philosophically speaking. Mandela’s contribution to philosophy may have been greater than any made by, say, Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle.

Mandela implemented the highest and most important principle: truth is more important than anything else. Horror, first of all, is enabled by lies.

Truth as the ultimate exercise of power: something for all to meditate, and implement.

***

Patrice Ayme

Freedom To Lie

November 21, 2013

Medal Of Freedom For Lying

President Kennedy invented a distinction called the “Medal of Freedom”. Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey got it. I am familiar with Clinton’s work: without question a much loved president, although not as much as JFK (the most popular USA president).

In my book, undoubtedly, Clinton was the worst president since the worst side of FDR. Clinton enabled plutocracy more than any other president. G.W. Bush just pursued it, with amateurish lying. Amateurish relative to Clinton’s. Clinton is such a good liar that, to this day, most Americans love to believe him. 

Kennedy deserves his popularity. He was neither a liar nor a coward: he took responsibility for the Bay Of Pigs invasion and then he refused to double up on the error by sending US regular forces to help. JFK, helped by his brother, did not hesitate to use force to make the Mafia, the racists, and even the Nazi connected CIA bend (that may have cost him his life). 

LBJ imposed anti-racism laws, and the “Great Society” (now being dismantled). There were other great presidents: even Hoover launched great works. Truman finished the Second World War with gusto (bluffing the crazed Japanese High Command into submission with two quick nuclear strikes). Eisenhower  brought up taxes on the rich to 93%. Even Carter named Volcker, who broke inflation (allowing Reagan to rip the profits).

Teddy Roosevelt broke the monopolies. FDR was great in many ways: public works, WWII, and… the Banking Act of 1933 (aka “Glass-Steagall”).

So what is Clinton most famous for? Intervening in Rwanda? (No, the French army did that.) Intervening in Yugoslavia? (Sure, but the British and especially the French, under UN mandate, had stood in harm’s way, for years before that.) No, Clinton is famous for his “good” economy: 8 years of bubble, thanks to Greenspan, Rubin, Summers. The committee to ruin the world.

What did they do? Destroy Roosevelt’s most important work, the Banking Act of 1933.  That enabled the biggest banks to run amok.

As Obama’s most important act , so far, has been to prevent “Medicare For All“, by using the smokescreen of Obamacare. (“We should have done ‘Single Payer'” just admitted that high class liar, Nancy Pelosi… Let me rather suggest doing Hara-Kiri.) It was therefore only natural that he offered the Medal of Freedom to that other great right wing president, Bill Clinton.

History will judge both of these “democratic” president to be followers of Reagan. But strikingly more to his right. As they presented themselves as progressives, that means they deserve the Medal of Freedom from Truth. Indeed.

I confess I find Oprah Winfrey gross. Her speciality seems to be emotional diarrhea. Formed as a “black” beauty queen, she rose quickly in the celebrity circus. She periodically appears to make outrageous statements of the most violent racist nature. Here she is on the BBC, November 15, 2013:

WINFREY: “Are there still places where people are terrorized because of the color of their skin, because of the color of their black skin? Yes… I said this, you know, for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own, you know, community in the south – there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and THEY JUST HAVE TO DIE.”

If they just have to die, maybe she can ask her friend Obama to spare a few drones?

BBC’s Gompertz: “…has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment of Obama and the challenges he’s faced… if he was a white guy, those wouldn’t have happened, he wouldn’t have been treated in quite the same way, he wouldn’t have to deal with quite the same confrontations?”

Patrice Ayme: Indeed, BBC! Obama would never have been elected if he had been a “white guy“, so he would not have had to suffer as president, challenged and confronted.

WINFREY: “Has it ever crossed my mind? It’s crossed my mind probably as many times as it’s crossed your mind. Probably it’s crossed my mind more times than it’s crossed your mind. Just the level of disrespect. When the Senator yelled out, “You’re a liar.” Remember that? Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African-American.”

