Archive for the ‘Theory of Plutocracy’ Category

Heil Zuck! Heil Bill! Your Pet Presidents Will Do As You Say!

May 11, 2019

There is this shocking video just out of Barack (Obama, supposedly an ex-civil servant) called by Bill (Gates III) for advice… On nothing (how to treat their mysterious, capricious, superficial spouses happy). In truth, of course, it’s the reverse, and the exact opposite which most significantly happened: Bill gave important advice to so-called Barack on important stuff. Just as PM Thatcher was made by the Murdoch family (yeah, they came from Perth, Australia, small world isn’t it? There, they controlled media…).

And when Barrack needed more friends, it was not Bill, it was Elon, or it was Warren, or it was Jeff, or Marc… How many times did Marc go to the Elysee Palace? Can he count that far? Probably not, you see, marc has plenty of PhDs, but he studied just a few months in College… And then, of course there are all those plutocrats smart enough to stay out of the lights.
They breathed together (conspirare), or at least, phoned together… we have the proof now and they are so arrogant that they think that, by flaunting their relationship, the joke is on us….

Billionaires deserve the “Medal of Freedom” (that’s the child ribbon and star offered by Obama)Obama) to those who own the world, precisely because only them have freedom, and we have to watch while they destroy the world, claiming to save it, as the mighty maniacs enjoy to add insult to injury and annihilation…

The instantaneously wealthy banker who leads France has sent his goons to Marc’s Facebook in the San Francisco Bay to figure out together how to mold the minds through the Internet. I am not making this up, it was published just yesterday:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-give-special-access-to-french-regulators-1542049089?mod=article_inline

Hey, Barrack was going there every two weeks, why not macron, then. Aren’t they all friends? A Palo Alto friend of mine was suffering below the presidential helicopters every two weeks… If Marc the Ignorant doesn’t like what you publish, Marc the Ignorant will delete you:

Facebook Deletion Center, Berlin, Germany. There Botticelli gets condemned and executed by Ignorant and Unappreciative hypocritical robot pigeons paid crumbs by Facebook, with Macron, Obama, Trump, NSA, CIA, and company watching over. Of course, they don’t really care about censoring Middle Ages paintings, they are just doing this, according to the Red Herring technique, which the pigeons invented without even noticing. Heil Zuck!

I have been already deleted many times, in many Internet outlets… More than one thousand and one (1,001) times… For just thinking better and more progressive. Many deletions were outright mysterious. The top was when The Guardian in London (long secretly financed by the friend of Barack, Bill) banned me, after telling me I was Jihadist… As Hitler said, paraphrasing, the bigger the lie, the more it works.

George Orwell’ 1984 has arrived. What is cleared is that all the characters mentioned above have hijacked the Republic.

What to do? Simple, the Roman Republic did it (until the Roman plutocrats hijacked it). Limit wealth absolutely, limit political power absolutely. Presidents, plutocrats and elected representatives have way way way too much power. They could burn the entire planet in way less time than it took to burn Notre Dame. This Davos crowd is the number one culprit of the mass extinction out there. When the planet gets out of control, all too soon, they should be sent to the guillotine of public condemnation.

Obama, thanks to his control of media, has augmented enormously the CO2 emissions of the USA, relative to what they should have been, by deliberately augmenting fracking in the USA. Yes, most US citizens enjoy the ride (and so do I: my state of the art car is large by Euro standards). Obama’s friends told him to just call fracking a “bridge fuel”. So US citizens adore their funny Obama, and their fuel. More fuel than ever. More fuel than any other country.

How long will the laughter last?

Not too long.

When the sea starts to go up an inch per year, question will come. But then of course, a distracting nuclear war could come in handy…. Right now Obama’s and Gates’ kindergarten jokes and spirit are enough to keep the naive out there in check. But when that’s not enough anymore, watch out…

Patrice Ayme

 

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.

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

Bitcoin Is Organized Crime

June 14, 2018

I have explained in the past what is fundamentally wrong with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies: a currency is actually an expression of military and judicial might. A currency needs a state, or states, to back it up, and is a tool thereof: a state, or union of states, can exist without a currency, not reciprocally

Another problem with the concept of bitcoin is that crypto currencies rest on the the “blockchain”, a perfectly inefficient, energy devouring and thus ecologically criminal, idiotic technology… Which could be useful only if information and computation were ecologically free (instead I have proposed “AWE”… which is ultimate efficiency).

Indeed, the “blockchain” records all transactions everywhere, anytime… instead of some transactions by trusted actors. Bitcoin fanatics say they have a right to ravage the planet, because they don’t trust those “trusted” actors. Well, neither do I I say: make the actors (governments, and their agents, the banks) more trustworthy.

Bitcoiners have also insisted their activity was beyond any suspicion, it’s honest, it’s new age, it’s a new dawn, the geek world, better than anything the Greeks offered… Helpful bitcoiners sent me messages offering to educate me, in all sorts of ways. All this, in total violation of the simplest observation of the Bitcoin graph, which looks like a Tulip Mania. Just worse:

Market Capitalization of Cryptocurrencies dropped by ⅔, generating more than 200 billion dollars of losses.

And indeed, turning things on their heads, there is a new reason to criticize bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies: they are manipulated by organized crime. Bitcoin enthusiasts may counterpunch that central banks are organized crime; well, I agree, and wrote so for more than a decade; however, it’s not because Rome is on fire that one should start new fires! Bitcoin enthusiasts should go the way of Nero.

 

  • New research observes that at least half of the 2017 rise in bitcoin prices was due to coordinated price manipulation using another cryptocurrency called tether.
  • The 66-page paper says tether was used to buy bitcoin at carefully selected moments when it was declining, which helped “stabilize and manipulate” the cryptocurrency’s price.
  • In general I research things that are potentially illegal, and there’s a lot of rumors surrounding potential questionable activity in cryptocurrencies,” says University of Texas finance professor John Griffin, who has a decade-long track record of flagging fraud in financial markets.

Here is the paper’s abstract:

John M. Griffin

University of Texas at Austin – Department of Finance

Amin Shams

University of Texas at Austin – Department of Finance

Date Written: June 13, 2018

Abstract

This paper investigates whether Tether, a digital currency pegged to U.S. dollars, influences Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices during the recent boom. Using algorithms to analyze the blockchain data, we find that purchases with Tether are timed following market downturns and result in sizable increases in Bitcoin prices. Less than 1% of hours with such heavy Tether transactions are associated with 50% of the meteoric rise in Bitcoin and 64% of other top cryptocurrencies. The flow clusters below round prices, induces asymmetric autocorrelations in Bitcoin, and suggests incomplete Tether backing before month-ends. These patterns cannot be explained by investor demand proxies but are most consistent with the supply-based hypothesis where Tether is used to provide price support and manipulate cryptocurrency prices.

Keywords: Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin Prices, Tether

Suggested Citation:

Griffin, John M. and Shams, Amin, Is Bitcoin Really Un-Tethered? (June 13, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=

***

Why was Bitcoin Organized geek Crime tolerated? Because those one bought, one owns! 

All this was long obvious. As it was that organized crime used Bitcoin (didn’t just manipulate it). A high level contractor of Google told me the government (under Obama) was perfectly aware, but let it run its course. That may look strange. But not so, once one has realized that the government knows that conventional banking is organized crime, a major engine of inequality, worldwide: bankers create money, and they create it, for their friends.

By letting Bitcoin run its perverse criminal course, many geeks made lots of money, getting ethically very dirty in the process, while growing in power and influence by leaps and bounds. Same general strategy as with holding the world economy hostage of monopolies (GAFA, FANG, etc.): all these dirty, wealthy people are now stakeholders in the engine of criminal inequality. Organized criminality got them there, and their now criminally confirmed minds make them most qualified to help run the world… as the little soldiers of dirt. They are all accomplices in crime, so they will shut up, cooperate, and subjugate. Thus geeks may as well implement the system, they are not just crucial to the system… They are it (or so they think, and thus will thereafter behave as the true holders of power want them to).

When Augustus seized the Roman Republic, and made it his personal thing, he was not alone: several millions stakeholders (mostly having to do with the Roman army, its suppliers, accomplices, etc.) were helping him out. He had cultivated them carefully. Same now.

 

Patrice Ayme

OLIGARCHIES ARE INTRINSICALLY EVIL

March 6, 2018

Times change, and so do minds. For 9,000 years of civilization, slavery was viewed as natural. However, queen Bathilde of the Frankish empire outlawed it around 655 CE. Now nobody says aloud that slavery is natural.