It was not a Senator, but a Representative. The White House admitted in the last week, that it deliberately decided to lie about Obamacare, after debating the pros and cons of the lying (!). For months.

The “disrespect for the office” may come from the increasing feeling that this office ought to be disrespected. After all, taxation through representation is not real democracy, just a parody, and increasingly that way for all to see. Watch the negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership between three  government officials and six hundred lobbyists. The meta knowledge that, the government engages in deliberate lying, does not help. Many know that lying as a method of government was tried before.

Her stupendous wealth not having been serviced with enough perceived deference by an employee of a Zürich store, Oprah Winfrey’s flew back in her personal jet to the USA,

Winfrey appeared on “Larry King” (not his real name: basically all is false in USA media; his name is Zeiger). Larry King is “worth” more than 150 millions, and Oprah Winfrey, the queen of race and abuse, three billions. American media is all about extremely rich people interviewing filthy rich people, whose “worth” is only measured in money. OK, let’s not be unfair about Zeiger’s worth: he was married 8 times.

Winfrey, you have to understand, is, on the (admittedly tiny) mental scale of the USA the equivalent of a celebrity intellectual, the Albert Camus of the USA, imperishable author of slave’s truths such as:  “The big secret in life is that there is no big secret. Whatever your goal, you can get there if you’re willing to work”. Work, get it? To go well with Reagan’s claim that all jobs are equally worthy. Or this: “Think like a queen. A queen is not afraid to fail. Failure is another steppingstone to greatness. The greatest discovery of all time is that a person can change his future by merely changing his attitude.”

The slaves in Zurich had the wrong attitude when the American queen showed up, and they were not afraid.

Oprah faced Larry King, with her ineffable self-satisfied smirk. With a smile, Larry King, that master of the straw man and the red herring, asked the multibillionaire about racism. “Oh, it’s around, Larry”, said the queen of quick and dirty philosophy, an Ayn Rand for the 21st century. Winfrey was beaming with pride, happiness and a smug smile, hardly contained: her preferred subject! If was as if racism was one of the best things that ever happened to her.

I was looking at her, and I thought: this is so strange, how come the public cannot see it? Racism makes that woman happy. How could it be that racism is the best thing that seems to be happening to her? Then why does she complain that it is done to her? Is she into emotional ad-lib sadomasochism? Could it be that racism is her bottom line? Psychologically and business-wise?

Is Winfrey popular because a large part of the mentality in the USA is sadomasochist? Is sadomasochism the mentality symbiotic to plutocracy? When in Rome, do as the Romans, debased and cruel, the more the plutocracy grows?

Winfrey proceeded to make racist allegations against Europeans in general. European bashing is a most important notion among USA plutocrats: by demonstrating that European are base, racist creatures, they implicitly allege that’s what lack of respect for money leads to. It demonstrates the superiority of the American system, where racism completely honorable, as long as it is connected to money. (Come to think of it, that’s how it started in the Barbarous Years.)

Thus, did Winfrey’s racism earn her the Medal of Freedom? What else? Imperishable quotes such as: “Biology is the least of what makes someone a mother.” (She should know: pregnant at 14, her only son died shortly afterwards.) Or her allegations of sexual and other abuse against her entire family, denied by her entire family?

One of my faithful and long-suffering commenter interjected:”Patrice, I completely disagree with you.”

To protect this person’s identity, we will call her NV (for Naive Victim). NV insisted:“You are talking about maybe 30 minutes in a millennia of racism. Until equal is equal no one can talk shit. Sorry.”

So we deserve a millennia of racism from Winfrey and her ilk, because kings in Africa sold slaves? Come again?

And that was not 30 minutes, that Winfrey show, but a real campaign: the billionaire queen went around no less than the six most major venues in the USA to instill the notion of exuberant European racism. A pattern with her over the years.

As we saw above, she appears to incite murder, on racial ground, and then, logically enough, the droning Obama gives her a medal.

Who sows racism, harvests racism. As simple as that.

(To be continued…)

Patrice Ayme