However everybody believes, but for a few anarchists, that the principle of leadership is natural. That is the Fuererprinzip (Nazi semantic), but Obama himself said it was a fact (although he himself, like Clinton, was only nominally a leader).

I will explain here why oligarchy is intrinsically evil.

Oligarchies are, by definition, the rule of the few. They want always more power. There are three classes of reasons for this:

  1. The more power one has, the easier it is to get more, as I demonstrated in “Evil, Plutocracy, Exponentiate”. For example it was much easier for Obama to get the Nobel Peace Prize than the US presidency: the Norwegian oligarchy loves a winner: surely having brown skin was not enough (maybe Obama, or his devoted agents, or, even more important his mighty sponsors, would reciprocate? What else? Surely it was not Obama’s bombing weddings with robots in countries the US was not at war with?)
  2. The Dark Side is intrinsically nice for those who practice it: it provides with previously, and otherwise unknown neurohormonal flushes. Thus the monarch learns to enjoy to send people to death (and finds even advantageous to advertize it, when the monarch is hyper powerful, like Tiberius or Stalin).
  3. Distributing life, death, torture, extermination, extinction is metaphysically satisfying: it turns the perpetrator into God. Or. more exactly the neurohormonal excitation of giving death is so intoxicating, it uses, and provides with, in particular, the feeling of omnipotence, that it gave rise to this omnipotent, jealous and malevolent abstraction known as “God” (contemplate Him in the Bible).

There are reasons in nature for evil. But there are no reasons for oligarchies. Thus, oligarchies, themselves a fruit of the unholy coupling of civilization with the Dark Side, need even more evil to stay in power, than brought them in to start with…Another name for oligarchs is slavemasters. We outlawed the latter when they buy and sell people. Why not outlaw the former, when they order people around.

***

Yes, we need energy to fly a plane, and a plane is no natural phenomenon. However planes are good, they are necessary evils. Same with oligarchies. Some oligarchies are necessary: say the orders of doctors, lawyers, civil engineers, the military. If we need them, built them, use them. But if we don’t, when they are unnecessary evils, let’s do without.

One obvious area where oligarchies shouldn’t exist is politics and economics. I am not exactly the first to believe this: that’s one of the ideas subjacent to the 5 stars movement in Italy, which just got one third of the vote there last Sunday, as expected.

Nobody says aloud that slavery is natural anymore. Slavery has become abhorrent. Let’s do the same to oligarchism! It has to become abhorrent. Some may say: what for? Because oligarchism, by confining power to a few, also confines the mental powers which matters to a few, hence ruins the potential for debate, and thus intelligence. The potential intelligence of the civilization that it rules over with its conspiracy of tiny brains. We had a civilization with an increasingly tiny brain before: Rome. It didn’t finish well. Similarly, Chinese history shows a succession of dynasties, and collapses, from a similar mechanism: at the end of each, ideas are hard to find, as only a few minds minded the “Mandate of Heavens”, and were unable to find solutions to the last few catastrophes…

 

Patrice Ayme

EVIL, PLUTOCRACY, EXPONENTIATE

March 1, 2018

WHY CIVILIZATION ENABLES EVIL TO EXPONENTIATE

Plutocracy Is Intrinsically Exponential:

A phenomenon exponentiates if it its instant rate of growth is proportional to its own value (by definition). So the bigger it gets, the faster it grows and it grows as fast as it is big. (The exponential is the most important function in math after +, x, /. In particular, once equipped with square root of (-1), trigonometric functions, so any cyclic phenomenon, can be deduced from it, and described, by it. Here we extend the exponential to morality, spirituality, intelligence…)

The paradigm of the exponential is bacterial or viral growth. The growth of a population (and it could be tumor cells, or rats) is, before running out of resource, and without a predator, or other external abating agent, proportional to said population.

One of the greatest progress of humanity, in the last five centuries, has been to develop the tools for, and build an understanding of, the exponential function. It is everywhere. Including looming as the greatest cause of civilizational collapse, moral, ecological, intellectual, epistemological, etc. For a civilization, evil is the deadliest infection of them all. It grows proportionally to its presence, so it exponentiates (we will explain why).

A particular case of evil growth, is the takeover of civilization by plutocracy. It is the main cause of the collapse of civilizations.

If left unchecked, forces of evil will rise. And, if unchecked, they will rise exponentially. Thus it’s important they are not left to rise. Thus evil power, in Greek: Pluto kratia is is not just a moral phenomenon, not just a moral implosion. It is also a mathematical phenomenon, and that makes evil not just a human factor, but a law of physics.

***

Proof That Evil Exponentiates:

Humanity is intrinsically good: otherwise it would not rise children, thus would not exist. Good, in first order, means you do the work, and don’t fight back.

Hence, those who don’t play by the rules of goodness, decency or common sense, get an advantage: they can exploit, and meet no resistance. That advantage is self-feeding: the more it’s used, the more advantageous the advantage it provides with.

This is observed with lionesses in a pride: some do all the work, other restrict their contribution to showing up, and eating whatever is killed by those who did the work; that’s explained because just the appearance of a big group is impactful… The lazy ones work by just showing up!

Thus, as in pride of lionesses, bad behavior already existed in prehistoric human tribes. But it was intrinsically contained, as in a lion pride: if evil exploitation is too abused, the group would collapse, and thus so would the perpetrators with it. So, there was not that much exponentiation in prehistory. However, with the rise of civilization, something new appeared, enormous power. Enormous power is the core reason for civilization: it makes it useful, it makes it dangerous. Generally a civilization’s power is translated into what is called “money”. (Objecting that crypto currencies, Inca knots and modern future derivatives are not money is silly: those apparently different media all translate in money; and even into gold, in the case of the Inca.)

  1. The exponentiation of money is well-known: it is the law of compound interest. The more money one has, the faster one’s money grows (not relatively, but absolutely). It’s basic mathematics. The same holds for anything money can buy, like real estate. That’s why anybody with serious money in the past used to be called a “rentier” (someone who enjoys a rent).
  2. However money transforms into power onto other people, and reciprocally: money and power are equivalent. To prove something with one, is the same as proving something with the other.
  3. Thus, any form of power will, left unchecked, also exponentiate, because it is readily transformed into money and other (“real”) property (which will exponentiate). One lends only to the wealthy. Not just the wealthy in money, power, but also wealthy in the capability of using evil ways. rich, (A particular spectacular example of money translating into power occurs when generals pay their armies; the history of the Mediterranean, Europe and China are full of such behavior, including when it brought the agony of the Roman Republic).

Abuse of power and abusive power cannot be checked by the love stuff, the gentleness and the low hormones vegans and fanaticized pacifists. Hence plutocracy, the power (kratos), not just of wealth, but of Pluto itself, the god of hell, the god of bad behavior, tends to feed on itself (Pluto = Hades, Angra Mainyu, Satan, Shaitan, Le Malin…)

If one analyzes what happens, it is clearly the concentration of power, in a few hands which causes the exponentiation of power.

Thus, the greater the power, the less concentrated one should allow it to become. In other words, technological progress requires ever more direct democracy. The alternative is exponentiation of evil.

Hence ever more democratization is a necessary consequence of the pursuit of civilization. Without ever more democratization, evil and plutocracy grow, until they overwhelm everything, as demonstrated in various Dark Ages (the “Invasion by the Peoples of the Sea” (33 centuries ago), the Greek and European Dark Ages being the three most famous cases).

Patrice Ayme

Note: More generally, most catastrophes tend to exponentiate, for the same reason as avalanches exponentiate. Thus one exponential loss of control, such as the rise of plutocracy, can launch others. Thus civilization collapse in the Roman Principate in turn launched a number of other catastrophes which, themselves exponentiated (for example “plagues”, which tend to happen when society is itself collapsing; three famous examples are the “plague” which destroyed Athens once the Peloponnesian war started, the plagues which devastated Rome around the Third Century, and Constantinople in the Sixth Century; the counter-example is the “Black Plague” of 1348 CE: it killed half of the population, appearing eleven years after the start of the “100” year war, however, it didn’t disorganize the European states governments, which reacted strongly, taking anti-epidemiological measures; thus exponentials couldn’t develop, and, differently from Athens, Rome and Constantinople, European society rode the plague as if nothing had happened…)

How To Alleviate Fake Media Censorship Through Public Utility Legislation

February 28, 2018

The problem of “fake news” cannot be disjointed from censorship and propaganda… Censoring the truth, or replacing it by lies is not very different. The solution to this steering of the public mind into subjugation is to recognize quality thinking and information as “PUBLIC UTILITY”… From the Google-Facebook duopoly, to the most modest websites, as yours truly (legislatively enforced). That means, dear New York Times, and various university professor sites, no more censorship… 

In a few hours, I was censored three times, twice related to Nobel, not so noble, Paul Krugman, the self-described “Conscience of a Liberal”, and his network. More sad than infuriating. 

I had sent to Paul Krugman a pretty neutral piece for his  post “The Force of Decency Awakens”. Krugman claimed that the same emotion, decency, waking up, was the root cause for the renewed fight against sexism, and against guns. Decency comes from the present participle of decereto be fitting or suitable“. Krugman apparently found my comment unsuitable and inappropriate. However that comment was purely about how and why plutocracy grew and how that related to indecency. My comment actually supported what Krugman said, it understood it, it stood under it. Krugman should have been happy to be understood, with not one word against him. But, no, he censored my comment nevertheless (someone at the NYT told me Krugman censors me personally). When Krugman does this, I am always baffled: does he really not understand, or does he censors me because he is afraid of the shareholders of his employers (some of the world’s wealthiest men), or is he simply jealous like the wicked queen was of Snow White?

In his post, Krugman pontificated that:”Political scientists have a term and a theory for what we’re seeing on #MeToo, guns and perhaps more: “regime change cascades.””

 The link was looking at only four revolutions, and asked for big money to go beyond the abstract. I smelled a rotten fish. I looked at that site.  It claims: “REMARQ is a collaboration network from RedLink, designed for researchers and qualified users.” “Qualified users?” I sent a comment. The “Remarq Team” looked at the title of my Aristotle Destroyed Democracy essay (I was electronically informed) and, within minutes, sent me something that got plastered on  my browser: The Remarq team rejected your qualified user request and comment on article Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the 1848 Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings. 2018-02-27 14:37”. To be “rejected” by a “team” sounds more abusive than polite.

The theme of ADD is that the respect for Aristotle’s political work is the respect for monarchy, the rule of one. Aristotle’ s main political idea constitutes the bottom principles of today’s political “science”: a few individuals (generally male) should lead We The People, as if we were sheep. This is not idle talk, and a claim Aristotle was a bad influence: Aristotle was actually the leader and mentor of the small group of vicious men who launched the Hellenistic Regimes (which later encouraged the destruction of the Republican spirit in Rome).

The idea of the rule of one, monarchy, defended at the highest intellectual level, is, of course, also the main idea of Judeo-Christo-Islamism, with its big boss, God (which not coincidentally grew with the Hellenistic regimes). Attacking Aristotle, for those who believe in the Guide Principle (Deutsch: Führerprinzip) is like attacking Allah for the worst Jihadists.  Most intellectual professionals paid for their mental work are there to enforce the established order, they do now what the church used to do in the Middle Ages. To rule over minds, one will find more efficient to rule the souls, rather than to wield chains. Here the opinion of Paul Nizan about paid intellectuals, paid to have the correct thoughts and feelings, the watchdogs:

Those whom the establishment feeds wear a chain around their necks, a fable of Aesop already

One difference between someone like me or Nizan (who lived in the Middle East, Europe, Africa) and the political scientists at the “Remarq Team” (who presumably didn’t grew up nor lived in such places) is that I am not paid to tell lies, lies are not what Nizan or I, profess… As paid condottiere of things intellectuals presumably are (why else would they think it is important that others do NOT see my thoughts? If they are so bad, why don’t they rot by themselves?) This observation is not new: since ever, intellectuals have been paid as “watchdogs” (to use Paul Nizan’s expression; Nizan, a friend of Sartre, enlisted in the French army to fight Nazism. Nizan died in combat at Dunkirk, 23 May 1940, part of the enormous French army protecting the evacuation of 330,000 elite soldiers, including most of the professional British army (future instructors to the mass army they would teach), against the entire, vengeful Nazi army

What is clear is that a lot of people are spending a lot of efforts censoring the Internet. The NYT censored my comment on the Krugman essay referred above.  

A physicist specialized in Dark Matter censored my comment on Dark Matter, on her site (not the first time!) although the idea I have been pushing is incredibly simple (thus potentially revolutionary). Whereas people like that physicist are pushing MOND, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, I am pushing MOQ (MOdified Quantum; which I also call Sub Quantum Patrice Reality, an allusion to the fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation, and its ilk are NOT real…).

A good reason for not having MOND is that, modifying gravitational mass, as MOND de facto does, opens the can of worms of having to modify inertial mass, and, if not, why not… Whereas MOQ/SQPR fills in a gap in the usual Copenhagen Interpretation and its ilk (the other way to solve the gap is the Many Worlds/Multiverse, in other words, angels on a pin, with no limits, whatsoever…) As an exchange on the comments of the Dwarf Galaxy disk problem (predicted by MOQ/SQPR, not by MOND, nor LambdaCDM…) shows, my comment was finally published. It made an analogy between the present situation and the epicycles (an old point of view of mine now adopted by many physicists)… But I am going in much more details. The epicycles’ theory was a consequence of the wrong, ridiculously wrong, Aristotelian physics, at the root, and it may well be what is going on now… Buridan resuscitated heliocentrism, because, first, he got the physics right (also heliocentrism was obvious…)

Delaying comments destroy the debate: the New York Times delayed my comments, by several days, systematically, for years: that allowed the NYT to claim it practiced no censorship (in correspondence with me)… although nobody would read them, then… and then the NYT decided to just censor ALL of my comments, for years. My point is that this sort of steering of public opinion should be illegal, in a public utility (see below)…

I am used to something paradoxical for whom has never been employed by academia (I have ONLY been employed by academia), the scholar as a thief. I was, bad luck, next to some of the greatest, most decorated thieves ever, one of them was one of my best friends (until I discoverer to my horror and depression that he was a thief… There were pages on his thievery at some point in the New York Times; not only he helped then to demolish my career, but he demolished the career of the famous G. Perelman… Perelman got the top prizes in mathematics, refused to accept them, as he said that, then, he would have to tell the truth, and the world of top math would be revealed as the BS it is. Then an angry and discouraged Perelman gave up math (contrarily to repute, math is a social activity; can’t do it when the people you talk to are, you know, thieves, among other problems…).

I had this problem with Black Holes: I suggested, long ago, that the standard reasoning was insufficient because it neglected Quantum effects (say Quark stars, etc.) Now this point of view is standard wisdom.

Thievery is a general problem in research, in a time of insufficient budgets. I have known the detailed case of junior researchers (not just yours truly) seeing their papers rejected, and then senior “peer reviewers” running away with the ideas… which they had just rejected for publication. Greed is not just a plutocratic problem, nor does plutocracy necessarily have to do with making billions. Verily, the power (kratos) of evil (Pluto) is great… especially when directed at honest to goodness thinkers.

Strange world. A tweet of mine, relating to the Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account, was also “made unavailable”. What did my tweet say? Here it is: Problem: Democrats view as too left-wing the taxes advocated by Carnegie, the USA’s first billionaire (19th Century)! Carnegie explained in detail why it was necessary to tax enormous wealth enormously. The only deep reason for taxation is to prevent hyper wealth accumulation!” https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/965670396715511809 …

Am I too left-wing for Bernie? Or, more to the point, is Carnegie now too left-wing for the Democrats and US “Socialists”? Anyway, my tweet was removed by the powers that be (such a dangerous tweet, I agree!) At least Senator Bernie Sanders just changed his position on some guns… Tweeted Bernie, 2/28/2018:

We should not be selling assault weapons in this country. These weapons are not for hunting. They are military weapons for killing human beings.” I replied @BernieSanders:

Hillary Clinton used to complain that Bernie Sanders sided with the NRA. Glad to see the clear statement against military assault weapons..(See? Even Hillary can be right sometimes…)

The Internet is big money nowadays: 73% of the advertising revenue in media goes to the duopoly of Google and Facebook (up from 63% in 2015… and 85% of the growth in said revenue). So, we have, de facto, a monopoly of two! By itself, this should impel governments to act (well, OK, they are acting by doing nothing…)

And what do many Internet agents do? Steer, censor and contrive. Indeed, neither Google nor Facebook create content, they are content to steer We The Sheeple towards their idea of decency. They are electronic leeches. 

It is clear that none of this is innocent. what is happening on the Internet is exactly, on a much grander scale, what Putin is accused of doing: a few individuals and their obsequious servants, manipulating public opinion. So what to do?

***

Remedy: The Notion Of Public Utility Medium:

Public utilities provide an infrastructure necessary to society. They are subject to public control, beyond that of standard private industry. In the case of media on the Internet, the infrastructure would be the most important infrastructure of all, the infrastructure of truth!

As it is, there is a serious problem. As David Chavern has it in the WSJ in “Protect the News From Google and Facebook“: “A partial exemption from antitrust laws would help publishers and readers (Feb. 25, 2018):  The news business is suffering, but not because people don’t want news. They do—more than ever. The problem is that the money generated by news audiences flows mostly to Google and Facebook , not to the reporters and publishers who produce excellent journalism… newspaper advertising revenue fell from $22 billion in 2014 to $18 billion in 2016 even as web traffic for the top 50 U.S. newspapers increased 42%.

Local news is most at risk. As print circulation declines, community news publishers have the hardest time adapting to the ever-changing demands of Facebook and Google algorithms… Tech savvy, digital-only publishers are also struggling. BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti said in December that Google and Facebook are “paying content creators far too little for the value they deliver to users,” and that “this puts high-quality creators at a financial disadvantage, and favors publishers of cheap media.”

And the Wall Street Journal to pursue:Google and Facebook have become the primary and de facto regulators of the news business, and governments around the world are starting to recognize the danger. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced earlier this month that her government would review the economics of internet news consumption. Regulators in Germany, Israel and South Korea are investigating how Google’s business practices have disrupted the media market and harmed publishers and consumers. U.S. regulators, on the other hand, have rarely looked into Google or Facebook—and never at their influence in the news marketplace.

Some voices on the left and right are calling for Google and Facebook to be regulated as utilities. But there is an easier solution: exempt news publishers from certain aspects of antitrust regulation.

U.S. antitrust laws, designed to promote fair competition and prevent consolidation, actually make it harder for traditional news outlets to compete with Silicon Valley giants. Under current law, for instance, news publishers cannot get together and agree to withhold their product unless they receive a return on their investment.”

YouTube (owned by Google) warned some accounts which had reported that the latest school mass shooting in Florida was a “hoax” and the victims were “actors”. Nice, but those sort of “fake news” are not really worse than decades of lies from the Main Stream Media. Lies, or non-saids (French magazines reports that US president Jimmy Carter started the war in Afghanistan, which killed many millions, from his own administration, were censored, so US Americans really don’t know that! By the way, my point of view that Carter, Clinton and Obama were fake, not to say evil, is spreading. In the case of Obama, that depressed me….) For Carter, July 3, 1979 attack against Afghanistan, please consider:

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

***

What to do is that there should legal recourse against any medium declared a public utility, and yet, practicing censorship:    

To become a medium of public utility, there should be, and could be, two ways:

  1. Being declared to be so, by legislative decision, and Google and Facebook, and all the major media, certainly should be.
  2. Applying to become so (for example this site would).

Any medium of public utility would have to satisfy some requirements, such as trying to tell the truth when claiming to do so (poetry and fiction would be allowed, but under those labels). Public utility media would also have to avoid censorship, and be ready to justify it (that mean be ready to justify when censorship is applied; for example, the NYT would be required to justify why it censored me systematically when I comment Krugman’s posts…)

More than a decade ago, a philosophy site banned me for life for “fantastic logic” and stealing (from myself) my own (!) intellectual property (which I had made the mistake to put on their site as comments; so they viewed my ideas as their own thereafter, and forbid me to publish said ideas of mine on my old, Tyranosopher, site…) Ridiculous, but at least they provided some reason (last year I learned that the main, very famous philosopher behind that site, an old enemy of mine, called Searle, has been accused of sexual harassment by many girls and women, and was suspended from his prestigious university position; that didn’t surprise me, as I considered him a thief already… Sexual harassment is a form of thievery, and assault.)

When a medium is unwilling to give any reason for the censorship it applies, it should not be given the privileges associated to journalism, the respect of implied scholarship, nor the prestigious aura of “public utility”.  

Your devoted servant, glad to be, hopefully, of some public use,

Patrice Aymé